The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we call the routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome a couple of groups to the gallery today. One is the Level II and Level III students from All Saints All Grade School in Grey River, in the District of Fortune Bay-Cape La Hune. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Terry Lavalle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome forty-four Grade V students from Eugene Vaters Academy, in the District of St. John's North, accompanied by teachers, Ralph Cann and Jackie Pottle, along with student assistant, Cathy Philpott, and parent chaperons, Bonnie Kavanagh and Barb Osmond.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform the House of government's efforts to make information regarding Aboriginal land claims available to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleagues are aware, last week the chief negotiators representing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada, and the Labrador Inuit Association, initialled the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement in Principle. This is a significant achievement. I believe this agreement in principle represents what could best be described as the most comprehensive land claims settlement anywhere in Canada. As members are aware, this agreement will now be presented to the three parties - both governments and to the Labrador Inuit membership - for ratification. In fact, the LIA has begun it seventy-five day internal ratification process with community meetings now taking place in Labrador.

The Province is also involved in negotiating a land claims agreement with the Innu Nation of Labrador. This process is also moving forward at a good and constructive pace.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we are beginning to make real progress in the area of land claims. With agreements on land claims and self-government, the Inuit and Innu of Labrador will be in a position to control their own future. The settlement of land claims brings clarity to the ownership of land and the management of resources in Labrador. The settlement of land claims will bring economic and social stability, new capital, more jobs and increased tax revenues to the Province. The settlement of land claims benefits all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We have reached a watershed in our negotiations with the Aboriginal peoples of Labrador. The agreements contemplated represent a significant new relationship between Aboriginal people and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - indeed with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole. To manage our shared resources for the benefit of all, we must face the need for change and we must all in this Province, every citizen of this Province, understand what this new relationship will mean.

There is no question that when you settle, for all time, land claims, and when you put in place self-government agreements covering areas for Aboriginal peoples like health, education and justice, it means significant and permanent change for all the parties involved. The concepts of self-government and shared resources are new and the agreements are very complex.

It is now time to provide all of the people of this Province with the information they will need to understand our shared future. It is for this reason that government is launching an information campaign to create an awareness of the value of land claims settlements and provide the people of the Province with the information they need to understand the significant shift that is taking place.

The information campaign - entitled: Our Land, Our People, Our Home - will be comprehensive and wide-ranging. It has been designed to provide individuals and groups with the level of information they feel they need to be informed on this important issue. A householder will be sent to each family in the Province. Information kits will be available upon request. A web site will be launched, and a toll free number will be maintained within government's Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat. In addition, government is prepared to make presentations when asked to do so to both individuals and groups who require more detailed information.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce this initiative in the House today. It means that we in this Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, are moving to a new stage in the lands claims process. It means that the time has come for all the people of this Province to engage in this very significant public issue. It means that we are all moving forward together toward what I hope will be a brighter and more certain future.

I want to say, in announcing the information campaign today, to utilize all of the mediums of information to the public, on behalf of members of the government - I think I can say with some certainty on behalf of members on all sides of the House, given the reaction in the House from all sides a few days ago in this place to the initialling of the Agreement in Principle; indeed, I think the Leader of the NDP made note of this - that there is a significant difference in the level and the quality of the debate in this Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, from that which we have seen, for example, in the Province of British Columbia surrounding the Nisga'a land claim.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the quality of the debate and the tolerance and the level of understanding and comprehension can only be served by putting as much information as possible in the hands of the people of this Province, just as information must be made available to the members of the Labrador Inuit Association, and providing for as much open and transparent debate as possible.

It is for that reason that government has decided to put the full information and the full detail of both the land claims settlement and the self-government agreements in the hands of literally every Newfoundlander and Labradorian by putting it into every household in this Province.

I say to members opposite, we look forward to an appropriate debate at the appropriate time, and we look forward to their collaboration and cooperation in facilitating a constructive dialogue and a positive environment for forging a new relationship with Aboriginal peoples.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to be very clear here. It is very clear that the culmination in terms of a tentative agreement, an agreement in principle reached with the LIA, is but a first step. A very important one, but it is the culmination of many years of negotiation and work and realities, both political and otherwise, that not only face the Province but face this country when it comes to dealing with Aboriginal issues.

It is also very clear that the future prosperity, economic well-being, advancement - technological and otherwise - of our society largely depends upon the continuation and forging ahead of significant resource developments that lie before us, such as Voisey's Bay, such as the Lower Churchill development, and many more future resource developments yet to come and yet unseen. It is also clear that the negotiation process, the tentative agreement reached in principle with the LIA, is just but one of the agreements that this Province has to reach.

As for the Innu, which the Premier prefaced in his ministerial statement, indicating that progress is being made, that is also equally significant in terms of the settlement of outstanding issues with respect to Aboriginal people and reconciliation between all people within the Province.

I am pleased to see from one point of view that an information campaign has started, because arming people with the knowledge of what has taken place over a significant period of time is extremely important. I notice here today the ministerial statement touched on it, that this is a brochure that outlines, I guess, generally giving very surface information. It is impossible to send thousands of pages to each and every home, I understand that, but this is a beginning.

The Premier has also said on behalf of his government that they will visit upon request, or make presentations upon request, to the people of the Province. I would make a suggestion, that you go one step further. That you take members from this House, members and officials from government who have been very close and intimately associated with the successful conclusion of the tentative agreement with the LIA, and once an agreement - because I'm hopeful, for everybody's sake and for the people of this Province's sake, that we will reach a successful conclusion and a tentative agreement with the Innu in terms of land claims. That we not wait for requests. That we take representatives from the Assembly, representatives who have been intimately associated with the negotiation process, and that we take the step of holding public hearings, along with entertaining requests, in centres right across the Province, maybe in fifteen or twenty-five centres. That we take the step of holding open public hearings -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, just for a moment, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

That we take the step over the summer, or when the House closes, when all members have some more time, to hold public hearings so that anybody who wishes to come to get information regarding these fundamental agreements have the opportunity to do so, as opposed to having to make a request for a government official or some member of government to make the information available to them.

Let's take it on the road in a fuller way and let all the information, a question and answer sort of activity, occur so people are not only fully informed, but have the opportunity to fully question what has transpired in the process.

Thank you, 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 want to say that I welcome the step by government to make the people of the Province more fully aware of the process at work in attempting to settle the Aboriginal land claims in the Province.

I think we have an opportunity for all members of this House to provide the kind of leadership that may be required to ensure that people understand that these are inherent rights of Aboriginal people that we are dealing with here. As the Premier has indicated, they are being asked to settle these rights on paper in constitutional form or treaty form that will settle for all time their claims. So these are very significant processes.

As the Premier has also indicated, there is a lot at stake, not only for the Aboriginal people but for all of us, in ensuring that justice is done to the Aboriginal people, and also that we have some clear idea ourselves, based on these agreements, what will flow in the future in terms of economic and resource development.

In saying that, we have made the first step of agreement in principle, subject to ratification in this case by the Inuit people of Labrador, and with the Innu. They too are in negotiations, but we cannot assume that these will be smooth and easy. They may have very different objectives in their negotiations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: They may have some different objectives and they live and operate in a very different part of Labrador. So it is not an automatic assumption. There may be some rocky times. If, again, they are being asked to settle for all time their rights, then you can be sure that they would want to have something that they are prepared to recommend to their own people.

We also have of course the Mi'kmaw people in the Province who are attempting to pursue their land claims as well. We know that part of what is driving the issue in Labrador for this government and the Government of Canada is the potential for immediate or relatively immediate development in Labrador. The fact that this is not necessarily the case in lands on the Island that may be claimed by the Mi'kmaw should not prevent that kind of negotiation from starting as well, because they too have an inherent right to pursue a land claim. We hope the government in pursuing this will include them as part of the ongoing process, in the hope that we can perhaps lead the way in this country by settling all outstanding Aboriginal claims in a very reasonable period of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Through the Strategic Social Plan, government made a commitment to invest in the people of this Province and to work with community organizations to help us better understand the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Today I would like to update members on two programs which demonstrate government's commitment to removing barriers to employment that may exist for individuals, particularly women.

The Single Parent Employment Support Program and Women Interested in Successful Employment are two initiatives aimed at helping individuals, particularly women, in their transition to employment. I would like to welcome members of both organizations, the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland, SPAN, and Women Interested in Successful Employment, WISE, to the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: They are joined by twenty women who are currently participating in the current WISE session.

The Single Parent Employment Support Program is a pilot project which helps single parents on income support obtain full-time employment and work towards becoming financially independent. To date, sixty-nine single parents have participated in four sessions. I am happy to announce that thirty-four participants are now working and three have left income support completely. That is, they are no longer receiving any form of assistance, including drug card or other forms of support from government.

Several participants are pursuing further training and twenty-nine are actively job searching. Several of the participants who have found jobs, have moved on to higher paying jobs. It is most significant and encouraging to note that some participants of this program had been out of the labour force and on income support for up to twelve years.

The fifth group of single parents began the program in April. Of this group of eighteen, five are working full time and one is working part time. In this year's budget, $500,000 was allocated to support the program and we anticipate that close to 120 single parents will participate in this pilot in 1999-2000. Thanks to the innovative partnership between Human Resources and Employment and SPAN, single parents are realizing their potential and are overcoming their barriers to employment.

Women Interested in Successful Employment is a community-based organization that offers career exploration programs for women to help them re-enter the workforce. In this year's budget, government committed over $331,000 to WISE to offer programs that allow women to explore a variety of career and educational opportunities.

Between May 1998 and March 1999, 141 women participated in nine 12-week programs. Of this group, fifty-six are working and thirty-three are pursuing education and training programs such as: information technology, petroleum engineering, and many others. An additional thirty-three are conducting active job searches.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Forty-seven more women started the program this month.

This is very encouraging news. The results show that with the proper supports, individuals are building self-confidence and are overcoming barriers to employment. With more families working, children and adults will be better off financially and can live and grow in healthy environments.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continued success of these programs and the partnerships, I might add, and I will continue to update the members regularly on their progress.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would also like to welcome the people from SPAN and WISE to the galleries today. The workers and the participants are to be commended - these women and the single parents who are taking the initiative to get out into the work place. These programs are indeed good, but I notice a definite disparity between the number of people who are interested in entering the work place and the number of people who have actually found jobs. I would therefore put the onus back on the government to promote economic development to create more jobs for these people who are out there; put the onus back on the government to take advantage of our resources so that all of the people, all of the single parents in the Province and all of the women who have been out of the workforce for so many years, who take the initiative to take these programs, will, at the end of their programs, have a job available for them.

Thank you, 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, too, would like to welcome the women from the Single Parent Employment Support Program and WISE to the galleries, and congratulate them on their initiative and effort in improving their circumstances.

I say to the minister, if this is a pilot project and is being praised as it should be, why is it not implemented as a full project of government and not just treated as a pilot project? A pilot project is to see whether something works. If it works, and I think it does, well where is the program that supports that? Why does this government still continue to create barriers for single women going to university, for example, by forcing them to borrow the living component from student loans?

There is a long way to go. It is very good to say we have a pilot project that works, but where is the real program that follows up that pilot project and makes it available to all women who need it in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that government will publicly release today the report of Commissioner John Roil, Q.C., who was appointed to review the boundaries of the C.A. Pippy Park.

The public release at this time will provide key stakeholders with an up-front opportunity to make their final views and opinions known on the recommendations and conclusions contained in the report.

The public release will also enable government to determine the level of support prior to a final submission to Cabinet for boundary changes.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to state that no decisions have been taken by government yet with respect to the boundaries of Pippy Park. While there is general support for the direction of the recommendations, government will not make any decisions until the residents and the stakeholders have an opportunity to respond to the Commissioner's recommendation. Government will also take due care with respect, of course, to the wetlands in the park.

Stakeholders will be given a period of thirty days to submit their views in writing to the Pippy Park Commission. Copies of the report can be obtained at the Pippy Park Headquarters and stakeholders will also be afforded an opportunity to review the enlarged maps which detail the specific recommendations of Commissioner Roil with respect to proposed changes in the boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, our objective in conducting the review is to ensure that the integrity of Pippy Park is kept intact and that this attractive area is maintained in the overall best interest of all stakeholders.

For the information of hon. members, I am attaching to my statement a copy of Commissioner Roil's mandate, a summary of the recommendations and conclusions, as well as the name and telephone number of the person to contact at Pippy Park for public inquiry purposes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: I thought it was a confession coming today, but we will wait until later.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of his statement. Certainly we will get a chance to review some of the recommendations. We just received it here today. I thank Commissioner Roil for the review.

Also, the minister has noted that he will give stakeholders a fair chance to have their say. I guess at the end of the day we have to be cautious any time we change boundaries, of course, of expansion to Memorial University and so on, that lies within those boundaries.

I guess what we will watch for is that stakeholders are given a fair chance to make their presentations, that government listens to those presentations, and that at the end of the day whatever changes occur are for the best interests of all stakeholders, including people in the park.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement. Pippy Park is a very important part of - I suppose it is equivalent to our national capital region in Ottawa. Here in Newfoundland we have an area around the Confederation Building and the University. It is a very important open space area that we have to make sure is subject to proper scrutiny and study and maintain maintenance of that area as much as possible for the public use.

This type of review - I know there have been some individual problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I do not know if thirty days is enough, I say to the minister. Perhaps you could consider extending the period of consultation on the report before Cabinet makes a decision. I would suggest that to the minister. If he has individual suggestions from people to do that, I hope he listens to them and waits for awhile so people can have a full chance to study the recommendations.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: My question today is for the Premier, regarding Voisey's Bay. I was shocked to hear this morning your Minister of Mines and Energy say in an interview, and I quote: The Province's view has always been that the smelter refinery system proposed by Inco was always too large. That was the Province's view. Quote, unquote, this morning.

Yet, one-and-a-half years ago in August the view articulated by the Premier, by government and its officials, was, and I will quote again: Even with a full-fledged smelter-refinery at Argentia, Inco shareholders stand to make a reasonable dollar by the Province, says chief negotiator Bill Rowat.

Premier, why the apparent about-face and contradiction? Why is it today that your Minister of Mines and Energy says it has always been the Province's view that the smelter originally proposed by Inco was too big, and yet a year-and-a-half ago that was the only view and the only thing that was going to happen for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition has been for the last couple of years on this debate. Because if the Leader of the Opposition were paying any attention to what has been in the news, what has been in The Telegram, what has been on NTV, what has been on CBC, if he paid any attention to the representation of the Province before the environmental review panel, he would know that the position of the Province has always been that we are not prepared to see the ovoid exhausted in six or seven years.

If you have a mining development that takes 270 million pounds a year of nickel out of the ovoid, the ovoid is done and finished in six or seven years. We have said repeatedly - I have said it in the House. I do not want to embarrass the Leader of the Opposition, but I am sure I can find many press clippings. I am sure I can find many references in Hansard. I can probably even find, if I look far enough, questions from the Leader of the Opposition or members of his party in which I have given that exact answer.

To pretend there is something new this morning in saying we want, at minimum, a twenty or twenty-five year development and not a six- or seven-year high-grading - there is nothing new about that, and nothing will change. We are not prepared to see the resource scraped up, torn out of the Province in six or seven years, and processed somewhere else. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would want to see that kind of development. I do not know why he is on the side of Inco instead of being on the side of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The problem with this Premier is that if you wait long enough he will come to answer one question. Whose side is he on? He is here, he is there, he is everywhere, on every issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to explain it to you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Really? Here we go. If you would like a discussion on the facts, we will have a discussion on the facts.

I'm trying to clearly understand where the Province's position is. The Premier wraps himself in the flag and says that the proposed smelter-refinery complex in Argentia is the one that this Province will accept and no less. Then we hear the Minister of Mines and Energy saying that it has always been the Province's view from the beginning that the proposal was too big. The question is: If that is the case, where were we? Right here in an article it says: Inco would also consider exploring the concept of a smaller unit but that idea was rejected by the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this. I want to have a discussion about the facts to fully air, from a public policy point of view -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No. I mean, we have him here. The reality is that when the former chief negotiator for the Province, Bill Rowat, indicated that the current proposal, the one that was originally proposed, was viable, that it could put a return for investment on Inco's shareholders, and that also - public statements he said, not me, your negotiator, not mine -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He also said that the project with the current proposal, the large smelter-refinery complex, that it was viable over a twenty to twenty-five year period. The question is: Has there been a shift? If not, could you at least try to explain the perception - many people have talked to me this morning since the minister's interview - of a change in the government's position.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is trying very hard to create a perception of a change of position, but that is because the Leader of the Opposition either does not know the file, has not been paying attention to what has been said - and not only said in this House, but actually said by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador when it appeared before the environmental review panel.

One of the recommendations of the environmental review panel is that there ought not to be high-grading of the ovoid. That the ovoid, if it is to be developed alone, if the subsequent underground reserves are not proven, should be developed over a twenty- or twenty-five-year period of time. Both the Minister of Mines and Energy and I, in responding to the panel reports, welcomed the panel report as good news, because we said the panel had agreed with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was headline news in the Evening Telegram at the time. I should go on to say that it was carried by the radio and television networks of the Province, private and public.

So for the Leader of the Opposition to say that he has only heard, for the first time today, that Newfoundland and Labrador stands opposed to high-grading the ovoid is a great shock to me. We have always taken the position that we are not prepared to see a development - and the Member for Labrador West knows what I am saying - where you high-grade a deposit. We have said: Go ahead and do the underground exploration at the appropriate time. Prove or disprove the total amount of the reserve there. Then have a project that is a blend between the ovoid and the underground. To take 270 million pounds out of the ovoid, and the ovoid only, as was proposed last summer by Inco, that is a non-starter, always has been a non-starter, always will be a non-starter, remains a non-starter. I don't know why the Leader of the Opposition is trying to stand here and be an advocate for Inco's position! I am quite shocked by it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, nobody in this Province, no matter how you want to spin it out, is prepared to see high-grading. That is clear. Not only from your point of view, not only from our point of view, but more importantly from the people of this Province's point of view. It is very clear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, it is also very clear that the questions this afternoon are to clear up what is perceived to be a change in government policy.

Let me ask you this: Is government still fully committed to 100 per cent of the ore being mined, refined and processed in this Province? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

This is my last supplementary with respect to the issue. It is clear again, if that is the case, that we are committed fundamentally to that principle -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you?

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely. I said it during the election. Read it in the Blue book. You have read enough of it over the last three or four weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: You have read enough on taxes! You have read enough about accountability! Talked about hospital boards! Read on, Premier, read on!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Read on! We will see more ministerial statements reflecting our policies coming from that side if you read on.

My final question is this. Publicly your chief negotiator - I am not sure if he is still on the file or not; I believe he is not - while at the time this was a publicly and hotly debated issue amongst the public indicated that according to government's own financial analysis, he said: We have reviewed - I have it here - hundreds of scenarios - and the consultants that the government has hired - that it is clear that Inco can make a reasonable rate of return with respect to the further processing and production of Voisey's Bay.

I would like to ask the Premier this question today. In view of the fact that we are talking about awareness and making people aware of the issues, are you in a position to release any, some or all of those documents that clearly indicate that we are standing on a solid position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the people of the Province to reflect upon what the Leader of the Opposition is asking now. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is in the middle of a negotiation with Inco. The negotiation is around whether or not the company is going to be permitted to do what it proposed to do last year, which is to take all of the ore from Voisey's Bay, at a rate of over 270 million pounds a year out of the ovoid deposit, put it on a dock, put it on a boat, ship it out of the Province, and process it somewhere else, or whether or not we are going to have additional benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have been saying on behalf of this government, and it is the position of this entire caucus, because that is where it got discussed, that you do not negotiate a resource development like this at the low end of the price cycle. As it happens, the price of nickel is beginning to increase.

Several years ago when the price was higher than it was today, Inco itself announced a smelter-refinery process. They wanted to build a two-line process out in Argentia and there was not a problem in the world. The price began to decline and Inco finally said: We need the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to forget any benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, allow us to ship all of the ore, raw, to Ontario. We said: We are going to stand calmly, quietly, firmly. We are not going to make a deal in the bottom of the price cycle. If we have to wait one year, five years, fifty-five years, we will wait. We have been criticized in the National Post, we have been criticized on Bay Street. We have stood our ground.

The price of nickel is beginning to come back up, and the Leader of the Opposition wants me to stand and give away our negotiating position in the middle of the negotiation? Not a chance, Mr. Speaker. We are going to stand patiently until we get the right deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the mandate we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

They were quick to give away or send out a document when we shipped ore from Labrador to Sept-Iles, Quebec. You were quick to drop a document which referenced and enforced the point of view that the company said was otherwise unfeasible, yet completely disregarded statements and other examples and the study that showed a reasonable rate of return could have been accomplished if that facility has gone ahead in Labrador West.

The only thing I have asked of the Premier, the only request that has been made, based from my point of view as Leader of the Opposition, is simply this. Obviously, you have said no, you are not in a position to release any of the information. You are not in a position to counteract any of the statements made by Inco. Recently on April 27 or April 29 they have indicated publicly that their position have not changed. It is a very important public policy issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The question I am asking is: Do you see at any point, in dealing with Voisey's Bay with Inco, when you will be able to release that information to the public?

I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy yesterday, after a proposal was received, after due consideration was given, would government release to the public all the information surrounding this significant resource development. Because it belongs to all of us. Not just to government, but to each and every one of us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: At what point do you see yourself being in a position to fully inform the people of the Province what the status of these negotiations are?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no, there is not much danger of that.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked the question: At some point, will this information be made public? The answer is yes.

When we have a proposal that we think meets the objectives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to full and fair benefits from the value of our own resources, I would not have any hesitation at that point, but remember that the information we have right now, and all the modelling we have right now, much of it is contained in the confidential corporate information of the company itself, and we do not have the consent of the company to release that information.

Secondly, let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition, and I say this to him very seriously. I would ask him to consider what I am saying. When you have one of the political leaders in this Province - in this case the Leader of the Opposition - on the news, as you have been sir, in the last few days, saying: She is just about gone, we are down to the last chance, if we do not make a deal with the company now the project is just about finished, we are just about to leave the Province, we have to sign the deal now, that sounds like the kind of talk that was around when we signed the Upper Churchill contract.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition that your job is to support the Newfoundland government position, not to undermine it, and not to be a spokesperson for Inco!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Be patient, be calm, be strong. We will get the right deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair has not recognized the member yet. That was the final supplementary. Other members want to get on to ask questions and the Chair will have to go to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will permit one more supplementary and that is final.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

It is my job to stand here and hold government accountable in the best interests of the people in this Province and I will not apologize for doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is also my job to get the information out so people understand clearly what your government has been up to. Clearly, that is what the job of the Opposition is. That is what my job is. I will not fail to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier a final question with respect to Voisey's Bay. This has been an issue that has been ongoing for a significant period of time. Public statements made by both representatives from the Province, officials from the Province, and from Inco -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - have led to this point in time where questions need to be answered.

Here is a final question, the question I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy yesterday. Premier, when and if you receive a proposal, and after due consideration, will you publicly talk about and lay before the people of the Province what that proposal was coming from the company? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the Leader of the Opposition would probably be embarrassed once some research was done. I now have newspaper clippings that go back months in which the government - I myself am being quoted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am being quoted very clearly in all these clippings going back to January and February and going back to 1998. Quote:

Tobin has insisted there will be no mining lease without full benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador but did not agree the project can only go ahead with the massive 270 million pound a year smelter and refinery originally proposed by Inco in 1996. He said Newfoundland would welcome a smaller operation, half the size for example, that would extend the life of the Voisey's Bay mine.

That was several months ago, so I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition has been. In the presentation we made to the environmental review panel, the federal-provincial panel, copies of which have been distributed to every member of the House including the Leader of the Opposition, here is what we said:

Our view is that if, as the company argues, there are inherent risks and conditions which may lead to the underground portion of this project to go undeveloped, then the scale and production leaves for the ovoid should be re-configured to lengthen the period of production over fifteen to twenty years on this base of known reserves.

In other words, we have said forget 270 million pounds a year. Go to a smaller level of production, spread out the benefits, give a greater advantage to Newfoundland and Labrador, don't give away the shop.

If the Leader of the Opposition has not heard that repeatedly over the last year, we will tell him again today. We are glad he is listening to the Minister of Mines and Energy on CBC radio, because obviously that is where he gets his inspiration for Question Period everyday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Minister, you certainly have completed your about-face as well, going from, I might add, a complete denial of a problem with programming due to teacher cuts to a final admission that cutting 182 teachers for September 1999 will have a drastic impact on programming. You have gone from just checking with directors to listening to everyone except, I might add, the members on this side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yet the parents are still not convinced. They continue to protest because they are concerned that the assessment you have said you are going to do to determine the number of teachers required to assure programming needs of all schools in September 1999 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: The question to you, Minister, is: What exactly are you doing? You have said you would make sure you would address it quickly. What are you doing and when can we expect an answer?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why the hon. member opposite would question the fact that I have said: Yes, additional teachers will be put back into the system.

I said from day one that if there were to be any detrimental impact on the quality of the program that is being offered in this Province, then we certainly would seriously consider adding teachers back. All I asked for were examples.

Let me say that in the meetings we have had with the directors of education, with the comments that have been coming forward from parents, from principals and from students, we have listened very carefully and we will be doing a thorough analysis on everything we have heard to determine the number of teachers that will go back in the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, once again I address to the minister that time is running out. The school year is winding down, and if you are going to wait until June that is totally unacceptable. We need answers right now. We need it done right now. When is the minister going to do it so that we can get on to make sure that in September of 1999 the schools are up and running and ready to go?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, when we do it, we do it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We listen very attentively. We do not play games. What we do is, we listen to the serious concerns that are being expressed and we will act on those concerns.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are also for the Minister of Education. With the announced teacher cuts for September of 1999, my District of Placentia & St. Mary's will be losing 11.5 teaching units from St. Anne's Academy in Dunville to Dunne Memorial Academy in St. Mary's. This reduction is going to have a major negative effect on programming.

Last week, the Premier stated that there is a need to look differently at rural school teacher allocation as it relates to programming.

My question for the minister is: Are you going to take into consideration the rural nature of these schools this year to ensure that the students of these schools have equal educational opportunities, regardless of where they live in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it gives me an opportunity to spell out exactly what we have done in the past in terms of rural Newfoundland and what we intend to do in the future.

I am not sure if the hon. member recognizes, but two years ago we instituted a policy where we looked a Small Necessarily Existent Schools. In fact, of the 350 schools that exist in the Province today, 25 per cent of those are NES schools. That is ninety-three of those 350 are Small Necessarily Existent Schools. What that means - it means enhanced programming in those schools where they in fact are given extra teachers.

That is done between department officials and the education director of the school board, and done directly to the school, not given to the school board themselves to allocate but done in consultation with the department.

We have done that to ensure that in those areas of rural Newfoundland where there is no school immediately accessible, where busing would be very difficult and where the numbers warrant, we have made sure that there is good enhanced programming in that school - in all of those NES schools. If there is a decline in student enrolment, there may be half a unit or a unit that will go by the wayside. Having said that, we meet with them and we discuss with them what their needs and their concerns are before allocating teachers to those schools.

In terms of what we want to do with rural Newfoundland, we want to make sure that the students in rural Newfoundland have a quality education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: That is why we have chosen to ignore the allocation formula for allocating teachers. Even ignoring it this past two years, in allocating teachers based on the student enrolment of 97,000, there will in fact be 93,500 students in the system this coming September. Even the number of teachers that have been allocated have been based on the premise that there will be more students in the system than there will actually be.

Having said that, we want to ensure that again we have a quality program in rural Newfoundland, which is why I have gone on record as saying: We will amend the teacher allocation formula, we will do away with the existing teacher allocation formula, and we will look at programming to ensure that rural Newfoundland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS FOOTE: In looking at programming, Mr. Speaker, we will look at programming for exceptional students, programming -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS FOOTE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- programming for exceptional students, programming for students with special needs, and programming for children in the regular stream.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two of the schools in my district are what the act calls, Small Necessarily Existent Schools, which also, under the act, are staffed directly by the Minister of Education. In response to questions on Monday, the former Minister of Education stated: We are not hearing any complaints about schools that are staffed directly under the control of the Ministry of Education.

In light of that statement, I want to inform the minister that Fatima Academy in St. Bride's, which is a K-XII Small Necessarily Existent School, is losing one-and-a-half teaching units this September. They are losing their music program, which they only received two years ago, plus major reduction in other programs.

I ask the minister today, in light of what she just said: Will she review the teacher allocation for Fatima Academy to ensure that these students receive equal educational opportunities that students in larger areas of Newfoundland and Labrador enjoy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: In fact, Mr. Speaker, not only will we review the teaching allocation for that particular school but for every school in every district in this Province, to try and determine how the teachers have been allocated and what the impact has been on programming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the President of Treasury Board. Madam Minister, the salary scale for nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador is substantially lower than that for the Maritime Provinces and our neighbours. We acknowledge there have been some conversions of casuals to permanent, and we acknowledge that some new positions have been created, but the steady flow of nurses out of this Province has not been stopped, Madam Minister, and until that tide is stopped our health care system will continue to face uncertainty and inconsistencies in services.

What is your government going to do to address the wage disparity between our Province and other parts of Canada? When will your government do more to stop the continued erosion of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, I would have to say to you that coming from the Budget exercise just a few weeks ago you can see this government's commitment to health care.

In relation to the negotiation for nurses, this Province paid what we had the ability to afford. The government, in dealing with nurses' negotiations, in the positions that we created as permanent there were 125 that came out of the Budget. There were 200 casual positions that were converted to permanent, and since then there has been a total of 540 casual positions, in all, converted to permanent.

Now, what does that cost this government to commit to the Province in our health care sector? It cost $7.5 million for the 125 new permanent positions; $2.3 million to convert 540 casual positions; and $4 million - just a couple of weeks ago the Minister of Health and Community Services stood in her place and announced how she would address the support staff. We have heard from nurses all over the Province saying that they need help in doing the work that they have now been asked to do, which is not their work. As a result, we have answered that concern by putting $4 million of additional support staff into the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Madam Minister, your statements are inconsistent with what was said this morning by the Human Resources director from Central Newfoundland. I want to ask the minister: How many beds will have to close in Newfoundland and Labrador before you realize there is a need for new and creative solutions to stop the government's mockery of the collective bargaining process?

Madam Minister, nurses are taking the ultimate sanction. They are taking their belongings and moving right out of the Province. I say to the minister: How many beds will have to close? What will have to happen before you and your ministry decide you are going to do something about the crisis in health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, and do something to negotiate a fair agreement with Newfoundland nurses?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, how long does it take to get the message through to these people opposite?

AN HON. MEMBER: A long time.

MS THISTLE: It takes a long time. The questions you are asking today, my hon. colleague, are the same that have been asked here for the past two months. Did government answer? I say yes, government answered. Government answered with the employees that have been just converted from casual to permanent. I just mentioned over $16 million of new employee benefits and initiatives that we have put forward as this government to address a nursing shortage in this Province.

In addition to that, if you were listening to the Budget just a few weeks ago, $40 million went into eliminating the regional hospital boards' accumulated deficits, $21 million went into additional funding for hospital equipment, $15 million in additional funding for board budgets, $4.1 million to recruit salaried physicians -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her answer.

MS THISTLE: - $1.8 million in new drug therapies, $1.3 million is included to implement the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and a new initiative announced just a week or two ago by the Minister of Health and Community Services -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly, please.

MS THISTLE: - to provide $900,000 over three years for tobacco reduction strategy. In other words, health care prevention.

So all in all you can see we have quite a commitment. When you look at the total budget of this Province, you will understand that over one-third of it goes to the health care sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House of Assembly on behalf of some of the representatives from the Avalon West School Board.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative convened, the petition of the undersigned parents/students of schools in the Avalon West School District in the Province of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS we the parents/students of schools in the Avalon West School District are totally dissatisfied with further teacher cutbacks; and

WHEREAS when teachers get cut, programs and courses available to students get cut as well;

THEREFORE we the parents/students in schools in the Avalon West School District call upon government to take action to guarantee current levels of programming in our schools, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there are 4,800 names attached to this particular petition and it is brought forth by the parents and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:00 p.m. on a Wednesday. Unless there is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again as I draw attention to this petition, this is the second largest board in the Province. The petition that is brought forth certainly has been brought forth with a message. The message to the House is that when it comes to educational programming it is absolutely necessary to hold the line, that enough is enough. That programming cannot afford to be cut any more. That the programming in this particular year has to hold through for next year as well.

The restructuring has caused a lot of pain and sacrifice for the parents and students in this particular district. The restructuring is pretty much complete, except perhaps for one or two more schools, but the restructuring was to give way to better programming. Programming was to be the focus. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. With the cutbacks that were proposed for this particular year, it cut programming to an extent that students in this particular district are going to get less of an education than they have in previous years.

Teacher cutbacks, again, mean program cutbacks. The Minister of Education must realize what has to be done now has to be done quickly. The school year is coming to an end. These parents and students who sent in this petition want action now. They are making plans for September 1999. The administrators know how difficult it is, at the last moment, to turn around everything in schools. They have to know soon. If you wait until close to the last day of school you are going to cause more turmoil. It is time for the minister to stop dragging her heels and to move forward with this, and it has to be done now, absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: The programs that are getting cut are not frills. We do not consider phys. ed. frills. We do not consider French frills. We do not consider art, we do not consider drama, as frills. We look at these as core to the curriculum. It is most important these be protected. The government must guarantee that the current quality of programming continues into the next school year.

Again, the parents are determined, as is evident today by them showing up at the House of Assembly. They are in the gallery today, and they are listening. They want assurance that they do not have to continue this protest, that they can close out the school year.

Do you realize the students now are coming to a very crucial time in the school year? They do not have the luxury of continuing to be in dread of what is going to happen in September 1999. These students want to be able to finish out this school year and look forward to begin in September 1999 with a program that totally caters to their particular needs. As it stands right now, in the education system as it is out there in the schools, there is too much upheaval, there is too much in the way of uncertainty. This uncertainty has to be stopped now. We have had two months of this, of trying to convince the government to make changes and do it quickly, to move forward -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today and support the petition put forward by my hon. colleague for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I echo some of the comments he has certainly made here in the House over the past couple of days and weeks as to the concerns of the people not only in this district of Avalon West, but indeed from people right across this Province, that we have come here and put forward on behalf of the parents, students, and I guess the complete school community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think back on a little bit of history out in my own area on the Cape Shore, when the government came to amalgamate the schools at the time in the communities of Branch, Point Lance and Patrick's Cove. It said to us: Move your classes, move your schools into a central location at St. Bride's, and we will be able to offer your children extra programs. We will be able to offer your children music, industrial arts, we will be able to offer your children a host of programs they cannot avail of because of the small school they are in. It was a very important push. It was one of the major planks the government used at that time to get the people in those communities to go along with moving their schools out of their communities.

What has happened? Here we are in 1999, supposedly moving into the new millennium with more emphasis on education. Now they are telling us that music, industrial arts and phys. ed. programs are not needed in our schools, that these extras that were so important ten years ago are not important today. Really, a major concern is out there with people in rural Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Bellevue, get up and speak to the people who signed the petition from your district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: They are out there looking for you, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

It is very important that we talk about school reform. We went through two or three years of school reform, and the major plank of that program, the major plank of that selling job -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: - was that the dollars saved were going to be put back into education and programs. I say that this government has miserably failed on delivering on that promise also.

It is important that we get our priorities straight. It is important that this government get its priorities straight, that the money has to go into programs, and that people who have chosen to live in rural Newfoundland do not receive a lesser education than those who have chosen to live somewhere else. That is the problem that we have here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: That is the problem we have in this Province today, and that is causing the turmoil in our students. I raised a situation today of my home town, in Fatima Academy, a Small Necessarily Existent School that I thought, when this new act came in 1997, would have protection because of where the location was. Still we are losing one-and-a-half units, still we are losing the music program that we only got two years ago, that we were promised ten years ago. Now they are taking that away.

I ask: Is that reforming education? Is that what the people voted for in this Province? Is that what the government promised when they were selling the reform package to this Province? I say, no. This government has miserably failed on school reform in this Province, and they will pay a price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have had the opportunity on quite a number of occasions in debate in this House to talk about the good things that are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is all of our responsibility to get a good, positive message out on all sides of the House of Assembly.

In debate in the House of Assembly last night, the Member for Labrador West was up giving his ten-minute speech about his district, about the employment conditions in his district, and he quoted some numbers that I think shocked both sides of the House as to the actual employment and lack of employment in his particular district. In fact, he went so far as to say that there were in excess, and I quote: It is mostly young people who do not have any jobs. There are no job opportunities for them because service is stagnated - 400 young people on social services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order.

MR. EFFORD: The point of order is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get to his point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I will.

It is clear misrepresentation of the true facts in his district. I checked with the Department of Social Services and the actual number of young people on social services, ages nineteen to twenty-four, is fifteen cases in Labrador West.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: That is a long way from 400.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is a difference of opinion between hon. members.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the order -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the order of this House is dependent upon people not bringing matters before the House when someone is not here to defend the facts. The fact of the matter is that there are, in fact, 500 people on social assistance in Labrador West, and a 16 per cent unemployment rate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The 300 cases of social assistance involve young families and young people to the tune of 500 people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Members' Day. The resolution, I believe, is that of the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the matter of Marine Atlantic Incorporated has been mentioned several times in this House before, but hopefully I can add some enlightenment to that situation and I will have everybody's rapt attention, I am sure. There is little time and much to say, so I will proceed quickly.

Mr. Speaker, as Member for the electoral District of Burgeo & LaPoile, it gives me great pleasure to move the resolution regarding Marine Atlantic Inc. presently before this House.

There are many issues in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile which warrant urgent consideration, but the matter of Marine Atlantic and how it is managed and operated is certainly one of the most important and more complex issues affecting my district. I would like first to place the issue of Marine Atlantic Inc. in its proper historical context.

The cornerstone of the Gulf ferry service is found in Term 32 of the British North America Act, when Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, specifically enactment number twenty-one which reads: Canada will maintain, in accordance with the traffic offering, a freight and passenger steamship service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques which, on completion of a motor highway between Corner Brook and Port aux Basques, will include suitable provision for the carriage of motor vehicles.

This clause of the Constitution, when examined in greater detail, makes several issues very clear and unequivocal. Number one: The use of the word "will" in this clause makes it mandatory on the federal government to maintain the service.

Secondly, the service shall be for both freight and passenger service. Hence, the concerns being raised today concerning commercial truckers as well as passengers and tourists are both legitimate concerns which must be dealt with by the federal government in its provision, implementation and maintenance of this service.

Thirdly, the service is to be operated between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. Let there be no doubt about where the constitutional gateway between mainland Canada and the Island is situated; it is the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques.

Fourthly, it is also clear from this clause the parties contemplated a highway being constructed between Port aux Basques and Corner Brook. Although there were limited facilities between Port aux Basques and Corner Brook from 1949 to 1965, with the hon. Premier Smallwood's, Finish The Drive In Sixty-Five, this element of motor vehicle passage took on its true meaning.

There has been an array of names for the Gulf service, from CN to CN Marine, to East Coast Ferry Service and its current Marine Atlantic Inc.; but regardless of the name, the Gulf service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques has always been operated by a federal government Crown agency. Since 1949 the federal government, through these Crown agencies, have had a variety of ships involved in the Gulf service, from freight carriers to passenger carries, to a combination of freight and passenger carriers. Many of those ships bore the names of individuals who sat in this hon. House, such as: William Carson, Ambrose Shea, Patrick Morris, Frederick Carter, Robert Bond and, most recently, Joseph Smallwood.

Gone are the days when trains from mainland Canada came across on these vessels, had their wheels changed from mainland wide-gauge to narrow-gauge to fit the Newfie railway. Gone in fact is the railway itself. Since 1988, all freight entering our Province through Port aux Basques has been of the roll-on, roll-off rubber tire variety.

The other significant historical occurrence with respect to Marine Atlantic is that it no longer operates anywhere else in Atlantic Canada. Marine Atlantic has just completed its first full year operating only the Gulf service on a year-round basis and the run from North Sydney to Argentia during the summer.

To put things into perspective in terms of its current services, approximately 40,000 passengers used the North Sydney to Argentia service in 1998; 400,000 people used the service from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. There were 138,000 passenger vehicles transported by the service and 71,000 commercial trucks.

With the devolution of the PEI service, the Bar Harbour main service, the South Coast service and the Labrador services of Newfoundland, the time had obviously come to restructure the Board of Directors and to restructure their centre of management and operations. With the transition of March 1998, the Vice-President of Finance and Administration moved to Port aux Basques and the Vice-President of Human Resources and Operations moved to North Sydney.

Let there be no misunderstanding what the official position of the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques and this MHA is with respect to the transition of Marine Atlantic out of Moncton, New Brunswick. Marine Atlantic Inc. exists for the sole purpose of satisfying the constitutional obligations of the federal government to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to the transfer of freight and people, and Port aux Basques is named as the constitutional port of entry. Therefore, any and all benefits which accrue from the operation of Marine Atlantic Inc. should be for the benefit of this Province and the town principally named therein, i.e., Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Although the transition from Moncton to North Sydney and Port aux Basques is almost complete, there is still a high level of dissatisfaction that Newfoundland and Port aux Basques did not get its just rewards as a result of this transition. There are also some major unresolved management issues. For example, since March 1998 we have had an acting president who continues to reside in New Brunswick and who has made it quite clear he is not prepared to make any definitive decisions with regards to the management and future direction of Marine Atlantic.

A caretaker president and CEO has not been and will never be in the best interest of Marine Atlantic or this Province. The vice president in Port aux Basques and the vice president in North Sydney appear to be more concerned in aspiring to be the next president than they are with the operations of the company. Even if they are genuinely concerned with the day to day operations, they are limited in what they can do because they have no direction from a president.

The vice president of finance and administration at Port aux Basques, Mr. Don Newman, works diligently to minimize the federal government's subsidy for the Gulf service. It was announced just recently by Mr. Newman that he was sending back $7 million from the 1998-1999 subsidy. While Mr. Newman's actions may be quite pleasing to the federal treasury, it does nothing for Marine Atlantic in terms of its proper staffing, and certainly does nothing in terms of allowing them to have the funds available to upgrade their existing ships or purchase new ships.

Yes, there is a board of directors which should give direction to vice presidents, but this board itself has gone through restructuring since 1998. Instead of having representation from all four Atlantic Provinces, the board now has three representatives from Nova Scotia and three representatives from Newfoundland and Labrador. You will note these six directors are evenly balanced between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. A seventh and deciding board member, and a vote, is held by the president-CEO. Today that president-CEO is a caretaker who resides in New Brunswick and has not taken an active role in the company affairs since March 1998.

You can see the board itself is not solidified at this point. One of the voting members of that board, namely a permanent president and chief executive officer, is not in place to give the board the required direction and guidance.

It is incumbent upon the federal Minister of Transport to rectify this situation and complete the board organizational structure to have a proper decision making process. As recently as last Friday when the minister, Lloyd Matthews, and this member met with Mr. Collenette at Ottawa, he indicated the president's job should be filled by the end of this summer. I submit that this is too long to wait. This board and this company have been without presidential direction and guidance for more than a year. It should not be permitted to continue throughout another tourist season.

I go further and submit it is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador that this president be a Newfoundlander who will live and work here in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: - and direct Marine Atlantic for the best interests of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the major sources of concern at the present time with respect to Marine Atlantic operations are reflected in the wording of the resolution. I would like to make a few brief comments with respect to each of these issues.

Anyone who has watched the news in Newfoundland and Labrador for the past twelve months has heard the ongoing concerns of the travelling public and commercial users with regards to Marine Atlantic. The issue comes down to two words: capacity and service. The service presently operates with the Caribou, the Smallwood, and the Atlantic Freighter.

The Smallwood and the Caribou can carry both passengers and commercial vehicles, but the Freighter is basically equipped for commercial truck usage. There are a few cabins on board the Freighter but she is not designed to carry passengers, and the truckers are certainly not pleased with the accommodations.

During the summer season, Marine Atlantic has the Caribou and the Freighter working the Gulf run to meet the demands of the heavy tourist season. They also have the Smallwood plying the North Sydney to Argentia route. The Smallwood also supplements on the Gulf service as and when required throughout the summer months.

Although the two super ferries may adequately deal with the passenger demand, it is quite evident that the Atlantic Freighter is not suitable or capable of handling the commercial traffic. The company has experienced record levels of passengers and commercial freight movement in the past year. With this additional overflow in tourism and passenger movements, commercial truckers were left on the docks in North Sydney and Port aux Basques.

One can appreciate the concerns of the commercial trucking industry, which is trying to run a business in an expedient and cost-efficient manner. One can also appreciate the effects this slow down in commercial traffic has upon the businesses on this Island who must wait for products every time there is a delay in the Gulf bottleneck.

The problem is really exacerbated if the weather is bad for a few days and Marine Atlantic tries to catch up on its backlog with its already limited capacity. Add to this the compounding effect of having one of your super ferries tied up during the winter months for refit, and one gets a clear picture of how the travelling public and the commercial users become totally frustrated with this service.

I understand the chairman of the board went to Ottawa on April 1 of this year and made a pitch for a new vessel. Apparently, there wasn't sufficient detailed statistics or justifications to convince the federal minister to agree. He has asked the board to do some further homework to justify the major expense of a new vessel. With all due respect, this matter does not have to be studied to death. The problems of lacking capacity and efficient usage of the vessels they do have are quite obvious on the Gulf service. The Atlantic Freighter is simply not adequate, either as a supplementary passenger ship to the super ferries Caribou or Smallwood, or as a suitable method of carriage for commercial trucks and their drivers.

You need not be a rocket scientist to figure out you need extra capacity on the Gulf. All the contingencies of weather, increased traffic, refit, and breakdowns have been known to the people of Marine Atlantic for decades. It is their responsibility as managers, and the federal government's job as owners and operators, to have the appropriate contingency plans and infrastructure in place to handle these matters.

The people of the Island portion of our Province deserve better. The travelling public who visit our Island, and Newfoundlanders who leave this Island, deserve better. The commercial trucking industry and the businesses they serve deserve better. The people who work on board these vessels want to do a good job but they can only work with what they have. If they are not given sufficient vessels with sufficient direction the problems will continue. Our economy and expanding tourism industry demands efficiency from the Gulf ferry service, not disruptions and impediments.

There are many more facets to this complex issue of Marine Atlantic, but the limited time today will not permit the proper analysis and consideration. For example, just what benefits ought to accrue to Newfoundland and Labrador from Marine Atlantic but are not being realized. What about the reservation system used by Marine Atlantic and how it is not working? The purchasing practices of Marine Atlantic and how they negatively impact the businesses here in this Province, and the level of service being offered on the vessels, are all issues which need to be addressed. This is not a cattle boat. This is supposed to be a first-class conveyor of people and goods with service that will enhance our businesses and tourist industries, not impede and restrict them. If it takes managerial changes, infrastructure improvements, and policy adjustments to create a first-class service, it should be done without further delay.

The ship called Marine Atlantic is, no doubt, going through rough seas at this time, but if we can get a good competent Newfoundland skipper in place by way of a president, and the capacity issue solved, we will have made a first move to smooth her waters.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is submitted that the hon. Mr. Collenette and his federal colleagues have a constitutional obligation through Marine Atlantic to provide an efficient ferry service for our residents and users of the Gulf service. That obligation is not being properly and adequately fulfilled at this time.

Therefore, "BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urge the Federal Government, through Marine Atlantic Inc., to provide an adequate replacement for the Atlantic Freighter that will, in addition to the M.V. Caribou and M.V. Joseph and Clara Smallwood, adequately meet the demands of the travelling public including tourists and commercial carriers" alike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am certainly delighted today to stand and talk to this particular motion. Of course, questions I have asked in the House of Assembly over the last couple of weeks certainly reflect a lot of things the member said here today. I commend the member for bringing forward this motion and pointing out a lot of points that I have been pointing out for several weeks now. As a matter of fact, a lot of people in this Province have pointed out these points for years I say to the member.

It is really funny, if you think about it. Here we are in our fiftieth year in Confederation, our fiftieth birthday as the newest province in Canada, and our Trans-Canada, our link to our country, is what is at stake here. As the member talked about in our constitution, he used the word "will"; it will provide a service. With that in mind, we have to ask ourselves many times what the real commitment was by our federal Government of Canada over the fifty years, through different parties, through different governments in Ottawa. That is what we have to ask and be fair about. I will be fair about that, because as an individual who has used that marine service many times my family - and I am sure most members, if not all members here, have certainly used it at times.

The first impression of Newfoundland is not when you get into Port aux Basques. It is when you get on the boat in Sydney to leave to come to Newfoundland. That is when your first impression is. We have all heard it in this House, from our own experiences, of people telling us what they feel like when they get on that service.

Not so long ago, and I suggest to the member - I do not know if he already has - that he should read - we will even go back in history - The Night of the Caribou, the Caribou that was sunk in the Second World War off Port aux Basques. Even in that book, which I read a little while ago, they talked about, at that time, conditions on the ferry service at that time even. They were very similar to what we see today. We talked about it ten years ago and we talked about it twenty years ago. We talk about people coming to this Province and how they have to be impressed with what happens when they first step on the boat in North Sydney. So we talk about a level of service, but really what we are getting to, the crux of it, is the adequacy of the service.

I want to point out something. I have already spoken to Marine Atlantic officials. I have several groups lined up to speak to them now, and I will be in the member's district to talk to people in Port aux Basques, like he has. I think that is only fair, that if people ask me to come to talk about it openly I will do that. Certainly I will go to any part of the Province that requests that, as the critic for transportation for this Province. I will do that in an open and constructive way, I say to the member, to hear what they have to say. If they want to invite me there, that is fine. The trucking association has certainly asked me to speak with them.

Marine Atlantic officials have said to me: There are two types of passengers who come on our boat. There are some people who make long-range plans and who, when they are making their plans for business or for pleasure, for tourism and so on, they book ahead. We get those kind who book ahead and they do that type of thing.

There are hundreds of thousands of tourists who come to Nova Scotia, who get to the eastern part of Canada every year. He told me the other type, the type that at the last minute, that day, the day before, or a couple of days before, will call Marine Atlantic and say: We are this close now to Newfoundland. I just came all the way from British Columbia or I came all the way from Colorado or California, and we are this close and there is another island.

For one thing, they do not know there is an island. They come from all parts of the country and when they get to Nova Scotia they make a decision: I think I will go a little bit further to see this Island of Newfoundland. If there are any people who have travelled throughout the States, especially, you will find out that many people do not know where Newfoundland is, but once they come to the East Coast of Canada they have made that decision. The Marine Atlantic official has told me that on many occasions they reject people at the service, or they call from Halifax and say: I am coming, can I get on tonight?

What I would like to find out - and I could not get the answer from officials so far - is how many rejections have we had.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hundreds of thousands.

MR. SHELLEY: Hundreds of thousands is right, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine? Not only that, the people who do line up are the people who have to get here. Maybe they are coming home to visit their family, they have been away for so long or whatever. They have to get here, so they have to go down and get in that lineup.

Remember this point, that all of these people who have left - the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that have left that are in the Fort McMurrays and Grand Caches and all over this country and also throughout the United States -, when they come home and they get to the ferry service they do not know how long it is going to take them to get across the country, but they know they are going to come home for a visit. Or maybe some of them are, hopefully, coming back to work again one of these days.

A lot of these people that make the last minute check in to see if they can come to this Province find out: No, you have to wait five days, six days. I will give you one little experience. Last summer I was in Cape Breton waiting to come over. I had reservations, thank God. Whenever I am in a situation like that I go around and I talk to everybody possible. If I see a licence plate from Colorado or British Columbia, wherever it is, I have a little chat with them.

I was talking to this couple that was up from South Carolina. They asked me where I was from and I told them. They said: Gee, we were thinking about going to Newfoundland. I said: You should. Icebergs and whales I said, oh yes, all of that stuff. They said: We called over and we were told we had to wait for four days, and then some people told us it might take eight hours. They were told all kinds of things.

The point I am getting at is that it is not just that it is a service that you get on, to use, to get here, that is a necessary service which it is, but it should be promoted and it should be an attraction. I agree with the member. It should be five star. When people come to Cape Breton, to North Sydney, they should see this ferry service to Newfoundland as five star and an attractive thing to take the opportunity as a tourist to get on that boat and come to this Province. It should be an attraction, not a deterrent. That is the point. That is why we believe that the crux of this whole matter is that this system in this Province for our Trans-Canada, our link to our country, is inadequate. As a matter of fact, I will go a bit further and say it is an proper insult.

I agree with the member on another point. The fact that they have said that they would continue to study is an insult. Imagine, after fifty years of inadequate service, they are going to study us once more. I join with the member and the government in being very aggressive in telling this federal government, this federal minister, Mr. Collenette, that we do not want any more studies. We know that after fifty years of being a part of this country that this service has been inadequate. As a matter of fact, at times it has been an insult to people coming here, to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have lived here for years, but also to many people who want to visit this great Province of ours so that we can brag about it and promote it.

That is what it is all about. That is why in the Terms, our constitutional right for this service, it says: It will.

I just have a few points to make. I will not go on all day. It is important that we speak on this. Although I am the new critic for this portfolio, I always had a sore spot for this particular issue. The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile talks about it, and I commend him for that, but the member always has to remember that it is for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is our Province. That is the gateway that comes into this Province. We all have to take a responsibility for that. The people in Port aux Basques we support. The first impression when people come to the Island portion of the Province should be that the service is, of course, five star.

There are two points I want to make. The fact that the CEO, the president, is still an acting one tells me that this federal government, the people responsible, have not got the commitment. This should not have gone on this long. We still have an acting CEO in this Province, living in Moncton. It is an insult to the people of this Province, that with a population of 500,000 people we cannot provide a person in this Province who can be the acting president.

Another point, I say to the member, and he has not mentioned it - but maybe he did, I did not get all of your points. Maybe you will mention it in your concluding remarks. What I understand - and you can correct me if I am wrong - is that at least 60 per cent of the personnel from Marine Atlantic still reside and work out of Nova Scotia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SHELLEY: The ferry service for this Province is in place because we are here. Because we are an island, that is why that ferry service is in place. It is not in place because Nova Scotia built an island. It is in place because we are here as an island.

I would like for the member to correct me if I am wrong because I had not had it confirmed yet - over 60 per cent of the personnel that runs the Marine Atlantic service is still situated in Nova Scotia. The ferry service for this Province is in place because we are here. Because we are an island that ferry service is in place. It isn't in place because Nova Scotia built an island. It is in place because we are here as an island. I would like for the member to correct me if I am wrong, because I haven't had it confirmed yet, but over 60 per cent of the personnel who run the Marine Atlantic service is still situated in Nova Scotia.

Our stand is clear and straight. Our House Leader has articulated our point before, and I will articulate it again. I've always believed that the only jobs that should not be in this Province connected to Marine Atlantic are only the ones that are absolutely necessary to be on the other side. Otherwise every single job that can be here should be here, right down to the last man or woman, somebody to catch the rope and let her go. Otherwise, I do not know what other things are necessary. I am not a specialist, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: They don't use chains.

My point is that any job that can be in this Province because of that service should be here. Not shared, as some people have said. They should be in this Province unless it is absolutely necessary that they be in Nova Scotia. That is our stand on it.

To clue up, I will say this. Simply put, we do not need any more studies. Simply put, it should be a five-star attraction, not just an necessity of a ferry service. It should be an attraction for tourists, and something that Newfoundlanders who are away can be proud to come back and get on, and say: This is our link to our country and we are proud of it. That is what they should be able to say.

In fact, in the clause it does not say - one more point before I go on. I cannot leave this one out. I will make it as quick as I can. It is about the truckers and a point they made. That is I thought about when the Minister of Fisheries walked back into the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trucker?

MR. SHELLEY: No, but if you listen you might learn something. Just listen for one second.

The minister brought a good point to mind, and I would say it is a positive point. The minister always talks about the quality of our fish products and so on, especially when it comes to crab. I know, too, from being around the industry, that is the key, especially these days in the Asian countries and so on, and from the Boston Seafood Show, they look for quality. They do not look for quantity any more - there is lots of quantity - they want quality.

Truckers have talked to me, of course, with situations with their trucks and so on. A lot of times when they are backed up and they are trying to get the crab resource that goes out of this Province, after so much processing here, if they are held up, sometimes for days, then they could be putting in jeopardy the quality of the resource. They have said that to me and I think it is an important point.

That is the economic reason, and that is just one of them. The produce to this Province and so on - we can go on with a list of them. The bottom line is the service to us, but the main bottom line is that the adequacy of the service has been a dismal failure for years since we joined this country. That is why we should bring it to a head.

We are not going to let - and when I say we, I mean the Province, and I hope I am talking for all members - the federal government drop the ball on this one again. It has been dropped for years. It is time to pick it up and get a direct action on it once and for all.

With the words the member used that it will - in the clause it says will - I am going to put forward an amendment, an amendment seconded by the Member for Lewisporte.

I would move, Mr. Speaker: That the resolution now before the House of Assembly be amended by replacing the words, "urge the Federal Government through Marine Atlantic Inc. to provide..." with the words, "demand the federal government through Marine Atlantic Inc. provide...".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: We are tired of urging, we are tired of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and we are urging when it comes to...

I think it is quite straightforward. It is time to demand that the ferry service to this Province be a five-star, adequate service that all -

AN HON. MEMBER: Change one word.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is basically it, change "urge" to "demand", that we demand -

AN HON. MEMBER: It strengthens the resolution.

MR. SHELLEY: That is all it does. I certainly do not want to take away from the members. I think we are on the same track with it and so on.

Why I say "demand" is the time. We are not going to urge you for another five years; we are going to demand that you do it immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: The other word I have not put it in the resolution, demand immediately that we do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to conclude by saying this: We want a five-star, adequate service for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian because we deserve it and it is long overdue.

I want to commend the member for bringing this resolution to the House. I want to say to the government that as long as this tact is taken aggressively and there is some action taken immediately, we support it wholeheartedly. The day that it is dropped or dies out again, we will pick it up again. It will not die this time until we get what we deserve in this Province, and that is a five-star class ferry service to this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

First of all, the Chair would just like to point out that the amendment is in order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address this resolution currently before the House concerning the Gulf ferry service. Certainly the amendment makes it clear that we have a serious problem.

What I am wondering out loud here today is: Why are we required in this House of Assembly, fifty years after Confederation, to quote a Term of Union, as the member has done, and seek that the Government of Canada meet its obligations to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why are we here in this House of Assembly doing that, fifty years later, having to do that? This government has been sitting here for the last ten years, two governments in a row.

We have a new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. When he was a backbencher, he used to be outspoken. Now he is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

We have a new member who has been in Port aux Basques, working and living in Port aux Basques for many, many years, who knows the problem, who knows what the problem was. The previous Member for Port aux Basques, representing the same political party, knew what the problem was. We have people all over this Province who know what the problem was.

The Acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was in the House last week and he had the answer, Mr. Speaker. He had the answer. He said that we were being treated like second-class citizens by the Government of Canada. He had the answer. I do not know where he came up with it. He did not say anything about it until questions had been raised about the ferry service from this side of the House, but all of a sudden he discovered last week that we were second-class citizens of Confederation. Who used those words in the House of Assembly last week?

MR. J. BYRNE: Who?

MR. HARRIS: The Acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. Lloyd Matthews. He talked about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians being treated like second-class citizens with respect to the ferry service. It is a discovery. Where has this government been? The Premier, up in Ottawa since 1980, a minister of the federal Crown, I never heard him say that in Ottawa. I never heard him say that here since 1996, when he became Premier of this Province.

There is no doubt we can support the resolution, but my question is: Why does this House of Assembly even have to deal with that resolution? If there is a conviction on the part of the people of this House, if there is a conviction on the part of ministers of the Crown, if there is a conviction on the part of members opposite, that we are being treated like second-class citizens with respect to the ferry service, why are we not doing more as a government and as a people to insist that we get better ferry service? Why are we not doing more than passing a resolution asking for a replacement of the ferry?

This is almost like a petition, Mr. Speaker. If the people of a particular district need their road upgraded, they petition the House of Assembly. Somebody gets into the House of Assembly and raises a petition. We are here, in a sense, being petitioners to the Government of Canada, asking them to recognize their obligations under the Terms of Union.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that is not a proper way for an independent, forceful people to seek their proper rights in Confederation. This government has to take action. This government has to do more than have a meeting, as they did last week, along with - not a special meeting; it was a meeting of all the ministers responsible across the country for transportation. We have to do more than bring it up at a meeting. It was called for some other purpose. There ought to be a better plan, a better objective by this House of Assembly, by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in pursuit of a proper ferry service on the Gulf.

The Member for Baie Verte had referred - and I am sure the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile knows full well, as he has met and I have met and everyone in this House has met dozens and dozens, personally, people from across this country who come to Eastern Canada, who would love to come to the tenth province. I always wanted to go to Newfoundland, they said. Got as far as Cape Breton but could not wait in the lineup to see if they could get on the ferry. They could not wait six, seven or eight hours just to see if they could get on the ferry. They could not afford the extreme cost of coming across to spend a couple of days in Newfoundland and Labrador. They could not do it because of two reasons: the inadequacy of the ferry service and the prohibitive.

I know I was heckling the member when he was dutifully and diligently reading out the Terms of Union, as is proper for a person with the legal training that the hon. member opposite has. The Terms of Union do not say anything about cost, I notice. They talk about providing a service for the traffic operating.

They do not say whether they should be charged an exorbitant fee. They do not talk about what level of subsidy ought to take place. They do not say whether it should be free, or whether it should relate directly to the cost or similar cost of the Trans-Canada across this country, because it is our access to the rest of Canada by road, and it is the rest of Canada's access by road to this Province. The cost should bear a relationship to that.

A lot of people talk about essential service, how essential the Gulf service is, and they use that as an argument to try and take away some bargaining rights of individuals.

If it is such an essential service, why isn't is free? If it is such an essential service for the people of this Province to be able to get back and forth to the rest of Canada, and to allow the people of this Province to have visitors and tourists, and to have transportation of goods and services travel over the Gulf, then it should be free, or as close to being free as is possible, considering the fact that you would have to travel over ninety or 100 miles of water to get here.

That is the kind of thrust that I would like to see coming from this government and coming from this House, not merely what it appears to be here, not merely being some kind of petitioners asking for a replacement ferry, asking for a new boat. That is all we are doing, asking for a new boat. That is, I would say, certainly necessary, but I would almost go so far to say that it is not worthy of this House to have it sight set so low in terms of its demands of the Government of Canada in terms of meeting its constitutional obligation to the people of this Province.

There is a level of acceptance. Despite the comments of members in this House, there is a level of acceptance of the kind of treatment that we have received from the Government of Canada with respect to the ferry service.

We had debates in this House a couple of years ago, or last year, or the year before, when the issue of the movement of the headquarters of Marine Atlantic was at stake. What happened? They shifted around some positions from St. John's to Port aux Basques, but they left pretty well intact the workforce outside the Province. The president and chief executive officer of Marine Atlantic still operates out of or lives in the Province of New Brunswick. It is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that a ferry service designed to meet the needs of this Province should be operated out of somewhere else.

A lot of hay was made about the issue of moving people from St. John's to Port aux Basques.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Totally unnecessary, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. These were administrative positions. The crux of the matter here was the management and operation of the ferry service, the people who make the decisions being close to the travelling public, being close to the needs.

Why don't we have statistics showing the number of people who are turned down by Marine Atlantic, who cannot come to this Province because of cost or because they are not prepared to wait in line for six, seven, eight or nine hours to see whether they might get on a ferry boat to come to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the tenth Province of Canada? That is what I want to know. Why don't we have a service that is designed to meet the needs of the people of this Province and to meet the needs of the travelling public who want to come to this Province for tourism or other purposes?

That is what we need to be taking here, a far stronger position on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not being the place of mere petitioners to the Government of Canada to send us a new boat.

Where is the boat going to be made? Is it going to be made in Marystown? Is it going to be built in Marystown or is it going to be built somewhere else and built of a size that cannot even be repaired in the Province of Newfoundland?

AN HON. MEMBER: Korea.

MR. HARRIS: That is what we are going to have, if they have their way. It will be built in Korea or somewhere else. Where is this boat going to be built? What about the 29 per cent unemployment rate in the district of the Member for Burin-Placentia West? Twenty-nine percent unemployment.

We need a new boat - sure, we need a new boat - but we need a shipbuilding industry. We need a policy that supports the people of our Province and the needs of our Province. We need a more nationalistic government; that is what we need. We need a stronger voice than we have on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good NDP policy will do it for us.

MR. HARRIS: We need good NDP policy. I echo the words of the minister, because we would not have ministers of the Crown getting up and lamenting about the fact that we are treated like second-class citizens when all he does is go and bring it up. He puts it on the agenda of a meeting of all kinds of other ministers: We would like to have a new boat. That is all we got, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: They bankrupted Ontario.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, the member wants to talk about Ontario. Well, he should -

AN HON. MEMBER: An $860 million deficit this year.

MR. HARRIS: He wants to talk about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ontario will never be out of the hole again because of Bob Rae. They will never get out of the hole again.

MR. HARRIS: Well, let's talk about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: What about the twenty-two -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: NDP, we would be ruined for life (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister should listen to his own pronouncements in the House. He was saying in the House: Better to have tried and lost than never to have tried at all. I think he was stealing a romantic phrase: It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. He started to talk about that.

I say the same thing about this issue: If we are not going to try to make sure that we are first-class citizens of this country, we are never going to be. If the minister can stand in his place in this House like he did last week and say we are second-class citizens, and all they got in response was a motion saying: Please, give us a new boat, if that is all they can do in response to being second-class citizens, I think we do have to try something else. We do have to stand up more for ourselves. We do have to fight harder. If it means taking on the Government of Canada, if it means taking on the people of Canada and demanding our rightful place in Confederation, then I am prepared to do it! If this minister is not, then that is too bad about him. I am prepared to do it, Mr. Speaker, and we are prepared to do it.

I support the resolution but I say this: We should not be petitioners looking for a new boat. We should be demanding our rightful place in Confederation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am uncertain at this point whether the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is marked down as a doubtful in regards to this resolution or a supporter.

AN HON. MEMBER: The NDP are always wishy-washy, boy, you never know where they are coming from.

MR. PARSONS: Anyway, I certainly have a new meaning for the phrase NDP. I always thought it stood for a political party but, given the hon. member's comments, it certainly appears to be negative, depressing pronouncements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My intention with this resolution was to be none other than positive in nature for the improvement of a service that is a constitutional obligation of the federal government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: In response to the PC transportation critic's comments, I would certainly, and wholeheartedly, endorse the hon. members comments that we have to make a first impression, and yes, the first impression may well be in North Sydney when you step aboard that ferry.

I would also like to comment concerning the reservation system. It is quite true and it is quite correct, Marine Atlantic has no manner of recording the people they turn away. They do, in fact, turn people away. Perhaps I should not have them, but I do have the statistics. For example, from January 1, 1999 to May 13, Marine Atlantic Inc. turned away 1,780 passengers. They turned away 101 private vehicles, 1,519 straight tractor trailers, 2,234 drop trailers, and 3,753 commercial recreational vehicles. I think that is fact enough for anybody to decide that we do need to deal with the capacity issue.

I would also like to comment on the member opposite's reference to the inequality of the job situation. Since March 1998, with regards to the inequality of the job situation since the transition, it is in fact true. This member had the privilege of being chairperson of a committee that was stuck by the town of Channel-Port aux Basques after the transition was announced called the restructuring committee. As chairperson of that committee we inquired of Marine Atlantic as to how many employees they had, where they were, where they would be going to and living and working. This chairperson of that committee was told point blank: You will not know and we will not discuss with you the inequality of the employment situation between Port aux Basques and North Sydney. That is totally unacceptable, and that again is another initiative which should be followed up with by the Marine Atlantic management once it gets finally intact.

I spoke with one thirty-seven year veteran of Marine Atlantic who says there should be enough people left in Nova Scotia to tie the boat on. Perhaps the rest of us Newfoundlanders are not quite that extreme, but there certainly should be an equality as a starting base. We can see where we go from there with some good, strong Newfoundland management.

With regards to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi commenting on whether my commitment stands, I would inform him that I have worked with Marine Atlantic, my father was a captain with Marine Atlantic, and all my family work with Marine Atlantic. Neither he nor anyone else should ever question the commitment of this member to the proper resolution of the Marine Atlantic issue, and my support for the people of Port aux Basques and what they believe is right for them. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

All those in favour of the amendment to the resolution, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay.'

Carried.

All those in favour of the resolution as amended, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay.'

I declare the resolution carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: We have such sweetness and light in this place today, and I expect you will soon see us all out in the middle here dancing with each other and everything.

I think we have agreement that we will spend the rest of the day on government business.

Order 3, Concurrence Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, Concurrence Motion, the Government Services Committee and Resource Committee.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have to have a continuation of the type of debate that was experienced here last evening. My colleagues for Twillingate & Fogo and Bay of Islands, and other colleagues in the House, gave a very positive outlook on their districts and an outlook on the Province. In fact, after they were finished I looked across the way and all you could see was each member over there looking at each other. Did you hear all that good news? They just could not take the good news, can't stand the good news.

I took the opportunity today to correct the negative misrepresentation from the member, unintentional I suspect, but it had to be corrected, from the Member for Labrador West. When a representative of his people stands in the House of Assembly and does not know the real facts about what is happening in his own district, it gives me great concern as to why the people of Labrador West put their confidence in him to carry the message forth to the House of Assembly.

After he talked about, what really I did not notice until now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Just listen. I did not notice until now that he talked about over 400 young people on social services in his district, but then he went on to say - to show you the lack of understanding he has about his district; remember now, this is Labrador West - this: "I am wondering when the minister is going to announce a fish plant for the area..."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: It is here written in Hansard: "I am wondering when the minister is going to announce a fish plant for the area but I do not expect that is going to happen soon." That is from the Member for from Labrador West. Can you just imagine putting a fish plant in Labrador West? Now there is the understanding that the hon. member has about his own district.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I am surprised that the minister who is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has no idea that we have a freshwater fishing industry in Canada: Lake Winnipeg, Whitefish, Lake Ontario. There are wonderful beautiful lakes in Labrador. You would think the minister would be active in trying to resolve the 16 per cent unemployment problem in Labrador West!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was only one of them but now I can see two peas in a pod over there. Where is the minister for Labrador? Too bad he is not in the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you say you thought there was only one pea in a pod?

MR. EFFORD: No, I said now, two peas in a pod. I thought there was only one pea over there of that kind.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is usually eight.

MR. EFFORD: It is usually eight but there are two peas in this case.

Seriously, I just want to inform the hon. member that first of all there are fifteen people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: He is not listening, you see. This is the reason why he is not learning anything. You are not listening. There are not 400 young people on social services in your district. In fact, from the ages of nineteen to twenty-four, there are exactly fifteen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: You said 400 young people. Mr. Speaker, the other thing he did say last night was about the health services and that really shocked me. Because I thought that the people working in the health care system in Labrador West were good competent, capable people. He said -

MR. TULK: The only thing they are able to do is change a Band-Aid, put a Band-Aid on, he said.

MR. EFFORD: He did. He said: Anything more than the requirement for a Band-Aid, they have to fly to St. John's for medical services. That is what the Member for Labrador West said about the people working in the health care system in his district. We have a responsibility on this side of the House to correct any misinformation, but we also have a responsibility to inform the people in his district of exactly the representation that he is putting forth on their behalf in this House of Assembly. Also, to educate members.

First of all, he said that 400 young people are on social services. That is wrong. He said they have no health care system in Labrador West. That is wrong, but these people know they need to be informed. I have to ask my colleague from Labrador, will he see to it that the people of Labrador are well informed on that issue? A copy of Hansard will go to the press down there and to every worker in the health care system.

MR. TULK: John, all they can do is put on Band-Aids.

MR. EFFORD: Band-Aid, that is the greatest capability in Labrador West.

Let's get onto the fishing industry. Let's get on to some good news about the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's look at what this government has done with the fishing industry since 1996. The first and only time there was a provincial quality assurance program brought in to ensure that top quality products of all species of fish was landed in the Province was after this government was elected in 1996. That was the first and only time in the history of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Former ministers muddled at it for years and could not do anything.

MR. EFFORD: Muddled is the word. What was the history of the price mechanism before 1996? Maybe they reached agreement by June, July, August, September. In fact, four of the five previous years the fishery was delayed by several months starting. What did this government do? We put together a task force to put in a mechanism that would resolve the differences in the collective bargaining over the price of the fish. As a result of that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I said this government did it. What happened in 1998? What happened in 1999? They were the first times in the history of the Province that the prices of the species of fish that were to be harvested - crab, shrimp, cod, and capelin - was done in an orderly manner and the fishery started in April, for the first time in the last number of years.

What was the other thing we did? What did I find out when we took over from the former Tory government? The Member for Lewisporte was then the Minister of Fisheries, previous to being premier for twenty-nine days. When he was Minister of Fisheries, how many fish plants ended up in this Province? In total, over 300 fish plants in this Province. How much money did I write off in the first month after I became Minister of Fisheries from fish plant owners not paying their debts to the government from the former Tory government? In the first month, we wrote off $28 million of unpaid debt incurred while that member opposite was Minister of Fisheries and a previous premier. That was only part of it. There were many more millions written off before that.

AN HON. MEMBER: John, all (inaudible) Florida (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: A lot of it. What do we do now? Since 1996 we have not put one nickel into any fish plant in the primary processing on the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Not one nickel into a fish plant, not one nickel into the harvesting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister made a statement. He should know full well that this House approved loan guarantees for three different operations last year. One they doubled over what it was the previous year. The minister should know that the government is on the hook for guarantees for three different processors approved in a bill in this House in the past year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is quite correct. That is public knowledge. We guaranteed a loan that was a continuation of loans that was put forth by that government. They are very profitable, doing a very good business in this Province on Fogo Island. They are a very reputable, professional fish plant. We did not put any money into the primary processing.

We have now reduced the plants. In 1996 there was 245; in 1998 there was 127 plants in total working in this Province. Core and pelagic plants working in this Province are down from over 300 in the 1980s when the member opposite was Minister of Fisheries.

What do we have now? We have a stabilized fishery. Twenty-seven thousand people worked in the fishing industry last year, with a export value of over $700 million, with no taxpayers' dollars going into the industry whatsoever. It is a very professional sustainable industry on its own merits.

What was the other thing we had done? The one thing that I have had all my life is respect for fishermen. Fishermen are as professional as any other professional in this world. We are the only Province in Canada, as far as I understand, the only country in the world, who has legislation - brought in, in 1997 - for the certification of the professionalization of fishermen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: More good news, Mr. Speaker.

Can I have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Member for Labrador West, he will certainly get his turn to speak.

I rise today to say a few words on the concurrence debate. I would just like to say a few words about a meeting that I attended last night. Yesterday, I happened to go down to my district with part of the education committee that was out listening to parents.

AN HON. MEMBER: The road show.

MR. FITZGERALD: Call it the road show if you want, I say to the member. It is an opportunity for parents to come forward and echo their views and opinions on what the Minister of Education's cutbacks are going to mean in their particular schools.

We went down to Bonavista - it was 3:00 p.m. - and there were approximately eighty people; there might have been seventy or eighty-five.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. FITZGERALD: In Bonavista. Most of them were young people. Most of them were students who came forward and voiced their opinion about their concerns of what their future education held in store for them.

Teachers and students voiced their concerns. Parents travelled from Port Union, Catalina, Melrose, Bonavista, and came forward and said: Please take our message back to government. Please take our message back to the Minister of Education. We do not want to lose programs. We do not want to have multi-grading in classrooms. We do not want to have to go out and hire private tutors after we leave the school house in order to compete with our peers if we decide to go on to post-secondary education.

What I noticed was a big difference; there is a big change taking place. Before I get into that, we then went to Clarenville, went to Shoal Harbour, and went to a meeting at 8:00 p.m. It was a beautiful evening, the sun was shining, and everybody had something else to do.

At the meeting in Shoal Harbour, there were about 180 to 185 people who showed up yesterday evening to voice their concerns. I would say to the Member for Terra Nova that probably there were similar numbers that came forward when he and his two colleagues from Trinity North and Bellevue were there the night before. I understand they were there, and I understand that parents came forward at that particular time and expressed their views and opinions as well.

The shift that I noticed was the number of young people there. They were sitting in the front rows. They were right up in front. Out of the 185 people in Clarenville, I would guess that at least fifty of them were young people; I mean people in Grades VI, VII, and people in Levels II and III. They go up - not all of them, but most of them - one by one, and in groups, and brought forward their concerns and opinions and pleaded with us to take their concerns back to the minister. That is a shift, I say to people here.

Remember when you were growing up, when you were in school, they could bring about all the changes they wanted to curriculum, they could bring about all the changes they wanted to reduce teachers, and I know that I, myself, did not care too much about it. In fact I took it very lightly, I suppose, going through primary and secondary school.

Now, all of a sudden, the young people are speaking out. When they walked up to the microphone, it was not a script that was written by their parents. It was not a script or information that was brought forward and passed to them by their teachers. They got up, each one of them, and echoed a concern and a suggestion.

I say to the minister - and the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne got up and said, after: Look, you may be experiencing program cuts, you may be experiencing a reduction in teachers, you may be experiencing the doing away with programs, but there is one thing that I noticed here tonight and that is the ability of young people, of students, to be able to get up and take part in public speaking, to stand up before 150 or 180 people and express their views and opinions.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that I -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Newfoundlander youngsters have always spoken well.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe they did, Minister, but I will tell you that the ability today seems to be far more advanced than it was years ago. Public speaking is a frightening thing, I can tell you, to be able to get up -

MR. EFFORD: Go away.

MR. FITZGERALD: Go away. Probably it comes natural to you, and it might come natural to somebody else, but I will tell you that the fear of public speaking, somebody said, was even higher than the fear of death.

Mr. Speaker, what the young people were asking for - and it came through loud and clear - they asked for the minister to listen to their concerns and suggestions. They asked for the Premier, they asked for the government, to listen to their concerns and suggestions. They had the ear of the Member for Terra Nova, the Member for Bellevue and the Member for Trinity North - they had their ear - and they were saying: Well, I hope they take our concerns back to government. They are part of the government. We do not want to see program cuts. We do not want to see teachers lost.

One lady came up after the meeting was over and stood in front of me, and it was somebody whose parents I knew years ago. She stood in front of me and wept, because of her frustration in trying to deal with her challenged son who was trying to access longer hours - for her challenged son in school; teacher assistants. The frightening and scary thing about it was, she sang: No matter where I turn I can't get help.

It makes you feel so helpless when you talk to a parent like that. I am not blaming this on the Minister of Education, and I suppose I am not even blaming it on the government, but I know it must be frustrating for a parent to have a son or daughter who is challenged and have to face the difficulties in trying to get this young person in school and hopefully challenge them to bring out whatever ability they have. It certainly must be frustrating.

Mr. Speaker, the education committee, as they travelled around the Province, certainly did one thing. They brought back examples time after time to the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education went full circle in saying: Show me the examples. The examples were shown and then she was not going to listen. Now, all of a sudden, she is looking at - in fact, the headlines in today's paper, I don't have it but it is an indication that she is now looking at putting teachers back in the system again.

What people are saying is: If the minister doesn't want to use - and she says the formula is outdated. All they are saying is: Minister, if the formula is outdated then hold off. Wait until you decide on a formula that you feel might work, and bring about the changes at that time. Hopefully, before the changes are brought about, Minister, you or your officials will come out and allow us to come forward and voice our concerns and frustrations again. Allow us to bring forward what we feel will work. Let us tell you what we think of your proposals. Don't come out as the Minister of Finance did with the Budget. The Friday before the Budget was brought down, he talked about how he was going to have consultation. He and his assistant, the Member for Bell Island, decided they were going to sit in a high tech office here in St. John's and allow people to take part in having an electronic hookup, electronic connections, so they might be able to make suggestions of what the Budget contained. Those people who could access the Internet, or had access to this high tech form of sharing information, could get in touch with the Minister of Finance or his assistant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was supposed to make a difference. It was supposed to make a change to the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, it was only a couple of minutes after that the Budget was brought down in a big glossy book, already printed. That is why they cannot take the government seriously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I will concede to my colleague. Do you want to speak? Go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, want to say a few words about education. I have been in this profession for so long now that people forget, I was an educator. As a matter of fact, I was an educator for nineteen years and spent some time in Labrador West. I say that because when I hear the Member for Labrador West speaking it brings back many memories of when I taught in Churchill Falls, in that fantastic hydro development. I taught there for five years. I went there at the beginning of the job. I was family number six to move in. My family was the sixth family to move in, and I moved out -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was Aubrey (inaudible) there?

MR. LUSH: Yes, he was the principal and I was the assistant principal. He and I were the pioneers there. I went in at the beginning of the job and came out when the job was finished, so I have a great feel for that particular project.

It annoys me many times when I hear people talk about it, who do not have the slightest notion of the kind of job it was. The engineering technology wasn't even available when we started the job. It developed as we started, the engineering technology to complete that job.

The financial arrangements - it was a tremendous effort to get that going, to get the money for that particular project.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were there, weren't you?

MR. LUSH: I was there, and glad to be there.

When people talk about Labrador, I have a great affinity for it. As a matter of fact, I almost made my entry into politics at that time. Had I lived in the Labrador West part, had I lived in Labrador City and Wabush as opposed to Churchill Falls, there is no question, I would have been. Churchill Falls was the smaller base and I was always fearful of defeat. I never relished defeat. I was the president of the Liberal Association there. Members wouldn't be surprised to know that I was president of the Labrador West Liberal Association, so my involvement in politics goes back quite a few years.

I wanted to make a few remarks about education. By the way, we had a top-notch educational system. When people talk about multi-grading, and when people talk about teaching with small classes, I have done it all in Churchill Falls. Let me tell you, there is not too much wrong with multi-grading, but I will leave that topic for another day.

I can tell you that the statistics support that many times educational achievement is greater in a class of twenty-seven than it is in a class of eight or nine. I have done both under the best of circumstances in Labrador where we had all of the facilities, all of the support staff we wanted, so I can speak with some authority on those matters.

I wanted to address some of the current problems. The Member for Bonavista South alluded to the meeting that I attended and I promised these people that I would bring back their concerns to our caucus, which I have done. I did that yesterday morning. My other two colleagues brought back the concerns of the people, but we have to be leaders as well. Rather than raising the expectations and false expectations, we have to be leaders in this field to point out to our people what is happening in education.

I pointed out that night, one of our problems was declining enrolment. Of course, you always have the person who will stand up and thinks he got you by saying: Oh, we should not be calling that a problem. We should be turning that into a challenge. We should be turning that into an opportunity.

I say, Mr. Speaker, what balderdash! I can recognize an opportunity when I see one. People on this side can recognize an opportunity, but you also got to have the means. There is a limit to what we can do.

My wife, a retired kindergarten teacher - so I am not unfamiliar with educational matters - came to one of the largest schools here in St. John's in 1974, I believe it was. I came here in 1972. I lobbied on her behalf for a couple of years and she got a teaching position in 1974 at Vanier. There were, at that time, three kindergarten classes. She retired in 1991. Guess how many kindergarten classes were in that same school? She was the only teacher. She was the only one. This is St. John's. Vanier, gone from three in 1974 to, in 1991, one kindergarten class.

If that does not emphasize the problem that we are facing... That is a problem but, granted, we have to - we talk about the formula. I think we have dismissed that formula for the past couple of years. How many teachers would have gone from our system if we used that formula? We have not used that formula. People keep using that, but we do not use the formula. Honourable members know as well as I that over the past three or four years that this government - and they too - have supported the biggest educational reform ever to take place in this Province and maybe any other province in the Canadian Federation. A tremendous reform has taken place. No doubt we are having some growing pains, but let's not get out there and be the cause of denigrating what we are doing, denigrating the great success that is taking place in education, denigrating the great achievements that are taking place in education today.

As elected members, we have a leadership role to demonstrate to our people the great reform that is going on, the great changes that are taking place in education, humongous changes. They baffle the mind almost, the changes which are taking place in education today. I told the people out there that night, and I say it here: I will not support a government, I will not belong to a party, that does not make education its number one priority. I will not support a government that does not subscribe to quality education. I will not support a government that does not subscribe to the philosophy that our young people are our future. We must do everything we can to ensure quality education, to ensure equality of educational opportunity, whether it is in Clarenville, Gambo, Glovertown or St. John's.

Having said that, there has to be some realism related to our ability to pay and related to enrolment. We have to consider all of those things. These have to be considered, and then to come up with the best educational package we can for rural Newfoundland as well as urban Newfoundland. It does not do the process any good when members from either side are supporting what is not factual. Obviously, when we get into those meetings, we get into a lot of emotionalism, and you cannot do much about it because emotionalism does not win in a debate.

One lady advanced a notion that her particular child did not like school any more and she blamed it on the cutbacks. Let's face it, there will always be people who do not like school. To attribute the fact that somebody does not like school to cutbacks - it might have all to do with what is happening in a particular class. Many times these things are out of our control.

I wanted to make the point that this government has introduced, and is working through, one of the biggest educational reforms ever to take place in this Province or ever to take place in any other province or any other country. We have done a tremendous job, and certainly we are going through some growing pains now. I believe that these problems will be addressed, that these problems will be solved, that Newfoundland will be proud of its educational system. The young people will be proud of its educational system. We will have a educational system second to none. That is about to happen, and I am proud to be on this side of the House where we can make it happen, and make it happen we will.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Terra Nova. I can attest because his wife was my wife's kindergarten teacher many years ago.

I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the Minister of Fisheries. If he is as confused about fisheries as he is about social service issues in Labrador West -

MR. SULLIVAN: He used to be minister of that department (inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: That is why he is so confused, I guess. That is why he is so confused, because I can assure the minister that the facts he presented to this House today are very misleading. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are not the correct facts according to the people who work in social services in Labrador West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: They are not there. There are, Mr. Speaker, many more than fifteen young people dependent upon social services in Labrador West.

MR. EFFORD: How many?

MR. COLLINS: Unfortunately, with the cutbacks in social services, they did not have the opportunity, due to lack of workers, to get all those figures for me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, there are close to 300 clients in Labrador West and there are over 500 people dependent upon social services to exist and live on. These are the correct figures. According to the people who work for social services in Labrador West, they are the figures. They are not my figures, they are the figures of the people who work there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have to get the facts straight in this House. The hon. member cannot be speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Last night you said there were 400 young people on social services. Now if young people are those, between the ages of fifteen and eighty then I will talk numbers to you, but I call young people those between the ages of nineteen and twenty-four. There are fifteen, not 400.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister is entitled to his definition of young people, but I would suggest that not everybody in the Province would agree with him. I call myself young, hon. minister.

In addition, as I said, these are not my figures, these are the figures that have been provided to me by the people who work for social services in Labrador West. If the minister has a dispute with that, then I suggest he talk to them as well.

MR. EFFORD: I will.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I will talk about the hospital and medical situation in Labrador West, just address that for a minute. I used the term for people having to come out to St. John's for things of a serious nature, and I said what was happening in Labrador West really was not much more than a Band-Aid. That was sort of an analogy, because in the hospital in Labrador West the same services that could have been provided a few short years ago are no longer able to be provided. Because, again, of the cutbacks in the hospitals, the transfer of jobs from the hospital in Labrador West to the hospital in Goose Bay, the transfer of positions.

Again, I want to say that one of the big concerns we have as residents of Labrador West is when we have to come out to St. John's and find that because of medical conditions we are not able to get back at the time that we are released from hospital, if we cannot travel on a regular airline occupying a regular seat.

MR. EFFORD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I will give the hon. member an opportunity to correct a misstatement if Hansard typed it wrong. He said, "...I have had occasion on four separate times to intervene on people who have been sick because if you need more than band aid attention nine chances out of ten you got to travel to St. John's." Are those your words or are they not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, many times you cannot get back to Labrador West when you are released from hospital, and we have had that happen four times.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to get your own way back.

MR. COLLINS: You have to get your own way back if you can, but if you are in a body cast there is no way to get back, because the regular airlines will not take you. The only way that people can return home is if there is an emergency in Labrador West and they will fly the people back as they respond to the emergency. That, Mr. Speaker, is not good enough in this day and age.

I think the minister referred to one point as: Who would put a fish plant in Labrador West? Without knowing for sure, I would say it is probably the same people who would put a pellet plant with ore from Labrador in Seven Islands. Probably the same type of people that would cut logs in Labrador and send them to Stephenville for the liner board that did not work. They are probably the same kind of people who would take all of the oil from our offshore and feel really good because they are putting them in storage tanks to send somewhere else for further processing. These are the type of people who would probably put a fish plant in Labrador West.

In terms of transportation, I do not know when the last time the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was in Labrador West, I am not certain -

MR. HARRIS: Was he ever there?

MR. COLLINS: I do not know if he has been there or not.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are there any seals up there?

MR. COLLINS: I do not know but -

MR. HARRIS: Was he ever up there? I do not know if he was ever up there.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tell him there are seals up there, he will go up.

MR. HARRIS: There are some flippers up there.

MR. COLLINS: I cannot remember now if there are or not. I have not seen too many up there. I spend a lot of time in the country and on the lakes but I have not seen too many seals up around that area, so the minister does not have any reason to come there any more.

I would like to say that the concerns of Labrador West - a few years ago, unemployment was non-existent in Labrador West. Today, the unemployment rate is 16 per cent. That is a major increase from a few short years ago. That came from the HRD office in Labrador West. I do not know where the minister's figures are coming from, but they certainly are not coming from the same people who work in the offices there and who provided me with the figures that I am giving to you here today.

A few short years ago, as I said earlier, the people of Labrador West did not need and did not ask for much from government. The major employers in the area provided all of the infrastructure. They built the hospitals, roads and churches. They built everything - the schools - and they funded the schools.

For a long period in our history we were not dependent upon government to provide many things to benefit the people of Labrador West, but that changed. During the downturn in the iron ore industry, that changed. From 1982 on, we have needed support from government in certain areas to provide the services we need as communities living in the North.

Now, with the high unemployment rate in the area, with the caseload of social services that is something relatively new to our communities, people are having difficultly in responding and meeting the challenge that is providing them with.

I say to the House of Assembly, and to all the members, that Labrador West today is not a thriving community. It is a good community. There are some good things happening there, but there is still an unemployment rate of 16 per cent. There is still a heavy caseload for the social services department to deal with, and people are not able to look in the near future and see any chance of securing good employment opportunities. That is something new to the area of Labrador West.

It is very difficulty for people, and it is very difficulty for parents of young people, to look around them and see opportunities that could be but are not - missed opportunities for the young people who live in Labrador.

I would say, in all fairness to all the people of Labrador and to all the people of this Province in general, that there are developments in Labrador, things that natural resources are providing, that should be developed for the best interests of the people who live in the Labrador portion of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Labrador West would not stand and talk about the facts and tell us about all the facts. When the discussion came up here in the House of Assembly before the election, one of the things that was talked about was the pelletizing plant in Sept-Iles versus Labrador West.

That hon. member, who was then a leader in the union organization in Labrador West, was one of the leaders making a major issue out of it because it was the loss of fifty jobs. Is fifty jobs the right number?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. EFFORD: How many?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty.

MR. EFFORD: Fifty jobs. We are talking about the pelleting plant that you were lobbying for. It would have meant an extra fifty jobs. We are talking about fifty jobs in the pelleting plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty full-time jobs.

MR. EFFORD: Fifty full-time jobs. Let's make sure we get the facts right because we, on this side of the House, like to get the facts right.

Why is it that the hon. member has not led the same group, or has not kicked up the same amount of noise, as the union agreement was signed recently by his own union -

AN HON. MEMBER: January 29.

MR. EFFORD: Was it January 29?

AN HON. MEMBER: January 29, 1999.

MR. EFFORD: - when they signed an agreement which made the pensions of the future fat? The pensions of the future will get better but, over the next how many years -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: - over the next seven years there will be a loss of 400 jobs. Why is it that the hon. member never mentioned a word about it, never led a delegation, never kicked up any noise? - but there will be a loss of 400 jobs. Where is the outcry about the loss of 400 jobs in Labrador West? Is that the 400 young people you referred to, who will be on social services? Is that what you are talking about here, the 400 jobs that are going to be lost?

You see, it is one thing to get in the House and have a debate but it is another thing to talk about the truth and the facts of what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Exactly, so the pension is fat but the 400 jobs are gone; another article for the newspaper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sold them out.

MR. EFFORD: Sold out his own people.

Let me make a comment about members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: I think we should listen about what I have to say to members opposite. I think they should listen because it is serious.

The Member for Labrador West, I know he was jesting when he talked about a fish plant and I accept that. I have no problems with that. He made a remark to me last night about the fish plant, and we jest back and forth.

When the hon. member, the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Ferryland talked about... The Member for Bonavista South, Placentia & St. Mary's, Harbour Main-Whitbourne, St. John's South, Windsor-Springdale, Cape St. Francis, all of those members on the other side represent fishing communities, do they not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: Seventy-five to 80 per cent of those people in the fishing industry, the small boat fishermen, cannot get back fishing. Why? Because, there are no cod along the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. What have I been doing as Minister of Fisheries, with the support of my colleagues on this side of the House? Leading a delegation to Ottawa to try to impress upon the Minister of Fisheries about the exploding seal population. What have they done this afternoon? Make fun. Make fun at the issue where the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of the Province is trying to show some leadership in the Province about a major destruction of a resource out there called groundfish stocks.

Each one of those individuals over there has a responsibility to do the same thing. What do they do? Make fun.

Well, there are no seals in Labrador West. We know there are no seals in Labrador West, but I can tell you that there are 6 million-plus out there in those waters taking jobs away from their constituents, and the constituents on every side of the House. So while the hon. member can look at his big fat pension cheque coming in and his salary cheque coming in, there are people in his district who cannot put food on the table.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I am working for them. I take it seriously. I take my job seriously. It is not fun to look at fishermen out there in small boats with no means of earning a living while you and I can get our big fat cheques, Mr. Speaker. So there is the issue, there is the type of representation -

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if the minister took his job seriously - he went to Ottawa on behalf of fishermen and left and went to a Liberal fundraiser in Toronto, and would not meet with the minister. How serious is he about his job?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now let me tell him now. Let me do this, because this is serious. I can tell that hon. member opposite, on my word as a man, as a minister in the government, I never ever in my lifetime, at no time, leave Ottawa and go anywhere to any fundraiser in Canada or in the world. You know that. Never anywhere in the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: I will put my job on the line. I did not leave anywhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Now you stand up and put it on the line. My job against yours!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) recognized.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the members wish, we can recess the House and we will bring back order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, you went to Ottawa to a meeting. I went there on a committee with you. We arranged to meet with three federal ministers and the minister did not show. He was on an airplane coming back from Toronto the next day. Where he went that night I cannot guarantee it. He came back on an airplane the next day and he did not attend the meeting that he went to Ottawa for with ministers arguing on behalf of fishermen and plant workers in our Province. That is a fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I will say it again - a job on the line - I did not at any time in my career, or at any time that the member opposite is referring to, ever leave Ottawa or ever leave any other part of Canada and fly or drive or take a train or anything else to Toronto for any fundraiser. I left Ottawa on government business and I came back to Newfoundland. No fundraiser. Put it on the line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have seen this gentleman in the past two weeks make those kind of accusations, first of all, about Hoyles-Escasoni down there. I have just seen the hon. gentleman stand in this House and accuse a member of this House of being negligent in his duty, of leaving a meeting and going to a Liberal fundraiser. He just stood two minutes ago and tried to slither and slide out from under it. The Minister of Fisheries has issued a challenge to him: either stand up and apologize to the Minister of Fisheries or put your job on the line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. the Opposition House Leader rising on another point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not another point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you speaking in the debate?

MR. SULLIVAN: I can speak on debate if he so desires, and have a comment.

MR. SPEAKER: I already ruled there is no point of order. So you are speaking in the debate now?

MR. SULLIVAN: If it is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak on it. I am not raising a point of order. I will make a statement if I am recognized.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: On the point of order they raised?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I already ruled that is not a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not standing on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot guarantee, and I will admit it, I cannot guarantee -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will admit it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you going to let me finish? Let me finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I cannot guarantee he attended a Liberal fundraiser - I was not there - but I can guarantee he skipped the meeting with ministers, he was there earlier that day, and went to Ottawa on business - and did not attend - and came back on an airplane to St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hear what the hon. members opposite say.

MR. TULK: Apologize to the man for what you said.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will do no such thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not man enough for that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) at a fundraiser. I cannot guarantee that. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is too bad the galleries are not full. It is too bad. Honourable members opposite sit very quietly, subtlety, back in their seats - because I was making a few remarks on the debate back and forth the House. I did not make accusations that I could not back up. I talked about the sealing industry, and the impact it is having on the fish stocks. I never said anything negative or anything that was not factual to any member in this House. It was the hon. member who brought up about the fundraiser and me leaving and being irresponsible as a minister, and going off. It is too bad that the galleries were not full.

Any member over there representing a rural fishing community, like my friend from Bonavista South, where there used to be 1,200 people working in a fish plant in Port Union, Catalina, today there are probably 150 or 160. Every one of us living in every community where there is fishing industry attached can say almost the same things. Burgeo, Ramea, Little Bay Islands, Change Islands - Trepassey, that you represent.

Yes, the seals are serious. They are not to be... It is too bad that more people do not take it as seriously as I do. It is too bad you do not see it as serious, and get the message through to the people who are supposed to make the decision. Then we could get our small boat fishermen back, having a reasonable chance at earning a living in a resource that belongs to people living in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yes, they are up in the rivers in Labrador. The hon. Member for Labrador knows full well, in every single salmon river in Labrador and Newfoundland you can count seals. Is that a joke? I think not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it was?

MR. EFFORD: You did.

AN HON. MEMBER: I did not say that.

MR. EFFORD: You made fun at that. Oh, if there were seals in Labrador he would go. That is exactly what you said, and every member over there heckled.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hansard will show what I said. He said the minister wasn't in Labrador West. I said, because there are no seals in Labrador West. That is the point, I said, and Hansard will show that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we can keep arguing back and forth, who said what, but Hansard will clearly show. Every member on both sides of the House heard very clearly the heckling on the seals, and: The Minister of Fisheries would go if there were seals there.

That is not the issue. The issue is that it is too serious an issue for us here in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it being that time of the day, I will adjourn debate.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I believe we have agreed that we will do the Budget debate.

I should give members notice now that I intend to move that the House tomorrow - not today - not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.