June 11, 1996            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                Vol. XLIII  No. 26


The House met at 2:00 p.m

MR. SPEAKER (Snow):Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise hon. members that the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is today releasing to the public the formal review of government's Art Procurement Program. For the information of hon. members, I have distributed a copy of the recommendations put forward in this report.

Mr. Speaker, established in 1982 by Cabinet, this program is designed to recognize and promote the works of our artists by placing original Newfoundland and Labrador art works in public buildings - actually, as we can see in these two buildings. The program's art works and crafts are intended to be representative of the Province's various geographical locations, as well as the various themes, styles and compositions of visual art media.

Mr. Speaker, in the current economic climate, retention of the program in this year's Budget sends a very positive message to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts community. A review was necessary, however, to secure the most relevant and efficient art procurement program possible. A total of forty-two recommendations were made, and include changes to the two-tier procurement committee to be replaced by a five-person jury, a requirement that works being purchased be produced within two years preceding the acquisition, and a clearly stated policy to be developed for lending art work for exhibitions within or outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, while the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation would like to act on this report as quickly as possible, we will not proceed with implementing any of the recommended items until interested persons or groups are given the opportunity to review the documents and express their views.

Thank you.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed good news that we held on to the Art Procurement Program this year as opposed to completely eliminating it. I was a little disappointed that it was reduced in dollar figures but I guess that reflects the Budget and our fiscal times. Some of the good news, I guess, in this statement is the fact that we are changing it from a two-tier procurement committee to a five-person jury, and that as well, we will be lending art work for exhibitions both inside and outside the Province. I am sure that will indeed work towards promoting the art works and the artists of Newfoundland and Labrador, both within our Province and abroad.

I have not yet read the proposal put forth; I will indeed, however, be reading it and if I have any statements or if I have any points of interest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OSBORNE: - I will be putting them to the minister in due time. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, by leave? Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to acknowledge the statement of the minister and say how pleased I am that the jury system is going to be implemented which allows artists themselves to determine appropriate selections for government. I also am pleased that the minister is not prepared to implement these recommendations which have been a long time coming without further comment from those who are involved. I think that is a very positive approach towards implementing new programs.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the importance of the agrifoods industry as a valued and productive part of the Newfoundland economy is often underestimated.

In the early 1990s, it was estimated there were 300 full-time positions, 450 part-time jobs, 800 casual workers and 1,000 family workers for a total of 2,500 direct on-farm workers. In addition, there were 700 positions associated with the processing and grading in the broiler, egg and dairy sectors and an estimated 300 persons involved in off-farm processing of other commodities. This represents 3,500 jobs directly attributable to the agrifoods industry. With regard to feed suppliers, transporters, manufacturers of packaging material and other related services, there is no reliable data on employment. Nevertheless, it is estimated there are 4,000 - 5,000 jobs directly and indirectly related to the agriculture industry in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, these numbers are estimates from the early 1990s. Today the jobs employed in the agrifoods industry would be higher due to increased secondary food processing that has occurred over the past few years. In 1995, sales of manufactured food products excluding fish, were estimated at $130.5 million, up from $115.2 million in 1992. As companies continue to successfully market their products both inside the Province and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of successful Newfoundland and Labrador companies involved in the production, distribution and export of various local value-added products. Private sector successes that have contributed to increased economic output include, to name a few, numerous varieties of specialty jams, jellies, relishes and sauces made from local fruits: berries, flowers and other unique items; specialty chocolates; locally roasted coffees; fresh herbal products and beeswax candles.

Markland Cottage Winery has been successfully producing a blueberry wine for the past couple of years and introduced a partridgeberry wine within the last year. Hi Point Peat Industries have been successfully producing an oil absorbent peat product for several years as well as producing peat for the landscape/gardening market.

Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation produces a full range of high quality chicken products, including a rapidly increasing volume of further processed items. Sales of further processed products from Newfoundland Farm Products are projected to reach $13 million in 1996/97, up from $2 million three years ago.

Mr. Speaker, these examples I just mentioned highlight the expansion and diversification that has occurred in the agrifoods industry in the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to announce today the opening of a new agricultural enterprise in Placentia Bay, which further highlights the continuing diversity of the industry.

Empress Mushrooms is owned and operated by a well-know and respected poultry producer, Mr. Owen Hickey of Whitbourne. Mr. Hickey and his family have worked quite hard over the past year or so establishing a mushroom production complex in Argentia, and I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Hickey, Mr. Ken Browne of the Argentia Management Authority and Mr. Wayne Young and Mr. Marty Howlett, the ADM for Agrifoods in my department are in the gallery. This facility produced its first fresh locally grown mushrooms on May 8, 1996.

Current production is 8,000 pounds per week with plans to expand soon to 20,000 pounds per week. This production will meet provincial demand; however, the company's long-term plans involve expansion into secondary processing.

Mr. Speaker, this company, granted EDGE status in 1995, employs thirty-one full-time and six part-time people. This number will grow as production increases. In addition to the support provided this operation through the EDGE designation, the operation also took advantage of capital loans offered by the Farm Loans Program of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Total investment, the large majority of which is private is estimated at $1.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, not only am I delighted to see such entrepreneurial spirit exist in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but our local consumers, whom I number myself among, will benefit from the high quality product that Empress Mushrooms can supply to the people of this Province year round.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to celebrate his success story Mr. Hickey, who as I said is in the gallery, will be in the Legislative Lobby with a sample of his product for the members of the House of Assembly, the officers of the House, and, of course, the press gallery.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for allowing me a couple of minutes to read this ministerial statement, a couple of minutes before the House opened, and I certainly congratulate Mr. Hickey of Whitbourne for taking the initiative to be able to go out and open a new industry and employ local people.

I think it was only about a month ago that the Member for Placentia distributed the product that is being produced at Empress Mushrooms, and I have to say it was an excellent product, and I think there should be more of this being done. I would like for someone to take the time and talk to Mr. Hickey - maybe I am totally wrong on this, to find out the help and guidance he got from government and find out the red tape he had to cut through in order to get to where he is today.

Mr. Speaker, this is the argument that I have always had with government, the government of the day and the government of other days, that before a person can go out and get involved in business the first thing they must be unemployed in order to have the time to cut through the bureaucracy and the red tape. I call on the minister to support this industry, to support it and help with the marketing of this particular product, because as I have raised to the minister before in my own particular area where we have a vibrant agricultural industry, but because of produce being brought in from other provinces and dumped on the market at a time when those farmers can be successful I fear that many of them may not be able to compete in the marketplace we find today.

I certainly congratulate Mr. Hickey of Whitbourne and I wish his business every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Government House Leader and the Member for Bonavista South in congratulating Mr. Hickey and his business colleagues in developing this enterprise which I hope will be extremely successful. The product is a good one, as the Member for Bonavista South has said. I've also had the opportunity to sample it. I'm concerned as well as to what kind of market penetration Mr. Hickey and his company will have.

We hear stories time and again of not being able to get into distribution systems. You can't buy Bill Boot garbage bags in Canadian Tire stores for example unless they send them to Montreal first. So I hope Mr. Hickey and his company are able to penetrate these distribution systems so that widespread distribution of his products and others produced in this Province can be available to the consumers here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to advise the hon. members that government is today releasing to the public a report entitled Newfoundland and Labrador Air Access Study to Promote Tourism and Trade.

The study was conducted by Sypher:Mueller Inc. with the purposes of:identifying the most effective and efficient means to achieve air transportation access to increase the international market purchases of Newfoundland and Labrador's tourism product; also assessing the extent to which existing scheduled and chartered air services between the Province and Europe and the United States meet the passenger and cargo needs of today and the future. Mr. Hickey may be able, if we are successful here, to have a good place to be able to send his produce off. And developing a strategy that will address any of the deficiencies identified.

I have distributed for the hon. members' information a copy of the presentation that was given by Sypher:Mueller which provides a brief overview of the study and its findings. The complete study can be obtained by contacting the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The report suggest that the Province does have adequate air access to the United States and Europe given the current level of demand. In properly servicing the market, the study identified several improvements which need to be made to the Province's airports. The report recommends the following measures to improve the Province's market share: to set up a promotional arrangement with Air Canada in general marketing awareness; work with tour packagers and market a packaged product to tour operators abroad; and build on the results of the product-Market Match Study findings.

The theme for Tourism Awareness Month is: Ready for '97. Reports and reviews like these I present here in the House this afternoon will certainly work to prepare the government and the Province for the tourism opportunities in 1997 and beyond.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. minister is full of good news today. Again, it is good news that Newfoundland and Labrador are trying to promote Newfoundland as a tourism destination, and to promote Newfoundland and Labrador as a tourism product, and develop a strategy that will address any of the deficiencies identified in air travel and access to our Province. As the minister has mentioned her recent trip to Bristol, there are some deficiencies, I guess, in travel from England and Newfoundland directly, so I am sure we can look at those.

It is, as I have mentioned, good news that we can set up promotional agreements with Air Canada in generating market awareness, and to set up a marketed package product to tour operators abroad, so I commend the minister for her initiatives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he would do well to listen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to set the record straight on the story in this morning's news broadcast with respect to the hiring of a temporary Market Representative for Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation for the western part of this Province.

May I first say that the information which I will now provide was all given to the CBC reporter by me over the telephone last evening. I will leave it to my colleagues in this House to judge the manner in which the reporter chose to use this information in this morning's broadcast.

The incumbent in the permanent position of Market Representative for Newfoundland Farm Products for the western part of the Province was injured in a motor vehicle accident and is still in the process of recovering. In light of this situation, the management of Farm Products decided that they would hire a replacement Market Representative on a temporary basis until such time as the permanent incumbent returned to active duty. With this in mind, the position was advertised for a period of six months employment.

The ad for the temporary position was posted in the office of Farm Products on April 19, 1996 in accordance with the requirements of the collective agreement. At the same time an ad was placed in the Western Star requesting applications; it is attached to this statement.

As a result of the above, twenty-eight applications were received by the Corner Brook office of Farm Products. A selection committee was then put in place by the management of Farm Products for the purpose of screening the applications and carrying out interviews. The committee consisted of: Mr. Gary Corcoran, Director of Human Resources, St. John's Office, Farm Products; Mr. Don Keats, Human Resource Officer with the Corner Brook plant, Farm Products; and Mr. Gary White, Manager of the Corner Brook plant, Farm Products.

The original twenty-eight candidates were screened down to three to be interviewed. As a result of the interview process, Mr. Don Johnson was chosen by the committee as being the best qualified candidate for the position, and was hired.

Mr. Speaker, the above account of the hiring process followed has been confirmed for me by the Chief Executive Officer of Farm Products and my Deputy Minister. It demonstrates clearly to any objective person that the decision to hire Mr. Don Johnson was made after a fair and objective competition process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: There was no political influence or interference in this recruitment process by the Premier, myself, or any of my colleagues on this side of the House, or by any other person on our behalf. Indeed, neither the Premier nor I had any knowledge of the competition or the fact that Mr. Johnson had been hired until well after the fact.

Also in relation to this competition, NAPE has lodged a policy grievance with Newfoundland Farm Products alleging the Sales Officer (Marketing Position) was not posted in readily accessible places to bargaining unit employees. This grievance is now going through the normal grievance process. I should emphasize this grievance relates to a long-standing dispute between NAPE and Newfoundland Farm Products as to the application of the Public Service hiring process to Farm Products. It has nothing to do with the process followed or the candidate chosen in this particular instance.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson should not have and did not receive any preferential treatment in applying for the position with Farm Products because of his political affiliation. Neither, I say, should he be excluded from consideration because of his political affiliation in a fair and open competition such as that which I have outlined above.

Again, I want to bring to my colleague's attention that all of the above information was given to the reporter when I was contacted on this story last evening. I can only but question the objectivity of the reporter and the way he chose to present the facts of this matter to the public.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Don Johnson's reputation, in my opinion, has been brought into question. He is a city councillor in Corner Brook, in a position of public trust; has a business reputation to protect; and, has endured personal grief.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, there is no specific evidence of political interference on behalf of Mr. Johnson. Those who say otherwise should apologize. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the minister, first of all, for his statement a few minutes before the House opened. I would just like to say very briefly, Mr. Speaker, there have been many concerns in the last couple of months of some hiring practices. We certainly don't judge the person who was hired but of course there is a grievance in place and the process it will have to go through. It seems kind of strange that so many people are laid off this day and age and I guess to be certainly fair to question and be suspicious, curious or whichever way the minister would like to put it that when people are losing jobs so quickly they are wondering how some other people slide into jobs so quickly. I guess it is fair to raise a concern, Mr. Speaker, but we will let the grievance procedure take its course and let the process take its course. We will not judge the person personally but I am certainly sure that a lot of people in this Province would question the process of the hiring of, not just this position, many other positions of late, Mr. Speaker, since this government has taken office.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave? No leave.

The Chair would like to acknowledge the presence of a former member of the House of Assembly for St. John's South, Mr. Tom Murphy, who is sitting in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Premier. A week ago the education minister said that draft legislation on reducing the number of school boards and establishing a school construction board in Bill 8 was being finalized for presenting to Cabinet.

The minister said as soon as we have a draft piece of legislation, in legislative language, we will provide it to the hon. members for their consideration before we table it in the House. So I ask the Premier, is he prepared to provide us today with a copy of this legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the matter that the Leader of the Opposition refers to, that is the consideration of draft legislation has not been brought by the Minister of Education yet, forwarded to Cabinet for consideration but as soon as it has been and is ready to be considered by Cabinet - shortly after it has been considered by Cabinet I will make it available to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP.

I would say to the Leader of the Conservative Party, as I have said on a number of occasions now already, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side appreciate on this matter, on this question, that the Leader of the Opposition has put aside partisan consideration, as has the Leader of the New Democratic Party to support an effort on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to proceed with reform of the educational system by seeking to have passage of this matter in Ottawa. The Leader of the Opposition will know that all of the party leaders, all of them, in Ottawa, with the exception of the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Charest, voted for this matter in the House.

The Leader of the Opposition will know that in the Senate for the second evening in a row, second time in a row, conservative senators last night prevented this matter from going before a committee for further study. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to use, as he has in the past, his good offices and his influence to impress upon members of the Conservative Party in the Senate that this matter needs to be dealt with, if the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and more specifically, the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, are to have a reformed school system this fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Premier, how many more times in the run of your mandate are you going to ask me to do your job?

Now The Evening Telegram on June 4, quoted the Premier as saying he expected legislation to be passed by months end. That is just thirteen sitting days away. Now surely the draft legislation must be prepared by now. It would only take a day or two, I think the minister indicated. Will the Premier live up to his promise now and get this out to us this week so we can have an opportunity to (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to consider what they are hearing here. We are hearing the Leader of the Opposition, who happens to be the Leader of the Conservative Party, wanting to duck an issue that is important. Only one national party leader, and one only, voted against the passage of Term 17 and that leader was Mr. Jean Charest, the Leader of the Conservative Party. The other member in the House who belongs to the Conservative Party - because there are only two - also voted against passage of Term 17.

There is now a campaign in the Senate being launched and led by Conservative Senators from the Province of Newfoundland, including Mr. William Doody, and also I'm told involving Senator Ottenheimer whose brother sits in the caucus opposite, joined by Senator Lowell Murray and others, who are stopping passage of Term 17. I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Whose job is it to talk to members of the Conservative Party about the importance of having the passage of this legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Premier doesn't realize it has gone through the House of Commons where Jean Charest is sitting. It is now in the Senate where fifty-one are Liberals and fifty are PCs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I further tell the Premier, before I went to Ottawa he stated in this House that he had meetings arranged with the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal Party, and he was going to meet with Senators. When I got to Ottawa there were no meetings arranged. I didn't have an opportunity Premier to meet with Senators, or with the caucus of any party, and you promised it here in this House, I say to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now in your red book and elsewhere the Premier promised widespread consultation on all aspects of education reform including not just viability and busing, as you said last week. Will the Premier send this legislation to a legislation review committee for public hearings around this Province now so people can see what is in it and have input well before decisions are made?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can get himself up in a temper if he wants, but the reality is that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and I on behalf of the Liberal Party, met with every one of the leaders. We didn't meet the Conservative caucus because the other member of the caucus wasn't there. We met the Leader. We met the Prime Minister. We met the Leader of the New Democratic Party. We met the Leader of the Bloc Québécois. Every party was met on exactly an equal basis. As the Leader of the Opposition will know, and as the Leader of the NDP can confirm, we offered to meet the Conservative Senate caucus, we made the suggestion to Mr. Charest. He told us he would look into it and get back to us. No such meeting was arranged. However, there was a meeting with Senators. It was held in the office of Senator Bill Petten. There was a representative there - in fact, three there - from the Conservative Senate caucus. The Leader of the Opposition wouldn't know that because he left Ottawa and came back to St. John's.

Now I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I take him in good faith. I believe the Leader of the Opposition supports the passage of this amendment, I believe he has worked well and hard for its passage during the time he was there, and I believe he has been let down by members of the Conservative Party in Ottawa. I say to him I'm prepared to go back to Ottawa and I would ask him whether he would go again to talk to members of the Conservative Party and point out how important passage of Term 17 really is to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might add, your office arranged the trip and the flight, and your public relations person told me at 1:30 that day there were no meetings arranged with the Senate. They didn't try to reach them until that day, the day we were scheduled to come back, I say to the Premier. He got us on a wild goose chase with no meetings planned and he misled this House here in this House and in print in Hansard.

Premier Wells was going to bring legislation to this House in January before the Commons had even debated Term 17 and the amendment might have even been defeated in the House of Commons. Now it is before the Senate where there is no chance of this amendment being defeated because it is an optional. It is only an option that is there. A suspense of veto is all the Senate would have, a six month suspense of veto -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, why won't he bring this forward? Is this more reason now to table this that it has passed the House of Commons and it cannot be defeated in Ottawa?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is showing all of the skill of an Olympic gymnast here, the way he is bouncing around. The Leader of the Opposition is quoted in today's paper - may I read from today's paper?... I do not know if I can or not. He is quoted in today's paper as saying - because I want to quote him accurately, with respect to the delay in consideration by the Senate - he is saying: That's fair game what the Senators are asking for. That it is perfectly appropriate that there is a long, and I might add, a deliberate delay in the process by the Senate.

Now, if he is saying that the process by the Senate is legitimate and that we should wait the outcome of their deliberations and the hearings they are going to have, if and when they ever have them, before we consider the matter here, but he is standing up today saying go ahead and ignore the Senate and pass the bill anyway. The Leader of the Opposition has to make up his mind. The real question here is very simple, will the Leader of the Opposition - and by the way, I repeat again, there is no question, the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, in everything I have seen to this point has been supportive, but will he call the Leader of the Conservative Party, will he call Conservative members of the Senate from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and will he prevail upon them the way he has in this House, explain to them why he believes in the passage of Term 17, because we need it passed without delay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier was so interested in passing it without delay, when you were a federal minister last fall it was in your hands and what did you do? You had seven and a half months when you were our spokesperson in Ottawa and you could not get it to the House of Commons, then seven and a half months later you expect the Senate to ram it through.

Mr. Premier, you are grandstanding on this issue. Your colleagues and buddies control the Senate, they control the House of Commons, and you are grandstanding on the issue. Now, will you do what you promised the people of this Province you will do, will you table this and open it to the Public? Are you afraid the public are going to have input in this? Are you afraid to send it out to the people of this Province? I say to the Premier, do the honourable thing you promised and get on with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you can get angry and upset but you cannot change the facts because you are upset or disturbed here today. Now, the Leader of the Opposition just talked about me being in Cabinet for seven and a half months after the matter was referred to the House of Commons. It was referred to the House of Commons in November and during Christmas I indicated my interest in running for the Leadership, and subsequently did so a month later, of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know how you count but that is only a month, or a month and a half, part of which was the Christmas break.

I want to say to the Leader we are not going to convince anybody of anything in Newfoundland having these kind of arguments. There is a substantial issue and it will not go away, and the substantial issue is that the Leader of the Conservative Party in Ottawa, obviously, not having the good sense of the member, not having the good sense of the Leader of the Opposition, not having the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition, he and his other caucus member unanimously voted against this in the House of Commons, and now the Conservative Party appear ready to try and kill or delay education reform in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say that is a shame because I believe the Leader of the Opposition has worked hard for this cause, and I ask him to prevail upon his colleagues to bring the passage we need to Term 17 without delay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Premier, all our members stood and were counted when we had this resolution and yours could not get out through the door fast enough. They did not stay here and vote I say to the Premier. We were unanimous and stood here. Now, all I am asking you Mr. Premier, will you hold true to your election promise and will you allow consultation on this issue of reform and legislation and not try to ram it through with an all night sitting before July 1?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I will do better than that. I will assure the Leader of the Opposition that there will be appropriate debate in the House, supposing we are sitting here until September 1. That is the first thing he can count upon. The second thing you can count upon is that there will be legislation passed to ensure that we move from twenty-seven boards down to ten interdenominational boards, and that is in place for September. There will be legislation passed to ensure that we have a single construction board based on need in this Province and not based on any other consideration in this Province, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be public hearings before we make any move on the question of school viability or busing guidelines because that is what we said we would do during the course of the election campaign, and we will follow through with that commitment we gave to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the course of the election campaign.

Now, I have just outlined what I am going to do in the name of reform, and I will assure the Leader of the Opposition that notwithstanding the games that are being played elsewhere, games that he knows about but wants to turn a blind eye to, that we will see that education reform proceeds because it is what the children of Newfoundland need and deserve, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to get on the horn this afternoon to his colleagues in Ottawa and ask them to quit playing games with the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and its education reform process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province.

Last week the Premier indicated that his Minister of Justice and Attorney General, once having reviewed the Supreme Court of Appeal decision on the Trans City affair, will make a recommendation about whether a judicial inquiry is warranted. I now ask the minister: Has he had time to review the judgement? And when can we expect his decision or recommendation as to whether or not a public inquiry ought to be held?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall the Premier having made that statement. What I do recall is the Premier making a statement that the Minister of Justice and his department would review the case as presented by the Court of Appeal, and after that was done we would be making a recommendation to Cabinet as to what action to take. Would we appeal to the Supreme Court? Would we seek a settlement, or what would you. I don't understand. I don't remember the Premier saying that I would be recommending that we do a judicial inquiry. I don't think that was the statement that was made.

The answer to the question of when I will be making a recommendation to government, I tell the hon. member that will be done in due course.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I refer to Hansard, Wednesday, June 5, page 728, if the minister requires clarification with respect to the question that was just raised.

With respect to the Supreme Court of Appeal decision that was handed down last week, I ask the hon. minister and Attorney General: Who will be making that decision with respect to whether or not an appeal will be forwarded to the Supreme Court of Canada?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the way the process works, the Department of Justice will take a recommendation to Cabinet, and Cabinet will make the ultimate decision.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I would like to ask the minister if he is considering setting processing and/or purchasing quotas for individual plants for caplin production this year.

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

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister as well if he has consulted with fishermen's unions and with FANL regarding this proposal, and if those two groups agree with the decision to bring in those quotas.

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

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: If he is going to set plant quotas, won't this affect competitive pricing and interfere with the normal bargaining process as it relates to buying caplin?

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

MR. EFFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have not decided if we are going to implement a pilot project this year; it is under review. If and when we implement a pilot project we will give every aspect, what impacts, what the pros and cons are, of implementing a pilot project on caplin quotas for this year.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister realize that once that plant processes its assigned quota fishermen will then have to leave that particular plant and search for another buyer, thus eliminating the opportunity to provide those fisher persons with the averaging provisions under the UI Act, with the end result of them being unable to meet UI requirements. I ask the minister if he realizes that, or is that the intent of setting plant quotas?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be in the position of a fisherman this year with the quotas as set down, the prices negotiated and the demand for caplin, to be in the position of having plants coming and asking me to sell my caplin. That would be the easy part of it. The thing is: Will the caplin come in? Will they be of a sufficient size to sell to the market? There will be no problem with the fishermen selling their caplin; there will be no problems in the plants handling caplin. That is only based on the assumption of the member opposite of what may or may not happen.

We have not decided on a pilot project for this year. If and when the pilot project is decided upon, we will have full consultation with all the people in the industry, and the satisfaction and the completion of any decision will be based upon full consultation with fishermen, plant workers and all those affected by a decision such as we are talking about.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. I wonder if the minister could confirm to the House today, that he plans, on Thursday afternoon after the House is closed, to announce in Calgary, a new offshore oil and gas royalty regime without any prior public discussion or debate within the Province of Newfoundland?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have been reviewing generic royalty regimes for a couple of years right now. We had lots of discussion and debate on it, and I am not going to be announcing it at Calgary at five o'clock on Thursday. I am going to be announcing it here in St. John's at one o'clock on Thursday with a Statement in the House at two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a supplementary.

Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Calgary Oil Show is looking forward to an announcement there as well.

Can the minister also confirm that the government also plans to announce that these generic royalty regimes, which have not been publicly discussed in this Province, will be for the Terra Nova project, they will be excluded from them and will not apply to the Terra Nova oil project?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I would suggest to the hon. member that he should wait until Thursday, when we will be laying out the details, and see it all at that time.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

As we are all aware, the Newfoundland Dockyard was not permitted to present a bid on the Iroquois yesterday. This is the third such bid that they were not permitted to present. I ask the Premier if we are going to allow the Federal Government to close the Newfoundland Dockyard without allowing the dockyard to bid on work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask the hon. member to share with me some of the information he just mentioned on the bid on the Iroquois. I must confess, I have heard a statement,I think earlier this morning or last evening, on one of the newscasts but I don't have the detail available myself and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is not in the House today.

I can say to the hon. member that I share with him and with all members in the House, the concern that the process now underway, as the member knows, a process that has been undertaken with great difficulty and a lot of goodwill by all of the employees in the dockyard, must be allowed to be completed. There has been a great deal of work, Mr. Speaker, that has gone into trying to bring about employee ownership of that yard. Employees have gone a great distance and made many concessions to try to see that proposal become a reality, and it would be in my judgement, a mistake for the national government, having committed the amount of time that has now been committed to this process, to not allow it to be completed, and I hope, completed successfully. And to the extent that permission is not being granted for the dockyard to bid on work that it can do, then I think that refusal is not contributing to the success of this project, and I would be glad to undertake that representation with the Minister of Transport, David Anderson.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is, I guess, are we going to lobby Ottawa to allow the Newfoundland Dockyard to bid on work, to make a takeover bid more attractive to the workers of the Newfoundland Dockyard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to tell the member that I am prepared to raise this matter. I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has raised this matter on a number of occasions with the Minister of Transport, David Anderson. I just don't have the minister sitting beside me for the moment to give the House and through the House, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, a full update on the latest developments but we have worked strenuously for this project.

I think the member knows that when I was sitting in the other House in Ottawa, in a different job, I arranged the process, the extension of life for that dockyard, arranged a process that brought aboard the services as a facilitator of the former Minister of Finance to try and bring about an employee takeover rather than the closure which was planned for last December. I think he knows that and would acknowledge it. I am committed to this process. It would be a shame if the process is not allowed to complete itself and the employees who have given so much effort to this aren't given a chance to have a success at the end of the day, as I think they can.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Social Services. In the House on Friday the minister made some reference, and again in the public media, she said that some persons who now receive emergency assistance under regulation No. 8, that is, the $61, may qualify for assistance under some alternate programs which her department offers. I wonder if the minister could apprise the House of the different programs that are available, if she has a listing or some information she wants to share, whereby people who are in the front lines, social worker offices, might be able to more adequately share that information with their clientele.

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

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

In response to your question, I did not refer to new programs. I referred to other policies within the sections that would cover off specific needs. For example, if a person was receiving an allowance for the needs to meet a diabetic food allowance, they would now get it under another article. If they needed it for other special needs, there would be a special code, and that was the intent of the comments, because they are already in the policy.

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

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

In other words, I say to the minister, the review that you are undertaking in your office is limited essentially to the correction of anomalies or cases where people have been coded incorrectly, and they went under the general category rather than under a specific category. This is basically then, really a correction in detail. When will the minister be able to tell her front-line workers - give more specific instructions? Because there are people out there who are asking for details and they want to know what are the alternate programs, and which ones will people qualify for when the review the minister is now doing has been completed.

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

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

A couple of points. First of all, our front-line workers are very familiar with the policy manuals and they are aware of the various policies that would apply in these particular cases. So this is not only a re-allotment of funds. For many cases, they will not actually meet the requirements, but for others they will. It will be dealt with on an individual case-by-case basis.

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

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

I say to the Government House Leader, we have five sets of questions left and there are only another three minutes.

I say to the minister, to put a human face on a situation, we have a contact, for example, of a resident in Burgeo who had received $61 emergency funding for the purchase of a furnace, entered into a contract with the local supplier, and was guaranteed she would have that funding for five years. In the review the minister is doing, will people like this lady whom I refer to in Burgeo, be eligible to qualify under some other program?

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

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

As I have said time and time again in the House, the decisions that we made were tough, difficult decisions, but it was a matter of choice, it was a matter of deciding to look at all the cases, all the individuals, or look at a select number of cases.

I cannot answer your question specifically because, as you know, that is just one component of the needs that are identified when we look at a total case. To pick one particular component out of a question and expect me to answer it would not be possible. Because we look at the needs, we look at whether it is single, whether it is a family situation, we look at all the total components. If you want to get that type of information your best way to do it would be to refer your client or your constituent to the social worker or the financial assistance officer who can give those kinds of detailed answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

On May 24, in the House, we asked questions about the government's estimate that some 300 health care jobs would be lost as a result of the closure of the Grace, the Janeway and the Children's Rehab facility. The minister said in the House that he would undertake to provide, at the earliest possible day, a breakdown of how the cuts are going and what positions they are affecting? Can he give us that breakdown today?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in indicating that I would table that information and the preliminary information I got wasn't, to be quite frank with you, satisfactory to me. So I have asked my officials to go back and check it out. I can tell you that preliminarily, what I did find out was that there was, I believe, 191 fewer jobs at the health care corporation from last April 1 to this March 31. What I wanted to present to you, in the interest of completeness, was what the staff compliments were in the various categories on April 1, 1995, and compare that to March 31, 1996. I can assure you, the minute that that arrives on my desk it will, the next day, be tabled in this House for the benefit of a fuller level of information for everybody.

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

Notices of Motion

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Establish the Memorial University Foundation." (Bill No. 16)

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the Newfoundland Dockyard is an important century old Newfoundland industry, ideally located in the North West Atlantic, to take advantage of trade and industrial development opportunities; and

WHEREAS Marine Atlantic and the Government of Canada to which Marine Atlantic answers, have jeopardized the future of the Newfoundland Dockyard during this sensitive period by preventing it from bidding on key projects involving the Henry Larsen, The Sir Humphrey Gilbert and The Iroquois;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House express our condemnation of Marine Atlantic and the Government of Canada, to which Marine Atlantic answers, for the decisions to prevent the Newfoundland Dockyard from bidding on key projects involving The Henry Larsen, The Sir Humphrey Gilbert and The Iroquois.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I present approximately 9,350 signatures petitioning the House of Assembly.

To the hon. House of Assembly in Newfoundland, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that:

WHEREAS the people of the Province voted in a referendum, on September 5, 1995, to endorse changes to Term 17 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada and to endorse educational reform of the character indicated below;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to move quickly to implement the reforms endorsed in the September 5, 1995, referendum. Those reforms including the establishment of inter-denominational schools open to all children without regard to their religion; the right of all children to attend their neighbourhood school; provision for uni-denominational schools where parental preference and numbers warrant; the appointment of teachers to be solely on the basis of merit and qualifications, except in uni-denominational schools; and church influence confined to religious education and pastoral care except in uni-denominational schools. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was necessitated -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many signatures?

MR. SULLIVAN: 9,350 - and this was necessitated by a framework agreement that this Province reached with the churches. It is signed, it is an agreement, it is stated in print, a quote from the minister. It was an agreement and that framework agreement set out a course of action that was different from what people understood they voted for on September 5, and very quickly after that framework agreement - in fact, we were about first off the mark. The school boards in St. John's - I think it was from the Avalon Consolidated Board that I heard comment first. We quickly called a caucus meeting, and called a news conference, and dealt with issues that we felt had to be addressed, that they were not moving in the direction that the people of this Province understood they should be moving, and that is how the growth of `yes means yes' originated.

We discussed it as a caucus, and we felt it is important that people should get what people understood they were getting on September 5, and that course of action, to move from a denominational school setting to interdenominational, was not being moved, and the agenda was not being accelerated by this government. I had reservations and that is why, the Premier may notice, these are the same particular conditions, almost verbatim - there are just a few words different - that I laid down to the Premier, that Term 17 would deliver those particular points.

One of the conditions of going to Ottawa - and, of course, the opportunity to meet with all of the parties, the Senate, and all of these - was to put forth my belief in giving the people what they wanted, and the opportunity.

Now, there may be a misconception out there that we are eliminating denominational education in the Province. That is a misconception, I say; that is not factual at all, and the Premier could advocate that, where necessary, I added my two cents worth in debate in discussion with leaders there on those particular issues, and we should never have come to the point where this was necessitated to have to have a `yes means yes' committee. Because we believe in the fundamental right - and I have always believed it, and have said here in this House on that day, and back in 1993 I indicated, as education critic - the right of parents to choose.

We should have the right, and I, as a parent, should have the right to choose the school for my child, and it should not be put in the hands of other people. That is a fair request, and it is one that should be adhered to. I asked the Premier, and he indicated that these conditions are going to be met, and we need an opportunity to be able to look at legislation that is going to enable these to be implemented.

The Premier made reference today... Is it fair, I say - and it brings us to another spectrum. Is it fair to ask the Senate to do in two days, or three days, what the Government of Canada could not do in seven months, from the time they received it last November until they passed it in June of this year? Is it fair to circumvent the public opinion process?

These people out there, these parents, felt the need to take the bull by the horns themselves and to get the ball rolling and to do something, because the people they elected to do it were not doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what necessitated this. It should not have to be. When people voice their opinion in a referendum, we are products of a democratic society. We should expect our legislators, and the people here representing us, to carry out our wishes in a referendum that was carried out in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is only a fair request that we should get on with this. I am a strong believer of getting on with reform, but I am also a strong believer in having an opportunity for public input and consultation before we get on with it. Let's not box ourselves into deadlines after seven months, that we do not have time to address the legislation appropriately and to deal with the issues. The wording of that legislation is important. It is important that people know what they are getting when they get something. There is nothing wrong with allowing intelligent people out in the public to have input into matters that are being discussed in this House of Assembly. I welcome that, and I want that. I don't want to get a piece of legislation here at 3:00 p.m. and have to push it through by tomorrow in an all-night debate. We have the time for due process to occur, and to have input, and that is all we are asking.

We all stood here to be counted, I can say to the Premier; we all stood to be counted. That is more than I can say for the government side of the House; they did not all stand to be counted. We support it. We want to do what is right, but we want to hear what the public has to say, to make sure. We are not the most intelligent of people here in this House. There are people outside in society who have perspectives that may be better than ours and may be more correct, a more legally correct determination if it is subject to interpretation. We want to hear those, we want to weigh the pros and the cons, and we want to get to the right decision for the Province that is best for our children and their children's children in the future, and that is why we are supporting this. That is why these people want their voices to be heard here. They want the government to do the right thing, and they want to do the appropriate thing, but more importantly they want to do it in the appropriate manner with proper consultation, and listen to these people out there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support - I don't have a copy of the petition so I have not seen the exact detail but I heard the Leader of the Opposition refer to each of the points. I rise to support the petition that has just been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition because I believe, having heard it from across the floor, that it sounds as if it fairly represents the kinds of points that we have discussed here, in the House, the kinds of points that we all, unanimously, have agreed to in the House. So I rise to give the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I think I speak for members on this side, our solid support.

I think what you have done is, you have captured fairly the essence of the reform amendment and the essence of what those in Newfoundland and Labrador, felt, who, in an informed fashion followed the debate, followed the discussion, looked at the materials - this is one of the materials that was available last summer - and then cast a vote for reform in the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble with that, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and I would prefer that the Leader of the Opposition and I were not disagreeing in this place on this matter. I think, perhaps he might prefer, we weren't disagreeing in any part on this matter because in this matter, even on the question of process, even on the question of what is happening in Ottawa, the best interest of education reform is not served when there is division in this House, and we will all have to try hard -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, you know, the Leader of the Opposition put a question asking about the process. I pointed out to him that there is a problem with the process and I think he knows it, and I am sorry it puts him in a difficult position.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, the Member for Baie Verte says: The Premier is trying to blame this on two `Tory Members in Ottawa'. One of those members is the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada who voted `no'. Now, that is not a minor matter, that is a significant matter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fundamental proposal put by the Leader of the Opposition, that reform proceed on the basis contained within that petition, we support it. With respect to the notion, Mr. Speaker, that on all of the questions, the major, substantive questions contained in the draft Schools Act, schools viability, all of those questions be dealt with before a Legislative Committee, we support that as well.

We have made clear, both the Minister of Education and the House Leader, we have said so publicly in the past, that what we want to proceed with at this time, is to put in place our school boards for September, to go from twenty-seven boards to a ten Interdenominational Boards and the Construction Board. All of the other matters that are referred to, Mr. Speaker, will come forward in legislation, will be referred to a Standing Committee; there will be an opportunity for public hearings and there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on those matters.

With respect to the question that we want to bring forward, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Conservative Party in Ottawa decides it wants to support this and will let it go - that is exactly what is in the book, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to hold it up, I will pull it up right now, because I have it here. I have learned to be prepared when the Conservative Party begins to pull out the book. I have a copy right here, page 68?

MR. SULLIVAN: Page 67.

PREMIER TOBIN: Page 67, I will read the entire page, 67-68: Last year a referendum was held on the important question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Where do you want me to read?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: In the red.

PREMIER TOBIN: In the red?

The new Liberal - Well, sure listen up, listen up. The new Liberal Government is committed to dialogue and discussion on all elements of implementing educational reform before decisions are made; and, Mr. Speaker, there will be dialogue and discussion on all elements of education reform, both with respect to the package that is being brought forward before the House rises and, Mr. Speaker, there will be dialogue and public consultation and viability rules and busing regulations as well. And I will make the Leader of the Opposition an offer right here and now: If he believes it necessary to sit the entire Summer, day in day out, seven days a week we, on this side, on this issue, because it is that important, are prepared to be here seven days a week.

MR. SULLIVAN: You will be here?

PREMIER TOBIN: I will be here.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will be here.

PREMIER TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously and I want to take him seriously. He says, get on with it, then he says, slow down - stop, then go. Go, then stop. We are on side, we are not on side. Our party supports you, your party doesn't support you. The Senate should get on with it and you shouldn't pay any attention to the Senate; the Senate has a right to examine this and take all the time necessary.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) politics.

PREMIER TOBIN: I say to the Leader of the Conservative Party that he should talk to Conservative Members of the Senate from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are leading the charge against education reform in Ottawa. The Leader of the Conservative Party knows that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier's time is up.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I conclude with the following: page 68 of the same book -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: "There will be no new school viability rules for September 1996." That is what the Red Book says. "There will be extensive public consultation before any new school viability rules are adopted.... There will be no change in the current times for busing students." This is clear in the document and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to examine it. Because the implication is clear.

For this year, 1996, Mr. Speaker, we will go through a public consultation process before we bring forward, as we said to the people in the election campaign, new viability rules. But even the Leader of the Opposition would agree that we need to proceed in the meantime, as soon as we can get the matter dealt with in Ottawa, to put in place ten school boards. You don't disagree with that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) Senate (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: We need to proceed with a single construction board. Surely, you agree with that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, then, if we bring that legislation forward, I ask the Leader of the Opposition here and now: Will he support it?

MR. SULLIVAN: When I see it.

PREMIER TOBIN: Will you put it through even before the Senate acts? Is that what you are recommending to the government?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) see it first (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: You are recommending we ignore the Conservative Senators, pay no attention to the process, pay no attention to the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Charést? Pass the bill even without consideration by Conservative members?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

PREMIER TOBIN: Is that what he is recommending?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the record show the Leader of the Opposition has agreed. Let the record further show that he has committed himself to voting for the bill when it is brought forward, as surely it will, before we rise for a Summer recess.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to answer the Premier? If I could have leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) I say to the Premier -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: - whatever the Senate does with it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We won't consider this the third member speaking on the petition. Is that what we agree with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, it doesn't matter what the Senate says, what the Conservatives in the Senate say, what the Liberals say, it is only a suspense of veto. I will stand and support it if I see it. I can't support it without seeing it. If I see it and agree with it, I will support it. I don't care what the Senate are going to do with it. I will support it on its merit regardless of what they think. I supported it regardless of what Jean Charést thought, regardless of what Prime Minister Chrétien thought. I will support it if I think it has merit, and I don't care what anybody else thinks. I will do that, and I challenge you to bring it here tomorrow now and let's get on with it, and deal with it.

Now, you asked me - you have an answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are getting into -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) my time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would (inaudible) the Leader of the NDP before I respond.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising in support of the petition, the prayer of the petition. In fact, I was one of those who was at the meeting at Bishop Field where the discussion of the so-called framework agreement was debated at a meeting called by the Avalon Consolidated School Board. At that meeting,I encouraged the people who were there to make sure that their wishes are known to government and suggested that they embark on a petition to make sure that government does not backslide on the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum.

I believed, and believe today, that this House will have, once Term 17 is passed, the ability to implement educational reform in this Province. But that is the problem. We don't have Term 17 yet, and we won't have a Term 17 until the Senate passes Term 17. That is the hold-up right now, and I don't care whether it is a suspense of veto or whether they amend it and send it back and ask for something else. The fact of the matter is that the people who were appointed to the Senate by the PC Party of Canada are now holding up the democratic will of the people of this Province. I think I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, the people have spoken here, the decision has been made, and it is up to the electors to pass it and put it into practice. I agree with him. But we don't have electors dealing with it now, we have people who were appointed to the Senate dealing with it now! And they are the ones who are preventing the electors from putting the will of the electorate into practice!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

I have to support the Premier in his call upon the Leader of the Opposition to have a little chat with the people who have been appointed to the Senate by his party, have a little chat with them and tell them that the electors of Newfoundland, including him, and the electorate of Newfoundland have made a decision about what kind of constitution they want to have, and that if we have Term 17 passed, once Term 17 is passed, then we can have whatever debate and discussion about legislation here, because I do not think that legislation that is contrary to Term 17 is even valid. If any legislation is brought into this House of Assembly that is contrary to Term 17, I think somebody could go and get a ruling and say it is unconstitutional. So, if we do not have an amendment to Term 17, we may as well stay here and debate something else until we get Term 17 passed, and I for one am prepared to stay here and debate, because there are lots of things we can debate.

We should keep the House open until the Senate deals with this and debate something else. There are lots of other public policy issues that need to be debated in this Province. Nobody is going anywhere. If we have issues to be discussed and debated then put them on the table. There is lots of legislation here and there is more to come. I am sure we could have legislation that would amend the Human Rights Code to fix up the anomalies in leaving out sexual orientation as just passed by the House of Commons.

There is lots of other legislation that we could have before us. We could even have the Minister of Mines and Energy's proposal and oil and gas regime debated in the House before he tells the people of Calgary what he is going to give to them. We could even discuss that. We might even have changes to the Voisey's Bay regulations that are now giving a tax-free holiday to the Voisey's Bay enterprise for ten years. We might even have that before the House. I am prepared to stay here until the Senate deals with the Term 17 regulations and I hope that other members are prepared to stay here as well. There is no rush to get out of here, it is only June 11. We can stay here until the end of June, or we can stay here until July, August, or September, as the Premier says, but I think the first step has to be to get Term 17 out of the Senate and back to the House of Commons, if it has to go back, but out of the Senate so that we can get on with our work here in school reform as the petitioners want.

PREMIER TOBIN: Could I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier is asking for leave. Does have leave?

By leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is perhaps true that on occasion the House does its best work in a spontaneous moment. Because the last time we had a debate such as this, when it was unscheduled and unplanned, we made a decision here based on a comment from both the Leader of the Opposition and from the Leader of the New Democratic Party to put down a motion which we made unanimous here in this House. We made a decision here, spontaneously in a debate such as this one, to send a delegation to Ottawa, and I think all members of the delegation, the three leaders, all did effective work, all worked with an honest heart, and all made the best representations they could, and I have never questioned that.

I want the Leader of the Opposition to know, notwithstanding the exchanges between us earlier today, and how strong they were, that I have never questioned that, nor will I ever question that. Whatever comment I have for the Conservative Party in Ottawa is directed to the members of the party in Ottawa, and I do not question the will of the Leader of the Opposition. He knows that, and I never have.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's coming.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, I never have, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that. We now have another debate today, where good work on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador is being done. We now have a proposal - I just heard the words from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and he is quite correct, you cannot bring forward legislation that flows from the amended Term 17 that is inconsistent with the amended Term 17 without running the risk of a court challenge and the certainty of losing before the courts.

I say to the people of the Province, and it is important that the people of the Province hear this, there is really not any risk of us having legislation that is not consistent with the amended Term 17 because that legislation will be challenged in the courts, and will be thrown out by the courts. This party is committed to taking the only course of action it can take, once Term 17 passes, to bring forward legislation that fulfills all of the conditions, those that the Leader of the Opposition referred to in his list of four or five, but more importantly, and this is where the Leader of the Opposition draws his list from, what is actually in the amendment.

I would invite the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to re-read the amendment. If you read the amendment it is all spelled out. The amended Term 17 spells it out. It dictates the legislation. We have some people saying you might do this based on Term 17 or you might do that. You can only do what is written, no more, and I would suggest, no less, than what is provided for and it is quite explicit in the amended Term 17.

Mr. Speaker, given that the Leader of the Opposition has said - and I appreciate the offer - bring forward immediately - and I ask him to respect the program that we have said from day one - bring forward immediately the legislation to put in place the new boards, to get rid of the current school board system and to replace it with ten inter-denominational boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Let me finish - bring that forward; to bring forward as well, the necessity to put in place a single construction board and, Mr. Speaker, to do the public hearings on all of the other questions as we said we would, we said that school viability and busing would not -

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: That's right, you agree with that. The Opposition House Leader is saying, put that off to the Fall. We agree, because we said it would not be in place for 1996 anyway and that we would have public hearings first. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to sit down on that basis and to debate and discuss with both the Leader of the Opposition, through the House leader here and the Minister of Education, and with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, proposed legislation. As I said in Question Period, it has not been brought forward. It will be considered in the next number of days by the Cabinet. I will then make it available, as quickly as we have seen it and signed off on it, to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party for comment, before we even table it in the House, to make sure that we have the comment. I want to maintain the all-party approach to this issue in this House. If we want to have an opportunity for public debate and discussion, we will do that as well, okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, discuss it and figure it out, whatever is necessary.

One of the dilemmas right now - and this is the matter that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has come to quite rightly - the fact of the matter is, the constitutional amending process requires a vote of the Legislature here, we have provided that. It does not require a referendum but we had that as well in Newfoundland. It is not a requirement but we have had it. It also requires a vote of the Parliament of Canada and, Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada is not the House of Commons alone. It is the House of Commons and the Senate. It is a bicameral system. That is the British parliamentary system. Members of Parliament sit in both the House Chamber and in the Senate Chamber. They are all MPs, although we refer to those in the Senate Chamber as senators.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you don't have a constitutional amendment finished until the Senate Chamber has voted. Mr. Speaker, it is true that they have the power only of a six-month suspensive veto. What that means is that from the day the bill left the House of Commons, the 180 day clock started ticking six months. The Senate has within that six months the right and the responsibility to dispose of the bill in one of several ways; to pass it, Mr. Speaker, they can reject it or they could amend it. At the end of the six-month period - so that all members know and the public of Newfoundland and Labrador knows - what then happens is, if it has been either amended or rejected, the House of Commons either accepts the amendment - that would require us to come back here again - or it passes the original bill again. Now, that is truly the amending process. Don't take my word for it. I think the Leader of the NDP has just pointed this out in the House, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that is the reality. That is why it is not mere window dressing to say it is important to have the Senate deal with the matter.

As the Opposition House Leader has just said, we can move now on the school boards and on the single construction board and do the other matters later. We all agree to that, but even if we move now on the school boards and on the single construction board, in the absence of passage of this bill by the Senate, we don't have a constitutional amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: But we don't have an amendment, and at that stage, anything we do, any individual can challenge what we do, and it is open to challenge because the amendment is not completed. So I say to the members opposite, I have been hoping, and I still hope, that members of the Senate will give this - and by the way, it is their right to study this matter and it is their obligation, even, to study this matter. We don't quarrel with that. All I ask is that it be done in a timely fashion. The Leader of the Opposition knows that while the Government of Canada did not call the matter for many months, and I agree him, the Government of Canada waited longer than it should have but when they did call the matter, it was dealt with in the House of Commons in a matter of days, at your request, my request and the request of the Leader of the NDP.

I say to the senators, do what needs to be done, give it proper study, but surely, if the elected House of Commons can deal with the matter, and if the elected House of Assembly can deal with the matter, and if the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in an election, a referendum, can deal with the matter, then surely the members of the second Chamber can deal with it in a timely fashion as well. That is what we are really saying, and I hope to get back to a point where we work together to encourage the Senate to move this matter forward quickly so that we can bring legislation that will not be open to a court challenge and we can get on, as we must, with school reform.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have leave to respond?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite familiar with the constitutional process in that it cannot be proclaimed. The Premier read, in fact, the newspaper - one of the media carried it there - that I indicated it is not law until it is proclaimed. We brought in an Elections Act a couple of years ago, a Coroner's Act last year; none of these have come into effect yet. We can pass what legislation we have in this House; if we do not proclaim it, it has no validity in law. We can do what we want in our Legislatures provided it does not contravene Term 17, and we can enact that at the time, and proclaim it, after it passes the Senate. By doing it now, I say to the Premier, we enable this House to get something without being rushed. If the Senate passes it on June 28, if you want to enact the boards by July 1... There is a tremendous transition phase going on now between boards, because technically there will exist - there are twenty-seven boards now; there could be another ten new boards. Where is the transition from thirty-seven boards? That has to be done. There are teachers getting hired -

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-seven.

MR. SULLIVAN: From twenty-seven, with an extra ten. The transition has to occur on aspects to move from the one structure to another. There has to be a transition. We do not want to see it on June 29, and you wanting it in law by July 1 without adequate time. If we can have it outside the confines of this House so we can have input, or refer it to public discussion outside the confines of this House, that is fine. There is nothing that I am aware of, and I stand to be corrected on it, that would prevent us from coming to this House and putting legislation here on this floor tomorrow, debating it, and approving it to take effect at a time to be determined. That was done dozens of times, traditionally done, here with legislation. The Elections Act was not proclaimed, or part of it; we had the Coroner's Act last year. There are dozens of pieces of legislation. Most of it does not take effect immediately anyway, and there are transition periods; there is nothing to stop that.

What is wrong with us knowing up front if you have it ready? It was going to be ready in two days. The former Minister of Education said last year on a public broadcast that it would take two days to get school viability regulations ready. And I said: We won't see that until after we vote in the House.

In January of this year the former Premier and the Minister of Education were going to table in this House viability rules on busing that could affect the rights to provide dollars on a denominational basis to schools in this Province. It was released in January, and look at the hullabaloo that happened with these viability regulations, the response.

There is nothing wrong if I stand here, and if anybody from the legal profession - and we have members here from the legal profession - can refute what I have indicated here, or can tell me any way that legislatively we cannot present this here in the House and proclaim it later. We have been doing it since I came into this House, and it is acknowledged, and we want to see an opportunity for public input, because when the public do not get time to have their input, when they are shunted aside and not permitted to contribute to this process, that is when they get their backs up. I want to hear what those experts out there in the public who understand this - and a lot of them a lot better than some of us in here do - I want to hear what they want to say, and I want to make a judgement that is going to be the best judgement interpretation by listening to the best advice that is out there to do that.

I have not heard one thing yet, I say to the Premier, and I agree with what the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi said on the process. I know the process of passing legislation federally; I agree with that. I agree with the process. We cannot ignore the Senate. I said a matter of days, I felt, should be reasonable in the Senate. I am not talking about weeks or months; I don't think that is adequate. I don't think the Senate should take two, three or four months to deal with this. I think they should do it expeditiously from the time they received it, within a matter of days. I don't think a week or so would be unfair, even if it went close to two weeks; that is not unfair for the Senate. That is their job; that is their role. I think it is important, and I say: Get on with it. Let's get it here tomorrow; let's debate it; let's deal with it here in the next week or so, and let's proclaim it later on. What's wrong with that? Is it wrong? The Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi is saying we can't do it. I say we can. I would like someone to tell me we can't.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is becoming very interesting. First of all, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am delighted now to hear him say - and I hope that it will be taken as a signal and some friendly advice by the Leader of the Opposition to members of the Senate - that a week or up to two weeks to deal with the matter is a reasonable period of time. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that if that is the time frame in which the Senate deals with the matter, if we could have some reasonable assurance that that is the time frame they are going to deal with the matter in, then I am prepared to have all of us sit in July to deal with it here and to respect the process in Ottawa. To allow the Senate to hold, as it is proposing to do, public hearings.

I assume that some of the interested groups from this Province may be asked to come and testify. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition will go and testify. I don't know. It will be his choice. Some groups will want to go and give comment. Certainly the Minister of Education would want to go and give comment, and perhaps others. If that is the process going on in the Senate then I think all of us can agree, if that is the time frame, that the Senate should be allowed to do its work and then we will have to, if necessary, sit longer than we traditionally do, by the end of June, in order for us to properly do our work.

But my concern only is not that the Senate is going to take a week or ten days or two weeks. My concern, given that it still hasn't even gotten referred to Committee yet - and by the way at 5:00 p.m. today, 6:30 p.m. our time, will be the next time that an attempt will be made to push it, refer it on to the Committee, we will see whether it gets referred or not. So that is my concern.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if it becomes clear that within a normal and, in your own words, responsible time frame, that the matter is not being dealt with, then the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that we might have to proceed anyway, even before the Senate finishes the process here, is one we will have to take up.

We all want to respect the system if we can but I give this caution. If we simply accept that we are going to pass the bill here and not proclaim it - and that can be done - if we accept that is the process we are going to use, and if the Senate rises for the summer without dealing with the bill, we haven't proclaimed our legislation, we have a school year in September, we have all of the children, all of the resources, all of the teachers, all of the wherewithal for a school year which will be then in slings. Because without the legislation proclaimed - and you acknowledge yourself we can't proclaim it till there is final disposition of it in Ottawa - without the legislation proclaimed we can't put in place the ten boards. That is the dilemma.

The Leader of the Opposition is being practical and I think being helpful when he says: Start to think about what it is going to look like, start the process of planning. We are doing that. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that is being done. But even if we pass a bill, if the Senate rises and doesn't dispose, doesn't approve the Term 17 amendment, we have legislation passed here, it isn't proclaimed, we therefore have no legal authority during the course of the summer to set up a school board system for September.

That is the dilemma. Perhaps the minutes of this debate might help Senators realize the practical requirements that we have as a province to have this matter dealt with in a timely fashion so that we can get on with the next steps that are agreed to by everybody in the Province. I don't think there is anybody in the Province who I know of who on the steps we have just talked about - going to the ten boards, going to the construction board - who disagrees.

I'm going to sit down now because I think we made some progress. I believe that in the next ten days or so if it becomes evident the Senate is moving we should wait for the Senate and then act in the normal fashion ourselves. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if it becomes evident that the Senate is not moving I will take the Leader of the Opposition up on his offer to consider moving ourselves if that becomes necessary.

One piece of information, Mr. Speaker. I've just heard, in response to the comment by the Member for St. John's South, that indeed the Dockyard has now been given consent and it is making a bid on the Iroquois.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board: To Move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the Raising of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. (Budget Debate).

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Again today I rise to say a few words on the Budget that was brought down by this Administration. I think I adjourned the debate on the Budget some time ago, and I would ask the Clerk if he could give me some idea as to how much time I have left.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventeen minutes.

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

I remember when the minister stood to present his Budget, in the House he made a big deal of the fact that there were no tax increases in this Budget this year, but the people of this Province soon found out that this Budget, basically, was nothing but smoke and mirrors, I use the words of the minister himself on last year's Budget brought in by the former Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and this Budget is nothing less that smoke and mirrors itself. It is a bluff that was run to the people of this Province by saying that there have been no tax increases.

Now, we are seeing that there have been a number of fees and licences increased. I mentioned this a number of times in the House previously but the biggest one I suppose or the one that is most hurtful to the people of the Province, would be the ambulance fee increase from $40 to $65 up to a figure of $75 for all rides in an ambulance at this point in time, and I know that the seniors in this Province are being hit the hardest, Mr. Speaker, with this ambulance fee increase, the seniors in the Province who more often make use of that service, a provincial service all across this Province, $75. I know of an individual who has to pay $75 to get to hospital and $75 to get home from hospital, that is $150 out of pretty well a fixed income, and oftentimes these people have to be taken to hospital probably a number of times in the run of a year; maybe once, twice, three or four times, possibly depending on the situation.

The Liberal government before this, the one that was elected back in February, had a policy of trying to keep people in their homes, trying to keep the elderly in their homes and try to fend for themselves I suppose, and not have them in senior citizens homes or in hospitals and things of that nature and by doing so of course, it would require these people to go to hospital more often than not, so that was a major hit to the seniors of this Province.

Now, there have been a number of licensing fees increases in this Budget. Well, we had a lot of discussion here in the House of Assembly and in the public and in the media with respect to the fee increases for the Crown lands. Now the cabin owners in particular, have been hit pretty hard with this Budget and it took a while for this to get out. The minister brought down this statement on May 16, with respect to Crown lands and of course we saw the application fees going from $50 to $100; we saw the documentation preparation going from $100 to $200; the rates themselves of course, of the lease per year substantially increased. We also saw assignment fees for transfer from $50 to $100; that is another one, I didn't realize that was there actually and amendments to the lease documents to cost $100, increased fee charge for the driver of vehicle records from $5 to $10 and the list goes on and on and on, with increases from $25 to $100 in certain areas, from $75 to $500; $300 to $500 in an other area, so the licence fees have been a major hit to the people of this Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: He has to be the funniest man I have ever met.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who is that? Who are we talking about now?

Anyway, the Member for Humber Valley is at it again, over there I believe.

The minister stood in the House and he made a comment, `Making Choices for a Better Tomorrow.' He said it going around this Province and had public input into the Budget process this year. He basically said that, `Transfer payments from the federal government will continue to be restrained. There are three measures we can use to address the shortfall; increase taxes, reduce spending or increase borrowing.' He did all three, Mr. Speaker. They could look at these, you could do one, two, three, two and three or one and three. Whatever the case may be, any combination would decide to do all three.

He said, `Some things you have to consider, the burden of taxation in our Province is already high. Should taxes be increased to pay for our services? If so which taxes and by how much?' How much taxes should be increased? Now the minister stood and as I said before: There has been no increase in taxes, no new taxes. Like George Bush, the former President of the United States said: Read my lips, no new taxes. Obviously we have quite a number of tax increases. Well you could not really call them taxes I suppose but they are fees for services, anywhere from schools, universities, the community colleges, ferries, anything at all that you want to talk about in this Province that the people use the public service for, has increased. It says: Spending has already been reduced significantly. Should we continue to reduce spending? Should we do it for all services and at the same level right across the board or should we establish spending priorities? Now, Mr. Speaker, spending priorities, that's a good line. Of course again they had their spending priorities, Mr. Speaker, over the past years when they had spending priorities on the Trans City and I am planning on saying a few words on that topic in a little while as the time goes on.

Mr. Speaker, it says: Government's ability to borrow is limited by the heavy burden of debt and a low credit rating. Should there be any more borrowing? If so, what is a responsible amount? These are the kinds of choices government will have to consider as it assembles its Budget for 1996.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this Budget has hit the people of this Province in their pocketbook. It has hit them hard. I say to the Government House Leader, this Budget has hit the people of this Province very, very hard and it is being found out day by day, as time goes by, Mr. Speaker - one for instance, we have 1,000 people who were laid off with this Budget. That is what we have been told, 1,000 and last year we were told it was 1,000 people laid off, Mr. Speaker, but we know now, throughout the system there have been people let go in all the various government departments. We know of people let go in Housing, we know people are being let go in Hydro, we know people who are being let go in different groups, Cabot colleges and community colleges. We know there are teachers being let go in this Province. We know there are people being let go throughout the civil service and there is a lot of bumping going on now throughout the civil service and in particular in the hospitals, we know that bumping has been happening right, left and centre.

Actually I was speaking to an individual today - get this now, this is one that I really find peculiar - with respect to the bumping system, apparently you bump to the bottom of the list, I suppose. So if you have a fairly high position you bump to the bottom. Now I know of an individual who got her notice on - I think it was on probably Friday. She has been working with the government for seven years - she took twenty-one days, went to work in a minister's office and because she did not qualify - and then came back last year, so it was less than a year - so she worked for a minister's office for twenty-one days and she lost out. She cannot bump anyone. She is gone at the bottom of the list. So she can be bumped out of a job and she's finished. Now that to me is not fair by any stretch of the imagination and somebody is going to have to do something about that, Mr. Speaker. That I am sure will be brought up in due course. I am planning on working on her behalf and probably talking to whoever it takes to talk to, to try to get that situation dealt with. Someone has worked for seven years in this civil service, it is not fair when the government brought in this policy that anybody who was on temporary were put on permanent for the bumping system so she has been here seven years and now she can actually be bumped by somebody who has been here for two years because she left her position for twenty-one days, went to work in the minister's office and now she is out the door, very likely, Mr. Speaker, so that in itself is not fair.

Now, with respect to the layoffs there are some hard things going on in this Province. I read an article in the paper, I think it was yesterday or the day before, about the number of people who have actually lost their jobs within the same family. We had husbands and wives, fathers and daughters, and what have you, being let go. It is so cruel, I suppose, is the way we have to look at it. It is very cruel that husbands and wives would be let go from the civil service. Those people have children and now we see people having to leave the Province because of that.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns about this Budget and I really believe that this Budget is not a document that was prepared for the benefit of the people of this Province. I think it is going to hurt the people of this Province more than it is actually going to help the people of this Province. Basically, what I would like to do, so that people could have a proper chance to discuss this Budget, is to move a motion that all the words after the word `that' be struck out and replaced with the following - I hope you are paying attention here now, `that this House condemn the government for its failure to present a Budget that reflects the mandate of the people of the Province and ignores the basic principles of sound fiscal management.' Moved by myself, the Member for Cape St. Francis, and seconded by the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know whether you would like to take the time, Mr. Speaker, to look at that motion and see if it is in order? I believe it is in order. That is what it is, non-confidence in the Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

MR. TULK: The motion is in order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Of course, it is in order. You know I would not move anything that was not in order in this House, I say to the Government House Leader.

Now, what shall I talk about I wonder? Well, I will talk about the minister or the Government House Leader. When I say what shall I talk about, I mean what specific points should I talk about in this Budget and which of the many, many things that are wrong in this Budget should I talk about? Which one will I start out on is the question? I will start out on the layoffs, as I ended on, the thousands of people who are laid off in this civil service, that we know of.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about the hirings?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition took the words right out of my mouth, about the hiring that is going on. We have thousands of people in this Province being laid off in the civil service. We know that there is a spin-off from that, but how many new faces have I seen in this building, in the elevators, working in this building since February 22? There are a lot of stops on the 8th floor where we see a number of faces, we see a number of faces on the 5th floor, all new people, political staff. How many people are being hired in patronage appointments in this Province? I am going to have to get a list. I remember in the last sitting of the House I think I had a list of somewhere around seventy people, patronage appointments, and this is growing even more rapidly in this government at this point in time; there are more people being hired in more patronage appointments. Of course, the media knows about this. They will pick up on it. I am sure one of these days they will get the idea that they will come up with a list, and go through the government departments and see all the new people being hired on, compared to the people who have been let go, and try to get some handle on the political appointments in this Province.

Of course, with respect to the 1,000 people lay-off, you have a chain reaction. We have the municipalities now being forced to let people go, the municipalities in this Province that have had a 22 per cent cut last fall. The minister said it was 22 per cent, but when you actually sit down and figure it out I think it was closer to 28 per cent. We have another 10 per cent on top of that in this Budget, so we have a number of people throughout the municipalities in this Province being let go because the municipalities cannot afford to keep the staff on. We see municipalities in this Province actually turning off their street lights, making decisions that they cannot maintain their street lights. We see municipalities in this Province cutting back on services such as garbage collection. In some of the smaller municipalities, of course, they only have one garbage collection, but those with two are probably cutting back to one, so we see a major, major impact on the municipalities.

We saw cuts to the municipalities with their fire-fighting equipment this year again, although the minister did say he has $1 million put aside, and he didn't like to refer to it as a slush fund - and I would not want to refer to it as a slush fund - but maybe they are in for a genuine emergency, and that is what the minister said, so I certainly take him at his word.

The City of St. John's has been cut 20 per cent, or the St. John's Regional Fire Department has been cut by 20 per cent. Now, I asked the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs questions on the St. John's Regional Fire Department with respect to that 20 per cent cut, and he said that the St. John's City Council actually came to him looking to take over responsibility for the St. John's Regional Fire Department. Well, as I said at the time, that may have been the case, but if they came looking for that they also came looking for the funding to go along with it.

I know that the minister of the time, the former Member for Waterford - Kenmount, or Waterford Valley I think it was at the time - I am not sure which - Mr. Gullage, tried to force amalgamation down the throats of the people on the Northeast Avalon and other areas of the Province, and it was very poorly managed at the time. I remember meeting with the minister and telling him: If you want to do something like this, you have to actually come up with a proper plan, approach the councils, talk to the councils, show them the pros, show them the cons of such a move, and then let the people decide. Don't force something like this down people's throats and then get their backs up.

They could not accomplish the amalgamation at that point in time, back probably in '88 or '89, somewhere around there I believe, when I was mayor of a small town, but they decided to go ahead with the St. John's regional fire-fighting, and they just gave it to the board. They appointed a board at the time and, of course, the City of St. John's was well represented. The City of St. John's, of course, who pays the larger amount of money, had the larger representation, but the representation on that board was more than all the other municipalities combined.

I remember sitting at a meeting in St. John's with the regional fire committee, which was the city council, Mount Pearl, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Petty Harbour, Portugal Cove, and I think it was Paradise. At that meeting one of the members on the board said: Well, what we will do is listen to the smaller towns and then we will just do what is best for the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I left that meeting, and shortly after I left that meeting three other mayors followed suit and came out behind me. Actually, the St. John's Regional Fire Department is not properly set up yet, to this point in time. We still have - well, we now know that Portugal Cove - St. Phillips is having their own fire department. We have Conception Bay South, I believe, going their own way. Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, at this point in time, still do not have a deal worked out with the St. John's Regional Fire Department, and it is really unfortunate that that is the case because the town really cannot make proper plans on how much money it should be spending and setting aside for that service. We really don't know what is coming down the tubes with respect to the St. John's regional fire department although there have been a number of meetings and discussions held. The minister of the day created that problem and he really hasn't done anything to resolve that problem at this point in time.

Back to the 1,000 people who have been laid off in the civil service. That is the figure that we were given, 1,000 people let go. It is only last week in the House I was up on the Estimates and I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - there was an ad put in the paper for a tender for furniture to furnish Philip Place. I said, if there was 1,000 people let go this year, and there was 1,000 people let go from the civil service last year, that is 2,000 people. They must have had chairs, they must have had desks, they must have had computers a lot of those people, so why is the government tendering for furniture for Philip Place? To me it is utterly ridiculous. No, more than ridiculous, it is disgusting, to think that the people of this Province now who are paying taxes, the very people who were let go from their jobs now, actually have to pay their taxes to furnish Philip Place when we have desks, furniture, hidden away somewhere. It is either hidden away or given away or sold for half nothing.

That gets back to the point of how well is the government doing its planning for the people of this Province. When it takes in its revenues and (inaudible) certain expenditures each year, we of course have to have proper planning. That has been a major concern of the Opposition over the past number of years, certainly since I've been here anyway. When we have budgets coming in each year and - last year for example there was a budget brought in in the spring of the year and they said it was a balanced budget. We know now, and we said at the time, because our critic for finance at the time, the Member for Mount Pearl of the day, stood and said: You are going to be $60 million short. No, that wouldn't be the case because we have it all figured out. That is what the Minister of Finance said. No, you are trying to exaggerate, you are trying to get people excited over nothing.

What happened in the fall of the year ? A new mini-budget comes in, the new Minister of Finance comes in in the fall of the year and says he has to let go 500 people and he has to start cutting the municipalities by 22 per cent, and goes on and on and what have you. In actual fact the planning has been sadly lacking with respect to the finances of this Province over the past number of years, especially since 1989 I would say. I would have to say since 1989 the planning for the finances of this Province has been seriously lacking.

The minister brings down his Budget again, the minister brings down his Budget this year, and he says we will have to borrow, I think it was $75 million, somewhere around there. Up in the seventies, anyway. Whereas during the election they were saying: We have to be careful, we have to be fiscally responsible, and we can't borrow too much and what have you. It went on and on. People were sick of hearing it. Anyway, they get in and do an about-face, and they decide to borrow money to try and balance out the Budget this year. But in actual fact it isn't balanced, I suppose, because if you have to borrow you can't really consider that to be balancing your Budget.

Another major factor with respect to this Budget, of course, is the tuition fees for, in particular, Memorial University. We saw the Member for Kilbride bring questions into this House of Assembly to the Minister of Education. Of course the Minister of Education would not confirm or deny the questions that were being put forward with respect to the rate of increase for the different courses at Memorial University, until the Member for Kilbride produced a document from the University saying how much tuition fees would increase at University.

The MUN tuition fees will increase anywhere from 42 per cent, I believe, up to 90 percent. That is a huge increase in fees. This begs the question: What is happening in this Province with respect to education? We have a government of the day which said during the election, and prior to the election, that if we want to get out of our financial doldrums, if we want to start producing in this Province, if we want to get this Province back on the road, then we have to get our people educated. I am sick and tired of hearing people stand in this House - and the former Minister of Education, in particular, on numerous occasions, stood in this House and talked about the rate of illiteracy in this Province. Now, we have an attack on education in this Province, an attack right, left and centre, and it is not only an attack on the post-secondary, not only an attack on the universities; it is an attack now also on the community colleges; it is an attack on Kindergarten, believe it or not. Can you believe, a government bringing in measures to take books that were planned to be presented to the Kindergarten classes this year, newer books, more updated books to teach our little children how to read, and they have cancelled that.

They have cancelled the community colleges across the Province. There are a number of community colleges being cancelled, or basically discontinued, or cut out, or whatever word you would like to use, to refer to it. Take, for example, Bell Island. The people of Bell Island are quite concerned that they are going to lose their community college on Bell Island. Last Fall, we had a real racket on our hands, I suppose, with respect to the ferry system, when the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation came in with these huge, dramatic, drastic, outrageous rate increases to travel on the ferries. What happened in this House? We had to have petitions presented in the House; we had people from Bell Island - on both sides from Bell Island - and people living in the Portugal Cove area, and students who transported back and forth to Bell Island to the school; we had demonstrations in the lobby; we had people in the galleries, and finally, the minister relented, only after he started getting pressure from members on the government side of the House.

Actually, the then Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, which is now Conception Bay East & Bell Island, he and I attended a meeting on Bell Island, and there must have been 500 people in attendance at that meeting. I had an opportunity to really play politics with the situation, and I did not. At that time I treated the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island quite fairly. We went over there to solve a problem on Bell Island with respect to the ferry system, and we solved it, with a lot of hard work, time and effort, with a lot of people and a lot of help. And now they are losing their Cabot school, and the people on Bell Island are genuinely concerned that if they lose that school, what is next? It is the heart of the community, they feel, and there will be jobs lost, so the Mayor of Bell Island, and other people, have a number of concerns with respect to that. They are really concerned that they will lose the school, and it looks like they will now unless something dramatically different happens.

But it all concerns education. And it seems to me that what is happening today is that we are going back to pre-1949, when the only people in this Province - I should not say the only people, but it seemed that if you were to get an education in this Province prior to 1949, you had to have dollars, you had to have big bucks, you had to have money, and that is what is happening today. We see tuition fees increasing; we see an attack on the education system in this Province as never seen before.

Now, I do not want to get this one thing confused with education reform, because the attacks I am talking about are the financial restraints that are being put on the education system in this Province. The financial restraints, the cutting from the universities and in the community schools, and the grade schools themselves, I don't want to get that confused with education reform. It is coming near at hand now that maybe we can get something.

I remember last year before the referendum, standing in this House and saying what would happen with the referendum; and, sure enough, what we predicted happened. I remember the Premier of the day saying that the amendment to the Constitution would go through the House of Commons by last Christmas. We said it wouldn't, and it didn't. We said that once it got in Ottawa it would be tied up, and it was six or seven months before they decided to bring it to the House of Commons, so actually, the education reform that was supposed to be in place for this year is not in place and won't be in place. Now, they are talking about - we heard debate today in the House where the Premier was twisting the facts and trying to say that the PCs in Ottawa are holding it up. Now, what a joke! It went through the House of Commons. Mr. Charést, who is not in the Senate, who is in the House of Commons, voted against it. So he voted against it? Yes, he is right. That is what he is there for, to do what he thinks is right. But it passed the House of Commons and now it is gone to the Senate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Baker vote against it, too?

MR. J. BYRNE: The member from the government - the Liberal member in Ottawa, Mr. Baker, the Member for Gander, voted against it also. There is no word from the Premier on the Member for Gander, Mr. Baker, voting against it - it is all Mr. Charést's fault; because he voted against it, it is being delayed. And he is not even in the Senate, he is in the House of Commons. What a farce! Talk about a master at twisting things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and now there is the Senate which it has to go through. I say to members opposite, now if you sit back and think about our democratic system in this country, we have the municipal, we have the provincial House of Assembly, we have the House of Commons and we have the Senate. What is the purpose of the Senate? The purpose of the Senate is supposed to be a sober second thought on any legislation that goes through the House of Commons. So by them just barely discussing it and maybe requesting that they have public hearings on it, they are only doing what they are being paid to do. It is supposed to be a sober second thought and that is what they are doing. And he is here criticizing these people for doing what they are being paid to do. That, to me, is not right. What is going to happen and what should have happened, if they wanted education reform this year, it should have been brought in back in January, before the provincial election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Rightly so, but if they wanted reform - if this Premier wanted reform so quickly, why did he wait for three or four months after the election to try to do something about it? He could have had this brought up in the House of Commons back in January. So to try to pass it off as Mr. Charést's problem, what a farce! What a twist on words, Mr. Speaker!

I want to get back to talking about the time previous to 1949. I was not even born during Confederation - I was born a couple of years after Confederation. But I heard my parents talk - I am a Newfoundlander born and bred - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Very good, young at heart, anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I was born after Confederation. When I listen to the older people talk about education and times back around 1949 - people, I have to say, back before 1949 and on into the 1950s and 1960s, to a certain extent, were probably a bit more self-sufficient than we are today. People today - we have gotten away from our gardens and now we cannot go out and jig a fish anymore. The former Minister of Fisheries brought in, a couple of Summers - a food fishery, for people to go out and jig a few fish but now we can't do that anymore, Mr. Speaker. So the people are not as self-sufficient as they once were in this Province, I believe, because we depend on supermarkets, we depend on the transportation system, heavily depend on the transportation system, so we are not as self-sufficient.

Now, if people in this Province want to become more self-sufficient - actually, how I got started on this one is that I think we are going back to those days, that we will have to become more self-sufficient. If the government keeps cutting like they have been cutting, Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, then people are going to get to the point where they have no other choice but to start growing their own vegetables again and maybe that might be a good thing for us to have to get back to. Certainly the people of those days worked a lot harder, they had a lot more physical work, I suppose, than we do today. Although I believe the mental stress is a bit more prevalent today than it was back in those days; but certainly, they were in good physical condition from the work they did.

As I said about fishing, people would go out and jig their fish and dry their fish. They had their salt fish stored away for the Winter. They would go and get maybe a moose or a caribou and put that away for the Winter. They would have their own vegetables grown, they have their own horse, their own cow and goats for milk. So the people of yesteryear, Mr. Speaker, were, as I said, probably much more self-sufficient than we are today.

So what is going to become of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, I believe that this government are putting a lot of their eggs in one basket, I suppose, I would say to the Speaker, and that is Voisey's Bay. I know we have a lot of other positive things on the horizon with respect to maybe Terra Nova and the production of oil from Hibernia, Hunt Oil on the West Coast, and we have a few other things to be announced, I would imagine in the near future, so we cannot be putting too much emphasis on Voisey's Bay.

Now, being in the situation where we have a court case coming out of Texas with respect to Inco, I am fearful that that will delay the development of Voisey's Bay. I think if Voisey's Bay is delayed by six months to a year or two, it is going to throw a spanner into any planning that this government might be doing. We have not seen, as I said earlier, a lot of good examples of the planning of this Administration, but if it is delayed any length of time at all, I think it is going to have a major, major impact upon the well-being and the welfare of the people of this Province in the future. There seems to be a lot of emphasis being put on two or three or four years down the road and, deep down, I honestly hope that what they are counting on will pay off.

With respect to education again and the public exams, that was another prime example, the public exams being cancelled this year. Now, I did a little bit of investigation into the cancellation of the public exams and what it actually means. I remember when I was attending high school, we had public exams and our whole year was based on one exam at the end of the year. And a lot of the students at that time floated through the year, and at the end of the year, they crammed - if that is the word - they crammed and got through their exams.

I was speaking with people at the Department of Education and again, this is an example of crisis management, where the government was in a panic to try to cut, cut, cut wherever they could, to try to balance the Budget to the best of their ability and this was one of the cuts that were made.

Actually, in the country today, seven provinces and the two territories have public exams. The only provinces which do not have public exams, Mr. Speaker, are Nova Scotia, PEI and Ontario, and Nova Scotia is actually reinstating public exams. But what I find to be most interesting and most curious, was, back in the 1960s and 1970s, all of the provinces except two, dropped public exams. The two provinces that did not drop public exams were Newfoundland and Quebec. Now, we have a situation where we have Newfoundland dropping the exams and other provinces reinstating the exams.

As a matter of fact, there have been talks ongoing, Mr. Speaker, between countries for having an international standard of exams, and I think Canada has been a part of that. Actually, countries such as Spain are now talking about bringing back public exams. I think they had them once, they dropped them and they are bringing them back. So it seems strange that back in the 1960s and 1970s, when all provinces dropped the exams, Newfoundland and Quebec maintained them, had the foresight to keep them, and now we have the provinces bringing back the exams and Newfoundland dropping the exams. It doesn't make sense to me.

I have been told that public exams - and this is from people with the Department of Education - lend credibility to the education system; they set a standard and they enhance our system. Also, from what I have been told, through the Department of Education, teachers use these as a professional development opportunity, and they use them to compare themselves to other provinces. So, Mr. Speaker, to just bang-o, cut the public exams - no consultation with the students, no consultation with teachers or the NLTA, no consultation with the public, when we were promised consultation; and that was the hallmark of the last election, that they would hold public consultation before making any major decisions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we don't have public exams this year, and it put a lot of people in a bit of a hardship. Because of no public exams - I was going to talk a bit about the unrest that is going on in this Province today.

We saw a prime example of that, of course, when we saw about 3,000 students come to Confederation Building a few weeks ago and make a good statement. I would have to say publicly, that the group, teenagers, from Grades IX, X, XI and XII, I would imagine, from in and around St. John's, most of them, I would think, put on a well-organized demonstration, a well-orchestrated demonstration, and the students had something to say. One thing they did say - and they had a big banner outside that said: We Are The Voters Of Tomorrow.

The same thing happened back in the 1960s - I think there were a lot of demonstrations, and the students got up - I was going to say `up in arms', but they never took arms, that is a typical Newfoundland expression. They got upset, anyway, and they marched on Confederation Building. I remember being in part of a demonstration, a strike, back when I attended high school just down the road here, Gonzaga, actually. I attended high school when there was a strike back in the early 1970s, I suppose. The students were upset over... I can't remember whether it was scheduling or the alternate days. What was the strike on back then in schools?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shift system.

MR. J. BYRNE: The shift system, that's what it was. I think the government of the day finally got the message and they decided to reinstate the regular days.

Of course, with respect to the public exams, it would have a major impact, as I said, on the students themselves. And since this sitting of the House - it has only been a month - we have seen more demonstrations at the steps of Confederation Building than I have seen since I came here, larger, well-organized demonstrations, and if that is a sign of things to come in this Province, I am quite fearful. I remember standing in my place here and saying to the former Premier that the day would come when we would see the same thing as happened back in the late 1930s to Sir Richard Squires on the day when the people of the Province marched on the Colonial Building and they put her up. I am quite concerned that if things keep going the way they are in this Province, we will see it again. There is no doubt about that, we will see it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I was speaking about 1938 and the days of - I'm being interrupted here a few times now and then, so from Hansard's perspective, try to keep with me, anyway. The days of Sir Richard Squires - back in those days, times were hard and we saw people march on Colonial Building and they pretty well put her up. I am not advocating that, But I remember the day - I said this in the House last year or the year before, and the former Premier asked: `Is that what you are advocating? Are you advocating violence?' `No,' I said to the Premier, `by the actions you and your Administration are taking, you are advocating violence.' And if this government of today doesn't start getting a heart and start showing compassion for the people of this Province, we will see that day come again very quickly.

Another issue that came up recently, of course, is the dispensing fees for the pharmacies. I've had a number of calls - letters, actually. When people sit down to write a letter to an MHA, they are usually quite concerned about what they have to say, and they are usually quite upset. Although I must say, I have had a few letters, too, from people in my district, congratulating me and thanking me for acting on their behalf and I really appreciate that. We also are receiving letters now from pharmacists in this Province trying to make a case for themselves with respect to the cuts, Mr. Speaker, to the dispensing fees. In actual fact, we could very well see people in this Province lose their jobs because of dispensing fees being cut.

I have a letter from an individual in a drug store in Torbay. It is the only drug store in the area. Actually, when I was a child growing up in Torbay I remember going down to this drug store. It was called District Drugs. I was only a young kid at the time and I remember when the gentleman started that store. We saw the store grow from a very small drugstore to a larger store over the years, and then it grew even bigger again. We have the doctor's offices down there now and we have a nice facility there that serves the people in the area, and it is all because of a man, Mr. Hogan, who decided to stick to his guns. He was advised at the time that he would never make a go of it in Torbay, that the population was not there, and he had some hard times. He describes it all in his letter.

For eleven years he was struggling and not taking a holiday. Now, he gets to the point where he can finally retire, after thirty years or so, and with this dispensing fee he may have to lay off the druggist who is hired on there now. He actually has his son working there, and another druggist, Mr. Speaker, so one of those people may have to be let go and he may have to come out of retirement and go back to work in the store, after working for thirty years, because this Administration decided to bring in something where there was no thought or no proper planning put in place.

That is the major problem with this Administration, they do not think about the consequences of their actions, and that is a very serious statement to make in this House of Assembly, that the government does not think about the consequences of their actions. We have seen health care cuts in this Province. Now, I do not know how much I can talk about health care. I was trying to stick to my original train of thought here and finish up about the pharmacist in Torbay and the business he has going.

This is a very serious situation because when you think of an individual who has put so much of his life into a service for the people of the area, and given up eleven years of his life, Saturdays and Sundays, every day of the week and getting up all hours of the night to dispense drugs - I know because I grew up there and we had to go there and use the service ourselves, my mother and her children, nine boys and three girls, so you can imagine how often we had to go to the drugstore in Torbay. Now, to see that facility may have to be cutback because of a cold government and a cold Budget showing no humane factors at all, Mr. Speaker, is just downright wrong.

The health care cuts in this Province are atrocious. Now, the Minister of Health, since I have been in this House, has been on his feet saying health care is improving in this Province. Now, I say to the minister that I have had occasion, as early as yesterday, to be in the Health Sciences Complex, and I have to say the staff there treat me well, they always have, and hopefully will continue to, but when you are in an area where you have a lady coming in for a service at 8:45 in the morning and at 1:15 in the afternoon she is still sitting in a chair, an elderly lady, is health care improving in this Province I say to the minister? Not likely. You have people coming in to have a service in the hospital that is booked and they have to sit - I should not say they have to sit, but I know yesterday there were people waiting to have day surgery sitting on the floor in a hallway because there were not enough chairs in the waiting room.

That is a fact I say to the Minister of Social Services. I do not know if she is paying attention or not, but she was nodding her head. I ask the Minister of Social Services if she is in agreement with my statement? The Minister of Social Services agrees. She is a nurse, she knows.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Here is the story on what happened yesterday. There was a small room that sat about ten people and all the chairs were occupied. There was one woman there at 8:45 in the morning and at 1:15 she was still waiting for that surgery. I was there looking at her, and I was there myself sitting on the floor because there was not a chair for me to sit on.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I know the doctors are over booking; they don't have the staff. Go into the Health Sciences now and register and you have twenty-five or thirty people ahead of you in the lineup like a bunch of cattle. That is what is going on in the Health Sciences in this Province today. Again, I cannot knock the staff. The staff are excellent. Anybody I ran into or who served me, I have to say, I give them full credit, but there is only so much they can do with the amount of staff they have, the amount of money that is being given to them. Health care is not improving in this Province by any stretch of the imagination. I don't care what the minister says; he can say what he wants. I know from personal experience, those are facts.

I know two individuals in Torbay, two cases that I had recently, one in particular was a gentleman taking care of his wife. He was eighty-one; she was eighty-three. She had a broken hip.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He was taking care of her, sitting up all night long, afraid to take his clothes off. For three weeks I was trying to get her in a hospital, for him to get some respite care, and finally managed it through the assistance of the minister, but it is not right; it should not happen that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful.

MR. J. BYRNE: I want to talk about social services now. I remember the first time I stood in this House after the new election and I saw the Minister of Social Services being appointed - a former nurse, by the way -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You are still a nurse, so I should not say former, okay, but you are not active now, I would say, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) active registration.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, you are active registration but you are not an active nurse while you are sitting in the House of Assembly, I would not imagine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, you might be active, but are you a practising nurse at this point in time?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, but are your practising? We can all get on with semantics.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A very good answer, practising at the social policy level; that is a good one.

Anyway, not to be picking on the Minister of Social Services -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I have something here I want to talk about, cuts to social assistance. Here we go. Now, I remember standing in this House shortly after the election back in February, and I had great hopes for the new Minister of Social Services; I really did. I know her to be a nurse, and a caring person and what have you, because if you are a nurse, of course, you would have to be a caring person, and what do we see? Cuts to social assistance, 6 per cent in funding from transportation assistance gone; that is 6 per cent gone. The budget for household furniture for recipients of social assistance has been cut approximately in half.

I remember a couple of years ago trying to get a fridge for an individual who is on social assistance. It was about three days before Christmas, and social services told me that a fridge is not a necessity; a stove is a necessity, a fridge is not a necessity. Anyway, a day before Christmas Eve we had a fridge delivered to that man's house.

What else is here? Let me see. Suspending funding for social assistance recipients in its rigorous efforts to claw back income tax funds; can you imagine, suspending funding for social assistance recipients who have received too much. They are actually going to make a statement to actually take any money they are receiving, cut it out altogether. Now, how cold can you be?

I remember standing in this House and saying the only problem with this government is that they are like the tin man in the Wizard of Oz; it didn't have a heart. But at least he was smart enough to know he needed a heart, and went looking for one. This government does not have any heart whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. Now this special funding, here is an example. I had a person in my district who needed this $61 for a very good cause. He and his wife were on social assistance, just eking out a living on the amount of money, so he went to a social assistance appeal. I went with him, made a case for him, and he won his appeal. So he got his $61 on appeal. It was not made on a decision of a social worker, who I suppose would have the discretion to say yes or no but this was won on an appeal. It was only last week or the week before last that he received the same letter that everybody else received, Mr. Speaker, and he was cut his $61.

Now the minister has stood in her place and said there are other ways for these people to get this money, this $61. So why would you want to be putting red tape or cutting these people if they can get it elsewhere? Now to me it does not make sense because if you are going to pay that person out of that pocket or pay him out of this pocket he is still going to get the same money. All you are going to do is put that person through hardship and what have you. So now we sent another letter off to the appeal board requesting that this person have another appeal. He has to come out now from down in my district, go to the appeal board, all kinds of stress and strain on the individual. I have to go with him and hopefully we will win it. If he does not win I don't know what he is going to do. So there are all kinds of issues out there.

Now, rural renewal in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot about rural renewal in this Province.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now listen, I say to the Government House Leader, did you see the article in the paper this weekend? It was all on account of you.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: The article in the paper this weekend, Bob Benson's article.

AN HON. MEMBER: He told him to keep his day job.

MR. J. BYRNE: He told me to keep my day job because I will never be a stand-up comedian. It is all because of you and pit-saws.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He mumbled, that's about it. That is about the size of it, he mumbled.

Rural renewal, nineteen economic zones -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well I don't know because in it they kind of gave me a few indirect compliments, I say to the Member for Terra Nova. Yes, there are a few indirect compliments there really.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I know, sobeit, that's life on the big ship. That's life on a big ship isn't it?

Now we have a new Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. I had a meeting with the minister the other day, a good meeting about producing seal sausages in this Province. I have a member in my district who is going to be mass producing seal sausages. He has all kinds of orders, big orders he could not take, $50,000 and $60,000 worth of orders that he could not take because he did not have the equipment. Unreal, a good meeting, an excellent meeting and there is going to be something done about it but I want to talk about the rural renewal in this Province. Now to me we settled in Newfoundland because of the fishery of course.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, take it easy today because I don't want to have to say anything to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I may as well not even talk to that because he has not got a clue, not a click, not a clue of what he is talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Somebody had him by the throat yesterday.

MR. J. BYRNE: Somebody had him by the throat yesterday? Who was that? This member here I wonder?

Anyway, nineteen rural economic zones - talking about nineteen economic zones in the Province, now maybe that is a good idea I suppose and we have to start coming together. We have to start trying to be - we should be all for one and one for all, I suppose that is the way, the attitude, to put it. My concern was, and I brought this up at the committee hearings for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and that is, would these nineteen zones actually become like nineteen regional counties like we see in other areas? I know the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is a strong believer in amalgamation. He believes that it is the right way to go. He even made a statement, I think, that he is going to have a test run or some kind of a trial in the area in his district type of thing. He made a statement that no, he would not believe that there will be nineteen regional counties or regional governments but maybe, there might be twenty-five there might be thirty. There is nothing set down yet but they are seriously considering it now.

So now I have to talk about the previous amalgamation issue and how that was attempted and how it failed. It failed because of the attitude of this Administration. Within the Province today, we see municipalities actually coming together to cost-share certain items, and rightly so. They are starting to see the sense themselves; it is like natural evolution I suppose, they are starting to see the common sense of maybe going out to tender for certain things, where they could bring it all together, like maybe for salt and sand or something of that nature, for some services.

The minister now is talking about cutting out the assessment division of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, so if you have a region, I suppose, where you had five or six towns coming together and they were going to have assessments done, it only makes sense that they would all come together and tender for all the towns. Because I am sure, the more parcels you get, you get it cheaper by the parcel of property within that region. So, it is a natural evolution, I would assume, that is coming down the tubes, and we have to be very careful, I would say to the minister, as to how you would approach something of that nature.

With respect to rural Newfoundland, rural Newfoundland, from my perspective, keeps this Province going. We have the major centres, St. John's, Grand Falls, Gander, Marystown, Corner Brook, Labrador City, Goose Bay, and it is very important for the rural areas of the Province to survive because they feed the major centres. And we have to find a way to support these rural areas and to keep the rural areas alive. I have driven around the Province and I go to some of these communities now and it is disheartening to say the least and you have to question how long some of these towns will survive.

Many of the younger people, of course, are moving out, but I was always of the opinion, since 1989 when I saw the policies, that the government of the day is trying to force people to the larger centres through financial means, through cuts to the municipalities, cuts to health care, cuts to transportation and so on. They are trying to force people to these larger centres. And that may be the way of the future, but the question I have to ask is: How far do you take that? I mean, we have Canada itself, the country of Canada has only a population of twenty-seven million, so are we going to see down the road, that the people in Ontario or in B.C. or in Quebec say: Newfoundland has only 500,000 people - let us move everybody off Newfoundland up to Ontario, somewhere, let us save a lot of bucks that way. I mean, if that is the attitude that is being developed in government, to me, it is the wrong attitude. We have to try to find ways to support the people in rural Newfoundland.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, gets on his feet every now and then and talks about information technology and the new computer-generated employment situations in the world, and he has a good point, but I think what we have to get back to, are our basics. We have to look at our fishery, our forestry and our mining and do proper planning, and when I say that, I don't mean by giving it away -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say it wasn't the Minister of Education. Anyway, what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to get back to basics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good point.

MR. J. BYRNE: We have to try to keep our younger people in this Province. I know that we are training nurses right, left and centre and they are leaving the Province daily; people are coming out of our community colleges are feeling disheartened and disillusioned, and they are leaving the Province daily, and we cannot afford to be losing these people. The only thing you will have left in the Province will be senior citizens and maybe, the plan of the future is that Newfoundland will be a senior citizens resort. I don't know - I hope that is not the case. But in the future we have to look at the basics and I think we have some kind of an opportunity - we did have an opportunity with the TAGS program, and I can see now what is coming down the tubes there, is that people are going to be cut off the TAGS program and will be hung out to dry as far as I am concerned.

Maybe, what we should have done is taken some of the money that was put into the TAGS program - there are a lot of people in this Province, not a lot of people but some people, who made big money off the TAGS, the people in the education field in particular, I suppose. When we take people who are forty-five, fifty and fifty-five years old and put them in school to train them, what do we train them for? That is the question: What do we train them for? Then there is the question: What are we going to train people for in the future? We have to train people for the right jobs and we haven't been doing that.

How much time do I have left, I wonder? Check for me, will you?

Mr. Speaker, to just take a break here -

MR. TULK: Collapse yet?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, not yet. I have not collapsed yet, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven minutes.

MR. J. BYRNE: I only have a few minutes left.

I have to talk about the health care cuts now. I have said a few words on that, so it looks like I am going to end up on that. The health care cuts in this Province: I was on that a few minutes ago to a certain extent. We talked about the Janeway Hospital closing. Now, we saw that last year, that was going to close and was going to the Health Sciences within a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, it was so, within a year. The Grace Hospital was closing within a year and it was moving to the Health Sciences. We had demonstrations here. We had a public meeting over at Holiday Inn. There were hundreds of people at the meeting, and we told them at that time that we needed the Janeway to be a separate entity, and the minister finally picked up on that.

Something just came to my mind. With respect -

MR. MATTHEWS: That was June 29. Get the press release and it will tell you when I said it was going to close.

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen, it was all going to be restructured within a year. Now, it is 1998 and 1999. The plans that you have in place - you have no plans. You have $500,000 being spent -

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you taking up my time?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is making non-factual statements, is misrepresenting what was announced by government last June 29 with respect to the restructuring in St. John's. Either the hon. member is doing it deliberately or else he is totally ignorant of the facts. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he be brought to task by His Honour in the Chair to the extent that he should be. Clearly, the hon. member is totally out to lunch when he says that government announced the facilities would close within a year. That is incorrect, it is non-factual, it is not right and it is either a deliberate (inaudible) attempt to mislead the House or else he is just totally out to lunch.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

Obviously there is no point of order; a difference of opinion on dates and so on, but obviously no point of order.

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

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, you are right and there is no point of order. That is the Minister of Health trying to get up and again cloud the issue about the health care restructuring in this Province. That is all he is trying to do, cloud the issue. We know that when it was first stated that the Janeway was going to the Health Sciences Centre, the Grace was going to the Health Sciences Centre and it was going to be done within a very short amount of time.

Now, he is saying a year or two, now it is extended. Was the Grace not supposed to close in September of 1996? Anyway, the restructuring problem is this.

MR. MATTHEWS: You don't want to hear the truth.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, because we are not going to hear the truth from you. We have never heard it yet.

Mr. Speaker, the Janeway and the Grace are supposed to be going to the Health Sciences Centre. There isn't enough space in there for the workers to go in there, there isn't enough physical space in the Health Sciences itself. They are going to be losing 300 people -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon? The Minister of Health, what is that?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) for your childish mind because you don't understand plain facts.

MR. J. BYRNE: In response to that I would say to the Minister of Health that the only reason God gave you a brain was to keep your head from caving in.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker. I was saving that one for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I was saving that but the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wouldn't torment me today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mad, yes, right. You have never seen me mad and pray God that you never do see me mad, I say to the Member for Topsail.

This health care restructuring within the City of St. John's is a very serious issue. The Janeway and the Grace are supposed to be going into the Health Sciences. They were supposed to combine it, they were going to make it child friendly, the Health Sciences was going to be child friendly. Then when we had a public meeting at the Holiday Inn we said it should be at least a separate entity. Then the Minister of Health picked up on those words: We will make it a separate entity. Then we asked: Is there going to be an attachment to the Health Sciences Centre, will they bring it in, will they move out a ward and bring the Janeway to the Health Sciences just in the space that is there now, or will we have an attachment, will we have a new structure built and attached to the Health Sciences? We cannot get an answer on that, not really. We are after hearing four or five different stories on that.

We have 300 people being let go from health care in the Province, 300 jobs gone, and that is not going to affect health care? I don't know if the minister was here a few minutes ago when I was telling him about what was going on in the Health Sciences yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Environment and Labour recently sent around - the Department of Environment and Labour, for your information, presents tips on safe pest control. This is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to get rid of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. On the first page it shows rats. Was that sent around to us so we could control the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I wonder?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members to watch their comments. I think it is unparliamentary to refer to an hon. member as a rat.

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't question the ruling of the Speaker but I never referred to anybody in this House as a rat. All I said was that the minister presents tips on safe pest control

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is that an appreciation or to sit me down? Leave? Do you think I cannot go further?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do not adjourn at the hour of 5:00 p.m.

On motion, that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will also remind hon. members that members in this House are supposed to be referred to in the district that they represent and not by their names.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for a few minutes this afternoon on the continuation of the Budget Debate and I am pleased to stand and second the motion of non-confidence which was presented earlier today by my colleague the Member for Cape St. Francis.

As was indicated yesterday, I had the privilege of sitting on the Social Services Estimates Committee and this was a committee which dealt with significant departments within government. In fact, when one looks at the total revenues and total expenditures by government we see that the Social Services Committee, Mr. Speaker, is certainly representative of the majority of government costs. They include in that committee for example, the departments of Health, Education, the Department of Social Services which are the three highest departments in terms of government expenditure, and also the Department of Health, Department of Justice, Education, Social Services and Environment and Labour for a total of five. During the debates and during the Estimate meetings we all of course had an opportunity to pose questions to the various ministers and to the minister's officials, in an effort to receive answers to questions and responses to concerns that were raised by members of the Committee.

The first department that I would like to speak to very briefly, again in support of the non-confidence motion which has been presented, Mr. Speaker, by the Member for Cape St. Francis is the Justice Department, and we can see an overall decrease in expenses in Justice from last year, the revised total of $80,425,000 to this years $75,495,000, so we have a reduction of approximately $5 million from last year to the estimates this year. When we scrutinize carefully where these losses are found we find they are in an area which has received significant debate and concern by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians generally.

There is a significant reduction in RCMP provincial policing and, I think, one has to assess this issue very carefully because of the impact it could very well have on Newfoundlanders, and indeed tourists who are visiting our Province during the upcoming summer months. We see a significant reduction of some fifty-two police officer positions, a civilian member position, and also three and a half public service employee positions, but more specifically, and this is the area of concern that has been expressed by many people in this Province, and certainly by members on this side, we had the elimination of a significant number, in fact, thirty, Mr. Speaker, thirty highway control positions and the closing of five highway patrol units. These are in Marystown, Clarenville, Gander, Glovertown, and Corner Brook.

Obviously, the concern that has been raised by the public at large is: how is it that during the summer months when Newfoundlanders as a matter of routine and tradition, coupled with the many thousands of tourists who will visit our shores in the next couple of months, how is it they can feel secure when travelling our highways, many of which are remote, and how can they feel secure, Mr. Speaker, that their security is being taken into account and their interests are being met?

I think we must also remember that highway patrol does more than just simple surveillance. Police officers play a role of attending upon the sick, for example, helping people and assisting people when there is mechanical breakdown on the highway, and simply by the presence, their simple presence, even if they are just parked on the side of the road, a police officer very often has to do no more than that and does not have to be, in fact, carrying out a police function in terms of surveillance, but just their presence goes a long way in what I would submit is reducing the number of accidents and the number of problems which can occur on our highways.

That one area, the cut in highway patrol, in fact thirty highway patrol positions being reduced, that alone, I would suggest, is going to contribute - I hope I am wrong, but it has the potential of contributing - to serious motor vehicle accidents. We have many people who travel to our Province who are not familiar with our road conditions, our moose population, are not familiar particularly in the more remote parts of the Province with the condition of many of our roads, and my fear is that an absence of policing activity on these roads and highways will result in very serious consequences.

As I say, I have no difficulty whatsoever in seconding the motion that has been brought forward by my colleague when one looks at the types of reductions which have taken place, particularly in the area of the Justice department, and particularly in the area of policing and the reduction in the highway patrol positions.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there are just a few points I would like to make. We see in the Estimates, under the Civil Law Division within the Department of Justice, we see under Professional Services, a significant increase in cost, and I have to question: Why is that being done? What is being anticipated by the Department of Justice which would result in significant increases in professional services being provided to the Civil Law Division?

Another area within the Justice department which is very close to me, and I am sure will be close to colleagues on either side of the House, is the amount of funds which are available to the Legal Aid office. Legal Aid, if we look at the definition which is found in the Estimates, it refers to the providing for assistance to individuals with serious legal problems who are financially unable to engage the services of a lawyer. The total for the Legal Aid to be voted - or, in fact, is has been voted - is, in fact, down. It is only down minimally, I have to admit, but it is down this year from what the actual revised figures were for 1995-'96. Legal Aid, Mr. Speaker, plays a very important role within our society. It allows many thousands of Newfoundlanders throughout every region of our Province to avail of legal services when they are not in a position to have provided to them the services of a private lawyer.

Most often, Legal Aid will deal with family law matters when there are families in crisis and it also deals with criminal law matters. I indicated to the minister at the time of our estimates committee debates that, the Legal Aid Act, in my view, Mr. Speaker, should expand itself, in that, it should allow to cover a broader range of issues, therefore have a broader mandate that can deal with some aspects of civil law, and that it not be simply relegated or limited to family law or criminal law which in fact is what the present situation is.

For example, it seems to me, if a person has an appeal before the Workers' Compensation Review Division, or if an individual has an appeal to deal with the Canada Pension Plan or a UIC appeal, it would be in the interest of the Province to have Legal Aid provide services to that particular individual although it is a civil matter as opposed to a criminal or family law matter particularly, when the chances of success are reasonable or better, because what in fact that would mean, is that, if an individual approaches a Legal Aid office, obviously we are talking about an individual who does not have the personal resources, but if an individual approaches a provincially-funded Legal Aid office in the hopes of having a worker's compensation decision reviewed, or in the hopes of having a Canada Pension assessment reviewed or UIC claim reviewed and if that person is successful, it obviously diminishes the reliance that that individual has on the public purse.

So, Mr. Speaker, Legal Aid I think, has to be seriously looked at by the department from two perspectives. One, it is unfortunate that we see a reduction in the actual amount being provided to Legal Aid and secondly, I believe that it is incumbent on the Ministry of Justice to take a serious look at broadening the mandate so that the very limited function that it now has can be expanded to in fact, incorporate more issues and more concerns that may be brought by ordinary Newfoundlanders.

Legal aid is essential, it clearly is. A person who simply cannot afford representation must feel equal in a court of law and must feel that their legal rights are being protected and that their legal interests are guaranteed. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is overlooked, the importance and the role that a legal aid office has in our society. It is something that I would submit, Mr. Speaker, is an area where this government should attempt to in fact provide greater resources, more personnel to indeed deal with the many, I would submit, hundreds if not thousands of Newfoundlanders who, within the very near future, Mr. Speaker, will find themselves in a situation that they will have to rely on legal aid services. So it is an area of concern and it is an area that I feel, Mr. Speaker, this government ought to take very seriously.

We also see a reduction in certain costs in dealing with our courts here in the Province, our Supreme Court, administrative costs with respect to the Court of Appeal, costs with respect to the Provincial Court but the one area that I feel has to be given particular attention in dealing with Provincial Court is the area of Youth Court. We have today, literally hundreds of young people, people who are under the jurisdiction of the Young Offenders Act and these would be young people between the ages of twelve and eighteen, who must rely on the provisions of a Youth Court. Now here in St. John's there is a separate Youth Court but in most of our provincial courts throughout the Province youth court matters are dealt with by a provincial court judge sitting as youth court judge in that provincial court. As I say, St. John's perhaps has an advantage in one sense in that because of the numbers of people before the court, the court has in fact designated a judge to be a youth court judge. So therefore there is a judge who can familiarize himself with the Young Offenders Act and other Youth Court issues. However, we cannot afford, Mr. Speaker, to see any reduction in services which are provided to young people. All we have to do is remember a little while ago, for example, we had the unfortunate experience of what the media referred to as `swarming' and young people virtually assaulting one another leading to criminal charges being laid and in fact these young people finding themselves in the youth courts in this Province.

What is missing is, in fact, reliable and adequate services, counselling services to young people who, before a situation arises, before a crisis arises, their problems can be dealt with early on, not when it is too late, not when a young person between the age of twelve and eighteen - again, that is the age that is governed under the act - finds himself in conflict, and finds himself in conflict with the law. Therefore, this government has to take seriously the adequate providing of professional counselling services to help young people who find themselves in these difficult situations.

In fact, I was pleased to hear in our Estimates debates on the Department of Health, for example, that the Department of Health seemed to be very cognizant of this particular area and, in fact, made reference to the Janeway Hospital expanding its professional staff to deal with the needs of young people. There was also some discussion during that particular debate of a super ministry, and that is perhaps the direction that this government may be going. It is certainly an area and an idea and a concept which members on this side of the House are very supportive of. When you have, for example, the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Social Services, and I believe the Department of Health, combining all of their efforts, and all of their resources, and all of their personnel, in what we would call a super ministry because, let's face it, the constituency, or the people to whom these departments are responsible, are one and the same. There is no need to have an individual serviced by the Department of Health only to find out, because of a run-in with the law, that they are now being serviced by the Department of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: One-stop shopping.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Exactly, and because they need help from a guidance counsellor in a school, that they are then serviced by the Department of Education.

The concept of a super ministry is an idea and an area which, as I mentioned earlier, is certainly supported by members on this side of the House, and is something which I hope could be taken very seriously by members opposite. Again, the jurisdiction is the same, the constituency is the same. We are dealing with the same young people, we are dealing with the same individuals who are in need, and again it is an opportunity to consolidate resources. It is an opportunity to have experts, professionals and those who are truly concerned about the well being of our Newfoundland people to work together.

My submission as well is, from a cost point of view this sharing of resources, this sharing of personnel and costs, obviously can only have a benefit from a fiscal point of view. There is no overlap, there is no duplication. It is the providing of services which ultimately will be in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

With respect to the Department of Justice these are a few comments I wanted to make. Sadly the reduction in police services I fear will prove to be a very tragic decision. I fear this simply because as we enter into the summer months - and of course that is just around the corner; it is only a matter of days in fact and summer begins - and we see the influx of tourists to our Province, and we see Newfoundlanders from one community in the Province travelling our highways to get to another community, my fear is the realization that the absence of adequate police and highway patrol could very well lead into very serious and tragic circumstances.

I hope I'm wrong. However I suspect that what my suspicion is may in fact come true. Even though these estimates have been approved, it is still an area that I feel the department can continue to scrutinize very carefully and can continue to monitor, and I would submit on a daily basis, to ensure that the interest and the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and our tourists who come to this Province completely voluntarily, to ensure that their lives and interests are protected.

In fact, I would go a step further. We here in this Province, we hear the Budget, we hear the decisions that are made. We don't necessarily agree with all of them. On this side of the House we totally disagree with that particular decision. However, we are aware of it. People who come to this Province as tourists, they are not aware of the situation on our highways and in fact, I would suggest to members opposite that we as a government owe a duty and an obligation to individuals who come to our Province to feel at least that while they are here, their interests are protected, therein lies the problem, Mr. Speaker. Inadequate police highway patrol is critical, I am cognizant of it, as critic for the Opposition in this area, I hear complaints on a regular basis; individuals have referred their concerns to me and I just hope that the government continues to monitor this situation. The decision has been made but the situation must be closely monitored, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of our own people and in the interest of individuals who travel to our Province.

One final note. I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the government has seen fit to increase funding for child support enforcement program and that is not a bad idea, Mr. Speaker. I have no difficulty with that particular announcement that has been made by government. Clearly, child support enforcement is an area which is of concern to all of us. We hear all too often, and as a member of the legal community I hear it regularly, where there are mothers or wives because you can have either child support or support or spousal support, but you have mothers and in some cases fathers, but it is mostly mothers and wives and in some cases husbands but again mostly wives, who are being denied their rightful share of child support not because, Mr. Speaker, it was not awarded by the court, but simply because we have an individual who decides, for no other reason but just to say I am not going to pay and completely ignores, Mr. Speaker, his obligation to his family.

So the decision by this government to in fact increase funding for child support enforcement, I salute, it makes sense because what it does, it in fact helps to guarantee that those in need will in fact receive what they are entitled to. All too often we have, for example, single mothers who have been awarded maybe $200 or $300 a month from the father who has long left the scene, no longer a member of the family unit and then perhaps leaving the Province or just absconding completely, decides not to further support the child of that relationship.

Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. This particular decision is one of the very few, I would suggest, that is positive and it leads to accountability by individuals who feel that they can take the law into their own hands, and hopefully will lead to justice being provided to people who are in need, and who are entitled to these benefits.

With respect to education, Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is no other department which has born the brunt of what I would have to consider to be insensitive decisions, spurious decisions, and decisions which unfortunately have been made without any plan, any comprehensive plan, any thought, as to what the consequences will be. The elimination of public examinations was a decision that was made completely arbitrarily, completely on the spot, and without any forethought.

The decision to eliminate busing, for example, in certain parts of this Province, and we hear it quite vocally here in the City of St. John's, again an example of where government has not taken into account what is truly in the best interest of our people. It is a decision that has been made without any thought and without any planning.

Referring once again to the public examination issue, we had a couple of weeks ago, a very successful demonstration by approximately 2500 or 3000 students who gathered here on Confederation Building steps, and in a very mature way voiced their concerns and opposition to the arbitrariness, Mr. Speaker, of discontinuing public examinations.

During that particular demonstration a decision was made by these young people - and I think this shows the responsibility of their actions, and how in tune they are with the issues of the day. They came to this demonstration quite upset, however, before they left in their own minds they made a decision. They could see that a decision would not be made with respect to this present school year, June 1996, so they shifted their concerns, not in their own interest, but in the interest of future students, by simply saying we still oppose this decision to eliminate public examinations, and we realize it is too late this year, we realize decisions have to be made by schools throughout the Province as to how examinations are going to be held, assessments are going to be made, and evaluations are going to be done, but they said, and they said to us who were gathered there on the steps with them, they simply said: We still disagree with the decision, and next year we will do our best to ensure that the decision which was made to affect this year is reversed. That shows a particular responsibility. That shows an awareness by young people of where their priorities lie. They realize that in their own interest the time was too late; there was very little that could be done.

Mr. Speaker, I referred one day in the House to this consultation paper on the senior high school program, referred to as Directions for Change. This was a document which was requested by the Department of Education and Training and was, in fact, done in accordance with the Royal Commission Implementation Secretariat. It is dated July, 1995. I realize that this is the previous administration but nevertheless, obviously there are many components of the Williams' Report and the Royal Commission on Education which obviously still act as guidelines as part of this government's mandate as to where it is going in education.

Interestingly, on the issue of public examinations, which is found in chapter eight, government's own document stresses the importance of the continuance of public examinations generally, throughout the numerous submissions - I would just like to refer to it briefly - and consultations attending the Royal Commission, as well as the ongoing Royal Commission implementation activity, opinion has been overwhelmingly supportive of continuation of public examinations - this is government's document.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Directions for Change.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Directions for Change, a consultation paper on the senior high school program.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the Minister of Social Services, is it?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the Minister of Education.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It also states that public examinations were dropped in most provinces of Canada during the sixties and seventies; however - and, again, this is government's own document - we now see them reinstated in all but three provinces, and Prince Edward Island has also announced plans to implement public examinations for certification purposes in the future.

So clearly the thrust of this document, the thrust of this discussion on public examinations, is to remind educators, to remind those who have the ability to make decisions with respect to what is in the interest of students, the thrust of this document is totally contrary to the decision which was made in abolishing public examinations in this Province, and why, Mr. Speaker? Because of the need for standards, the need for standardized testing.

Young people realize it. Young people appreciate the fact that when they compete with fellow students they are competing on a level playing field. That is all they are asking. Right now schools have the ability to participate up to 50 per cent of a student's final mark in eight of the core subjects. I realize we were only talking about eight subjects. However, this other public examination, this standardized test, this test that would be written by a student in Rigolet, Cape St. George, Twillingate, Lamaline, Grand Falls, Gonzaga High School or Prince of Wales. It didn't make any difference where, that 50 per cent test was a standardized test.

What that did, that gave integrity to the examination mark. So that when they competed with other students, whether it be for admission to our own University or whether it be for admission to one of our post-secondary institutions, or whether it be for post-secondary institutions off the Island or in another part of the country, or if only for competing for a job. If their marks were submitted, Mr. Speaker, to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion. There are many aspects of this debate that I would like to refer to. However, I realize my time is up on this topic. Hopefully at some other time I may have an opportunity to make a few further comments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!


 

June 11, 1996            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLIII  No. 26A


[Continuation of sitting]

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also rise today in support of my hon. colleague's motion of non-confidence, I guess, after reviewing this Budget, seeing the cuts that are in there with no tax increase but, indeed, the cuts that have come. As I go through, I will try to touch on some of them briefly.

I guess I may as well start where my hon. friend left off, in the education department, where we have seen massive cuts to schools with closure of the first year university courses to many people around this Province, people who have a great deal of difficulty in trying to further their education, Mr. Speaker. We listen sometimes, and we have to wonder if anybody is really listening to our students in this Province, not just from the high school level but from a university level. When we talk about Memorial University and the massive cuts that are coming there, the increase in tuition fees that are coming and then we hear somebody from the University saying, `Well, we have lots of room for students,' I really have to question that, Mr. Speaker. I really have to question whether we may have room for lots of students. I question whether we have room for lots of courses. There are all kinds of people in my district who are going to university today who cannot get courses. I had people who worked for me when I was in private industry, who wanted to go back to Memorial University but could not get courses. In that area alone, we are forcing people out of our Province. Some of our very smart young people are forced out of here to Nova Scotia, Ontario and some of them even out to Alberta to attend university. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a shame, a very big shame, and somebody should certainly take responsibility for that.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I have to touch on the college in my community, the Seal Cove campus which used to be under the Avalon Community College, which has gone from, under the old regime, I guess you would call it, under the Avalon Community College, to what is now the Cabot College. The college, which was very successful, and was active for probably some fifteen to sixteen hours a day, has now gone down to where, this year alone, we are going to lose a course on business administration. The instructor for the course is being transferred to the Cabot College here in St. John's. At one time in this particular location we had a very successful auto body mechanics course, a very successful mechanics course, a very successful welding course and you know, Mr. Speaker, that is all gone. And I wonder if we are not probably trying to close another one, as they did with some others, by eventually taking away most of their courses and saying to these people, `Well, we do not really need this here anymore, let's close it up.' We have done this, Mr. Speaker, around this Province to various other institutions. As time goes on, I guess, it will continue and it will get worse. So I think again this is a shame.

This government talked about consultation. There are some sixteen people who are at this particular college in Seal Cove who have been consulted on nothing. Indeed, seven of them, staff and instructors, are pretty close to retirement age, who, if they had been offered packages, certainly would have had a look at taking them. This, Mr. Speaker, was never offered and they have never been consulted. The person who administered the college has now gone, and come September of this year, I do not really know who will be in charge out there, but we will have one secretary to serve all the staff to make sure that everything is done for every instructor out there. That, to me, is wrong, and that, to me, Mr. Speaker, is shameful.

Again, the doing away with the public exams to high school students, some 2,500 to 3,000 students who demonstrated out here some weeks ago, I think it is time we listened to those people. They are going to be the people who will run this Province as we go on over the next five to ten years. They are very concerned about their education and I think it is time that we started to listen; but again, nobody seems to listen and nobody really wants to hear their concerns. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is a shame and that is certainly wrong.

I would also like to touch on the Department of Social Services, Mr. Speaker, the last week or so when the letters got out about the cut in $61. I do not know about any member on either side of the House, but let me tell you, Sir, that my phone has not stopped. Even as early as this afternoon, I am still receiving calls on the $61, from people who need this $61 for special needs. They do not have the $61 so they can run out and do things. This $61 provides food; this $61 helps to offset transportation for some people who are very needy. Yet, again we are told: Well, if you have a special need or a certain need, go out and maybe somebody will look at you - just maybe - and maybe they might decide that we can reinstate your $61. Well, to some people, $61 may not be much, but for the people I have had calls from, the $61 is massive. They have continued to call the minister's office, the department over there. They are not getting a very good response. As a matter of fact, last week, my constituents were being told that the minister was out of town.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would not accept collect calls.

MR. FRENCH: There were no collect calls, my hon. friend here tells me, but from my district, that is the answer that my people were given, and I think my constituents deserve better than that. I think my constituents deserve an answer, and I will continue to give the phone number for this department, and will continue, on every single phone call that I get as it relates to this.

I have had many conversations with the people who work in the field office, and I guess that is part of what we are just starting to get into, because it is not just going to be the cut of the $61; it is going to be the cut to the furniture that they are going to do. And I have been told by people at the Department of Social Services: Just wait until all of this comes out; just wait until it all gets out into the public. Then, I think we are probably going to have more demonstrations of probably a very, very different nature. So I think this is wrong.

Another reason why I certainly cannot support this Budget - education, the Department of Social Services - to me, there is something radically wrong here. No tax increases, but yet, now we go on to Crown lands where we can start charging people for their cabins; we can now charge people for fees for driver's licences, for permits, and for all those things, but again no tax increase. We can just keep charging and charging and charging. So it is so many million here, and so many million over there. It is a great way to probably balance your Budget on the backs of a lot of the poor people in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Disgraceful, that's what it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is alright for the fellows who (inaudible) a couple of hundred thousand dollars in (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes.

As well, we certainly have to go on to the Department of Health. I have asked questions here, and the Leader of the Opposition has asked questions, on the ambulance services in this Province. Again we have been told, `Oh, no, they got an increase'. I do not know where they got the increase. I do not know where the smoke and mirrors are. I do not really know who talks to whom. But I attended the annual meeting of the Ambulance Association for Newfoundland and Labrador, and let me tell you, Sir, that they were not impressed - not impressed at all - with what somebody in this House called an increase; I guess it was the Minister of Health. So we are going to give it to you on the one hand, and we are going to claw it back with the other, and you are never, ever going to get 75 per cent to 80 per cent of it.

We have asked numerous questions here - I did - on the prescription drugs to this Province, and for the pharmacists, and I know that there are some members opposite who have certainly been approached by members of the Pharmaceutical Association in this Province who are very upset. I have met with them, I have met with their association, and again, to take it from $6.50 down to $3.50 on prescription drugs, if anybody in this House thinks that will not have an adverse effect on pharmacies in this Province, they are kidding themselves. We are going to see people laid off; we are going to see more people, of course, put on the U.I. role, and again, that is wrong.

I am just going to give you a couple of examples as it relates to pharmacies in this Province. The day before the Budget came down in this House, the Pharmaceutical Association met with the Minister of Health - or this is what they told me - and they asked if there were any changes in the Budget for them, and they were told: No, they need not worry; there was nothing there that was going to adversely affect them. Well, that certainly changed the day after the Budget. It certainly changed for the ambulance operators the day after the Budget. I have had calls from people who have mortgaged everything they own, Mr. Speaker, to build new pharmacies to employ people from Newfoundland and Labrador.

One person went from $500 rent a month to $5,000 a month mortgage. That person stands to lose some $51,000 in their business in 1996. I have had other people who, because of the location of this Province and the way it is laid out, probably fill more prescription drug needs for recipients of social services than anything else. The loss to them is going to be tremendous, and again, we will see lay-offs and indeed, over the next twelve months we will probably see some of these pharmacies close - again, another reason why this member here cannot and will not support this Budget or any part of it.

We have asked questions again concerning the closing of the Grace Hospital. We still don't have the answers. We have asked questions concerning the closing of the Janeway. We still do not have any answers. All we know is that they are going to build something somewhere. Somehow, some time, some place, somewhere, with no money, we are going to have something for the children from the Janeway Hospital. Very interesting to see over the next year or two years where this money is going to come from. Two point two million dollars gone into health care - no cuts to health care, yet, on the morning of the lock-up, on the day that the Budget was presented, we were told that some 90 to 125 more jobs were going in this Budget. Yet, there were going to be no cuts; nothing with education or nothing in the health care sector. Yet there are from ninety to 125 more jobs gone out the door. On it goes.

I just think it is time we stopped and looked at the way we do business in the Province. We probably have some hundred people - and again this is in under health. Last Fall, the people at the Department of Health told me, and people with the nursing homes, that they were going to be able to handle level I and level II people in their homes under nursing care. These people have not had an increase since 1989, yet electricity goes up, insurance goes up, and on it goes. The cost of food, the cost of living, everything goes up, but there has been no increase for these people.

So they said: We are going to allow you level I and II patients to go into your home. In my district there just so happens to be fifteen of these homes. I took some time and I talked to most of these people and most of them are pretty well down to rock bottom. After I got elected, about a week or so after, I phoned the Department of Health to find out: Where is the level I, where is the level II? I was told: Bob, last year, we thought we were going to have this legislation ready in probably October or November. This was now in late February, early March, we were going to have this information. Well, it was not ready. I was then told that if everything went well, if everything went along fine, we should have this legislation sometime maybe by the end of April. April came and went and we still did not have this legislation or we still did not have this policy of the Department of Health.

I understand that probably now in the last week or so - because the minister did attend the annual meeting of the home owners. He did say that everything is just about ready. I believe that as of today, some of these homes are now probably receiving level I and level II patient care people into their homes, which is certainly a benefit to them. But it has been a long time coming, and a very costly piece of business with these people again having no increase and seeing no increase as it relates to the personal care homes in this Province. Again the grab - but no tax increase, Mr. Speaker -from $1,500 to $4,000, nothing to that, you got it, take it away from our senior citizens. Again, Mr. Speaker, I think that is ridiculous and it is totally, totally wrong.

We have also, in this House, presented many petitions on light and power and we still have some more to come. Again, all these things add up to why this member here cannot support this particular Budget. It is a shame. It is too bad that we did not bring in a Budget, Mr. Speaker - that there was not a budget presented - and let everything unfold before the provincial election was called. I wonder what the results would have been had the people of this Province really known what they were going to get once this government got elected. I really, really wonder exactly what would have happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I will just ignore that, Mr. Speaker.

So again, it is too bad that this will all unfold. As well, Mr. Speaker, as a critic for Transportation, I have to touch on the money that was announced here on Friday, $6 million. Nothing for any district if you happen to be a Conservative. It is rather strange, is it not? If you are a Conservative you get nothing. If you sit on that side of the House you should get it all. Well, that is fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I cannot speak for any of them. I wish I could speak for them but unfortunately I cannot. Maybe you should talk to some of your buddies who have been here since 1989. Maybe you should talk to some of your buddies now who got the $100,000-a-year jobs. Maybe you should talk to the fellow who lost to my friend, the Member for Kilbride. Maybe we should find out where he is going in a few weeks time. He is going to be better off than you are, boy! Better off than you are going to be! He is going to do better than you are! So let us get a little bit real here - let us get real. If we are going to throw 1,500 people out the door, Mr. Speaker, then let us look at some of these people who are coming back in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Fogo Island never got (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Go on! Well they should have hung the Member for Fogo, I would say. They should have hung the Member for Fogo if he was here because he certainly was not doing his job. I tell my colleague opposite, he certainly was not doing his job, believe you me.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Joey? (Inaudible) Member for Fogo.

MR. FRENCH: Well, we have to remember that Joey sat on the public chest.

Anyway, I will continue on, Mr. Speaker. A scattered good interruption is alright. It lets you know that everybody over there is not asleep, that somebody is listening to you, and that makes it all the more interesting - it does for me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: What was that? Is that a question from - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you not ask the Premier (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I think I will let that one pass. We will just leave that one, Mr. Speaker.

So again, I will go back to - I think I was somewhere around health care, Mr. Speaker. I will sort of just drift away from health care now and we will probably move on to municipal affairs where unfortunately, we are going to see municipalities cut and that is very sad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: See me afterwards and I will tell you how it is done, brother. No problem at all, no problem on how to get it done. If you want it done, ask the question and I will give you the information.

It is very unfortunate that again we are going to have these cuts in the municipal grants - sad, but I guess that is a fact of life.

Back on Transportation again, we have watched with interest the money for road work in 1996, and I am sure as it all unfolds it will all come to the forefront. There will be more questions asked as we go along, as it relates to transportation in this Province, lots more questions, and lots more questions on health, and one of these days we just might get some answers, but that is the way it is.

With that, I thank you for your time. As I said when I started out, I was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Has sports been cut again?

MR. FRENCH: Well, there have been some cuts in the sports fraternity, and I have had the opportunity to meet with or talk to the minister. I will say one thing for the new Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; I think her heart certainly is in the right place, and she certainly doesn't need to convince this member of the - how can I put this - the value of tourism as it relates to recreation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know that the minister has this interest at heart, and I think over the next few years if she can work with some of the sporting fraternity in this Province, we will probably see some major benefits in Newfoundland and Labrador as it relates to tourism and to recreation in this Province.

There will be a major event from my sport, or the sport I was connected with. We had major events in this Province for the last four years. It was very interesting; in the year that the 1994 World Ladies Tournament was held in Newfoundland and Labrador, the report of the Board of Trade said that this particular event let $4 million into this Province - $4 million - and I think that is great. I will say, I think the now Minister of Education at that time was the Minister of Recreation - I may be wrong, but I think he was - he was very interested in this, and I will give him credit; he was very, very helpful to the group that brought this event in here, very, very helpful.

In 1996, of course, our community - and even my friend, the Member for Topsail over here, his community, or part of his community, part of his district, part of my district, are going to host the 1996 Summer Games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Most honourable members in this House hopefully will get the opportunity, because by then, I guess, the House will be closed, unless, of course, we are going to talk about the Education budget. But, other than that, in 1996 the Summer Games will be in our community, again of tremendous benefit to the community, a benefit to all of the young people in this Province. I hope that every member on both sides of the House has the opportunity to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Invite them out.

MR. FRENCH: Invite them out.

I notice, when I look over, my friend from the West Coast nods once in awhile because he tells me that my aunt and uncle voted for him in the last election, and I assured him that as I get across the Province this Summer, I will definitely have a talk to my aunt and uncle. I will certainly have a chat with them, and I will even look up my hon. friend if I get out as far as his district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: A few of them, but not as many as you have had.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with those few words I will sit down. I thank you for your time and your indulgence. That is my reasoning why I will support my friend's motion of non-confidence, and why I will not support this Budget.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try to be a little kinder than my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South. I do not want to hit any weak spots over there or to have people shouting across the House and wake people up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

I say to the member, if he has not been to Bonavista he should go down because there is certainly still a need down there for a lot of work. Bonavista South always had good members, I say to the minister. There was one fellow who sneaked in there a couple of years ago but they were not long before they decided they wanted to be back and be on the side of the party that was always there for them. And the people gave him the flick, never again to turn to the Liberal fold.

Mr. Speaker, Bonavista South, I would say, will always be there to support the member who speaks out and supports them and that is the way all our constituencies should be. If you get elected and you forget the reason why you were elected and you forget what you are here for - which can very easily happen, I say to members of the opposite side. Ask the Government House Leader what happened to him when he forgot what he was here for and he forgot why he was here, and he was not around for his people. Ask him what happened to him. He went back and he got the flick. That is all it was, a slap on the wrist; It was a flick, because you got back in again, I say to the hon. the Government House Leader. It was a flick and a slap on the wrist. But he learnt a lesson from it. You talk to him now on Friday afternoon: Where are you going? I am going out to my district to represent my people.

That is where everybody should be. That is the reason why when weekends roll around and when the hon. the Member for Humber Valley there - somebody made a comment that he was never here Friday afternoon. There is a good reason for that, too, because he wants to get back to his people. He wants to get back to the people who voted for him. We should never forget that. It is very easy, I say to members opposite, instead of going to your district to turn the wheel and go the other way, because you are not confronted with the problems that you face every day. The people on social assistance, the people who cannot find a job, the father and mother who want to send the daughter to university but cannot afford to have her go there, I say to members opposite. It is very easy not to want to hear any of that, but if you do not you will have to answer for it when you go back and look for the people to support you afterwards.

As Newfoundlanders, I think our roots run very deep. I do not know of any Newfoundlander or Labradorian who ever left this Province who did not want to go back to their roots and did not want to return home. It never fails to impress me when people go away and have a chance to talk, have a chance to provide a forum, I suppose, if you would, to get up and talk about where they are from. It always impresses me, and you never see it anywhere else. You never see it from people from Ontario or from Nova Scotia. They talk about a subject, but they never bring forward the love and the compassion they have for their native communities.

MR. TULK: Who is that?

MR. FITZGERALD: People from other provinces, I say to the Government House Leader. Newfoundlanders, I tell you, get up and fight and speak out for what they have because they love where they came from.

I will tell you a story that happened a couple of months ago, to me and two members opposite. We had a chance to go on a trip down to Washington, D.C. to take part in a parliamentary conference. There were people there from Alberta, from Montreal and from the Atlantic Provinces, and each of us had time to say thank you to a speaker who had been brought in to give us some information and to speak to the group that particular day.

The three Newfoundlanders, myself and the two members opposite, Mr. Speaker, when we stood we talked about what a wonderful district we serve. We talked about the concerns of our people and we invited people to come and share celebrations with us. It was not done by anybody else there. It was not done by anybody else in that particular group. But the only thing that concerned me - and I have to tell this one - that I was let down by the two Newfoundlanders who were with me. We went out to visit a cornfield and in fact, the gentleman who owned the cornfield was a relative of one of the members opposite. We went out to visit the cornfield and he said, `Come down, I want to take your picture now. We have a little lake here that we call Quidi Vidi. It is a little memory of home.' They called the lake Quidi Vidi and they had a sign put up. We had pictures taken and then we decided that we were going to go out and look at the corn. That was unheard of from the two members opposite to see corn growing eight feet high. It was no stranger to me because I came from a farming community.

So we went and looked at the big ears of corn. The two members from the opposite side went over with the farmer, who had moved to the United States and had done very well for himself, and they were wondering what it was that was on the cornstalks. One fellow said, `That's corn on the cob.' I waited for the other fellow to speak and he said, `No, boy, that's unicorn.' I said, `Boys, come on now, you are fishermen, you are from a fishing community. Before the farmer comes, it is an ear of corn.' So once we got that straightened out, Mr. Speaker, we all took part and we had a great learning experience. I am not going to say who was there but, Mr. Speaker, one of the members opposite thought it was called unicorn. We did not know a lot about farming because we were fishermen. We represented three fishing communities. I happen to know a little bit about corn because part of my district, as the hon. House Leader knows, is a farming community. They grow corn for their cattle. They grow cattle corn there and the Member for Humber Valley knows all about that, knows what cornfields are all about.

Mr. Speaker, it is a prime example of Newfoundlanders being proud of where they came from and being proud to represent their constituents and wanting to let everybody know the type of place where we live. We do not go there and try to talk like other people. We do not go somewhere and tell them when they come to Newfoundland to bring their sun tan oil. We tell them, Mr. Speaker, exactly what is here. When people travel to other countries, and they speak, they speak with compassion. You can detect it in their voices how proud they are to be Newfoundlanders. It is no difference whether you are Liberal or Tory, whether you are blue or red, that runs deep in every one of us. I think we should continue to be like that. But, Mr. Speaker, this particular Budget is certainly of great concern to many of our constituents and that is why the people over here on this side get up and bring forward their concerns and their suggestions and, I suppose, laugh at the mockery that was brought forward when we talk of the consultation process that took place. We have been talking about consultation over here - well, in the few short years that I have been here it was always part of my philosophy that before you bring in rules and regulations, or before you take part in anything that is going to affect other people, you should consult them. If you have a problem in health care, do not sit in the office up here and decide what you are going to do, and bring in changes to lay people off and close down hospital beds, and close down institutions without going out and talking to the people who are in that particular industry or in that particular sector and finding out their opinion.

If you have a problem in health care, talk to the nurses and the doctors, and talk to the people who work on the floors. They can tell you how to save money. They can tell you how you can do things without laying off people and without causing people to wait for hours and hours at a time in our health care institutions today, not being able to get access to the health care that I think they need and they deserve.

I suppose it was a little bit of - I don't know what word it is you would use, but people were certainly happy that they did not see any cuts in this particular Budget, at least up front, on health care. I remember going into a hospital one night; my wife had a bad back. I called the doctor in order to get some pain killers for her, and he suggested that I take her down to the waiting room of the Health Sciences Complex. He said, "I will send up an ambulance to pick her up". I said, "No, that is alright. I think she can go down in the car; there is no need to send up an ambulance". So she got into the car and we drove out to the emergency entrance of the Health Sciences Complex. This was about six or eight months ago. We got there, went in, and the nurse took the information from her, and told her to take a seat. She waited there for two-and-a-half hours, and did not see a doctor. In the meantime she was crazy with pain, so I suggested to her that she go home and go to bed rather than sit in an uncomfortable chair at the emergency entrance of the Health Sciences Complex.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. members to my left that the private conversation is getting loud at this time and I am having difficulty from here in hearing the member who is speaking. I suggest, if you want to continue, that you do so in a manner that does not interrupt the proceedings here in the House.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You ruled again in your usual, just way.

Mr. Speaker, while I was there for the two hours waiting for the doctor to come out and see my wife, I had a chance to mingle with the people who were there, and talk with them. There was one lady there with a cut on her leg that I would say was about eight inches long, and she had her leg elevated. Somebody told her to elevate her leg because it would help. She had not seen a doctor, and she was sitting there for six hours waiting to see a doctor.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: Six hours. By that time the blood had stopped because you know what happens - it crusts over, and that sort of thing - but the blood had stopped. She was still there when I left.

There was another lady there from Clarenville, who told me she had been sitting in the waiting room, sitting in the emergency entrance at the Health Sciences Complex, for eight hours.

MR. WISEMAN: Did she have a cut on her leg, too?

MR. FITZGERALD: It is nothing to joke about, I say to the Member for Topsail. When you have to travel from Clarenville in to St. John's to try to see a doctor, and your own family doctor sends you in to emergency, it is no laughing matter to joke about it, because she was sitting there for eight hours waiting to see a doctor. The nurse would continue to come out and apologize because she had known how long some of those people were there.

The reason they were there is not because the doctor was lazy, or the doctor did not want to see patients. There was one doctor on, and there were no beds up on the wards to allow anybody to go upstairs. The beds in emergency were full, and they had nowhere to put patients as they saw them. To me, that is disgraceful. If we do not look after our sick and our aged, then it makes me wonder what we are as a people. Many of us come in and we are fortunate enough to enjoy good health or we are fortunate enough to be able to do things a little differently from the way some other people have to do them, or maybe we can take some short cuts. We do not realize what other people are going through. I can assure you that everybody out there today is not as fortunate as that. When we are talking about closing down hospitals and closing hospital beds, then we should make sure that by doing that, it is the right thing to do. We should make sure that we do not leave the sick and the suffering out there today having to suffer more because we are denying them access to health care.

I suppose, a prime example of not consulting people is probably the regulation or the change in policy that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture now - formerly the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - what he did with the changing of the motor vehicle inspection act. That is a prime example of somebody not using a little bit of common sense. If you were to take a vote over on that side today, if you were to put around a little piece of paper there and ask the members to vote, and have it a secret vote, I bet you there would not be two people over there who would say yes, the minister made the right decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I bet you there would not be two people. In fact, the member just cast his vote - he disagrees with it now and he is not afraid to show it. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that was a wrong piece of legislation. I do not think it was given much thought, much consultation, to bring in a piece of legislation like that without thinking of the repercussions that might come because of that.

I understand we are going to break for supper and then come back. With that, and on the Government's House Leader's advice, I will adjourn debate until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will recess until 7:00 p.m.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, I believe, adjourned the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: How much time does he have?

MR. SPEAKER: I am not sure but (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) another twenty-five minutes, if I recall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: About ten, I believe.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I think as I closed off debate there to break for supper I was speaking about consultation and going out to talk (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I do not believe the microphone system is on yet.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. I think we have everything in order. The only thing we are missing now is air-conditioning. I say to the members opposite that I am not used to air-conditioning so I don't notice it. I do not have air-conditioning in my home.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say hair conditioning?

MR. FITZGERALD: In my other life, I did not have air-conditioning and I am not used to it, so I do not know what they are talking about when they are talking about air-conditioning. I may call it `hair-conditioning,' but that is me and I do not try to change my voice or to be somebody I am not. My constituents know what I am talking about, whether it is hair or air or where, Mr. Speaker. They understand me and that is all that matters, I say to the Government House Leader. But I am sure we will get through tonight. There are other people in this Province without air-conditioning, too.

We talked about consultation and going out and talking with our constituents. I think I referred to the regulations that were brought in by the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation when he did away with motor vehicle inspection. As I was saying, I think if a private vote were allowed on the other side, there would not be two people over there who would not vote to have this particular regulation re-instated - to do away with that foolish policy of not allowing motor vehicle inspections.

I know that I have every right, and it is up to me as an individual driving past Canadian Tire to shoot in and get my automobile inspected, or go to that local garage or what have you. Being human, we tend to drive things out. We do not tend sometimes, to get things done until we have to, whether it is a crack in your windshield or whether it is something else, and I fear many people out there today - Mr. Speaker, I don't fear it because I know it; we do not have to look far, we have only to look around to see some of the wrecks today that are reappearing on our highways. We do not have to look very far in order to see that. And I think, as a reflection, it will not be long before we see insurance rates in this Province going up to reflect the vehicles that are out there today taking the chances. Now, when the minister introduced it, he talked about having people - in fact, he referred to the RCMP, I think, at the time, stopping people on the side of the road and doing inspections. How many people here have been stopped, since the regulation was brought in, to have their cars inspected? Nobody, and I doubt if there are many people here who have had their cars inspected unless they brought a car where you still have to get it inspected if there is a sale involved.

MR. TULK: I did.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the member, you are probably one of the very few. We all probably should have -

MR. CANNING: I did.

MR. FITZGERALD: And the Member for Labrador West has had his inspected.

Well, I know the reason why the Government House Leader had his inspected - because of all the weight in the trunk, I say to the minister. It is not because he had a problem with his brakes but I say it was probably swaying going out over the highway. Even the weight in the front would not balance it out, all the unused posters and unused buttons, Mr. Speaker. I saw him the other day lift up the trunk cover of his car to put something in there and you could not get an overnight bag in the trunk of his car for posters and buttons left over from the election. Nobody wanted them, nobody would take them. What a waste of money. I went out and ordered posters, I say to the minister. I think the first order was 6,000 and I had not been a week-and-a-half into the election before I had to go and get more. All up in the windows, they were not in the trunk of the car. The buttons were not in the trunk of the car, they were pinned next to people's hearts, and the posters were in the windows, I say to the minister. But you will be all right. If you decide you are going to run again, you will be all right because you have your posters. You will save yourself some money. And you won the election. I knew there was something going on when people were coming looking for posters, and they were not using them to light their fire, Mr. Speaker, they were displaying them in their windows.

MR. TULK: You have your scrubbing clothes on.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I have my scrubbing clothes on, I say to the minister, but I could have worn my long-leg underwear today for what good it was. I could have worn my long-leg underwear because I was not lucky at all. But I did get a scrum with The Evening Telegram. That one goes out to my district. But it is like being on the radio, I suppose, when you want to show off something - you do not have a chance to do it. But that is always the competition, as the members opposite know, sometimes when you want to have your scrum and everybody tries to get one. You know that is what politics is all about. You get paid to put forward your point of view, you get paid to talk and you get paid to express the opinion of your constituents. Now, that is where you might go astray, I say to members opposite, when you put forward your views instead of the views of your constituents.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Member for Eagle River found it out, did he not?

MR. FITZGERALD: The former Member for Eagle River found it out and he found it out pretty fast. Who will ever forget the many times that he stood here - I know, in the three short years that I was here, he would stand up and he would go on, he would talk about how proud he was to be a Canadian and how proud he was to be a Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker. I will never forget the day that he was interviewed on CBC television. They took him down - I think it was out in Pouch Cove somewhere - they interviewed him and the camera showed the shot of the Member for Eagle River looking out over the ice floes with his arms folded, reminiscing. He reminded me of Nitsook in the Grade IV literature. Remember Nitsook, looking out the bay, looking back at his homeland? The thing about it is that he never, ever visited, he forgot his people. He came here and supported the government, Mr. Speaker, played up to the leader because he wanted to get in the front benches. He forgot the people who elected him and he paid the supreme price. He paid the supreme sacrifice. Now, the Government House Leader sat in the back benches and would not even look at the leader because he did not agree with his philosophies. He knew he would never get in the front benches. But he did alright for himself. But, Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when you forget the people who elected you.

I would suggest that the Member for Naskaupi -

AN HON. MEMBER: Naskaupi?

MR. FITZGERALD: Is it Naskaupi? What is the new district? The Minister of Lands and -

MR. E. BYRNE: Government Services and Lands.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Government Services and Lands, what is his new district?

MR. E. BYRNE: Lake Melville.

MR. FITZGERALD: Lake Melville. It was formerly the Naskaupi district, I think, if I recall correctly. I think that minister is probably finding himself now taking a backlashing over the rules and regulations that he brought in as they relate to Crown lands, when once again things were done without consultation. People should have been given a choice, I say to the minister. And if there are going to be rules and regulations, and changes, and if something is going to be done to affect people, then they should become part of it. They have seen too much wastage in the past.

I will tell you what happened in my district to the government of the other day. They went down in my district and spent $1.4 million to renovate a senior citizen's home there, a beautiful home, the Golden Heights Manor, one of the better rest homes in Newfoundland and Labrador. They went down and spent $1.4 million, created ten extra beds, and closed the doors. The need is there, the applications are there to fill the ten beds. They spent $1.4 million and closed the doors.

MR. TULK: That is not true. The minister (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: If you were not going to open the ten extra beds, why spend the money? Here again, nobody bothered to ask. They knew that somebody had applied, they knew that there was a need there. I suppose it was a situation where they did not want to upset people, and they knew the pressure that I was going to put on as the member - they knew what I was going to come forward and say, because it had been identified as a project that was brought forward by the former member. So I came forward and said: If it was good then, it is good now.

What they have done is they went and spent the $1.4 million, put nobody in the beds, closed the doors, and that is the way it is left there today.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at our young people today -

[Laughter]

AN HON. MEMBER: The poor man is in shock because he thought you knew something about Labrador.

MR. TULK: He is breaking out in a cold sweat over here.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the member, I know lots about Labrador. I have chatted with the member before. I did a lot of travelling on the Labrador Coast, and I can tell you, and I firmly believe this, that the member over there now wiping his nose -

MR. TULK: That is sweating.

MR. FITZGERALD: - will not be on the other side if he does not get representation from the government of the day to come out and support his people. I firmly believe that. You will not see that member sit over there with this group if he does not get representation for his people - I do not believe he will, because when he speaks he speaks from the heart, and he represents his people, and he knows the need. He knows because he comes from that area, and he comes from that particular town of Nain himself, and when he stands here in this House, he speaks from the heart, he speaks with compassion, and he represents his people.

MR. WOODFORD: He was sweating before; now he is crying!

MR. FITZGERALD: Now he is crying, because the member might be a little bit bashful, and he is probably a little bit embarrassed because I am praising him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, `Roger', when you start talking about my native people - that is why I got choked up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the people opposite that he will not be like some people over there, who will sit in the back benches forever, will be forgotten about - sock it to them, give them nothing, just because they are Liberal backbenchers. I tell you, I would rather sit over here in Opposition the rest of my life than sit in the back benches of government just because I am a certain colour. That would not happen to me.

I can be a Liberal, I can be a Tory, I can be a New Democrat, I can be anything, but there is one thing that I cannot be, and that is a `yes' man and rise up and kiss the hand that keeps me down. That is not me, and you will never see me do that. I will always be able to get up in the morning and face myself in the mirror. I may not be the best-looking person who looks in the mirror but I will always be able to look at myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you ever see `Lynn' looking down at you?

MR. FITZGERALD: Lynn Verge - here, again, I spoke my mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Here, again, I spoke my mind. I spoke what I heard at the doors when I went knocking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: When I went knocking, I say, Mr. Speaker, I came back and I relayed what I had heard at the doors. I make no apologies for that. Whether it is knives in the back or whatever, it was brought forward. I say to the members opposite that I would not sit there - it is like somebody said the other day. Whether you wash your linen in private or in public, the one thing you should do is wash it, not let it pile up like members opposite and never wash it. Whether you do it in public or private is not important. But do it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Do it, I say to members opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is not being done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have a great opportunity to learn something here tonight. Obviously they do not want to take advantage of that opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: I will rise again before the night is out. I thank my own colleagues here for paying such great attention. I will now sit and let my colleague, the Member for Kilbride get up and speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is an interesting place when you first get elected in here, I say to new members. I remember in 1993 when we first came in and saw the decorum, the sorts of parliamentary traditions that occur. One great parliamentary tradition at which certain members opposite have more experience than I, is the introduction of a non-confidence motion on the Budget. I specifically refer to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: How many did I bring in?

MR. E. BYRNE: I think there were three. Four. Actually, I was doing some research earlier today and earlier in the week and stuff that I guess I will continue to do. Most of it will come out when and if the Fall sitting comes out. What was interesting to note were some of the non-confidence motions brought forward by the Government House Leader in his day as the Opposition House Leader.

One of the most interesting traditions I have found since being elected in here, and some of the newer members will also come to see, is the whole epitome of a night sitting. `Fluorescent madness' is how most people refer to it. Because that is exactly what takes place in here. I recall, in the Hydro debate, night after night when my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley, who sat on this side at that time, who now sits over on that side - and by the way, I tell members opposite, you will find he makes his best speeches in the caucus and that he does not make them in the House of Assembly, I can assure you of that, I say with the greatest of respect to the Member for Humber Valley. We shared some laughs with him, I guess, over the first couple of years when I was elected.

But referring to night sittings, they are always something that I look forward to. Believe it or not, as much as they hurt, within a year-and-a-half all new members in this House will look forward to them as well. There is no question about it. Some of the most interesting comments and commentary come after about 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. from members opposite.

Back to the motion of non-confidence and the issue before what we are debating here, and we have some time to talk about it. What I have never seen from the government side is a government member stand and debate the non-confidence motion to tell us, tell the people of the Province, why we should not be voting on a non-confidence motion. It is pretty clear in my mind why more than ever, more than any time I have sat in the House - this is the third Budget that I have been through - that a non-confidence motion on this Budget is more applicable this year than any other year.

I remember when I was young, going back out to Harbour Grace. I have spent a lot of time out there - it is where my parents are from. We used to go down - every September at the Fall fair there used to be a magician. He always showed up each and every year. I recall one particular year, Mr. Speaker, that a new magician showed up. About 200 to 300 people were in the audience. He called out, saying: I need a brand-new gold watch from out in the audience. A brand-new gold watch was what he wanted. Someone came up from the audience with a gold watch. He took out his handkerchief, folded it up, laid it down, and went bang with a mallet on the gold watch. He opened it up, he called up the gentleman, and he said: Sir, I am sorry, I have forgotten the other half of the trick.

The reality is that this government, back in February, went out and said: We have the answer. We are the magicians, we have the answer. We believe in a better tomorrow for Newfoundland and Labrador. Have-not will be no more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is yours!

MR. E. BYRNE: No it is not! Mr. Speaker, have-not is not necessarily ours. The president of the Liberal Party who ran against me for the second time used it in his brochures and asked: Why are we a have-not district? I tell you how much a magician that members opposite and candidates for the Party thought they were. In my district, in front of a brand-new $1.4 million stadium, the Liberal candidate during the election stood and said: The people in Kilbride, where are the brand-new recreation facilities that our district so desperately needs? In front of a brand-new stadium in the District of Kilbride. That is how much of a magician he thought he was, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put there by...?

MR. E. BYRNE: Put there by the infrastructure program, and with the great representation of the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something else. Here is the list of promises that were made. You wonder why people are upset and disillusioned with politicians today. Because your actions and the actions of government have spilt over on all of us in this hon. House. They have poisoned the well on the whole works of us. Can you imagine the height of disdain that people hold for us in this House today? Is there any other reason? when people go out to see a candidate and he tells them this, just one case: I will articulate loudly and clearly your concerns on UIC. Premier Tobin has already met with the new federal minister and reforms to the UI bill are taking place. I support Premier Tobin's efforts and will continue to lobby for the rights of seasonal, temporary and part-time workers.

During the campaign, the federal minister, Doug Young, was orchestrated to come down to Stephenville, and down he came.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not be so cynical.

MR. E. BYRNE: Do not be so cynical. The facts speak for themselves. Down he came and said: That part of the bill dealing with UI reforms, we are going to change that. That is not a problem - relax. All the voters in Newfoundland and Labrador, sit down and relax, we will change it. Now, we have seen they have changed nothing at all. I recall watching a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No they haven't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be fair, that is changed.

MR. E. BYRNE: What has been changed? Let me ask what has been changed.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) is out, it is gone.

MR. E. BYRNE: Right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where you had to work forty weeks straight.

MR. E. BYRNE: Right.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is gone.

MR. E. BYRNE: Alright.

MR. TULK: Is that changed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, that is changed.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is the divisor you are talking about, the divisor (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. the Government House Leader can stand and have a few comments if he wants to. The reality is that what was promised and what was delivered are two different things. I recall shortly after the election was over watching a tape that was provided to me. The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's saw it on the community channel. It was taped. In a twenty-minute broadcast, eighteen times I counted: You should vote for the government side, and on twenty-four occasions, I believe, a smelter was mentioned for that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a problem.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not a problem. We need it, we are going to have it. Then up in Baie Verte -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) got petitions from (inaudible) in Bonavista.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) down in Bonavista North. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Then up in Baie Verte, Mr. Speaker, the candidate, the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture promised everything under the moon and even took the money from the Port au Port Liberal District Association, a scheme that he concocted, by his executive assistant at the time, to help him out - pardon me?

MR. TULK: You were the other one on that (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: For what?

MR. G. REID: While she was out campaigning to try to get you guys in government, you were (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I don't need any lessons from the Government House Leader about leadership. No question about that. He participated in a lot more leadership hatchings than I ever will, I can tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, back to the non-confidence motion and with the issue, out in Baie Verte. A smelter was promised - a smelter and a refinery. I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I did not mean to upset you then, it was meant as a joke. It certainly was not meant to take an aim at you. The minister has to take the responsibility of the member, not people who work for him in those areas. So it was only meant to see if I could get a rise out of him. So do not take offense. But what was promised and what we have seen here in the Budget is not exactly what people thought. And I do not envy ministers in Cabinet and government having to make the choices they made. There was a $290 million deficit, there is no question about that. You cannot eliminate that overnight without creating some change, without creating some disturbance in society, without getting some people upset about the decisions that government had to make. I understand that fully - I do not quibble with that.

The reality is, that from about October or November last year, the government of the day ceased to govern. People internally, within the party, looked for a new leader and the Premier of the day was ushered out with great speed, much to his own - as soon as he said he was going to leave he could not understand how fast the process was happening. I remember when he got off the plane, he came back - I remember watching it on television - and they asked him about it, he said, `Well, it is proceeding very fast, a lot faster than I thought it would.' But it did proceed. The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that we went into an election two-and-a-half years into a mandate, which we should not have had, no doubt about it, and government was not fully frank with people when it came to the election and the issues. What we see in the Budget right now is an example of that. As I said earlier, there is no doubt that difficult choices had to be made and members on this side, if we had been on that side, would probably have had to make difficult choices as well, there is no question about that. The question is how we make them and do we deal up front with people?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) promises.

MR. E. BYRNE: What promises?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Seventy-five fish plants. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, hold on, there were not going to be seventy-five fish plants opened. Pardon me? What did you say `Graham'? The mumbler from Windsor - Springdale. Pardon me?

MR. FLIGHT: Seventy-five million dollars and seventy-five fish plants.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it was not. It was $25 million and seventy-five fish plants, that's my understanding. The reality is, here is the policy - this was the policy decided around the caucus table, no problem with the policy. There are fish plants in this Province right now that are importing fish processed. He knows it, they are up in Triton and in other places. What's that?

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: They must be, they are private initiatives. They are not losing money. Are they losing money? Are private businessmen staying in business losing money? Not very many.

Did the Member for Twillingate & Fogo want to know what that policy was about? That if, based on three criteria I believe - the Member for Baie Verte can back me up on it - if a processor could guarantee a supply of fish, could guarantee the market, number two -

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and employ Newfoundlanders and do secondary processing.

MR. E. BYRNE: - and secondary processing, and employ Newfoundlanders in that plant, that fund would be used for that plant. Nowhere, did the leader of the party of the day -

MR. SHELLEY: Twenty-five million dollars a year for three years.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, $25 million a year for three years, that is right. Nowhere, did the leader of the party say that after being elected seventy-five fish plants were going to be opened up. Nowhere did anybody say that. Nobody said it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Said what?

MR. E. BYRNE: We are talking about fish plants. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo brought it up. The party's policy was simply this: There was a $25 million fund put in place for each year for three years, that if a processor could guarantee a supply of fish -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No. If a processor could guarantee a supply of fish, had guaranteed access to the market, would hire Newfoundlanders and be involved in secondary processing, then they would qualify for help from that fund. No one said they were going to open up seventy-five fish plants, nobody.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no way. That is what the policy was.

Ms Verge, the former Member for Humber East, was the architect of the policy; she knew it full well. There was no way that our leader of the day ever said she was going to open up seventy-five fish plants.

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: As with all policy, as with every policy that was put in that platform, it was openly decided by caucus, I say to the Member for Fogo.

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not to my knowledge.

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have no idea. All I know is that, like it should do in any political process, it came to the caucus table.

I just wanted to clear it up for members opposite, no one ever said that seventy-five fish plants would open the next day, no way. There was a distinct policy in place, and it was not a bad policy.

MR. FLIGHT: Alvin (inaudible). You should go down to Alvin's retail, buddy!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is too bad you are not running today, I say to the Member for Windsor - Springdale.

MR. FLIGHT: It is too bad you are not running, too, because (inaudible) the election.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. FLIGHT: It is too bad you (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I would go back to the polls today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) came close.

MR. E. BYRNE: A lot closer than some members who never got here, hey?

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I would not go around telling them. I would not go around (inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible). It will be you the next time, and I will win by fifteen votes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have heard it here. The Member for Windsor - Springdale is going to go down to Baie Verte to run against the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. FLIGHT: I am going to win by fifteen votes.

MR. E. BYRNE: You are going to win by fifteen?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: That means I could spend the entire election (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the reality is, there are a lot of people who are concerned today with the decisions of the Budget, not the least of which is an issue that is dear to my heart and the hearts, I suppose, of many students who are going to university, that on Thursday there is a meeting at the Board of Regents. I talked last night in the debate about the significant increases in med school fees, and the Minister of Health said they are only comparable to the rest of the country. They are going from the lowest overnight to being 50 per cent higher than the next highest overnight. It is not comparable, it is not reasonable, at all. And the Department of Health, not the University, decided what the tuition fees would be at Memorial, at the med school, but that will come out in due course.

The proposal going before the Board of Regents on Thursday, I believe, is going to see a dramatic increase in not only tuition but a dramatic change in style and focus and shift in how the University operates as a whole in the course offerings it operates. Students provided me with some information today on how they feel about tuition increase. They feel that it is necessary. They say that a tuition fee increase is the only way MUN can make up the $12 million deficit. Students have said, that it is part of one thing. They have also said that a modest increase, a reasonable increase, is necessary or, as they say themselves, let us see programs cancelled, fewer services to students, and many more undecidable cuts; but most students seem willing to pay for the increase if it is reasonable, if it is comparable across the country. Most seem to be willing to pay for it because they want to get more bang for their buck. What they fail to understand is the dramatic increases that are about to take place, 35 per cent to 40 per cent for students just doing five courses. For those people who are in faculties of engineering, business school, education, pharmacy, social work, 55 per cent increases in tuition. That is what is being proposed.

Mr. Speaker, the University is also considering doing away with many of what most people who have gone through University see not as sacred, I guess, but as an opportunity to get ahead in life. Nobody except for the School of Music has changed their program structure to deal with some of the cuts that are coming. The reality is that - I believe the Government House Leader may or may not know it - the students have presented a proposal to the Board of Regents, and I believe they have presented it to the government through the Minister of Education. Where they themselves have recommended certain increases in tuition across the board, where they see how they can come up with their full and fair share of the deficit problem that exists here. But they raise two big concerns: What happens next year when the University's budget is further reduced? What happens the year after that when the University's budget is reduced again?

Those are the questions that are left unanswered. Because if we think that the situation today is bad, then next year and the year after will be compounded doubly and triply. I think that if we want to see Memorial continue to be an institution that provides accessibility to post-secondary education, accessibility to students regardless of their social or economic class, then we have a problem on our hands as all legislators in this House that we must come to grips with. Because we will answer for it. Whether we are directly involved with the decision-making or not, all of us indirectly have some role to play.

Mr. Speaker, what I saw to be lacking in the Budget to a great degree was where government has the opportunity to generate revenue, and the lack of planning or the lack of direction by government. It does not seem to be a government with vision, it does not seem to be a government that has a plan with solid focus on where we are going, how we are going to get there, and by what means we are going to pay for it.

We talk about Voisey's Bay. What does it really mean? Three weeks ago in the House I said that most members really do not understand the significant impact that Voisey's Bay will have on this Province, and I do not believe we do. But when you look at smaller places like Sudbury and see a town that has been built around an industry, and the revenues that a provincial government has realized from that industry, then it begins to take shape. What will be the royalty scheme that this Province will put in place for Voisey's Bay?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? He has it all figured out, the Member for Topsail says. When are you going to let us know?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible) will not have to do that for (inaudible) years.

MR. E. BYRNE: Why is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is being sooky.

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister wanted to give Roger Ruby his piece of land so he can go ahead and build his house. When is he going to get it?

AN HON. MEMBER: As soon as he wants it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Are you going to stand in the record from the Hansard and tell him that he is going to get his land so I can take it and bring it back to him?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: No?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not mess it up.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not going to mess it up. The poor man needs a piece of land.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I haven't yet, have I? If all goes well I will not, but the reality is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just the same as they have done the royalties for Terra Nova.

MR. E. BYRNE: No. We are going to hear about the royalty scheme on Thursday, are we not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Voisey's Bay, Terra Nova, Hibernia - all of that is being cogitated all the time by experts here in government. That has been ongoing for years.

MR. E. BYRNE: By experts in government. Would they be the same experts who put together the Trans City deal? We are not talking about the same -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, we are talking about a different group of experts. I just want to be clear on that. It is a different group of experts.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are too quick to jump a high hill. We are talking about mining.

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to understand who the experts are.

MR. TULK: You notice that there are certain people going out the door, do you?

MR. E. BYRNE: I notice there are some new ones coming in, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. TULK: They worship people who (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I noticed that, there is no question about that. There were some new ones came in, some new experts came in, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in this bunch.

MR. E. BYRNE: No?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There were a few. More went than came in, is that right?

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) knows full well that the ministers do not do the calculations.

MR. E. BYRNE: But they are aware of who does the calculations, absolutely. I know they do not, they do not have time, but they are aware of who does.

MR. FLIGHT: I am fully aware of who does the (inaudible) stuff.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sure you are. You were in another role in government, so -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right, exactly. Two different roles. The EA and then with the EDGE program, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes. (Inaudible) Environment and Lands.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe it, Mr. Speaker. The reality is, what will be the royalties -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Why is that? Is that originally?

The reality is, what will be the royalties scheme? When are we going to hear about it? That is where the impact of the offshore -talk about Voisey's Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) just before (inaudible) legislation (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just before (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Not too far away.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not too far away. Once the lawsuit is taken care of with the company out of Texas and Inco becomes official owner.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will not touch it. The reality is that the revenue we are going to need, we are close to it. We are close to a boom in this Province.

MR. TULK: I hope no federal prime minister comes down and tells us that he is going to inflict prosperity on us.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, but the hon. the Government House Leader brings up a good point. In terms of the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act and in terms of federal payments coming to the Province, equalization, what will we lose? Will we lose anything? As royalties from, say, Voisey's Bay, Hibernia, Whiterose, Terra Nova come on stream, are we going to begin to lose - we know what we are not going to get, or we know what we are going to get with respect to the Hibernia deal. But with respect to Terra Nova -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, that is why I am raising it.

MR. TULK: We are going to deal with it.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is going to be dealt with?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know something? Not one minister on this side of the House has said that we are not going to have development here because it is going to overheat the economy - not one.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is right.

MR. TULK: There was a former - he is now a judge, you know who I am talking about.

MR. E. BYRNE: Who was it?

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister said he was not going to spend the money on roads because by the time the 1997 celebrations are here, they are going to be worn out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: The Member for Kilbride, tell them about the road maintenance on the road to Bonavista in the wintertime.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is ridiculous. I rolled off my jeep down in Bonavista about nine o'clock at night, as a matter of fact - a true story. The Member for Bonavista South and I were at meetings. He is right, the road maintenance in Bonavista is terrible, there is no question about it. I can vouch for that personally. We went to a series of meetings across the Province, the Member for Bonavista South and I. We went down to Bonavista. I went to the meeting. I was on my way back from Bonavista to Musgravetown to the member's house to pitch for the night and head on again the next morning. About 9:00 p.m., I believe it was. I got into the thick of a snowstorm and rolled the jeep that I was in. The road was absolutely terrible.

MR. TULK: You do not have to spend too much time driving around St. John's (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh no. I would say I have been in probably more places in this Province than the minister has been. In 1987 when I worked with the UFCW inshore fishermen's union -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hear me now. In 1987 when I worked with the Inshore Fishermen's Union, in a period of twelve months I was in 680 communities in this Province. I was on the South Coast for six weeks in a trawler back and forth. I was in Nain, Makkovik, Hopedale, all down around the district of the Member for Eagle River. There are not too many places in the Province I have not been, so it is not that I was not aware of how to drive out the road, I can tell the member.

I recall coming down from Bonavista that night. It was in treacherous conditions. I hit a patch of ice - the member was there - rolled the jeep, wrote it off, and was lucky I was not killed.

The reality is that on the motion of non-confidence it gives all hon. members an opportunity to stand up and articulate some of the views that constituents have given to us. There is just not enough time to get into it all, because I have not had enough time to talk about the forestry and agriculture portfolio, but I will do that another day.

I want to say to the minister, in all honesty, I hope, as you have indicated, that Mr. Ruby will be taken care of. I certainly appreciate your favourable response on that matter.

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

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

I am glad to rise and make a few points on this non-confidence vote. It seems so funny; it was just the other day I remember sitting here and listening to the entire Budget, and seeing the standing ovation after, and members running over to shake hands with the Minister of Finance and so on... I will say in all fairness, when you first hear a Budget Speech - and, of course, this is only my third Budget Speech; I have not heard as many as the Government House Leader - when you first hear the government's Budget from any year, the first impression, because we are so good at it - I just say we as politicians all over - for years and years are so good at it - I have always listened to them federally and provincially - when you first hear it, because they are so good at disguising it and putting a little bit of chocolate covering on it, everybody says, `Boy, that is not too bad'.

The same tactic is done every year by previous administrations and this administration, but this one is really good at it, of putting out the lure first, or the hook first, and saying, `It is going to be the worst Budget you are ever going to see. Get ready; we are going to tear the clothes off you. You are not going to have enough food to eat; you will not have enough clothes to wear; you will not have anything. You are going to be driven out of your home.' That is what everybody was told before the Budget came out. It is going to be the worst ever.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and the Government House Leader is right. You threw out the hook and hooked them on again. They said, `It is going to be devastating'. The way things were sounding, you were going to go home and there would be nothing left in your cupboard; your car was not going to be there; you were going to have to move out of your house. That is the way it was set up, and it was set up perfectly - I will say this - by the new Premier, the Great White Knight who came back from Ottawa who was going to save us all. He came back and he set it up perfect.

MR. TULK: He saved you (inaudible) Budget.

MR. SHELLEY: He saved me; I agree with that. I am still waiting on a thank-you letter from the Premier for sending him down - and for the budworm; that is why I might send him another thank-you letter now, if he sends down the Member for Windsor - Springdale.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It was a strange election, to say the least, from the day it was started, from the day it was called, even for Liberals and Tories. I have heard them talk in their headquarters. I talked to a lot of them, and they were not sure about the election being called. They were not organized and so on. There were a lot of strange things. There was a rare Liberal supporter in my district, I say to the Government House Leader, and maybe he summed it up the best when I was going around in February month. It was fairly cold at that time. He was a Liberal supporter in Nipper's Harbour. I came to his door. It was late in the evening, cold, wet, and the easterly wind was in the bay, slob snow - and I knocked on the door. He was not even aware an election was called. So I said, `Yes, there is an election on, boy; I am going door to door, the usual stuff.' He said, `Now, what are a bunch of fools like you -

MR. TULK: He was a Liberal?

MR. SHELLEY: He was a Liberal.

MR. TULK: Yes, fooling around, he was.

MR. SHELLEY: He summed it up the best for me. He said, `What are a bunch of fools like you going around doing now, wasting my tax dollar to have an election in the middle of winter in Newfoundland, two years before you are supposed to have one?' He was a Liberal, now, but he did not vote at all, by the way. He told me he was a Liberal, but he said, `I am not voting at all this time. This is foolishness.' That is what he said. I know the gentleman. He said, `You know what I am.' I said, `Yes, I go to every door,' as a lot of the members do. I even went to the door of the former Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, Mr. Small. I go to every door, Mr. Speaker, we are all people. You can only talk to them and offer yourself. That is why I respect every politician. Everybody runs, no matter what the political stripe. It takes a lot, especially these days to decide to offer yourself, especially with so much adversity towards governments in general all around the world and in our nation and so on.

It is a tough time, Mr. Speaker, to go into politics and I respect every hon. member in the House for that. By the way, as far as the Don Johnson story goes, because of a few things that happened last night personally, I missed that broadcast, all of that. I knew nothing about it until I heard the statement today. Mr. Speaker, I say to the House Leader again, you heard my response, I will certainly not judge Mr. Johnson on his qualifications as a person or anything. I will just say again that it was questioned obviously, by NAPE, and I am sure, by a lot of people in public. I did not even hear what the leader or the Leader of the NDP said or whatever. I will just state this fact to the Government House Leader, as I said today, I am not attacking the personal integrity or the qualifications of the person who was hired, even if he was the Premier's campaign manager, it just so happens. Mr. Speaker, let us face it, many people in this Province today who are losing their jobs, thousands of people stop to say, `Hold on a second, we are having such a tough time holding on to jobs,' and some other people, who seem to be close to the Premier or the government, are sliding into them rather quickly.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are jobs coming up all over the place that people did not know were there. There are jobs being created, all of a sudden. We can go on through a long list of them, Mr. Speaker, but we would be here until the wee hours of the morning just doing the list. I think it is fair to say that people in the public of this Province question when people get jobs in this Province, through the government, though appointments and so on, if it is not done fairly. I think they have a right to criticize that and to put forward their views. That is why I say to the Government House Leader that you cannot blame people for being upset or frustrated when they hear of another hiring by the Premier, the government, or whatever, by any government.

I will say again, the gentleman I referred to a few minutes ago, the gentleman from Nippers Harbour, did say it was a strange election. He said all elections - `I am usually involved,' he said. `I usually get really involved in elections but this one,' he said, `I am so fed up with government and politics.' That was the attitude, and I bet there are many members in this House who got the same thing. Even the people who got wide ranging support still came to doors of people who said to them they are just so sick of governments and politics. They almost do not want to get involved anymore. I did not even want to get involved anymore.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, but there were a lot of people who were disgusted with the whole process, Mr. Speaker. When he said that to me that night, after I left the door it sort of rang a bell and I said yes, it is a bit strange isn't it? Here we are in the middle of winter, two-and-a-half years before we had to seek a mandate - it cost us how much to run an election in the Province?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) it was the best winter ever we had. The people down in Bonavista North said, `By god, you must be wonderful!'

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, right from the starting gate, how much does it cost to run a provincial election in this Province, $4 million?

MR. TULK: Three million to four million dollars.

MR. SHELLEY: Three million to four million - so that gentleman made good sense. He was a Liberal but he made good sense. He said, it takes $3 million or $4 million for a bunch of fools - for you to go around in the middle of winter, two years early, to have a blooming election. Why are we even having one for? Why did, Mr. Tobin - who he liked by the way - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Peckford (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That's right, two years later. Yes, well, I don't care about Peckford. I can guarantee the member this, you will not be calling an election two-and-a-half years into this mandate, I say to the member, I guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Right you are. No, he did not, Tom Rideout called -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Peckford called three elections.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and besides that, the point is, I do not care if it is Tory, Liberal or whatever, the point I was making was the term of government. What are we going to do another two years from now? Will the polls go up, have another, and then somebody else go in one year and have another? You should serve the mandate, I say to the Government House Leader. That is what we should be doing, serving the mandate, and not abusing the system and costing the taxpayers when it is such a tight squeeze with the economy in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Every time the government in power decides it is the best time to go, let us give it to her.

MR. TULK: `Gerry', what are you saying? I can't hear you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Who?

MR. TULK: Lynn Verge (inaudible) should call the election (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Who was saying that?

MR. TULK: Lynn Verge.

MR. SHELLEY: I do not know if Lynn Verge said that, Mr. Speaker. I certainly did not say that. I think the Government House Leader is making it up again, pretending.

MR. TULK: You have no business, she said, to run this Province (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Making it up again, Mr. Speaker. I do not take anything the Government House Leader is saying here tonight to heart because he is just making it up as he goes. The truth is that even Liberal supporters, his own Liberal supporters - they are scarce in my district, but there was a few - who said: What a bunch of fools, going around knocking on doors this time of year, two years before an election.

Let us begin from the starting gate if you want to talk about the election a little bit. What about believing? The Premier coming on out of Marble Mountain with his hat and mitts on, getting ready to go on the chair lift, and saying: I have to go talk to the mountain and then I am going to decide if I am going to have an election. I am just talking about the integrity now, talking about truth. Moses went to the mountain.

I am getting to a point of really believing now - I mean, at least you could have been up front about it and said: Look, I have been planning this for months now. I am waiting for the Premier of the Province to step down and I am going to run. Never mind that. He did not say that. He went to the mountain. We all know that when he went to that mountain he had this planned for months. Who is ever going to believe he went to the mountain and ten days later we had the big Red Book, eighty-three pages, the whole plan for the Province? How efficient!

Now, let us get real. Nobody in this House believes that. I am not saying there is something wrong about it, what I am saying is he should have been up front and just said it - said: I have been up there playing for months and waiting for Mr. Wells to - he is having a rough time there, he is going to back out; I am coming back to run. Instead of dilly-dallying, orchestrating the whole thing, and playing politics. That is what happened. It was all orchestrated right from day one.

Now, the Budget, and the whole idea - let us talk about the non-confidence vote and the standing ovation that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board got on that day. I mean, who would have known? with the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and others shaking his hand, saying: That is a great budget! then finding out two days later: Gee, nobody told me the college on Bell Island was closing, nobody told me all these cabin fees were going to be put in place. There were going to be no taxes - remember - in the Budget. There are no taxes, but in small print: There will be $12 million in fees, your cabins. Like one man said to me: The next thing, we will have a fee on our outhouses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, their wonderful deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the House Leader (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I do not have to ask the House Leader, I do not have to ask anybody about the great deal. Why did you not go up to the meeting at Holiday Inn the other night and ask him what a great deal it was?

That is what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Disillusioned - that is the problem with it. They are all disillusioned with this perfect Budget that came down, the standing ovation, no taxes, no decrease in health care, no decrease in social assistance. What a joke that was! Then, two or three days later - everybody scoffs at this but I know the hon. members get it because I get it, too - the $61. I will just give you one specific example - the sixty-one dollars that they are going to drag back on these rich people out there. A man called me today, he is blind, living by himself. I do not know about the wee bit of money he gets. He is blind because of diabetes. And now, he gets the letter that somebody read to him to tell him he was going to lose $61. How low are you going to go?

I am not talking about tough decisions. We all know that any government is going to make tough decisions. But whenever you make the decisions you try to find out who is going to be affected most. What are the negative implications to it? The people who are the most vulnerable in our society, those are the people you should consider. I am really fearful, and I have said it here before, and I hope I am wrong on this one two years from now, because everybody talks about this two years. It is going to be a tough two years and then we are all going to be okay. Well, there is only question to that whole philosophy: What about if we are wrong? What about if Voisey's Bay does not come on stream? What about if another company sues and we do not get on stream?

AN HON. MEMBER: Make the best of what we have.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is it exactly, make the best of what we have, if we do not cut our throat before we get a chance to live - that is the whole point here. What are we going to do with our future again? Look at the short-terms in the Budget, Term 29, the $8 million, the short-term fix for the ferry services that were sold off. The cabin lots thing is another quick grab for money but there is no more income from that down the road. It is all quick fixes, Mr. Speaker, pumping air into a flat tire without plugging the hole, that is what it is. We had just better hope and pray.

I was one of these young people around the Province who said for years, with the Peckford Administration and others: Oh, Hibernia is coming, we have discovered oil off Newfoundland, we are all going to be saved. Young people in this Province have heard that too often and now we have another government saying: Listen, two years, tighten your belts, we are going to knock the health care, we are going to knock the social services, we are going to make you pay more for your cabins and so on, but give us two years, because then you will be okay. There are a lot of people in this Province, I say to the member, who are not too sure that is going to happen. We had better be right and Voisey's Bay come on stream.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they asked us for solutions. Every now and then they say: Throw out yours. Well, I make two responses to that. First of all, to put it in perspective, as the Official Opposition, it is our job to criticize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is right. Whether you want to believe it or not, and the Government House Leader was the master of it, that is our job. You have the resources to govern. That is what your resources are for in the Premier's Office, that is why you have the big staff in the Premier's Office. That is why you have the big staff in all the ministers' offices. You have the resources to know the numbers and know the facts and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are afraid to tell us (inaudible) the Province might be better off - is that it?

MR. SHELLEY: I told you I would make two points on it. That was the first point, first of all realizing your place and stop throwing this thing back: Well, are you going to do like the Premier keeps doing? He is so used to being in Opposition, the Premier, and a member of the `Rat Pack,' he is so used to doing it that he cannot adjust. He keeps throwing it back. Saying: What are you going to do? You can do the opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are beneath this. You can (inaudible) been here.

MR. SHELLEY: That is not such a long time. The Premier was in Opposition for a lot longer, I say to the member, a long time. He was a long time an Opposition member, the Premier was, I said. The point being, Mr. Speaker, they are the government, and it is the Opposition. That is what you have to understand. That is the first point.

Then you talk about alternatives. Many people in this Province say that one, and it was supposed to be done but was not done, was cutting the fat from the top. That is where you start. The word is priorities. Do you know the first one (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) will not lay anybody off! You will not (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, that is not the first priority, that is where you missed out. That is not the first priority - that is the problem. Your first priority is to lay people off. Mine is different. I will give you mine. Cut the number of seats in the House of Assembly down to something significant. Do not dilly-dally and toy around with from fifty-two to forty-eight. Do you want to be realistic?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I will take it to be realistic, Mr. Speaker. I support that. I have said it in this House before, I will say it again, forty seats is plenty for this Province. What we did is dilly-dally, maybe you are right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Seriously, forty seats in this Province - we could handle it with forty seats. That is a reduction of twelve MHAs, from fifty-two to forty. There is one. Mr. Speaker, I will give you another.

MR. FLIGHT: You would not be here if we did that.

MR. SHELLEY: That remains to be seen. You might be right but I doubt it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would be gone, guaranteed!

MR. SHELLEY: I would have taken in Springdale, I would have won in another landslide.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) Windsor - good-bye, Paul!

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, you are sure of that. So will your -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, but we can have forty around the Province, Mr. Speaker, if you wanted solutions or suggestions. I have stood by that for a long time. I will give you another, Mr. Speaker. See if you like this one for an alternative suggestion - a cut in the number of Cabinet ministers and administrative staff.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, it increased by this Premier - it increased in staff. Cut the fat right at the top. That is two. Now, here is the third.

MR. TULK: You have more staff in Opposition than anybody else in government.

MR. SHELLEY: Reform will cut that, too. If you are going to cut government, cut over here, too.

Here is the third one now - see if the Member for Windsor - Springdale will like this one - reform pensions, MHA pension reform, and I mean serious reform. Get us back in line with the rest of the Province so they are not sickened every time they see one of our people walk out of here with the fat pensions. So there are three right off the top. Three real ones that somebody has to have the guts to do one of these days. Seats in this House of Assembly to forty, a reduced Cabinet size, reduce the administration at the top, especially starting with the Premier's office right down and reform pensions. You wanted suggestions, there they are. Now, put them in your pipe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one thing is new in the suggestions you made. These suggestions are made for you. You have not come up with one thing new.

MR. SHELLEY: Not one thing new? You are a government, so do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have done the new things.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, you have done it? You have done - well I cannot use that in the House of Assembly, can I? You have done blank all. Mr. Speaker, it has never been done, the real significant things that could have been done. That is what the suggestions are and somebody has to have the guts to do it, Mr. Speaker, and show real leadership.

There is a fear in this Province, and with the attitude that the government have taken and with the plan that they have taken - and the plan by the way is a short-term plan - we have a great fear; yes, tighten your belts, get ready for two tough years, and hopefully, Voisey's Bay and the 1997 Come Home Year and all of that stuff will take care of us three years down the road. Mr. Speaker, that is fine for all of us in this House of Assembly at the age that we are, some of us - well the age ranges I guess from thirty to whatever age limit it is. So we have to start from the House of Assembly with a different attitude.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture keeps talking about a new attitude towards the fishery. Well, Mr. Speaker, the attitude has to start from the members of the House of Assembly. Because, to be quite frank about it, people in this Province are sick of politicians and government. Put out the big red carpet and then pull it out from under you when you get moving on it. That is what they are sick of, Mr. Speaker, and they do not trust them, they do not trust politicians. We have to do - we, I mean any government, any politicians, have got to take strong measures to show that they are going to lead by example. That is what you do, lead by example, not claw back $61 from a social services recipient. What a load of crap that is. I cannot believe it when you get these calls, Mr. Speaker - or claw back the income tax from social services recipients.

I had the case of a single girl - I tell you, because it is always better to use an example. This is an example of another situation of reductions now that is going to help us balance the Budget, a claw back on income tax: A young girl living at home, twenty-two years old, had trouble with school and learning and so on, so she went away for a month-and-a-half, I think it was, about that time, to Nova Scotia to pick apples. Her parents sent her away because she has been living home all the time. She did not finish school and was having a rough time. Her parents, one of them on TAGS, had very little income. The girl went away and worked picking apples. She made a few dollars but got laid off up there, came back, and lo and behold, this year, Mr. Speaker, she gets back $220 income tax. Now, this girl gets $22.50 a week on social services to help her out. She gets back this $225 income tax and she thought she hit the jackpot, 649. Her mother said she was delighted. She went out and got a pair of shoes - $225, she could not believe it. Then she gets a letter saying she has to pay it all back. She was going to be held back on her $22.50 every week for the next ten weeks because she got $225. Now, you tell me that is a priority? Mr. Speaker, that was not thought out about how that would affect the most vulnerable people in the Province. When you see things like that happen, then you wonder about priorities, that is what I say to the Government House Leader. When you see things like that happen, you have to question if there is really -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, but I say to all hon. members, when you see those examples, all you say is, `hold on, we never really thought this out boys. This was not planned very well.' If that is happening to a girl in that situation, or if it is happening to the person I just described, the blind man who called me the other day with the diabetes, getting the $61 dragged back, you start to wonder, was this really thought out? When the decisions were made at the Cabinet table, did they really think about these people, the most vulnerable in our society, were going to be affected? Mr. Speaker, there is only one way you can describe that - it was callous, a callous attack on the most vulnerable people in our society. So when you stand and applaud a Budget and not stop to talk about the direct implications on people such as that, then you have to sort of wonder.

Mr. Speaker, the only fit thing for a government to do, when they see something like that happen, is reverse the decision, change the decision on the claw back on income tax. I talked to the Minister of Social Services about it. The day after I found out about it I went and sat down with her and yes, she told me about the restraint that we have to do as government. Nobody argues that, Mr. Speaker, that a government of today will have to make tough, tough decisions. But I think the two things that people would like to see is a long-term plan, number one, not a one-year fix. Tighten your belts and everything will be okay next year, because we are not sure that it will be. We may as well live up to that.

Mr. Speaker, the second strategy of the government, if they really wanted the economy to recover in this Province, I believe - and I have been known to say this many times - is not to look at the big mega projects as a saviour. What is going to save this Province are the little things, the little business in the community, the small sawmill. The small business that hires three or four people, that is what is going to save this Province in rural Newfoundland, not wait for - aquaculture, I agree with the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I agree with him and I have said that for a long time, Mr. Speaker - as a matter of fact, I think before I entered politics, talking about economic classes, that rural Newfoundland go by the way of Ireland, by the way. In Ireland now they are talking a lot about that, talking about small projects that would revive the rural and small places. That is what would happen. That would be the best solution, I believe. That is why I think a long-term plan would go in place and, of course, every member who stands talks about the great ideas that our young people come up with, and I have had them. EDGE is a great concept but there is a `but', the right concept aimed at the wrong people. Now, some good -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, just relax now and I will fill in the member if he wants to listen. What I am saying is that I support EDGE and the concept of it. Well, I should substantiate by saying this, not the wrong people, but there should be an added group, the small business, the man who creates -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, they are not. They are out -

AN HON. MEMBER: Potential (inaudible) that is $300,000.

MR. SHELLEY: $300,000, do you know how many businesses -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) potential.

MR. SHELLEY: Potential, oh I see. Well, I will tell you how small you can get - you missed the point. I am talking about the young person that I have had in my office - and I am sure you have had them - comes in just out of university: `I have a great idea for a little company. I could hire maybe two or three people. I have $40,000 or $50,000 to invest...' if they can get a loan or whatever. I am talking about those people. They are being missed and you should agree with that but EDGE is a little bit higher than that, talking about $300,000 is not peanuts.

MR. TULK: Are you saying somebody came to our office with $40,000 or $50,000, had a good idea and could not get themselves under the EDGE program?

MR. SHELLEY: They cannot get under the EDGE program.

MR. TULK: How much trouble is (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: They do not have $300,000, I say to the Government House Leader, that is the whole point. I am serious when I am telling you -

MR. WISEMAN: Is it a competing business?

MR. SHELLEY: Some businesses are competing. Some are new businesses; they are entrepreneurs.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I agree.

MR. WISEMAN: He agrees now. You see, this is why we are on this side of the House. (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I see. Gee, you are brilliant. I cannot get over you. Do you have a star to put on your forehead or something, or what?

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, he is so out of touch, the member for - where is he from?

MR. TULK: Topsail.

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Cape la Hune is so politically disillusioned, he has all the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Topsail.

MR. SHELLEY: Topsail - I am sorry, I say to the Member for Cape la Hune.

The Member for Topsail is so politically disillusioned. He should have a star on his forehead, going around telling everybody he has all the - that is not all the time I have left?

MR. WISEMAN: You are upset now because (inaudible) the EDGE program.

MR. SHELLEY: Upset? I feel bad for you. I am not upset. I feel bad for the Member for Topsail. He is so out of touch he should take a little jaunt across the Province and talk to a few people.

Mr. Speaker, I will make the point again for the Member for Topsail, especially - it seemed to go right over his head - I am talking about the young people in our Province who have some great, brilliant ideas, and come in and find out they run into red tape, and they give up on the idea. I know a lot of members of this House get that, and the Member for Topsail obviously does not talk to young people, or listen to the great ideas they have, or he would not have made the statement he just made. He is so out of touch with the young people of this Province, people who have to get on that ferry and leave this Province, who give up because they run into bureaucratic red tape, and run into brick walls, on great ideas, and they have to let them die because -

MR. WISEMAN: Bring them in and I will go with them if you cannot get them through. There is a deal for you - bring them in.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay, I just got a deal made here. I am really glad the Member for Topsail - you are going to have some lineup before the week is over. Every time a young person comes in to me, or a new group of people who want to start businesses, and they are having all of this trouble, I am going to tell them, `Listen, do not worry about it; you are going up -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Hold on now, Mr. Speaker; now he is going to make (inaudible). What back-paddling is going on now! He is in full backstroke now. He said, `You get them people up here...' -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I am not going to waste my time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman is obviously confused, and I have to unconfuse him. He stands over there and says he supports the EDGE concept - he supports it - he had clients with $40,000 or $50,000 to invest, and now he says all at once, that is not what he wants at all, that we are back-paddling. I say to the hon. gentleman, he is back-paddling.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: That made about as much sense now as... What a combination!

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

MR. SHELLEY: What a combination, Mr. Speaker, dumb and dumber! They both got their thoughts together and never came up with one good thought. So what I am going to do tomorrow, until the Member for Topsail sends me some criteria -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) reminds me of the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, the Member for Topsail reminds me of the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. FITZGERALD: The former Member for Terra Nova.

MR. SHELLEY: The former Member for Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, all the members over here can rest assured now, if you have young people who have some ideas -

MR. FITZGERALD: Here come the warriors. Here comes the artillery.

AN HON. MEMBER: The road warriors.

MR. SHELLEY: The road warriors are coming.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: The time is up?

MR. SPEAKER: The time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

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

I am delighted to rise this evening and support the motion that has been put forward by my colleague this afternoon, and that motion is that we would delete all the words after `that' in the resolution before the House, and replace it with the fact that we would read as follows then: `that this House condemn the government for its failure to present a Budget that reflects the mandate of the people of the Province and ignores the basic principles of sound fiscal management' - moved by my friend, the Member for Cape St. Francis and seconded by my friend, the Member for St. John's East.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the government mandate, we, of course, looked through the Red Book and we said this is what this government is all about. We read through it very diligently and I know that we would love to compare it to the Blue Book but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Oh I have the Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were persuaded that the solutions they wanted, by a majority vote, lay in the Red Book. So, Mr. Speaker, they certainly talked about the kinds of commitments, they were persuaded on the balance of the election that they would vote for the contents of the Red Book. In a few days time, I am going to have to change the colour. This Red Book now should be changed to be the Black Book because obviously they have not lived up to the mandate that has been given to them by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So we are going to change the colour. In fact, in a couple of days time you are going to find when you come in here,I am going to have the front cover colour changed to black. I am changing it to black because it certainly does not reflect the people of Newfoundland. It does not reflect what is happening, because in this book here - it is a Red Book, it is philosophy, it is a document and it says here, `Ready for a Better Tomorrow.'

Mr. Speaker, obviously the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are ready for a better tomorrow, because they looked back and they saw what was happening in the years since 1989. They said, `Boy, things must be going to get better.' So they bought into the philosophy that was being put forward, a very good public relations exercise. They bought the fact that the Messiah had arrived back from Toronto or Ottawa or somewhere up there on the mainland. He came back here and they said, `Boy this must be the future.' So, Mr. Speaker, they did buy into the book and they bought into the principles that were put forward there. And, of course, we know what happened after the election. During the election everything was hope. Everybody said: We are offering hope, we are offering a philosophy that says things are going to get better and we believed that with the red team there were supposed to be solutions set for everybody. In fact, during the election there was talk that there might be a very small number of people elected who were not on the red team, all kinds of predictions, but my friends on this side, we stood to our guns, we went out and we had a bit of a rough time but certainly the people in our districts, they said, `no, we want to make sure that some of the right people get elected.' So they trusted us with their vote and we ended up with the House structure that we have here now.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the facts of the particular Budget we are talking about here. When the Minister of Finance brought down the Budget and in the book called The Ecomony - I made a few notes in certain parts of it in preparation for my presentation here - in the part called The Economy, some predictions of what is going to happen. I made notes here and it says in The Economy 1966, that the real GDP, that employment and income from the Province are going to decline from last year's levels. Now, Mr. Speaker, in fact it is predicted that real GDP will contract by 4.3 per cent. What does that mean? That means $344 million in the Budget for this Province for next year. It says that the number of people employed in the Province was going to go down by 9,000 people this year and personal income will drop by 4.5 per cent. Retail sales tax, the book tells us, is anticipated to decline by 4.7 per cent. They are predicting decreases in capital investment of 17.7 per cent. I mentioned the labour force decline of 3.7 per cent. It mentioned housing starts would go down by 8 per cent.

On the last one, the housing starts, I am so pleased this afternoon to say to this House now, and (inaudible) been said before, but the housing starts prediction is wrong. Because today the Canada Mortgage and Housing people had on the news that housing starts are better this year than they were last year. Obviously, when the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was having his input into the Budget, his words and advice were not being accepted. Because, if they were, how did it get put in here as a negative when it fact right now we know that it is turning around. It is better than the Department of Finance predicted and we are pleased to hear that. That is good news. I saw the news tonight and I said to myself: The new housing starts, that is a sure indicator of the economy. The interest rates are down, that is a good idea, and I hope it stays like that. We hope that in some of those predictions the government is wrong. In fact, on that one they appear to be wrong and that is a good thing. Because we take great pleasure when we see things getting a little better than some of the doom and gloom that was predicted in the book called The Economy that was put forward by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board when the Budget was presented.

Mr. Speaker, based on these very poor economic projections, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board went out and presented his Budget. He went around the Province and did his consultation hearings, which we think was not a bad idea. He went out and consulted with the people and we believe that is a good idea any time at all. The people told him what the priorities should be. When he came back he was full of doom and gloom as to what our revenue was going to be and so he started the program of cut, cut, cut.

As the Premier said in a television interview during the election, he did not believe that you could cut, cut, cut your way to prosperity. That was before the election. He said before the election: I do not believe you can cut, cut, cut your way to prosperity. But then after the election he said: Ah well, people have forgotten, I have the vote now, we have the government, and now we can go about doing all the things we said we were not going to do. So, slash and cut became the order of the day.

Again, in the booklet, the prediction is that the total provincial revenues are going to decline by $58,343,000 - now, Mr. Speaker, that is 3.04 per cent, and that is a lot of money - while revenues from personal income tax, the corporate capital tax and the mining taxes and the royalties are expected to increase. That is predicted and we think that will happen. With the mineral exploration taking place in Labrador and all of the mining permits that have been taken out, as the minister responsible has said many times in the House, there is a great deal of activity, and we are so pleased to hear that. That is good news, and therefore we do expect to get increased revenues from the mining tax and the royalties. That part of the economy is doing well. That is a very positive thing. But the amount of revenue collected from all other provincial taxes is predicted to decrease.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in addition, of course, we have the difficulties with our arrangement with the Federal Government. In the Budget document again the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board talked about the replacement of the Established Programs Financing grant, called the EPF, and the Canada Assistance Plan, with the Canada Health and Social Transfer arrangement. That will result in a revenue loss to the Province. Of course, that has been talked about many times before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: While there will be a loss of about $86.6 million from the replacement of the EPF and the CAP with the Canada Health and Social Transfer, we do note that an increase in equalization of approximately $26.9 million will reduce the amount of this revenue shortfall to $59.6 million.

MR. SPEAKER (Walsh): Order, please! Order, please!

Because we are sitting in the evening, the Chair is letting the discussions between members carry on and enjoy ourselves. But we are getting to the point where I do not think any of us can hear the hon. member speaking. Enjoy the conversations but maybe we could keep it down just a little.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good call, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear a thing he was saying.

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

The point that we are making is that the net revenue shortfall from the change in the federal arrangement is going to be $59.6 million. In spite of the fact that there is an increase in the revenues from one program of $26.9 million. Of course, what that means is that $59.6 million has to come from somewhere, so what we have is a change in the provincial/federal arrangements.

We also note one other very serious trend, and that is that in the future the Canada health and social transfer arrangement will be more closely tied to the population of the Province as a determining component. Of course, what that means is that as our population declines, and it has declined from 581,000 to 575,000 in the last few years, and we do not know what the population will be as a result of the census taken in mid-May of 1996, but what it does mean is that we are going to have further declines in the successive years from now. What is even more alarming, of course, is that the reductions under the Canada health and social transfer arrangement will even get more and more, shall we say, difficult for this Province as the years go on.

Mr. Speaker, there is also talk in the Budget about some of the other programs. I just want to mention the $30 million contingency fund. We certainly, on this side of the House, are not adverse to good financial planning; we believe that the government should be doing that. However, our difficulty with the $30 million contingency fund is that we wonder how it was addressed. For example, before the Minister of Finance brought in his Budget he was talking about a projected deficit of $230 million, $260 million, $290 million, and we often wondered whether the $30 million was included in the $290 million already, so therefore we only have $260 million of a deficit, and whether or not that resulted in people being laid off who probably would not have been laid off, so we wonder how that affected decision-making, and nobody has talked of that in their presentation.

Mr. Speaker, there certainly are some other things that we wanted to talk about during this presentation. Not much has been said about the changes to Term 29, the arrangement we have had with Canada since we came into Confederation. Joey Smallwood, and Mr. Winter, and others who sat there, Sir Albert Walsh, and others who negotiated the Terms of Union with Canada in 1948 and 1949, they put in Term 29. It was designed to bring Newfoundland gradually up to the Canadian average in terms of social programs and that kind of thing.

One former Prime Minister of Canada, John Diefenbaker, tried to change Term 29, and I remember the results of that. Mr. Smallwood went to an election, and he fought the election based on Term 29. The Member for the South Coast, Ches Carter, had a boat that went up and down the coast, and the boat was named Term 29; that was the name of the yacht. I remember very, very strongly, as a young fellow growing up on the Burin Peninsula, hearing Ches Carter and others talk about how important Term 29 was, and how it was there for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and so on and so forth.

Then, as time goes on, we find that this particular government, with its fire-fighting fiscal attitude, decides: Well, we do not want to go and address the real structural problem, so we are going to borrow from our own children, and we are going to take money over the next two or three years instead of over the next twenty. Mr. Speaker, we have difficulty with that because the only people we are deceiving, if we are deceiving anybody, is ourselves, because what we have done here is we have taken a short-term solution to a real long-term problem. While we are encouraged by the documents tabled by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board in the last several days - and we thank the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board for forwarding to our offices the correspondence between himself and the federal Minister of Finance on the issue, and the letters dated May 16 and May 15 between the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board for Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, and between the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal Minister of Finance. We appreciate the fact that these letters have been forwarded to us. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board tells us that the written correspondence is tantamount to an agreement to alter the arrangement between Newfoundland and the Federal Government.

However, the bottom line is that we certainly have some difficulty when after the first two or three years we find ourselves having to do without this $8 million. Therefore, from year three until year twenty - in fact, from 1999 until 2016 - we are not going to have that $8 million. It is like saying to your children that we are going to give them their whole allowance for the month in one week, or whole allowance for a year in one week. Therefore, they are not going to have anything left for the rest of the year or whatever.

We are very short-term focused. It gets us through a difficult time right now but at whose expense? It is at the expense of our future generations. Today we can do things now but we are doing it on the backs of my nine-year-old grandson and my six-year-old granddaughter. That is the kind of thing that I have some objection to. It certainly does not show very wise planning. There is no long-term plan. The only plan in this Budget is one to get us from now until next April, and then we are not sure of that. Because we said: We are not very sure about this so we need to have a little contingency fund in there. How much? About $30 million is our guesstimate of how much we might need to carry us through.

We have seen a lot of things that have happened. We see the closure of the colleges. I am still waiting for hon. members opposite to get up and say something on behalf of their constituents about the closure of the colleges. We have seen a vicious, mean attack on education in this Province. A vicious, mean attack is the only way to characterize what has happened.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Because when we see what has happened in this Province to the community colleges - and I say to the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, if he were concerned about the community college in his district, he would be out doing something about it. Mr. Speaker, the closure of the colleges will mean that many people in rural Newfoundland will have a decreased opportunity to pursue a post-secondary education.

Then we saw the reduction in the operating grant to Memorial University - $8 million. My colleague, the Member for Kilbride, who is not in his seat at the moment, has said here on many occasions what that means to the students. We have had the Minister of Health say that it really does not matter to the tuition fees at MUN that they are the highest in Canada right now for medical students. We have had evidence presented that they are the highest.

We see an attack on post-secondary education which will mean in the long run that only the very rich, those who live in and around St. John's and that area, will be able to send their children to MUN. What a shame! What a regressive step, that we are saying to the president of MUN: You have to save $8 million, we do not care where you get it, but you cannot have a deficit in your budget, so go out and find it! Therefore, we end up having a situation where student tuition is going up. We will know as of Thursday - the Board of Regents meets on Thursday night, and has a proposal before it that will see tuition fees at MUN dramatically increase.

The other day when the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation was asked a question, she replied on behalf of the Minister of Education at the time, and she said: Oh well, that cannot be the government's responsibility because MUN operates at arm's length. It is up to the Board of Regents if they put up the tuition fees.

Mr. Speaker, if on the one hand you say to MUN: We are going to decrease your budget by $8 million and we are not going to take any responsibility for any of the decisions you make as a consequence of that, then we have to ask ourselves really what kind of focus the government has.

I was pleased to see announced the other day the elimination of some of those agencies, boards and commissions. Not much has been said about that. In fact, I am not sure it has been mentioned even since it has been announced in the House. I want to talk about some of that for a few minutes. Twenty-six boards were cut. I was surprised when the Minister of Finance said there is over 300 boards in this Province. I said to myself: Why did they not cut another twenty-six? Why did they not cut more than that? If there are over 300 boards and commissions, why do we need all of that? Maybe that is the area in which we should be cutting. Of course, governments use boards and commissions for giving their friends and supporters places to be able to perch them for a while after the election. Let me have a look at a couple of those boards here, let me see what really has happened.

For example, they have eliminated the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Communication Corporation. Well, big deal! This Newfoundland and Labrador Education Communication Corporation was never established. In fact, it was intended to deliver education and cultural programming by way of television. It never did get set up. Saying that you are going to disestablish something that was never set up - big deal! So, number one, that particular corporation being disestablished meant nothing. It sounded good in the Budget.

Let me have another comment on a few others that were discontinued. Mr. Speaker, there was a board established, the Automobile Dealers Advisory Committee. That board has been inactive for years. It is supposed to advise government on regulation of the industry. Then there was a Consumer Protection Advisory Committee to advise on regulations concerning consumer credit protection. It has been inactive. Of the twenty-six boards that were discontinued, twenty-three of them were virtually or essentially inactive. In the Budget we hear tell of this great big picture. We are going to get all of those boards and we are going to have them discontinued. It signifies nothing, except for the three. Therefore, we ask the government: If there are 300 boards out there, what are the other 274 doing? I would like to see tabled in the House a document which lists out every single board that the government has on its listing. Let us find out a little bit more about them. Let us see what kinds of boards they are, how much they cost to operate. The sad thing in this Province today is that there are still 274 boards - the minister said approximately 300 - still operating. Doing what?

For example, the Highway Safety Advisory Board has the authority to review legislation, conduct studies, hold public meetings, conduct investigations and advise the minister on aspects of highway, safety, yet, it has been inactive for over four years. And obviously it did not advise the minister, because if it had advised the minister they would not have gone out and changed the regulations relative to vehicle inspections, and they would not have permitted the Minister of Justice to take highway patrols off the highway. It has been inactive, has not met for four years! Now we are saying: By the way, we have just decreased that, and we are doing a wonderful job. Are we not we a great crowd? How really tough we are! We have declared inactive a board that has not met for four years. The Highway Safety Advisory Board has not met for over four years and now it has been declared to be inactive, gone, kaput.

We are saying the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board made a great big deal of it. He announced that there were going to be twenty-six boards. All I am saying is that if there are twenty-six boards and somewhere they are costing government something, what about the other 274 boards? If there are 274 boards still operating in this Province, what are they, how much is being paid, how much does it cost the government in a year to operate those boards?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Well, if they started them all, you fellows should throw them out.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have done away with 600!

MR. H. HODDER: Good for you. I would say if you have done away with 600 there is now probably 274 and we need probably seventy-four. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you another board that has been done away with. Lotteries Licensing Review Board Panels. It has been inactive, has not met since 1985.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No, I am saying that there should be more added to the list. We should be adding more to the list here. Mr. Speaker, there are two things wrong. One is that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board gave the impression that this was a big initiative on the part of the government, and it is not an initiative on the part of the government because it has been discontinued for ages. There are, however, three boards that have been eliminated that we would tend to agree with. Economic Recovery Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Good, and so they should. I say to the minister, if there are Tory hacks on some of those boards, then it is time that the board was gotten rid of and these people were gotten rid of, too. Mr. Speaker, now what the Government House Leader has done is, he has replaced them, of course, with Liberal hacks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues would be so happy to give me extra time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

MR. TULK: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary-minded.

Carried.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was waiting the opportunity to stand and say a few words on the Budget debate tonight, especially after listening to the hon. member opposite go on for his allotted time in the House making statements on the Red Book that he has been holding up in his hands I guess ever since this hon. House opened. I did not realize - I was sitting in my seat wondering why every single day he is reading the Red Book. He never holds the Blue Book but continually reads the Red Book. All of a sudden I realized why the hon. member wants - he really believes in the Red Book. He believes in everything that is in the Red Book!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: In fact, he is so caught up with it that he cannot get away from talking about it every time he gets to his feet. Now, I tried to listen and understand any points he has been making over there in the last ten or fifteen minutes, but I am going to start with the last issue first, about the boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the Blue Book?

MR. EFFORD: I have the Blue Book. I am going to get to that a little later. Let us talk about the boards. Let us talk about how we got those boards. Did this government or the former Liberal Government of 1989 put these boards in place? Absolutely not. Did we inherit those boards? Yes, Mr. Speaker, we inherited those boards. From whom, Mr. Speaker - from whom? From the seventeen years of prior administration by the Tories that they supported, that they campaigned on their behalf to put those boards in place. Did we inherit 300 boards, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely not. We inherited over 400 boards from the Tory acts. What did we have to do in the first two or three years getting in here? try to get rid of some of the Tory acts on the boards. Some of the boards that were in place were not active because there was no reason for them to be in place, a reason only to fulfil the department - put together over seventeen years by the Tory Government.

Let me take it one step further. Prior to the last federal election, what happened? Prior to the last federal election, the federal minister responsible for Newfoundland - what did he do? The hon. John C. Crosbie - what did he do? a prime example of what the Tory provincial people did here. One month prior to going out of the government he put together here in this Province, a number of boards, every one of his friends, for a minimum of a five-year term. In fact, one of the former members sitting in this House of Assembly - who for the eight years that I was here - he never, ever rose to his feet on one occasion to make a maiden speech or ask a question, was not out of this House of Assembly for more than a few months when he got appointed to a board for a five-year period with a per diem of $500 a day. So let us talk about who appoints boards. Two members, Sam Windsor, too, two members got appointed for a five-year term. I remember -

AN HON. MEMBER: `Harvey', you would have gotten one, too, only he thought you were a Liberal.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, when people stand in this House of Assembly and start pointing fingers, what the Minister of Finance is doing is getting rid of those boards, getting rid of the unnecessary burden on the people of this Province, unnecessary per diems where these useless boards were put in place. You are quite right, they were not active because there was no reason for them to be active. There was no reason for them to be in place in the very beginning. What you see, Mr. Speaker, out of this board is some sense. Mr. Speaker, what you see out of this book is some sound sense of direction for the future of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That is what you see out of this book, some sound sense of direction for the people, for the future generation of this Province - something that makes sense that is beyond their understanding, something that makes good common sense. It is a sound level plan so that we know, not only where we are going tomorrow, but on into the future, planning for the next generation, implementing some sound ideas, getting people to change their attitudes, getting people to think as they should think for planning the bright future that Newfoundland holds. This Premier, this government, this group of people over here believe in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is not jest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I know the hon. member over there, who just spoke, believes in Newfoundland and Labrador and believes in the Red Book because it is never out of his hands. He even has it in his hands more times than I have held the pickle book, and that is a fact.

Let me compare the two books. Let me read a statement out of the Red Book: `The new Liberal Government will support the establishment of new interpretation centres and the enhancement of existing interpretation centres at various points of historic and natural interest throughout the Province.' Let me read one from this book, Mr. Speaker, let me read this one; I just came across one here: `Cucumber Tomato Soup.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Now, I will read a sentence, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Let us compare the two books.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to note that in my library I do not have such a book and I am wondering if the Member for Humber Valley could bring me over his copy, because I do not have that book, you see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I will deal with that in a second. I will read another statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, `Harvey', and you just retiring as a (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He had the will to come to this side, `Harvey'.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I will deal with that.

MR. A. REID: Do you know what he said to me in 1992 upstairs one day? He said: Art, I would go with the Liberals if I thought they were going to form the next government.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let us get serious. `The new Liberal Government will prepare and release a consultation paper for a Strategic Social Plan within sixty days of the election.' Did we do it? Yes, we did it.

Let me go on, Mr. Speaker, in comparison to the statement I just read. I have to read this because this is interesting to all here. It shows you the good government that was there for seventeen years and the thinking that they had. Cucumber-tomato soup. It begins this way: If my hubby called and said, `Company for dinner,' I would be proud to whip up this.

Now, there is a statement, there is a real comparison of two governments planning for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, I read a few statements out of the Red Book; let me read another statement out of this book. This is the one I get a kick out of. I have read this one before. This begins with the title, Bev's Favourite Dip: One Newfoundland cucumber, one package of Uncle Dan's Original Southern Salad Dressing Mix, one cup of mayonnaise, milk. Mix Uncle Dan's mayonnaise and milk until you get the consistency you like. Slice and arrange cucumbers on a plate and put your dip dish in the middle of the table.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is what the hon. members opposite talk about. Make no wonder you hold your head down, because I would, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I would turn to the Red Book, too, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I would never let it out of my hands again if I read something like that.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know if the minister when he was out from the House took his adrenalin shot or not, but he must have taken his insulin shot or something and got it fooled up with something else in order to come back and get in flight like that. I suggest that the minister table the book he just read from.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no problem tabling them. In fact, I will table about 2,000 if he wants them - that is not a problem!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: In fact, I will even autograph them. As for the insulin shot, yes, I took an insulin shot, but I would have to take an insulin shot to come in here and listen to what is being said on the other side. In fact, I brought it with me.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious we have got to them. It is quite obvious they know that we know where the sore point is on the other side. We know they cannot deal with real substance. They cannot deal with real substance except when they can refer to this book, the real planning of Newfoundland and Labrador, the real direction of where we are going.

MR. TULK: Where is the Blue Book?

MR. EFFORD: I saw the blue book once, Mr. Speaker, and I touched it. (Inaudible) beyond, I dropped it in the shredder. God forbid that any of my constituents would have to be touched by the Blue Book. They could not stand that kind of pain after going through what they have gone through over the years, the moratorium and everything else. I did show them that one time. I was at a number of speaking engagements in my district and we were getting questions on where the future of Newfoundland and Labrador was going. I referred to the many good recipes out of the book there and I told them that you are in a direction for a new future, that we do have a level of government, a level of thinking over here, that is consistent with planning for the best interests of the people of the Province.

I am going to sit down. We are in a mood here now to debate what is important for the Province of Newfoundland. We are in the mood for showing the people why they voted for this government, why there is a majority of thirty-seven on this side and, what is it, eight-and-a-half or eight -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight-and-a-quarter.

MR. EFFORD: Eight-and-a-quarter on the other side, and a couple of other people sitting alone silently, not saying too much, but the evidence is clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot say that.

MR. EFFORD: Well, just turn around. The evidence is clear. We are totally satisfied that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is in good hands, directed for a good future, with people who are determined to make this Province work in spite of seventeen years of mismanagement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Port de Grave was even boasting - `The new Liberal Government will prepare and release a consultation paper for a strategic social plan within sixty days of election.' It has been 110 days and it is still not released. He does not even know what is happening with his own government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Where is it? We have not seen it. We have seen social devastation; we have not seen a plan. Was the Budget your social plan? It has reaped social devastation.

The recipe book he talks about, there are a couple of people in this House who were part of the government of the day. The Member for Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune knows all about it. The Member for Humber Valley was a member. Maybe they added a bit to the recipe book. Maybe they wrote those recipes.

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You were not in the Peckford Government?

MR. LANGDON: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: You were not a member of the Peckford Government? No?

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I apologize to the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune. I would not want to accuse him of being a member of a government when he was not. He has been a member of the party. Do I stand to be corrected? Was the Member for Humber Valley a member of the government at the time? Was he not responsible for the department that produced that book? Was it not his department that put out that recipe book? What do you call it? Cucumber -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: None of us have seen the book. I am the longest serving member out of our caucus, and I have not seen the book. I would like to have a copy. There are members in the House who have seen it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should try to get (inaudible), too, now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I certainly can. I agree with that.

The Member for St. John's North came toddling into the office of the Leader of the Opposition in 1989, wanting to run for the P.C. Party again. He had run in the election before for the nomination - he ran, I think, in 1989 for the nomination and was not successful - and when he found out that the Member for St. John's North, Phil Warren, was not running, he rushed out and said, `I think I will have a better chance if I ran in his seat.' So off he went, with his 500 Club card in his pocket, and sought the Liberal nomination and landed a spot.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do believe the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation also ran for the P.C. nomination in 1989.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1987.

MR. SULLIVAN: In 1987 a by-election, close.

We heard the Finance Minister say on the Budget, `no new taxes'. Who is the last person you heard say, `Read my lips; no new taxes'? What happened to George Bush?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) down in the States.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and he got defeated wherever he is a Tory, because when you tell the people, `No new taxes,' and you deliver all kinds of new taxes, that catches up to you. It is too bad we have to wait four years for it to catch up, but it will. It will take time.

My colleague, the Opposition House Leader, talked about all the boards out there, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture talked about all the boards out there, saying they are going to eliminate these boards. There are a few examples we will just run through. The member referred to a few.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to tell the Government House Leader, I did not campaign with the Tory Party since 1976.

MR. TULK: Is that right?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct, until I ran in 1992, I might say to the minister.

MR. TULK: What does that make you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe it makes me a new Tory; I do not know what it makes me. That is for somebody else to judge. I will only tell you what I did, and let you be the judge.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about your relationship with Charlie Power.

MR. SULLIVAN: It was a good relationship. He campaigned with me in 1992, helped me get elected, and in 1993, and in this election.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did not campaign for him, though.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did. I paid for halls out of my own pocket for him when he ran in the 1970s, when he did not have any money. That is what I did. I was co-manager of his campaign in the 1970s, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: You supported every (inaudible) that government did, then.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I did not. No; of course, I did not support him in government then.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact, he was not with government in 1989, I say to the member. Do you support everything the Newfoundland Teachers Association did? The minister who wept on the steps of the building because teachers were being robbed, turns around and wipes out the education system in this Province, throws teachers out the door, closes down colleges, raises tuition, and decimates the lives of students here in the Province. The person who was espoused to be the saviour of teachers and education in this Province is now turning his back and doing the very thing he promised he would not do. That is what I say to the Minister of Education. That is what he is doing now to the education system, and he knows all about it. I am not the first one in this Province to tell him since March and April the effect that has on what he has done. The minister turned away very quickly. He is not interested in knowing now what is going to happen in education.

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you talking about me, `Loyola'?

MR. SULLIVAN: I was before you came in. I said, you toddled into the office of the Leader of the Opposition with briefcase in hand, sat in his office and said, `I want to run for your party. I know I was not successful last time, but I think I can win St. John's North this time.' All of a sudden Phil Warren decides he is not going to run, and he toddles off and says, `I think I have a better chance to win that. The polls are saying the Liberals are going to win. I had better run for the Liberals this time', which he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was. I will agree with him, it certainly was. He made a move that got him elected. He did something that was politically opportune, no doubt about it, and he was successful in getting elected. Maybe we will compliment him for his insight.

AN HON. MEMBER: And re-elected with a bigger margin.

MR. SULLIVAN: And re-elected with a bigger margin; we are not denying that. The record speaks for itself, I say to the minister. I am just indicating the political opportunism of the time.

He talked about the Member for Waterford Valley. He ran against the political tide. It would have been easy for him to run for the Liberals. Constituents said to me, `Run for the Liberal Party', dozens of constituents, supporters of mine said to me, and they said it to the Member for Humber Valley. They said it to numerous members on our side of the House. The Premier wanted to get every seat in the House there. He twisted the arms of some of his ministers and other people, of almost all of our members before the last election, encouraging us to run for the Liberal Party. The persuasion was there, but people stood and resisted that. I said: I got elected as a P.C.; I will get defeated as a P.C. I will not jump on any bandwagon at all and try to go along with a government when they promised us many things in the past and turned their backs and did something different.

I will support somebody who tells us they will deliver, and sticks to it, whether it is good or whether it is bad for the party. There has to be some integrity in the political process, and I would sooner go down for something I believe in, I would sooner die fighting for something I believe in, than jump on a bandwagon for principles which I cannot espouse, I say to the minister. That is the way I will leave this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is the way I will go out of this House. I am not making predictions on the future. Who knows what the future holds for anybody in any particular party? People over there might be here, and some of these might be over there; I do not know. I cannot speak for the future, but I can speak for myself. And for things I believe in, I will stand and fight to the very last, if there is nobody else left in here, if I am the last one to go out of here, and I will not be a political opportunist.

In 1989 I was promised the campaign would be financed if I ran for the Liberals. I took on the member in our district in 1989, a long-time member, a popular member, Charlie Power. I was out of the Province when the nomination was called. I hustled back, and in seven days I got 900 people out to support me at the nomination meeting, but it was not enough. I got 900 out in 1989, and I ran against the sitting member of the day because I believed at the time I could have run for another party, walked into the nomination, and gone out and had a good chance to win it. Because it was a relatively close election I would have had a chance. I did not be a political opportunist. I supported the party in the past. I campaign-managed for that individual, I still support him and he supports me. I ran because I felt, at the time, that it was time for a change in our district and I said that. I fought for that and I lost the nomination. By bringing 900 people to a nominating meeting I still lost it. Fifty per cent of the constituents in that district -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: And I did not do it. So that is the difference between myself and the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am genuine (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he is admitting he is a genuine Newfoundlander. He is a genuine political opportunist, genuine to the core. If you can't beat them join them, that is his philosophy. If you can't beat them join them, that is what he said.

MR. TULK: All kinds of wonderful.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all. I do not think I am any more wonderful than anybody else, but something I believe in, I say to the Government House Leader, I am going to stand up and fight for whether or not everybody else disagrees with me and I have always done that. I have always voiced my opinion on matters I believe in regardless of what other people thought and it did not hurt me in my district. I was elected one week in a by-election, I say to the Government House Leader, one week and a big demonstration for John Crosbie in Bay Bulls. They were going to lynch me after one week.

MR. TULK: That is because you were campaigning for six years, boy.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I was not. I can tell you, I did not campaign, it was a last-minute decision. I can tell you, when I got in politics in 1992 it was against my wishes. It was against my family's wishes in 1992 when I ran in the by-election and I did not want to run. After three months I finally relented that I would run, but under no condition would I run in the general election. I was not under any obligation. I ran on that basis in 1992 and almost lost, I say to the Government House Leader. I was lucky to win it, but ten months later I was not lucky.

MR. GRIMES: You should have listened to your family and stayed out of it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I probably should have.

MR. GRIMES: Look at what you are after doing to the people.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, look what I am after doing, I know. I say to the minister, look what you have done to people of Newfoundland. You should have stayed teaching, I say to the Minister of Education. You should have stayed teaching and paid a service to thirty -

AN HON. MEMBER: No way! We need improvements in -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, at least he would have only affected - if he had stayed teaching he would have only affected thirty students in Newfoundland, by coming in here he is affecting every student in Newfoundland. You should have stayed teaching and minimized the damage, I say to the minister. Do you know what the minister did? He went out and spoke to a group in Clarenville on violence, talking about violence among youth. He said, `There is nothing wrong with a good fight.' That's what he told the people at a meeting on violence. Can you imagine? Kids - speaking to a group trying to keep violence down in kids. He said, `There is no harm in throwing off the gloves and having a good fight. That is good for them.' Can you imagine the Minister of Education speaking to a group against violence and talking about fighting?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don Cherry.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I think he is watching too much hockey, I say to the minister, a little bit too much hockey, that is what has happened to him. Besides, I say to the minister, I never did get back my hockey sweater from you eight years ago. Actually, I played hockey with the minister, and I must say, he was a good contributor to our team. He was a team player, I must say. Yes, I have to admit that, in hockey.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I was not there. I heard about it from a telegram reporter, to be honest with you; that was when I found out and it was not - I would like to set the record straight, it was not chicken. I mean chicken was used by my opponents (inaudible) it was chinese food. Can you get it straight, if you are going to talk about it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman is wrong. It was both of it, chicken and chinese food.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader must have placed an order if he knew about it, because I did not know. It made a good headline the next day, I must say to the minister. It is not one I appreciated, I can assure you, but it is something you have to live with and I can assure you it did not happen again, I say, Mr. Speaker. It did not happen a second time, I can assure you.

MR. FLIGHT: It cost you the leadership.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a matter of opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: It's better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all, I say to the Member for Windsor - Springdale.

MS M. HODDER: Where was he the last (inaudible) of December?

MR. SULLIVAN: Where was he when we had the vote last week, I ask him? Where was he when we had the vote? When we were going to have a Division we saw the door hit him in the heel of the foot as he went through it. All I could hear was the door hitting the heel of his boot as he went out before we had a Division on Term 17. That is what I say to the Member for Windsor - Springdale.

There were thirty-three members recorded as voting. Nine - all eleven on this side - I cannot speak for two - but the Member for Windsor - Springdale beat it out of here so fast he almost bowled over the people in the doorway. That is what he did. I saw him going. I said to the members: Just watch him leaving.

MR. FLIGHT: I thought you respected the rules of the House (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) we do not do that kind of thing.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I respect the rules of the House.

MR. FLIGHT: You do not, or you would not be saying what you are saying now (inaudible) you are saying it either.

MR. SULLIVAN: I respect (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you do not respect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe they are, maybe they are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - if he keeps interrupting I will be getting less and less respect for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) member who has been here the longest and contributes the least.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I cannot say that. I would not say that about any member. I say to my colleague there, they will have to say that. I cannot agree with that.

I think we will get back to the good news Budget, the no new taxes Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The no new tax Budget. They give it on one hand and say no new taxes, and on the other hand they increase fees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said on Budget Day, on `D-Day', on page 2 of the Budget: `The burden of taxation on average families and individuals is not increased.' Then he turned around and increased fees, licences, from every type of certificate and fee, Crown land fees, $20 million extra in licences and fees, and had the audacity to say: `The burden of taxation on average families and individuals is not increased.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: The increased tuition fees drove up the cost of getting an education, and try to tell us there are no new taxes. Whole new burdens have been placed on families in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How many people really believe that there is no extra burden placed on families in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

If the members here wish to converse, they have to do so outside in order to maintain order and decorum in this House. The hon. members are continuously interjecting and interrupting. I am asking them now, if they have to continue this conversation to do so outside.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask government members, too: How many people over there feel that the burden of taxation on average families and individuals has not been increased by this Budget? That is a statement by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and I consider it to be a very inaccurate statement. I will explain.

Most people, or a fair number, have kids who attend school in this Province. They have increased the tuition. There is an exorbitant increase in tuition. Most people in this Province, a fair percentage of the families, have cabins. There is an increase in fees for Crown lands. There is an increase in fees to get a driver's licence, an increase in almost every imaginable fee. That is a taxation burden on families in this Province, and that is not an accurate statement the minister stated here on page 2 of the Budget. "The quality and accessibility of essential services are protected..."; that is not factual.

The Minister of Health has indicated that we are not going to have any decrease in the health budget for three years. Now, he said it is going to be maintained at around $902.3 million roughly, and to maintain a budget you would need a several percent increase each year to allow for the increased costs. Within the health budget there are drug increases going up in the system; there are increases on equipment. You need about 7 per cent to maintain the status quo.

In addition, and the minister did not reveal this either, up to 125 people of those 500 people announced as being direct lay-offs in the Budget are coming from the Department of Health. There are 125 people being laid off in the Department of Health, out of 500, not counting the 500 indirect, not counting the Health Care Corporation, the 300 that they are announcing in the reshuffling and the reorganization. That may very well be 500 or 600 or 700.

The minister said something interesting last week, that the money saved by reorganizing the hospitals - the consolidation of hospitals - that they are going to use the money saved within their budget for capital construction. In other words, that is going to be a part now of the budget of the Department of Health - capital construction is going to be built into the $900 million - which means there is going to be less money for provision of services. We are going to see, I say to the minister -

MR. MATTHEWS: When did I say that?

MR. SULLIVAN: You indicated that in the House; it is in Hansard. I asked a question and you indicated: We are going to use the efficiencies by consolidating, to be able to build within the structure of the system.

I specifically asked a second question to draw that out. Go back and read Hansard. Go back and see what you said in Hansard, I say to the minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If that is the case, are you going to commit that there is going to be an extension to the Health Sciences Complex to accommodate people in the Janeway and the Grace, or an addition to St. Clare's?

In fact, when the announcement was made back last June there was no reference of any extension whatsoever. They were going to put everybody within the same structures. Under public pressure for the next three weeks, finally the Vice-President of the Health Care Corporation, Mr. Tilley, went on CBC Radio in the morning - about three weeks later - and announced that there will be an extension to the Health Sciences Complex. Then, later - public pressure - we were trying to find out: Is it going to cost $300 million like the other options? The minister said, `No', in answer to my questions in the House, `more like $80 million to $100 million'. That is what the minister said at the time.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) new space.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, for new space $80 million to $100 million. I said, `Can you provide a detailed plan of how you are going to do this so we can see what the costs are, and how it is going to be accommodated within the capital spending of this government?' And you said, `Yes, we will have it ready by this Fall'. I asked in the Fall, when it arrived; you said, ` By the end of the year, December'. I asked in December; it was not there. It is still not there. There is no plan.

Sister Elizabeth Davis indicated that it could be contained within the structure now. She made that statement two months ago, right after the election, February 27, I believe.

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you questioning Sister Elizabeth Davis?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not at all. I am just quoting Sister Elizabeth Davis, not questioning her at all. I would never question her, but I would question the minister. I will question the minister, and I do question the mixed signals. He said: It is going to be an addendum adjacent to -

MR. MATTHEWS: Sister Elizabeth and I are as one; we are joined at the hip.

MR. SULLIVAN: I send my condolences to Sister Elizabeth Davis, I say to the minister. She has my condolences.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Too much lip, I guess, or not enough lip, is it?

Anyway, that is something we still do not know. It should be part of your fiscal plan. It should be laid out in this Budget what you are planning for the next two, three or four years, your capital spending, and how you are going to incorporate it. What is happening now, I say to the minister - and I do not have to tell the minister. I asked him last year: Why are you spending in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, I understand now, to shift the Rehab Centre to the Janeway, and then spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to shift it in again next year, or the year after?

MR. MATTHEWS: I answered that.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, you did not answer that. I told you what the cost of operating the Rehab was from the Budget, and you got up and talked about tens of millions of dollars. You talked about the whole Budget, the Rehab. The administrative costs of running the Rehab, I quoted them, to you, and the increase in cost at the Janeway for that year or two was in excess of the operating cost of the Rehab for that year. I asked why you were doing that. You did not justify it on a financial basis. And the people at the Rehab, I am sure, were content to be able to stay there. I know an integration is important, I say to the minister, and I think the Rehab has to be associated with the Janeway.

I am not debating that point. It has to be associated with the Janeway, I agree with that, but I want to see a plan - because in 1998, two years time, we are going to have this complete - that is going to show a transition from where we are now, where we are going to be in 1998, and show the time lines for each step of that process that is coming and going to be laid out.

How do you put up the $80 million building you talked about overnight? That is why I asked him: Are you going to put up a tent? You just do not put up an $80 million to $100 million building, sophisticated equipment. The movement of facilities and very sensitive disciplines in different areas has to be done in an orderly fashion, not overnight, because the patient suffers as a result. That is the problem. It has not been reconciled. I said it before and I say it again, there is no plan to have a proper consolidation in St. John's. We are going to see a reduction of services, a reduction of beds, a reduction of facilities, and a lack of services, longer waiting lists, I say to the minister, that are going to be there because of this, and we are going to have less there.

Now, if the minister stood and said: We cannot afford it, we have to increase our waiting list, that is the rationale, at least it is a rationale. It is a reason. But to tell us one thing and sell us one bill of goods under the pretence of something else is not acceptable, I say to the minister. We deserve the right to be given this in a detailed plan to show that they are responsible, that they are spending our money wisely in this Province. I know we need to be more responsible than ever before because our resources are scarce and we have to have a detailed plan. I say to the minister, and not to criticize, I just have not seen it in the health care system. I have not seen it in the education system. I think we deserve it. The people of this Province deserve to have it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why do you deserve to see it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I deserve it as a citizen of this Province who is paying taxes in this Province - maybe not as many as the minister is paying, but certainly a fair share of my taxes in this Province. I deserve a right to know that money spent is spent in a responsible manner. And that is not making ad hoc decisions at the last moment. I will leave the Minister of Health alone just for a little while, I will get back to you, so hopefully he does not run away.

The Minister of Education: We have seen some decisions made recently emanating from this Budget, I say to the minister, that were not thought out, were not well planned. There was no consultation there. I will use the example of the public exams. The question to be debated is not whether there should or should not be public exams. The question is you do not on May 16 scrap public exams in this Province. I have kids in high school and I am sure some of you do, too. You understand, kids are getting near exam time. There is a lot of apprehension, there is a lot of concern on meeting regulations. I might add -

MR. MATTHEWS: Where are your kids who are supposed to be in high school today, this day?

MR. SULLIVAN: In school.

MR. MATTHEWS: Home - there are exams going on in school.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, they are in school. No, I have kids doing five exams. I have a daughter doing five exams.

MR. MATTHEWS: Out in Carbonear they closed the school (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the minister can have ample time to speak in debate here. I think he can have a half hour if he so desires. We will stay here until 6:00 a.m., I will if you want to stay, and get heard until recognized, and I will stay here to listen to you.

I will indicate that it is not a matter of whether there should be or whether there should not be. It is a matter of what is the appropriate thing to do, and that is consultation early in the year so people will know in September, October, the schedule. Teachers are asked to make out a schedule for the year. How much on the final exam, how much on the mid-term, how much the semesters are going to be worth, the proper grades. They do their exam, they do their planning, and then the Minister of Education, through the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, stands in this House and throws out the door that particular plan without consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association, without parents, and without representatives of those students.

That is callous, it is irresponsible, and it is not the appropriate way to deal with the future people of our Province. It is not the way to do it. It is wrong, and the minister should not have done it.

MR. MATTHEWS: I can see by the galleries they are all upset.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not here, I say to the minister, to speak to the galleries. I am here to speak on issues that I feel are giving me reason not to have confidence in this government. That is the reason. That is correct. I will never be one to criticize. Even when I was a member of - if something was wrong, I raised that issue. I did not care whether it bothered people or not. It is important to bring the matter forward.

MR. MATTHEWS: You are a fair-minded person.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. I appreciate that. I thought I was, too, to be honest with you. So we agree on one thing, I say to the minister. I thought I was, too, and I hope I still am, and I hope politics will not change that.

MR. MATTHEWS: You are as fair as they will ever come on that side of the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Will you say that after the next election when we are on the other side?

AN HON. MEMBER: `Loyola', along with being fair, you have a great imagination.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I have never been accused of having a bad one, I say to the minister. I guess that is where we differ, too. That is one of our differences.

I say to the minister, the Premier jumps up every now and then and asks, "What is your plan?" Well, I will tell the Minister of Education what an education plan should be like. I just talked about a health plan on restructuring. An education plan should be one that looks at the future trends in numbers in this Province over the next several years, that looks at the regions of the Province where the population bases are, and the demographics, and decides where we should have regional colleges, where we should offer university courses, where they should be. Do you have one because we have always had it? There are shifting demographics in this Province moreso than probably any other province in Canada. There is a tremendous shift from rural to urban in this Province, and there is even a more substantial shift from rural Newfoundland to urban areas in Alberta and B.C., and other areas. That is the shocking reality of it, and we do not have any plan to deal with it. We are making ad hoc decisions, spontaneous decisions, to deal with it.

We know we cannot offer university courses in every nook and cranny in Newfoundland and Labrador; we cannot have regional colleges out there. But we have to know what we want that is within our means, to set a different standard, to force an area of this Province into saying, `If you want to keep your college in Lewisporte, or Grand Falls - Windsor, or Gander, pay a higher fee and keep it there', I think when we are coming down to that level in this Province we are getting down to a very dangerous level where those who can afford to pay go in at a price, and those who cannot do not get in at that price; they stay home. That is not the fundamental basis of education that we have followed in this Province. It is not what we have supported in this Province, a two-tier or three-tier standard in education or in health care, but it is what we are becoming. That is not because the resources are not there. It is because we have not properly planned to use our resources in the most cost-efficient manner to get the desired result.

We have not seen a long-term plan for the next thirteen years for our secular school system in the Province. We have not seen it. Where do we want our students to be in thirteen years time when they enter the system? How are we going to monitor them during that system to make sure they achieve the objectives we set down? We do not have that. We are on automatic pilot in this Province. No one seems to be able to tell us where we are heading. And I say that if we do not know where we are going, how are we going to know when we get there? That seems to be where we are going in this Province. Where we are going to be next year we do not know. The government does not know because they are not planning. They do not have a target in mind, and they are not tabling their programs around that target. They are looking at an item, a revenue and an expenditure base, and they are just making cuts each particular year to fit into that mould of revenues and expenditures that the Province has, and that is not proper fiscal planning, it is not proper social planning; it is not proper planning at all. I think it is time we started to look seriously at that.

In Opposition in the House we will contribute, we will suggest. I have made numerous suggestions. Outside this House, to the ministers, the people in the department, I have made suggestions on things I think should be done a different way. I have indicated in the House, not to criticize. I will criticize if I think it is important to do it, but we will put forth - I have given you what I think we should be doing in education. I have looked at what we should be doing in health. There are numerous other particular areas that we should be addressing here in a more responsible and long-term plan.

We have made a lot of short-term plans, and I will use one example. Most members do not know what happened here. If you look at Hydro, we are getting $19 million in revenues from Hydro this year. Here is what the government did. They borrowed on the future, and here is how they did it. Hydro normally contributes to us - by guaranteeing the debt of Hydro, we leave alone the dividend part, we get 1 per cent for guaranteeing the debt of Hydro. That has brought us in about $11 million a year. Each quarter we get a quarter of that, about $2.75 million a quarter. Do you know what they did in this fiscal year? Hydro's year runs from January 1 to December 31. Our fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31.

The first three months of this fiscal year we get $2.75 million, and the second and the third. That is $8.25 million. Do you know what we did from January next year to March? Hydro is giving us the whole lot up front. We are getting $11 million in the first quarter of their fiscal year and the last of ours. So we are getting $19 million this year, and what is left for next year? Two point seven five million dollars. We are going to have a structural deficit built in of over $16 million because of Hydro that does not show up as a structural deficit in this government. That is on top of the advanced borrowing of $42 million on Term 29; that is another $58 million, and a deficit of $45 million we budgeted for. So, we are looking here at a total of a $103 million structural deficit that we have to meet before we can even break even next year.

They borrowed on the future of Hydro. They did it on Term 29. We have been borrowing on the future of our children. We have to address real problems with real solutions and we have not been doing it. They are hoping that transfer and transfer will do until we get a boom from Voisey's Bay that is going to come in and bail us out, but that is not going to be the salvation of this Province. We are going to have major fiscal problems in three and four years time because harmonization - and they did that to carry it beyond the term of the mandate of this government - is going to have a shortfall of $150 million in revenues in year four. The Federal Government is only going to pick up 20 per cent of the shortfall in year four; that is going to equate to $150 million - another $150 million we have to find that the Premier has sold out on an agreement on harmonization in this Province, and that is going to cost us dearly, I can assure. But that will not kick in until one year after the next election, the fifth year, four years from now. If there is an election in four years, it kicks in the year after.

That is the way it is structured, to push everything into the future to increase our debt load and not deal with the realities today like they should be dealt with. Now, that is a serious problem, and it is a lack of responsibility. That is what got us into problems in the beginning. The Wells Government, the Peckford Government, that is what happened, right back to the Smallwood Government in this Province. We spent far more money than we took in and we kept borrowing on our future, and now it is catching up with us. This generation, and the future generation of our children, are going to have to pay that price.

One year alone, in I think the 1960s, there was 40 per cent more spent in expenditures than we took in in revenue in this Province. How long can we keep going on borrowed time? How long can you tell the bank: I am going to make my mortgage payment next month? Can you wait for six months? I will refinance it. You refinance it. You make it, you get behind again and refinance it. Eventually, they call in the loan, they sell it, and they put you out on the street, and they deal with it. Now, that may not happen so soon to us in this Province, but it is going to happen in the future if we do not deal with the real problems.

I must say, the Federal Government realized that - this government has not yet - by getting 3 per cent of GDP, by passing down to the Province, the problem, and we put it back to the municipalities. We are going to incur - there is no last line of defence here because when municipalities cannot bear the burden, where does it come back to? It starts coming back to us again. It is going to come back to our Province and our Province has to bear the burden from municipalities that go bankrupt in this Province. So it is kicked back to us again. There is no other level to pass it down to. When a consumer vacates rural Newfoundland, municipalities that owe money on a long-term debt, the Province is the one that is left and that increases our burden when what is now more a contingent liability becomes a direct liability on this Province and we are going to have to deal with those problems in the future.

Now, that is where we are heading on the current road that we are on here, and we have not seen any plan or organization. I have seen chaos in the planning within our health care system. I have seen chaos there and I have seen chaos in education. I have not seen any planning. I have not seen any fiscal planning. I have seen fiscal imprudence. I have seen the same thing happen in education and health and within the entire structures of government.

Some things government do, I find appropriate and proper. Some things they have addressed appropriately but they have not -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not much.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I can tell you, there is not very much here to warrant me to stand up and side with a government on a non-confidence motion because I have not seen anything to give me confidence to do that. To be honest with you, we would not move and waste time with a motion of non-confidence if we had confidence and thought things were moving appropriately there. I am not sure if we did it in the past. I do not even know if we did it before when I came in the House. I do not know if it happened the last three years at all.

MR. TULK: There has never been an Opposition in the House (inaudible) non-confidence.

MR. SULLIVAN: They did? Maybe they did.

MR. TULK: I put forward six or seven (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you? Well, I certainly support a non-confidence motion because I do not have confidence in the government to do otherwise.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you? Do not worry, I will do my best to see that - I will use the time that is allotted to me.

Some of the things here in the Budget that I want to touch on - I will get to a few areas here. Another area that needs to be addressed - and I will be looking forward to seeing the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education addressing them, too - we do have a major problem with pension plans and debt in the Province, with the Public Service Pension Plan and the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association, Teachers Pension Plan and we need MHAs - whatever the pension plan, we have a big problem. There is a higher shortfall of revenues on MHA plans than on other plans in the Province, much higher. That is fine, I will live without it. I will live without it if the minister will put back that $61 in Regulation 8 there in social services. Maybe we will all survive it But that is a point. It is serious, I say to members, it is a thing that we have to address. How long can we live like that?

We have set a different standard for ourselves than we have for other people out in the public, that has happened. We have set different standards in this House. We have increased our bureaucracy in here, sixteen cabinet ministers, a token effort of four seats, a superficial gesture. We spend more money on commissions now than we did by taking away four seats out of here. The same structure is in place. The only thing we are saving - we are saving on four seats some $100,000 per member, that is what we are saving. If we went down to forty members, restructured it, as I said before - there must be a balance, of course, representation by population has to have a degree of merit. We just cannot throw that out the window. We have to have that within reasonable limits.

I figured 25 per cent is a reasonable limit there, not the narrow 10 per cent now that allows the Member for St. John's North to represent 6000-some voters in his district while I have 8,400-some and run from Maddox Cove to Trepassey. I do not think that is reasonable, to be honest with you, when I get `umpteen' dozens of calls. I averaged 100 for the first three months when I was a member. It went down to sixty - not a month now, that is a day. It averaged sixty, then it tapered off to thirty or forty a day and somebody does not get any. I think we should be looking at - if anything it should be the other way around. I should have 6,700 or so and he should have 8,400, that is not an unreasonable number of voters in the district. I mean, that is not proper, it is not appropriate distribution here. It has not been done properly. It has been gerrymandered. There is no excuse that Frank Moores gerrymandered it. That is no justification to gerrymander it now. The commission report was in the Peckford years and they accepted the report. They should have accepted the one here in an independent commission at arm's length. I do not agree with interfering in the judicial process, or appointing somebody as an independent commissioner. Go out and let the people decide. Whatever way you draw the line, let them draw it. Let the people decide, instead of wondering about our own political necks. If we do our job as members in here, you will not have to worry about getting re-elected, and if you do not, you do not deserve to be re-elected. You should be snuffed out and sent out the door again. And when you stop serving the people who elected you - at least standing up and fighting for issues and being active. You might not always agree with your constituents. If you do not, that is the price you have to pay. But if you do it because you believe in something and you take a stand, you fight for it, you are here, you represent them and you do your job, then you take your chances. And that is what I am going to do. That is what I have done. I have disagreed. I was going to be lynched the week after I got elected up in Bay Bulls, on Canada Day. A mob said: If you go up on that boat we will never vote for you again, and hundreds of people out. I walked up and said: I was committed here to come for Canada Day.

MR. HARRIS: They never voted for you the first time in Bay Bulls.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I won Bay Bulls.

MR. HARRIS: Not the first time.

MR. SULLIVAN: One hundred and ninety-one votes I had, the Liberal had 182 votes, and the NDP had 174 votes, I say, the first time.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The second time, I say to the minister, it was 465 votes to 165 votes, and the last time 500-and some votes to 130 votes.

MR. HARRIS: You had one-third the first time.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I had over one-third. It was very close, almost a three-way split. I won by nine over the Liberal and they were nine over, I think, the NDP.

MR. TULK: That is not a (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, one is a win - just ask the former Member for St. John's South - one or two is a win. And the last time, the same basic thing there. It is not a matter -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Actually, in Bay Bulls, 83.2 per cent of the vote this time, I say to the member.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. And the time before, 74 per cent in the district - actually, 1 per cent higher than the Member for Port de Grave in the last election, the time before.

MR. EFFORD: One per cent lower.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, 1 per cent higher. He had the biggest majority because he had more voters, I say to the member. I congratulate the member. The next time it might be 40 per cent. Who knows in politics? I do not predict the future but you can comment on the past because that is factual.

Mr. Speaker, we talked about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in the Budget. The same government, most of them in Cabinet, the same people who stood and told how important it was to get rid of Newfoundland Hydro: We have to get rid of it, it is the appropriate thing to do. Now, we are getting $50-some million this year from Hydro between dividends and for guaranteeing the debt coming into the coffers of this Province, over $50 million a year. Had we sold Hydro we would not have had that. We would have costs associated with the public offerings of shares and the appropriate fees. It would have cost millions. We would have had high electricity rates as a result and we would have less revenue coming into this Province, in a monopoly that is protected here, that is a non-competitive monopoly - that is all monopolies are, non-competitive - controlled by the Public Utilities Board. And now it is becoming a major source of revenue for this Province, whereas the same people before thought it was so important to sell it.

Not everybody, I think there was one - the Member for Virginia Waters was the only one, to my knowledge, who stood there and said: You are not doing the right thing. He is certainly vindicated now, I can tell you, when you look at your balance sheet of the Province, your revenues here, and look at $50-some million a year coming out of Hydro, without having any significant effect on rates, that otherwise would have been substantially higher; 80 per cent of the dividends would be going to Bay Street, eastern townships and other parts of the country, instead of coming back into the coffers of the Province where it should.

I am glad the people of the Province took the initiative and raised the (inaudible). We assisted, and other groups assisted in it, and it was the right thing to do. I am sure the ministers and the members who fought so hard for that now realize that what we did was the appropriate thing.

MR. EFFORD: No!

MR. SULLIVAN: No. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was never one to really admit when he was wrong. Does that mean you are going to try to privatize it again?

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Budget says: Government will eliminate - and this is a rather interesting one - Government will eliminate more than twenty agencies, boards and commissions. Here is why they are going to eliminate them - to streamline operations and reduce costs. Can you imagine just some of the ones...?

The Member for Waterford Valley made some reference. Here are some of the ones they are going to eliminate. There is a whole array of these: the Child Welfare Board - it was inactive.

MR. EFFORD: That is the one the Tories put in place.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Fire Prevention Act Advisory Committee - it provided advice on matters related to the act. It no longer exists; the Offshore Petroleum Advisory Committee - it was inactive. The committee never even met. Those are the ones they are getting rid of. The Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Corporation has never been in operation.

MR. EFFORD: It was the Tories who put it in place.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't care who put it in place. It does not matter who put it in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, there are many things -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am, but what I am saying is that they streamline operations when they never even met. How do you streamline something you never met? Is that not down to the most extreme streamlined approach you can possibly get? The Private Investigations and Security Advisory Board, inactive; it reviewed only one case.

MR. EFFORD: Can you imagine a government putting the likes of that in place?

MR. SULLIVAN: I can imagine putting it in place and not following up to see it become functional and operational. Maybe you should have been gone - what I cannot see is why you waited seven years to get rid of it, why you did not do it seven years ago when it had not met.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: But the minister to your right was here, and he believes in efficiency.

Here is another one, the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board. Now, the Financial Disclosure Advisory Board advises the securities commissioner concerning financial disclosure, the requirements of that, that is inactive; that has never met. The Consumer Reporting Agency Advisory Committee, advise on regulations, never met, inactive; Automobile Dealers Advisory Committee that is supposed to advise government, inactive; Timber Users Appeal Advisory Board, that has not had any funding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No we researched these. No, you are not getting our copy; we researched these.

The Timber Users Appeal Advisory Board lost its funding in 1991, not a cent spent on it, so we are going to streamline government and get rid of it. How can you streamline something when it never had a cent, never met, never functioned in five years and now we are going to streamline it - I mean, give the impression that we are going to do wonders in the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not tabled, I say to the minister.

Here's one, here is what happened. The Mining Tax Review Board heard grievances related to mining tax. So what happens now? The board is no longer required because the grievances now are going to be dealt with by the Minister of Finance - that is who is going to deal with grievances now - and the President of Treasury Board. He is the one who is going to deal with grievances. Is that not the last person you would want to send a grievance to - the President of Treasury Board?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is in Hansard now. Pick up a copy of Hansard next month.

Here is one, the Economic Recovery Commission; that is an interesting one, promoting economic development. We have been calling for them to get rid of that one for several years and finally they listened. They rolled a few others together. I will not get into all of these. I am sure the minister does not want to hear all of these. Maybe I will give him a copy later on.

Municipal Affairs is another area that has been really hard hit. In fact, there are so many other areas in the Budget. I just want to make reference to a letter I received yesterday from a constituent who talked about going to a meeting at Holiday Inn on the new Crown lands policy, and talked about the hardships that it has put on them as a family. They have a very low income. They owned a cabin since 1980. He said due to hard work and their own labour, they went out in the woods and cut their own materials to build it because they could not afford to buy lumber to start it because of fees at the time, application, survey, legal fees - and they are not saying we should not pay for it. That is not what they are saying. They are not saying we should not pay. In fact, he said he is making the common working person pay again for application fees, legal fees, double dipping, so to speak, in order to use their own land. He said: We paid for an application fee when we applied for a fifty year lease. It was a binding contract; I assumed it was. I paid my legal fees, survey fees and now I have to go around and pay all of these again.

The people who own their cabins are not disputing the fact that they do not want to pay for their land. We wanted the minister to put to the House that we get a longer period of time to pay off land leases. With their administration fees and their extra costs they want a reasonable period of time because they are on a low family income, that the burden should be spread over a longer period of time and that it is being unfair. That is just a reference. And this person said: I am disturbed over the fact that our present government can do what they want, when they want. If our economy is not up to par they expect to stress people to come up with a minimum of $1,400 within a short period of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure. They should not have waste.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have wasted a fortune.

MR. SULLIVAN: On what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) spent like drunken sailors.

MR. SULLIVAN: They should not have done it. There is not one member in this House who did it. There is only one member - I think there are only two members in this House who sat with that government. I think the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune sat with the government, and the Member for Humber Valley. I do not know if there are any others. Those are two. None of us sat there.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Charlie Power?

MR. SULLIVAN: Not since 1976.

MR. TULK: Since 1976?

MR. SULLIVAN: Since 1974 or 1976, whenever.

MR. TULK: Charlie Power?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: Charlie Power was not (inaudible) in 1974 or 1976.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he was. He ran in 1972 in a by-election. He lost by nine votes; it was overturned. Then he won by eight votes; it was overturned. Then he went again, three times in two years, before he finally won by 236 votes, I can tell the Government House Leader, and I worked on those three campaigns.

MR. TULK: Did you campaign for him in 1986, too?

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

MR. HARRIS: Why did you stop?

MR. SULLIVAN: If I campaigned in 1986 - there was no election here that year. In 1985 we had the election.

MR. HARRIS: Why did you stop campaigning for him?

MR. SULLIVAN: When?

MR. HARRIS: For Charlie?

MR. SULLIVAN: Because I got involved in other things that took me out of the Province, and other interests. I just did not have the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you did not have time?

MR. HARRIS: Oh, you did not (inaudible) for twenty years?

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). You just left.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. I supported him. I did not campaign. I have a right to vote.

MR. TULK: What were you voting then, Liberal or P.C.?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: Which one?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Liberal or P.C. You asked me that and I answered it.

Also, it goes on to ask in this letter: Does the minister realize what these cabin owners are putting into the economy?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) tell us when he was (inaudible) party, he was at work.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I told you, the P.C. Party. It is no secret.

MR. TULK: They wasted $7 million (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: When did they waste that?

MR. TULK: When?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you know that 42.11 per cent of the deficit has been incurred since 1989 in this Province? I have the figures to give you.

MR. TULK: Paying interest on your debt.

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. TULK: Paying interest on your debt.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is when it was incurred, I say to the minister, not my debt.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader will get thirty minutes, or an hour, maybe, if he wants it.

In the early 1960s the Liberal Government started spending 40 per cent more than they were taking in in revenues in one specific year, and the number increased, and it continued in the Moores Government, and the Peckford Government, in the Wells Government - it continued to carry out debt. In fact, the only year that they did not show a deficit was last year, and they showed $2.8 million.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, this past year, $2.8 million. Last year you showed a surplus, and there is a deficit again for this year, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in 1989, $12,000 a minute (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: When we came in here in 1989.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Imagine. It is a good thing they did not extend it today.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and do you know what you incurred?

MR. TULK: Your debt was (inaudible) $12,000 interest a minute.

MR. SULLIVAN: And since 1989 we have driven our debt up by 42 per cent.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Fifty-eight per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the debt goes back to the Smallwood era.

MR. TULK: When Smallwood left this Province there was $700 million in the public (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, you take $700 million and carry interest forward on that; $700 million for what, twenty-four years? You look at $700 million for twenty-four years in debt and see what that will add up to. You go back and calculate that. Twenty-four years at $700 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: It was $800 million, by the way.

MR. SULLIVAN: Eight hundred million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say, if the Member for Topsail has an opportunity to speak, stand when you have an opportunity. My time is running out. I am down to two minutes.

Eight hundred million was owed then. If you take the normal financing debt on $800 million for twenty-four years, it will be in the billions. That is where the debt started. That is where it went out of control, and nobody put the brakes on. Thank God, John Crosbie gave you $800 million for roads. That is all you are spending now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) lost half-a-billion over fifteen years.

MR. SULLIVAN: On what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because the railway was generating $80 million a year, and we signed a contract for fifteen years for $800 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: The railway would have incurred increasing debts. The debts would have increased on the railway as time went on. You have to compare 1972 dollars with 1996 dollars, when you do a comparison. That is what you have to do. You have to look at the real value of money, not the inflated value of money, and $800 million would have been in the billions. Most of the debt could be attributed back to that period of time because we kept incurring debts each year since, I say to the members.

We have seen cutbacks in almost every particular facet. We have seen borrowing on our future this year of $103 million. We borrowed $103 million this year on our future by different schemes. Hydro is one example where we borrowed it. Then we applied a token amount here to this House of Assembly in a minimal budget.

MR. TULK: I would not go on the Tory Party's record if I were you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Then the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: Record? (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a record, is it? The minister said it is a record. Well.

MR. TULK: It is a record, yes, a record of spending money, of waste.

MR. SULLIVAN: A record of job increases. In fact, I do not get into praising up, to be honest with you, any governments. I do not do it as a habit and I do not want to get into it - or criticizing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You supported them.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and maybe if more people had to support them in 1989 we might be a lot better off than we are here today, I say to the minister.

The jobs since last December - they are standing and telling us there are no cutbacks in health. There are 125 going out of the department, there are 500 direct jobs and another 500 indirect jobs - another 400 last Fall; 475 positions, actually, 390 people, I think, vacated those positions, up to 1,400, and all the other spin-offs depending on those jobs that we are not counting, the Health Care Corporation and others. There is going to be, within twelve months, a reduction of approximately 2,500 jobs because of government cutbacks because they have no plan.

We do need to revamp, to reorganize the direction we are going, to look overall at the best use of public services there, how they can be delivered efficiently. That has not been done, it has not been appropriately attended to. When you look at the capital spending in this Province now, if we did not have some infrastructure money coming in federally -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? The Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave? Shame.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. The hon. member does not have leave.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am standing to support the motion put forth by my colleague. The reason I stand to support the motion is not just because I am on the Opposition but because of some of the items put forth in the Budget and some of the changes that we have had to face, such as school busing, to name one.

The school busing has hit many areas of St. John's and many people in the St. John's area are going to be very heavily burdened because of the changes in school busing. Many of the residents of St. John's who are not even affected by school busing, if this continues to go ahead, are going to be affected indirectly. Because the Metrobus cannot handle it and they say it is going to be an added cost of $1 million to the taxpayers of the City of St. John's as a result of the cuts in school busing. They say that they cannot handle the additional students, they do not have the buses, they cannot make the runs. As a result, this is going to be a heavy burden on the City of St. John's, as a total, the taxpayers of St. John's. There are many areas that are being cut by school busing that right now have insufficient Metrobus runs.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Pardon me?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) to try to have the school busing in Torngat Mountains.

MR. OSBORNE: He is, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were. (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I was? I made note of it, I certainly did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) problems.

MR. OSBORNE: I mentioned they do not even have their roads ploughed. It was not us who made that decision, not this side of the House.

MR. EFFORD: Who made the decision not to plough the road in Torngat Mountain?

MR. OSBORNE: I do not know. I guess the member for that area will have to discuss that in the House if that is of concern to him. But the buses in the St. John's area, as I was talking about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, that is a fact, the Member for Torngat Mountains will have to speak for that, and the lack of ploughing on these streets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A very fine judgement.

So, the school busing, as I mentioned, in the St. John's area has a drastic effect on the taxpayers of St. John's and especially in the areas that are being hardest hit by the school-busing decision. Most particularly, the area that I am concerned with is the community of Shea Heights, and as I have said in this House, and I have presented many, many petitions on the issue, the school busing in Shea Heights is not only going to affect the students going to St. Mary's School but also the students who go to St. John Bosco. And our good Minister of Education, has said that if the students going to St. Mary's do not like the school-busing changes, they should go to St. John Bosco.

I do not know if that decision should be up to the Department of Education; I feel that if these students, for one reason or another, want to go to St. Mary's, they should have that right and should have the same right to school-busing transportation as most other communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, in the line of education, you have the discontinuation of public exams which, as we have seen by the large demonstration of students out front, 2,500 or 3,000 students who oppose the cuts to public exams just recently -

MR. EFFORD: The more I listen, the more I am sure you (inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you very much, Sir.

The many, many people who gathered out in front of our building to protest the cuts to public exams should have been a sure sign to the government that some of the decisions made during the most recent Budget were most definitely unacceptable by the students and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we had 2,500 or 3,000 people from the greater St. John's area, then obviously, that speaks of the people from across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Also, the discontinuation of first year MUN courses in several areas of our Province is going to place a burden on many families in Newfoundland and Labrador, as they will have to pay for room and board and transportation to and from St. John's. Many of these families cannot afford to face the additional costs of funding the education needs for their children. These students are going to have extra time and travel back and forth, an added disadvantage to their learning and the dedication that they put forth to getting a university education. The increase in university tuition, as well, will place a burden on many families in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I have mentioned in this House on a number of occasions now, this is probably going to - I mean, it is leading to the time when only the wealthiest of families in Newfoundland and Labrador will be able to provide their children with a university education.

Moving on to Social Services, as I mentioned in our debate last night, the sixty-one-dollar cut in social services will be a burden on many of the families on social assistance. Many of these families, even with the $61, could just barely get by from cheque to cheque, and now, they have to face the added burden of dealing with less money per month.

MR. EFFORD: Really, do you take this seriously?

MR. OSBORNE: Oh, sure I do. I have reason to take it seriously.

MR. EFFORD: Do you take everything as seriously as you are taking this?

MR. OSBORNE: Oh no, I do not take you seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Good job, `Tommy'!

MR. EFFORD: There you go, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have made so much fun on a serious issue!

MR. OSBORNE: I realize that most of what this minister says across the floor is said in fun and in humour, and while he leads us to believe he is so strictly partisan, it is all in humour, I am sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him for a moose licence.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, I already did that.

The claw-back in social services as well as the claw-back of the income tax monies that were received by the recipients of social assistance, places an additional burden on these families that they have never ever had to face before in our history. The claw-back of social assistance to some of these families who were counting on this over the year to purchase clothing for their children or much-needed furniture for their homes or whatnot -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you notice the headline, `Graham'?

MR. OSBORNE: Actually, I was just looking at the paper. Did you see the picture there?

The claw-back of the income tax cheques, as I was saying, from social assistance recipients, is most difficult on some of these families; very, very difficult indeed. It is a burden that many of these families just cannot cope with. The increase in ambulance fees, as well, is going to place a burden on people, some families throughout the Province who require ambulance services, and the changes in pharmaceutical dispensary fees, as well. I mean, all this adds up to reason that every member of the House should vote non-confidence against the Budget.

MR. SHELLEY: It is shameful.

MR. OSBORNE: It is shameful; very, very shameful. Anybody who can put that type of -

MR. EFFORD: Go 'way, boy! Anyone who puts a vote of non-confidence against the government should give the whole reason.

MR. SHELLEY: The number one reason is the minister.

MR. OSBORNE: The number one reason is the minister, yes. Non-confidence because of the added burdens that are placed on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, we all realize that we have to be fiscally responsible and so on, but we are hitting sometimes, the classes of people who just cannot afford to take these burdens, cannot afford to take on the hardships that are imposed upon them by this Liberal Administration.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Never mind that, `Tom', that is their job.

MR. OSBORNE: That is your job, I am doing my job.

MR. SHELLEY: That's right. He is doing his job.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) he is not doing his job.

MR. OSBORNE: No, sir, I am doing my job. Now, what about you? You are -

MR. EFFORD: For what he is doing there, he is suited to something else.

MR. SHELLEY: Now, minister!

MR. OSBORNE: I am suited to be on that side of the House, and I will be there soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He is like a fish out of water over there.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, is like a fish out of water, and the worst thing about it is, he will not even be processed in Newfoundland - he will be processed in Nova Scotia somewhere like the rest of the shrimp.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I am supporting the non-confidence motion is that while there were no direct tax increases -

AN HON. MEMBER: Because you are supposed to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because he believes (inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, because anybody who believes in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, while I might have `frollied' on my first time up, I am learning; I am getting better. That is a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tom, you are getting better while the people are getting bitter.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes. I am getting better while the Liberal Administration is making our Province bitter. That is a fact.

The reason I am supporting the non-confidence motion is that while there are no direct tax increases there have been tax increases and increases in the costs of many services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, a burden that they are going to have to face for many years to come, right down to the $8 million a year through Term 29. We will have to deal without the $8 million transfer payment for seventeen years, long after that Administration is going to be gone and this Opposition is going to be over on that side of the House correcting the wrongs. It will take us two or three terms just to correct it. The $30 million slush fund, that is another reason. While we cannot always predict the Budget dead on, $30 million? Holy smokes!

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister is leaving `Tommy', boy. The minister is leaving.

MR. OSBORNE: I invite the minister to stay. Do not leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. OSBORNE: Who is next? I will repeat the comments of the Government House Leader the other night: Next?

We face the closure of the Grace Hospital and the Janeway Hospital, or the relocation of the Janeway Hospital. Those are also decisions that probably do not rest easily with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I myself have some difficulties with those decisions.

The reduction of the RCMP highway patrols and the RCMP patrols in Newfoundland and Labrador because of the fact the Provincial Government could not afford to continue to subsidize the RCMP - this is going to create an insecurity on our highways, especially during the tourism season when we have many visitors coming in from the mainland. Many of these people travel our highways. Especially when you are travelling the off-highways, the Burin Peninsula highway or the Argentia highway, the roads are narrow and the courses are not always straight, there are many turns in the highways and so on. These visitors from out of town are not at all familiar with these roads. They should be more heavily patrolled than what they are. We should have another look at funding the RCMP to make our highways safer especially, as I have mentioned, during the tourism season. Especially in seasons where moose and other wildlife travel is at a peak across our highways.

The increases in fish licencing fees and other wild game licencing fees and hunting fees as well was a hidden tax, an increase on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, a burden that is going to have to be faced by the people of our Province. The changes in Crown land fees. The minister of Crown lands attended our meeting last week and he can well attest to the fact that while before the meeting he felt that there was nobody who showed much disapproval to the changes in the Crown land fees, he got his earful the other night. The 250 or 300 people who attended our meeting the other evening let the minister know just how much the people of our Province disapprove of the changes in the Crown land fees.

When you compile all of these small burdens together and put them in a collective total, some of the people of our Province are just not going to be able to bear the brunt of these increases. Again, we are going to lose some of our people, some Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will lose these people to the mainland because of a lack of opportunity here in Newfoundland and Labrador, because of the increased cost of living, because of the increased fees in all sectors of the economy.

I have named just a few of the areas where the government had hidden tax increases in the most recent Budget, and decreases to social assistance recipients, and the people who depend on the government to get by from cheque to cheque. These people are going to leave our Province to look for opportunities elsewhere in Canada and maybe in the United States because they see no hope, no better tomorrow, with this Administration's planning for tomorrow. There is no better tomorrow for a lot of these people. Our bright educated young people are moving to the mainland to find their better tomorrow. I did not see that written in the Red Book. There is no mention in the Red Book that they would have to move to the mainland to find a better tomorrow, but yet that is exactly what this Administration is doing. They are inviting them to leave. If they want a better tomorrow, find it elsewhere, find it on the mainland. They are not going to find it here, not while the Liberal Administration is in power, not while we are facing the type of fiscal restraint that is rammed down the throats of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the way it is here.

Our full and fair share. That is all that was preached in the last provincial general election, full and fair share. Whose full and fair share? I ask.

MR. SHELLEY: The government's.

MR. OSBORNE: The government's full and fair share.

MR. SHELLEY: Shameful!

MR. OSBORNE: It is, it is shameful, ridiculous! It is completely outrageous! I cannot believe the Administration that is sitting opposite promised a full and fair share during the last provincial election, and within a matter of days, were concocting a plan -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I am talking about you and the cuts to school busing; the cuts to first-year university; the cuts to colleges. You are giving your full and fair share of cuts, that is the only full and fair share you are giving.

MR. GRIMES: Who wrote that speech, anyway?

AN HON. MEMBER: You will be surprised.

MR. OSBORNE: That is a good speech. Do you like it?

`Roger', you are going to vote non-confidence after this. I say to the Minister of Education, you are going to vote non-confidence after this, aren't you?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to have the minister talked into it!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is better than having a boxing match out in Port Blandford.

MR. OSBORNE: It is better than having a boxing match in Port Blandford.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have the minister convinced.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, I almost have him convinced.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I would say you should resign and we will get Fabian back. Our full and fair share, I say to the Government House Leader. I ask the Government House Leader, what he has done to contribute to full and fair share.

I ask the Speaker for judgement here again. I cannot hear myself think. I ask the Government House Leader: What has he done to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador their full and fair share?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Posters, what posters?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Oh, all the posters in his trunk, I heard about that, the posters and buttons in his trunk. Is there any truth to that, I ask the Government House Leader, all the posters are still in your trunk?

MR. TULK: What?

MR. OSBORNE: I heard all your campaign posters were still in your trunk.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Six hundred in your trunk.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: They were all brought back to him.

MR. OSBORNE: All brought back. They were afraid you were going to blow up - T and T. So, as I was saying, the administration sitting opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: TNT.

MR. OSBORNE: TNT, yes. That is a good slogan: TNT.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Not yet.

As I was saying, the Administration sitting opposite, the only full and fair share they have offered the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the most recent election is their full and fair share of cuts.

AN HON. MEMBER: And bitterness.

MR. OSBORNE: - and bitterness.

AN HON. MEMBER: Patronage.

MR. OSBORNE: That is a fact, patronage. Now, there is an issue. Those are the guys who are getting their full and fair share. We did not read the fine print: full and fair share for friends and family; it is like the Sprint Calling Card: for friends and family. The government's calling card: Full and fair share for friends and family, friends of the government, fog. Newfoundland is famous for fog; friends of the government, full and fair share: 1-800-Patronage; 1-800 Newfoundland Farms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You have made a lot of good points.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes. I ask the members across if they are going to have the decency and the common courtesy to the Newfoundland public tonight to vote non-confidence in this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: What I am hearing is you are not going to have the decency and the common courtesy to vote non-confidence. This is what you are saying?

MR. TULK: No. We have all the confidence in the world in this (inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: All the confidence in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. OSBORNE: `Orsborne,' that is who you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: `Orsborne'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Southside.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, and that is another good issue, the tanks on the Southside Hills. Where is our Minister of Environment and Labour?

MR. SULLIVAN: He is up there cleaning up the mess!

MR. OSBORNE: He is up cleaning up the mess! I have a letter right here, actually, that the Minister of Environment wrote last year. I will read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you haven't.

MR. OSBORNE: I do so. Hang on, now. I hope the Minister of Environment and Labour can hear me out there somewhere. He is listening, I am sure. This is from the Department of Environment, dated May 29 1995 - a year ago. This is good reading:

`I am writing in follow-up to our April 25 meeting, arranged by the hon. Thomas Murphy, concerning the hydro-carbon storage tanks on the Southside Hills. Following our meeting, I asked the department staff to again review our files on these tanks to make certain whether any further work might be necessary or desirable in order to determine whether the tanks meet the legislation and regulations administered by the department, and to compile an inventory of the tanks, as you had requested.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. OSBORNE: Now, I am getting to the good part here: `A table is enclosed showing the capacity and dates of installation for all the tanks currently in service. There are thirteen tanks in total, four of which belong to Irving Oil and the other nine to Imperial Oil. Of those nine belonging to Imperial Oil, four are vacant, empty, not in service.'

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) see that letter.

MR. SULLIVAN: Read Hansard.

MR. OSBORNE: Hang on, now, I am getting to the good part here.

MR. TULK: Yes, alright.

MR. OSBORNE: It reads: `With respect to the requirements of the legislation and regulations, inspections of the tanks were carried out on January 25 and 27 of 1993, and again on February 14 of 1995.'

I would say the inspectors were full of love and goo that day, February 14. They couldn't see what they were inspecting.

The letter goes on: `With the results of these inspections, our staff are satisfied' - now that is not what we heard yesterday, but they were satisfied - `that all the tanks are in compliance. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. Let me assure you that we will ensure that existing tanks and any new tanks installed are fully in compliance with the legislation and regulations administered by the Department of Environment.'

MR. SULLIVAN: What did we see on t.v. yesterday?

MR. OSBORNE: Yesterday we heard a different story. There is sludge and oil slicks and all kinds of pollution up around that area.

MR. TULK: Do you want them inspected again?

MR. OSBORNE: No. Sure, why - the Minister of Environment said they were perfect last year.

MR. TULK: Last year (inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: But the tanks are empty. Where did the sludge come from?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) four years; that was last year. Do you want them inspected now?

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, I think they should be.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is up there now, cleaning it up.

MR. OSBORNE: The minister is up there cleaning it up now. Last year they were okay, and even though they are empty, not in service, and have not been in service since last year, now all of a sudden the area is contaminated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. OSBORNE: By leave -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. OSBORNE: I can have a minute. The Government House Leader said I could have a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. OSBORNE: Look, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is seated up in the corner. He is afraid to come down front and listen. He is hiding up in the back.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is in a precarious situation because individuals in the House who are denying leave are not sitting in their own seats, so I must ask again. Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. TULK: Yes, just one minute.

MR. SPEAKER: By all means, one minute to clue up.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - you are too late. Now I know how concerned you are with me continuing to speak, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. However, I can assure you that you should not feel disheartened at my comments. Because just as yours were made in jest and in fun, so are mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, the Dockyard, that is another good issue now today, the Dockyard.

MR. TULK: No, leave is withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was interested in listening to the last couple of minutes of the debate. I can understand why the Member for Port de Grave was so anxious to deny leave.

MR. EFFORD: Now, you keep your hands in your pockets.

MR. HARRIS: It is not often that a member with his experience is clocked clean three times in a row by a rookie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) your hands in your pockets.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Port de Grave has been reduced - not produced, but reduced.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) hands, look. (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The next thing you know, Mr. Speaker, he will not have anything to say except for describing where people are putting their hands and whose pockets they are putting them into. He knows a lot about putting his hands into people's pockets. He knows a lot about it.

I want to get on to the serious topic that is under debate tonight, and that is the question of whether or not this House has confidence in the government. That is the question that we are debating here tonight. I want to say to the Government House Leader, it is a pretty wild assertion that needs to be made if we are going to have confidence in this government. I would say that is a pretty wild statement. Because it is not just a question of whether this House has confidence in the government, but what about the people of the Province? Do they have confidence in this government? Do the people, for example, who voted in the referendum last September have confidence in this government? Do they have confidence in the government? I do not think so.

For example, the framework agreement - are the people of this Province heartened by what they saw when the Minister of Education got together with certain individuals and entered into a framework agreement? No, Mr. Speaker, and interestingly enough, some of them have gotten together to send petitions to this House. I understand that the minister was here today when the Member for Ferryland, the Leader of the Official Opposition, read out the petition from 9,000 people. I am sure there is another 90,000 to come.

Mr. Speaker, I was kind of interested in an advertisement taken out today by the United Church Conference delegates in their reaction to Education Reform. They were concerned about the east and west districts. The Newfoundland and Labrador Conference of the United Church of Canada met in joint session in St. John's over the last week or so, and they unanimously endorsed the statement made by the Newfoundland and Labrador Conference regarding the church's role in education in the Province. And delegates from every pastoral charge in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, clergy, lay and youth, expressed total approval of all statements in the releases and they were adamant in their wish to re-affirm the historic position of the United Church and their commitment to a single church/school system accessible to all students. But they were concerned, Mr. Speaker, as to what the government had done and what some people had done on their behalf.

What is interesting, Mr. Speaker - and this is no surprise; that part of it is pretty well-known. But here is the part that is not particularly well-known: that the delegates at this conference further voiced strong and unanimous condemnation of the deep financial cuts to education at all levels in the recent provincial Budget. Students from preschool, daycare centres through elementary and high schools, universities, community colleges are being subjected to vast and disruptive changes in the content, delivery and the cost of their programs. The foundations are being shaken; that is what the United Church has said, Mr. Speaker, the foundations of education are being shaken and the speed with which the process is being implemented does not allow for rational decision-making and logical program development.

Now, this is not a political statement, Mr. Speaker; this is a statement of the United Church Conference delegates to the joint session in St. John's, May 30 to June 2 and you will find it in today's Evening Telegram, a detailed statement condemning the deep financial cuts to education by this government. They are saying: The foundations are being shaken and the speed with which the process is being implemented does not allow for rational decision-making and logical program development. The implications for administrators, teachers and students are far-reaching and, in some cases, devastating. The budgetary loss is one concern but the cost in human concern cannot be measured. It includes the loss of accessibility to education for many people; the end of professional careers for others and the hopelessness and bitterness which result from unemployment and broken dreams. It also includes a possible loss to the Province of leadership and expertise as frustrated individuals seek opportunities elsewhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was not from the NDP convention last weekend. That was not a political statement from the NDP in opposition to the government. This was a statement of a non-political group from the United Church of Canada meeting in joint session in St. John's, May 30 to June 2, and these are people from all across the Province, from each pastoral charge in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, clergy, lay people and youth, all together, expressing their concerns about what this government is doing to education in the Province, to the future of young people and to the future of our school system.

When I consider the motion of non-confidence in this government, I must have to consider the statement made and published today at the expense of the United Church of Canada concerning their issues raised by them and communicated to the public through this advertisement.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that those on the other side are listening when these leaders speak out, because they come from the community. They come from communities across this Province where the United Church has parishes, has charges, and they are in touch with people at the grass roots level who are being affected by these changes, who are sinking into hopelessness and bitterness as to what this government is doing.

We have heard others who are affected by this government's action. In education alone the community colleges, the first-year university programs, the busing problems. All of these resulted from government decisions without consultation. Even the framework agreement was done with consultation alright, consultation with a dozen people - not with the people of this Province but only with a dozen people who are significant players in the control of education in this Province. That is why there has been such an uproar about it, because the consultation was not done broadly enough.

MR. EFFORD: What consultation?

MR. HARRIS: What consultation? Mr. Speaker, what the member says is absolutely right. What consultation? I agree wholeheartedly with the Member for Port de Grave. What consultation was that resulting in the framework agreement? That was the absence of consultation with the people of this Province because they were not consulted at all.

What consultation went on with the pharmaceutical groups, the pharmaceutical association, with the members of the pharmaceutical association, when this government decided to unilaterally reduce the fee for dispensing drugs below costs.

MR. EFFORD: None.

MR. HARRIS: What consultation? None. The minister asks and answers his own question. What consultation? The answer is none.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now, the `minister of wealth' once again speaks out. Obviously, he is not speaking out for the little man. He is quite happy to go - and because he has discovered that some companies in four, five or six locations in the Province are conducting lost leaders on dispensing drugs, he is quite prepared to impose that cost reduction below cost on every other pharmacy in the Province.

I got a letter today from a pharmacy in my district which indicates that 40 per cent of its business has been reduced below cost. They are being required by this government to deliver the service below cost for 40 per cent of their customers because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Social Services.

MR. HARRIS: Without any consultation. This is the government of consultation. As the Member for Port de Grave says: What consultation? Then he answers his own question: None. Absolutely none.

MR. SULLIVAN: They want the pharmaceuticals to run their social programs for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Social Services (inaudible) everyone is suffering.

MR. HARRIS: I think what the member says is right. It is the Social Services clients who are suffering probably more than anybody else as a result of this Budget, and as a result of this government's actions. Those least able to afford it - I know the Minister of Health and wealth over there is laughing and joking with the Minister of Social Services; that is all very well. But the people those two ministers are supposed to be looking after in this Province are not laughing after this Budget, Mr. Speaker. They are desperate; they are writing letters to me.

I have a letter from Harbour Grace. They must not think they have a member over there. They are writing letters to me from Harbour Grace because they do not have anyone to represent them from over there, it seems. I do not know why they cannot contact their own member if they are concerned about what the Department of Social Services is doing to them. I am getting phone calls from the West Coast of the Province, people on social assistance.

MR. EFFORD: Calling you. What for - legal advice?

MR. HARRIS: Calling me, Mr. Speaker, about what this Department of Social Services is doing to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Laugh, have a laugh. The last laugh will not be yours, I tell you, because the people all across this Province are phoning the Opposition members, they are phoning me, they are phoning the Member for Waterford Valley, the Member for Ferryland. And there is a good reason for it, I suppose. We are told that the minister does not take calls from outside of St. John's. We are told that they do not take calls from outside the Province, and even within the Province, Mr. Speaker - her own constituents, I have told them: Call the minister. You are in luck. If you have a problem with Social Services you are in luck because your member is the one who has the power to do something about it. We refer them on to the minister's office and they phone back half-an-hour later saying they did not get any sympathy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I have to be fair, they could not get through to the minister. They could not get the minister, that is true, but they phoned back saying they did not get much sympathy from the person they talked to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am trying to be fair. I do not want to blame the minister for something she did not do. I am saying they called me back because they were not satisfied with the response they got from the minister's office.

Mr. Speaker, these are the people who are suffering most in this Province and unfortunately, there does not seem to be anyone going to bat for them on that side of the House. I do not see anybody over there going to bat for them. I do not see anybody busting the traces over there - do not hear a boo over there, not even any rumblings in the back benches. There was a time in the last government when there were some people in the back benches prepared to rumble, prepared to make noise, prepared to shake things up a little bit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There is one. I take it back - there is one. I see him there. He is not sitting in his place. He usually sits over at the other end. There is one who is prepared to shake, rattle and roll over there, but that is not enough, Mr. Speaker. We do not hear about problems in caucus anymore. We do not hear about people not satisfied with what the government is doing to their constituents. We do not hear any noises about that. The Minister of Health and wealth is able to continue to smile. You do not see any frowns on the face of the Minister of Health and wealth. He is not worried. There is no dissension in the back benches causing him to worry about his seat. Nobody is concerned, because there is nobody over there really who is dissatisfied.

I am pretty confident that this vote of non-confidence will fail because it seems to me that there are enough people over there willing to support this government in their actions. I see the new Member for Topsail - the almost-member for Conception Bay South for the last few years - I can see him smiling over there. He is delighted now. He has gone from carrying the briefcase to sitting in the House. He can sit back and smile and laugh now for another few years. Maybe if he is here long enough he might even get a pension. But he will be guaranteed to support the government because he is not going to buck the system, Mr. Speaker, he is not going to buck the trend. He is going to sit there and support whatever is done in the front benches hoping that some day he is going to be there himself. So I am pretty sure this motion is going to pass.

I see rookie members even trying out the front benches. Other people have gone from carrying the briefcase to sitting in the House. And I suppose it is ambition, and there is nothing wrong with a little bit of ambition. Even the Member for Port de Grave used to have ambition at one time. One time he wanted to be Premier but he has given that up now.

MR. EFFORD: No, I have not.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, I don't know! That is what he said, Mr. Speaker, and now, he is denying it; but I saw him on t.v. and he was practically bawling. He was practically bawling and saying this is my last chance, my last chance to be Premier. So, as I said, at one time he had ambition but he has given it up; he is satisfied with his lot in life now and will sit over there and support the government in this non-confidence motion. That is what we have over there now, Mr. Speaker, nobody over there to shake, rattle and roll, except for one I can see. The others are sitting back complacently, supporting the changes that this government is taking - the drastic changes, Mr. Speaker, and it is not just me saying this. I do not often get to quote the United Church Conference because they do not often publish their views in my circles, but they are saying here about -

I wonder, maybe the Member for Waterford Valley can comment - I am quite prepared to let him have a minute or so. Is it a usual thing for the United Church Conference to publish strong views such as this in a newspaper? Is it unusual? It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, these are very, very strong views; they are talking about the strong and unanimous condemnation of government action; strong and unanimous condemnation and, Mr. Speaker, they are talking -

MR. TULK: That's my church.

MR. HARRIS: But I say to the Government House Leader, they are saying: The foundations are being shaken and the speed with which the process is being implemented does not allow rational decision-making and logical program development. And they talk about the devastating implications for administrators, teachers and students. That is what they are saying. They apparently do not have much confidence in the approach that this government is taking. That is what I see around this Province. The people who voted for this government a couple of months ago, Mr. Speaker, wish they had their time back.

They wish they had their time back, because they have had the wool pulled over their eyes, big time, big time, Mr. Speaker, and now we have a group of people who are prepared to sit in this House and support the other half. I see that the Member for Topsail is even more ambitious. He is trying out the best seat in the House now. He is here for the best seat in the House. He has a lot of confidence, he is rubbing his hands. He likes the seat so much he is rubbing his hands with ambition. He is hoping if he continues to support this type of measure, that one day perhaps he, too, will be able to sit in the front bench.

Well, I have news for him, Mr. Speaker. The people of this Province are not prepared to be fooled anymore. Three months ago, 110 days, someone said today, 110 days - usually, you know, they used to measure in the States, and I think they started it back in the 1950s or 1960s, the first 100 days. The first 100 days were supposed to show what kind of government the new government was. Well, we have it, Mr. Speaker, we have it in spades. The first 100 days of this government, after the flash, after the glossy campaign, Be Ready For A Better Tomorrow, after the first 100 days, we certainly got it between the two eyes, Mr. Speaker, right between the two eyes.

AN HON. MEMBER: The election was over before you got (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is right, the election was over before we got organized, actually - absolutely right, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell you what happened. The Member for Port de Grave is gone now, but he is one of them - crying on t.v. because he is not allowed to run for premier. Because the steamroller has had its effect and the word is out: We can't do that because if we have a contested nomination for leader, the people will be on to us before we can have an election. That was the principal problem: We might have to even bring down a budget before we can have an election. That was the principal problem.

If we had a leadership convention, they would have had to bring down a budget before they could have an election and that was what they were worried about. They knew that if they brought down this Budget and then went to the electorate, they would not be sitting over there. There would be no Member for Topsail rubbing his hands in the Premier's seat this morning. There would be nobody over there rubbing their hands. The Member for Topsail certainly would not be there rubbing his hands in the Premier's seat. No, he would not be there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you be over there?

MR. HARRIS: I do not know, I think there would be a woman sitting in that seat. I think there would probably be a woman sitting in that seat, instead of the Member for Topsail rubbing his hands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what happened to your colleagues in Ontario (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the member wants a lesson in politics. Well, if the member wants a lesson in politics he does not have to go to Ontario. All he has to do is read the Telegram, you know. Lessons in the Trans City affair. That is all he has to do. You do not need to go to Ontario for a lesson in politics. Here we are, look: Using a lease-purchase arrangement, the Province will pay Trans City $101 million for hospitals that could have been built more cheaply.

That is a massive transfer of the people's money, is it not? Where does this massive transfer of the people's money go, into whose hands? Is it spread far and wide or is it the three people who are getting this money? And who are these three people who are getting the $101 million of the people's money? It would not be Tom Hickman, would it? It would not be a failed Liberal candidate? No chance of that, is there? No long-term supporters of the Liberal Party, the $101 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. HARRIS: No, oh no! A major transfer of the public wealth to three individuals. You do not need to go to Ontario now. The lessons from the Trans City affair are spelled out here in The Telegram, June 9.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Do not worry about that, that was yesterday. We will not worry about that. Those are yesterday's mistakes. The Member for Topsail protests a bit too much. Perhaps he would like to get up and tell us how it is that this $101 million being dribbed and drabbed over the next thirty years - I would love to have that income stream, Mr. Speaker. That is even more than the Member for Port de Grave makes. What kind of an income stream is that over the next thirty years? One hundred and one million dollars to three individuals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of politics that we have been putting up with in this Province for the last four or five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Sprung.

MR. HARRIS: There is no need to talk about Sprung. I am not a big fan of Sprung, Mr. Speaker, but let us not talk about Sprung when we have lessons here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) no proof (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I do not need proof, I have the Supreme Court of Newfoundland telling me that you fellows broke the law. I have the Supreme Court and that is proof enough to me, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I am going to stand by what the judge said. I am going to talk (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I want to deal with what the Supreme Court said, Mr. Speaker. It said that this government broke the law, and they got caught!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what we have is political favouritism going on at the highest level. These are only some of the reasons why people lack confidence in this government, and they have only had a few months. Imagine what it is going to be like in another six or eight months.

MR. FLIGHT: Now, you tell them. (Inaudible) thirty what?

MR. TULK: Thirty-seven.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Windsor - Springdale is asking about counting. How many people ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party? Can we count?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: How many people ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party? Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what I want to know. A party of government with thirty-five sitting members, and what did they do? They had a leadership convention and nobody wanted the job except one person. They were afraid to have a leadership convention. Even the most ambitious, the Member for Port de Grave, was afraid to run. He was practically in tears on t.v., saying: It is my last chance, my last opportunity to run,' and he gave it up. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they knew if they ever brought down a Budget before they went to the people, they would have their clocks cleaned immediately. That is what they knew. They knew, and that is why they waited. And the people of Newfoundland have to put up with this government until they have a chance to get rid of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: In four years.

MR. HARRIS: It may be less than four years. Never you mind, now. Strange things happen in politics. If this government is discredited as much in the next year as they have been in the last two months, it may be that they will have to hang their heads in shame and go to the polls. It may well be that we will have an election before the four years is up, so do not count your pension yet, I say to the members opposite who need an extra three or four years to get their pension. You may not be here that long.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that my time is just about up but I will say though that I do not think this motion is going to pass because I see over on that side too many people who are complacent about what this government has done to the people of this Province and they are too ready to accept it without fighting back. I am going to sit down now because I think there are other members who have something important to say. I hope that hon. members opposite will listen and perhaps be convinced. I am not convinced that they will but I am prepared to let someone else try to convince them, and I hope that some of them over there opposite at least could recognize that this is not a government they should have confidence in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member, I again want to draw to members' attention a couple of parliamentary practices that have been, I guess, breached here in this House on a number of occasions over the last number of days. I refer hon. members to page 100 of Beauchesne, section 336. "Although difficult to enforce on occasion, Speakers have also consistently attempted to discourage loud private conversations in the Chamber, and have urged those wishing to carry on such exchanges to do so outside the House. It has also been suggested that Members should not sit on chair arms or on desks with their backs to the House when conversing privately." We have consistently over a period of time, it has been precedent in this House and has been ruled on on many occasions that it is considered unparliamentary for members to sit with their backs to the Chair or to the Chamber.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and have a few words on the motion that has been put forth in the House. I guess I will start off by saying that when I got involved in politics, not only on a provincial scale but on a municipal scale, it was because I believed there were contributions we could make, that we could build our economies back up and we could do it in conjunction and partnership with each other, whether it be Municipal Government, Provincial Government, or Federal Government.

When I hear debate throughout the House on different times, I am reminded of the recent election and the campaign that I went through in my district. I ran because I saw that since 1991 with the failure of the fishery and the economy of my whole district being, I guess, taken to one of doom and gloom for many months, it was a battle and a struggle to try to build it up. I wanted to see that changed, and I believed, and to a degree I still do, in the confidence of the Province and of the Federal Government to back the people of Labrador and of the rural communities, and to help them build their communities back up so that we would not have a part of this Province that would dwindle and die due to a failure in one particular aspect of the economy.

I guess, as I entered into my job in the last few months in representing the people of Cartwright to L'Anse-au-Clair, I find that task is not always as easy or as simplified as what I thought it would be. I understand that it is difficult to govern in hard financial times with fiscal restraints, and we have been through that on a municipal level in our communities in the difficulties that we have faced. Yet, I also believe there is a fair and equitable way of doing it.

I think back to the complications and restrictions that this Budget has placed on people in my district. I think in particular of the residents of the Cartwright, Paradise River and Black Tickle area. The residents of this area have been undergoing great restraint since the Budget came in with regard to cuts and impacts that affected them directly in their lives. I think about the infrastructure that has been cut in these communities that is not only a cut to infrastructure but is, in essence, the bringing about of the non-existence of whole communities.

We have to realize that in a lot of rural areas of this Province, communities are built around minimal infrastructure, minimal development, but people are trying, and they are working hard to diversify and to build it up. It is sad when we see that a service that could cost as little as a few thousand dollars to continue a community has to be taken away. I think there are things like this that we have to look at more seriously and look at the question: Is there a better trade-off that we can make?

I think about Cartwright and the situation with the RCMP and the cuts that were made in the recent Budget. As I said before, in reviewing the Estimates, I see that there is only a $1 million deduction and not $3.6 million. I am concerned about the amount of these cuts that have been made in Labrador in general, in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area, and in my area of Cartwright.

I look at the whole geographics of Labrador and across my district and it is very difficult to be able to build up communities that are in total isolation from each other. It is very difficult to be able to provide services to small groups of people who are in constant isolation from each other.

I look at the RCMP situation and the fact that we have 700 kilometres to be served across my district by two RCMP officers who, on snowmobile or by air, have to patrol 700 kilometres. I look at other parts of the Province which seem to be more privileged in these services and I ask why did this area have to be cut, or why did this area have to be affected so greatly. I know it is due to fiscal restraint, but I see ways in which we could have made cuts that would have affected a lot less people directly. There could have been more indirect impacts. For those reasons I have brought the concerns to the Minister of Justice. I wait today for his response, and I hope it will be coming in this week.

The people of my district have worked very hard since 1991 especially, to build up an alternative industry for themselves. We had become so dependent upon the fishery as the sole industry that I guess we have let a lot of other development that was adjacent to us slide. I think we have made remarkable strides in the tourism industry alone, when you look at how far the Labrador Straits has come in the last four to five years with the development of that industry, when you look at what Southeastern Labrador has done. Even this weekend there was $500,000 allotted for tourism of the Battle Harbour historic site under the SRDA.

But there seems to be very little consistency in the strategic planning of this industry. It seems that the people have taken the initiative to build up the industry, to lobby, to look at a focus and a direction they want to take, but yet, we have very little or no access to this industry because of the complications in transportation. So there has been no strategic plan. Although the industry has been built up, there has been no plan in how to access it.

As we embark on a new era across this Province with regard to regional boards and the process they are to take, we preach to them the importance of strategic planning in industry development, in diversifying their economies, in building their communities back up, sustainability, creating employment. We all make sure that it is contingent on a plan. We have even put forth funds for them to develop that plan.

Yet, we have to look at what we are doing as members of the House of Assembly, as representatives of these people, as the government that governs in this Province, to ensure that what we are doing is in fact supporting what we are asking them to do; also, putting our plan in place that it falls in line with what they want and where they see the best possible development. I am not saying that all of these plans are going to be perfect and we should take them at face value. No doubt there is lots of room for negotiation and lots of room for change.

As I travelled throughout my district since the election and listened to where the people are coming from and the things they had to say, it is sad, but people have very little confidence in the political structure these days. As much as we do not want to hear that, it is the truth. I talk to people in the health care profession in my district and they tell me about the increasing caseloads of stress and the impacts that it is having on people's lives. I think we all realize that it is very difficult to be able to do things the way we want to do it, or to please everybody in this process, but we do have to look at the basic essential services and impacts that we are having on people's lives.

Whether it is due to regulations that we set in this House or as set in the House of Commons in Ottawa regarding UI reform and other programs, we have whole communities that are falling into dependency on social assistance programs. It is sad, very sad, but what is even sadder is when we have to bring down a budget that allows very little opportunity or room to be able to look at new and alternative development for those communities and those people.

I firmly believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are ready and are willing and are working on regenerating new employment opportunities for their communities and their people. I think for the last few years there has been more concentration than ever on innovation and how they can best utilize the resources they have available to them.

I know, in my district, there has been a lot of disappointment, a lot of distress, discouragement, and I guess, somewhat disgust over some of the announcements in the recent Budget, especially those that pertain to transportation. For the past three to four years, we have been proposing options to the Federal Government and also looking at initiatives with our member and through the Province. We made recommendations as to how Marine Atlantic services could be down-sized in our district. We wanted to make a trade-off for a road through rural Labrador to Southeastern Labrador. We negotiated cuts to Marine Atlantic, we saw the elimination of our freight subsidies and passenger subsidies by air, we have seen the marine services down-scaled so that they are almost non-existent there anymore, but we did not see the dollars redirected back into our highway. We have not seen one cent redirected back into our highway.

Although people all across Labrador, even the ones in my district, recognize the importance of having the road completed from Labrador West to Goose Bay, what the economic spin-offs will be for the people of that area, what it means to the cost of living and the daily operation of Labrador - and in essence we do support it; but it is really difficult when you know how much we have compromised and we have lost as a district through these requests and negotiations and having nothing put back.

As we continue in isolation, dollars are now being allocated by this Province and by the Federal Government to do work and completion on that highway. While we are continuing to pay a higher price for air tickets, to pay dearly for our food and the cost of living, an alarming rate just to bring a vehicle in or out of our communities, where we go months and months out of a year with no marine services, yet knowing that our funding is going to supplement highways and road transportation in other parts of this country is very frustrating for us.

We are looking at ways of proposing new alternatives. We are willing to renegotiate, we are willing to put new cases forward and to look at new options, but we cannot do it in good faith anymore. We did it in good faith and we ended up being the loser. I guess when you look at the people of this Province and how they look at government as a whole - whether it is the government of the day or the government of ten years ago - it is very difficult to look at it in good faith when you look at the changes that we have embarked on. Although the changes have been done for the fiscal responsibility of the Province as a whole, it has had detrimental effects on the everyday lives of individual people and families.

I grew up in Coastal Labrador. I have lived in among the people and I have had a very active part in all avenues of development and progress that we have made. I have helped eliminate some of the barriers that we have faced and there are still many more that we do. Sometimes when I look around this Province, I wonder in reality how many people truly understand the daily ins and outs of life that we face as residents of Coastal Labrador.

When I think about the costs that we have to pay for basic and essential services, for food to go on our table, for shelter over our heads, it is phenomenal compared to the cost of other parts of this Province even. When I look at the medical services that the constituents in my district have to go through, the levels that they have to go through to get proper medical services, I wonder if people actually understand what it is we go through, what it is like to have to get on a plane every time you have to see a doctor, get on a plane that costs you the minimum of $200 return. It is very difficult to look after your family, to be able to live in these communities, and to be able to avail of the essential services that you need.

When I look at transportation - and I spoke about transportation in regard to the tourism industry and the strides we have made in building that industry up. Although we have built it up to national historic sites that have been recognized all across the country, the difficulty in getting there is absolutely impossible, really, for people to believe. The fact that you have to travel by vehicle, by air and by boat in most cases to get to just one particular historic site is unbelievable. The cost that is incurred - people cannot afford to explore and to develop. Yet, we continue in optimism and in hope. Because we are hoping that some day these sites that we are developing, where we are focusing our industries for a prosperous future for our district, will be open for the world to see.

I look at things like the cost of hydro power. The people in my district pay a higher cost for hydro power than anywhere else in the Province. When the deal was negotiated with Hydro Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the Lake Robinson deal, finally we said: We are going to get some fair, decent rates on hydro power. It has been a long time in coming but maybe there is hope. The first thing that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro did was turn around and slap the residents of that area with the diesel-generated rate. They were not given the same opportunities and equality as all other residents of this Province when they became part of an interconnected system. They were not. We have had to go through hearings, we have had to get lawyers, we have had battles. We have been at this for months just to get a fair deal on a hydro rate.

It seems that every single issue that comes out in this Province, whether it is at the provincial level or federal level, or on the level of a private entrepreneur, it affects Coastal Labrador. There is no reasoning in it, there is no rationale, there is no consultation. It is just slap, bang and done, in hopes that people will accept it and walk away.

The people of my district are not going to accept it anymore. What we have started, is an organization of our people and our communities. We went through resettlement once and we will not do it again. We are determined to make it work. Whether we have the support of this Legislature or of the Federal Legislature, we are determined to make it work, and as the people in this House get up and preach that they are representing all the people of this Province, that they want fairness and equality for all people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I am sure that they will see where the people of my district are coming from, what they have been through in the past years and while they continue to live in isolation from the rest of this Province, I am sure that you will see reason and justice to be able to have that eliminated.

We talked about the Red Book, the Blue Book, the Pickle Book and all kinds of books here today and what those books contain and the plans that they have for a better future, a more prosperous future for the people of this Province, but I remind the people in this House that they are words, and anybody can lay out a beautiful plan for the future of this Province with words in a book, but it is very difficult to be able to deliver on it. It is very difficult to be able to act on what our intentions are no matter how good they are. And I guess the challenges are ours to face and to see that what we do is in the best interests of all the people of this Province, including the people of Coastal Labrador and the people of my district.

As I speak to different ministers on different issues, I can only say that, yes, they have listened to what I have said. I wait now for them to act on the requests that I have made; to act on the best interests of the people of Coastal Labrador, to look at the way that we have been living, the trying times that we have gone through and to make it a better tomorrow for us. The challenge is yours now. You have outlined it in your book, we are looking that you deliver on it.

Just this weekend, we have had the Federal Government recognize the Labrador Métis people of my district and of the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area. They were given their core-funding and recognized as aboriginal people in this country. They are people who have a vision for Labrador as well; they are people who have a vision for development and sustainability for their people and their communities. We look forward to see what they bring about; we look forward to see the challenges that they pose to this government and to see that the government accepts them as aboriginal people as they have so rightly been found across Labrador and in this country.

I can only outline what the challenges are to my district and what it is the people there face. And as I sit here lots of times - and believe me, I have a sense of humour, too - and I hear the jokes and comments that are made back and forth across this House, I think about the realities of the rural areas of this Province especially, and what it is that families and people are going through, and sometimes I have to get up and walk out. Because it is very difficult when you live in communities and live in a part of this Province where you see day after day, the trials and tribulations of people, the poverty they have been reverted to, and yet, see the mockery to which we sometimes revert ourselves. I can only say it is shameful on all of our parts on occasion.

MR. EFFORD: What has that got to do with jest once in a while? That is an unfair statement. That is an example of what she (inaudible).

MS JONES: I am just saying, that is an example. I said that I am as humorous as the next person and I enjoy humour.

MR. EFFORD: I can get as serious as the next person and do my job (inaudible).

MS JONES: I have seen you get very serious, I say to the hon. minister, very serious. But I saying also that sometimes we sit here and it is very - I have seen this House sometimes in a -

MR. EFFORD: It is difficult to sit here and keep your sanity with what goes on in this House!

MS JONES: It is difficult to live in this Province and keep your sanity when you see the situations that communities and families are in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I believe in the capabilities of every member in this House. I say that because if we were not capable people we would not have been elected to sit here and represent the people of this Province. But the capabilities and the confidence are two different issues. While we are all capable, it is very difficult to make decisions that are in the same light, and agreeable with all members of the House. I am sure that all the people of this Province understand that as they sit on their own boards and councils and all the rest of it and make different difficult decisions.

I only hope that the issues I have brought forward from my district and the comments I have made will remain in the minds of ministers and people in this House as we make future decisions to govern the people of Coastal Labrador. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, say `nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division?

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Ms Jones.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mr. Flight, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, Mr. Langdon, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Noel, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Whelan, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Reid, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sparrow, Mr. Wiseman.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Ayes, 11; Nays, 26.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I move that the House do now adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., at which time we will consider the private members' resolution put forward by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.