December 5, 1997          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS           Vol. XLIII  No. 45


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the daily routine, the Chair would like to welcome today to the galleries Mr. Michael Patey from Badger. Mr. Patey is co-owner and operator of the new school, DieTrac Technical Institute, in Grand Falls-Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This date commemorates the tragic murder of fourteen women at Montreal's École Polytechnique engineering school. This date is also a stark reminder of the many women in Newfoundland and Labrador who are beaten, sexually assaulted and, in some cases, murdered every year.

Mr. Speaker, it has long been recognized that violence has its roots in inequality. Status of Women Councils in this Province operate Women's Centres where victims of violence receive daily support and advice. The Councils not only provide a variety of unique services which complement those offered by government. They also work for change by promoting women's individual and collective empowerment and advancing the status of women.

In our efforts to ensure continued progress for women's equality, the Status of Women Portfolio was restructured last year to provide Status of Women Councils with greater input into policy department. Seven of the eleven seats on the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women were made available to these local Councils.

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 1998, Status of Women Councils in the Province will no longer be eligible for sustaining funding from Status of Women Canada. Funding to operate has been essential to the Councils being able to access funding for projects from other sources. While they will continue to be eligible for project funding from the federal Women's Program, the change will mean that many of them may have difficulty keeping Centres open.

Mr. Speaker, the Women's Centres provide unique services that are of value to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are determined to see that these services continue. It gives me great pleasure today to announce a Multi-departmental Agreement to fund the core services of Women's Centres.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: The Departments of Health, Human Resources and Employment, Education, Justice, Development and Rural Renewal, Municipal and Provincial Affairs and Women's Policy Office will contract with women's centres to provide core services related to their mandates. Each centre will receive $30,000 in the next fiscal year. Government will work with the councils to develop a strategic approach to service delivery and evaluate both the funding levels and the process after one year.

Mr. Speaker, because these centres provide safe and supportive environments, they attract a group of clients who may not otherwise access services through the traditional routes. The provision of support, advocacy and time are unique services to women and their families offered by women's centres. In addition to providing funding for core services, departments may negotiate contracts for specific services to be provided through the women's centres, either directly or through the encouragement of partnership agreements with community health boards, school boards and Regional Economic Development Boards.

Mr. Speaker, developing partnerships with volunteer groups who provide services responsive to community needs is consistent with the new direction that government is pursuing through the Strategic Social Planning process. The multi-departmental approach to assisting women's centres in their role in addressing violence and safety issues in our communities is a good example of government's integrated approach to service delivery for women and their families.

Mr. Speaker, since December 6, falls on Saturday this year, commemorative activities are being held today for the women who lost their lives in the Montreal massacre and those who are victims of violence in our own Province.

Within Confederation Building during the day today, the Provincial Strategy Against Violence, Women's Policy Office and various community groups who are working to end violence, have set up information booths in the conference centre at the West Block, there will be videos and there will also be resource people available to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to attend as many of these activities as possible. I would also like to commend my colleagues and the Premier for their pledges of support shown through participating in the White Ribbon campaign announced last week.

This government has demonstrated its commitment to addressing violence and other issues of concern to women. Today's partnership with women's centres will strengthen our ability to advance women's equality.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement, and I welcome today - I think there are people from the Women's Centre here - Ms Joyce Hancock in the gallery.

The massacre of fourteen women at the University of Montreal's École Polytechnique in 1989 shocked hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of their complacency regarding violence against women.

I think it is appropriate that we remember those fourteen engineering students who died in 1989: Geneviéve Bergeron, Hèléne Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Marie Klueznick, Maryse Laganiere, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michele Richard, Annie St-Arneault, and Annie Turcotte.

These fourteen women died a horrible death and the real tragedy is that they are not with us today. But their deaths were not entirely in vain, because we, as a society, have taken hold of the event and made it a symbol of our commitment to end violence against women.

That violence can take many forms. In Montreal, we saw one very public extreme. But we must not forget that in many hidden rooms throughout our Province today, our sisters and nieces, our mothers, daughters, aunts, cousins and neighbours who are women, are often suffering silently and alone in their prisons of violence.

When many of these women need assistance they turn to their local women's centres where they know they will find others who are sensitive to their plight and who can help them and provide a refuge for them and their children. How many times have community volunteers rescued women from violence?

I am extremely pleased that the minister today announced core funding for each centre. These centres must continue, not only to provide refuge but also a clearing house of important information, a focal point for grassroots campaigns against violence, such as Take Back The Night celebrations, and centres of strength, where women can learn to take charge of their situations and become, not victims alone, but survivors of violence.

Indeed, one of the key strategies of The Provincial Strategy Against Violence published by the government is peer education where community groups use educational packages to spread the message into the community from their centres.

Let us remember the fourteen victims of the Montreal massacre today, but let us honour them by taking care of their sisters, not only today but for all of our tomorrows.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, it gives me great pleasure to advise my hon. colleagues that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed this past weekend by the Newfoundland T'Railway Council and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Speaker, this M.O.U. will be a tremendous benefit to the development of the T'Railway Park and its users. Under this agreement, the T'Railway Council will provide the necessary advice and support to government in our administration and management of this Newfoundland T'Railway Park. This partnership arrangement will give individuals, groups, and communities interested in the T'Railway Park a direct voice in the park's success.

The T'Railway Council has made considerable progress in developing sections along the newly proclaimed provincial park. The council has also provided my department with valuable programming direction. This M.O.U. will enable the T'Railway Council to take on a more active role in the advancement of the recreational and tourism benefits associated with the T'Railway.

Mr. Speaker, government is committed to establishing a multi-use trail across this Province. We have just recently completed a review of motorized and non-motorized use on the trail, and today I am pleased to announce the new off-road vehicle policy for the Newfoundland T'Railway. The new policy states that the T'Railway will be managed as an all-season, multi-use recreational corridor. It also states that off-road vehicles will be permitted on the T'Railway unless prohibited by the minister. As minister, I will accept and review proposals to prohibit off-road vehicles on sections of the T'Railway based on: (1) a formal request made by a municipality to prohibit off-road vehicles within the municipality's boundaries, including a rationalization for the request and any implications; and (2) if the request is granted, the municipality must bear the cost of erecting barriers and signage.

Mr. Speaker, the tourism benefits associated with a multi-season T'Railway are substantial. This all-season park will extend the tourism season for the areas adjacent to the park, and as such, will increase economic benefits for those accommodations, restaurants, adventure tour companies, and snowmobile/ATV operators in the areas bordering on the T'Railway. An extended operating season, Mr. Speaker, is a priority for many tourism and hospitality businesses operating in rural Newfoundland.

The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is looking forward to a highly productive partnership with the T'Railway Council: a partnership which will guarantee maximum benefits for all users of the former railbed and especially, the tourism industry.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I first of all would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement, and I say to her, Minister, this is indeed welcome news. One of your colleagues, the Member for Topsail, and I, attended a meeting last night - and I hope this does not go on, or I am sure he hopes it does not go on, but he and I are on the same wavelength as it comes to this T'Railway, especially going through part of the district that I represent and part of the district that my colleague represents. Of course, the municipality out there has already barred or tried to bar motorized vehicles from this particular park as it runs through part of the district of Topsail and part of the district of Conception Bay South. So I say to the minister that the quicker we get on with this, the quicker we allow my constituents and the Member for Topsail's constituents the right to use this track in a fair manner, which they have certainly been denied at this particular point in time. So I certainly welcome this news this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Development and Rural Renewal and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation are working together to explorer strategic opportunities which have potential to benefit the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and I are pleased to inform all members of the House of Assembly of a very significant new initiative being taken to strengthen our winter tourism industry and to diversify our rural economy.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Government is pursuing the construction of a quality, high-yield winter tourism product, namely, a groomed snowmobile trail system in the Province.

Around the world, our land is recognized for its fantastic beauty and recreational potential. Development of a winter trail system will be very beneficial for our people in two ways - recreationally and economically.

An indication of the tremendous economic potential for snowmobile activity here in Newfoundland and Labrador, is that about $2 billion is spent annually by Canadian snowmobilers. Economic spin-offs in Ontario alone are $550 million a year. That province, along with Quebec and our fellow Atlantic province, New Brunswick, have demonstrated a return to their economies on money invested by governments on a twenty to one ratio.

Mr. Speaker, snowmobile industry experts also tell us that Newfoundland and Labrador is potentially the most attractive snowmobiling destination in North America and around the world. We have great competitive advantages in terms of length of season, terrain and snow conditions. The truth is that we in Newfoundland and Labrador can become a major international snowmobile tourism destination area.

A highly developed world-class trail system in our Province, supported by an aggressive marketing campaign, will mean new business opportunities and new jobs for our people.

At present, as the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation would agree, our tourism efforts are focused largely on the summer season. But a first-class winter trail system will strengthen the economy of many rural communities. New winter products will make the overall tourism sector more diversified and more viable.

A top-notch snowmobile trail system in our Province will result in millions of new dollars being injected into our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay credit to the rural Economic Development Boards, and to say that it was in meetings with the Cabinet Committee on Rural Revitalization that several Regional Economic Development Boards clearly identified the economic benefits for a winter trail system in this Province.

This government will be seeking a partnership with the federal government, Regional Economic Development Boards, community groups, local snowmobile clubs, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation, as well as other stakeholders, to make our Province one of the premiere snowmobile destinations in North America and the world.

The trail will extend from St. George's to Clarenville, and up to St. Anthony up to the Northern Peninsula, and back down again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I emphasize that this is a new and exciting opportunity for economic development and tourism in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, employment for hundreds of our people, and millions of dollars in new revenues.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would have appreciated a copy of the statement but I didn't get a copy.

Anyway, I didn't need a copy because I'm very familiar with this. As a matter of fact, in my district the snowmobile association is very active. I've been in discussions with them as of late. I agree wholeheartedly with the minister, a lot of people in this Province don't realize the potential with the snow of course that we usually have, of course, keeping in mind that we have had a couple of strange winters when it comes to snowfall the last couple of years, but on the whole this idea is very good for especially the northern and western part of Newfoundland.

In my district, like I say, they have started to actually do the trails out there. They are looking forward to being able to groom those trails. But the snowmobile industry - and I have talked to people in that industry who say that as good as Copper Creek and Marble and White Hills and that is with skiing, the potential for the snowmobile industry is even greater, and that comes from a person in the skiing industry.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, in parts of the country like British Columbia and so on, it is very well developed and it has great potential. So I encourage the minister to keep on moving in this direction and we look forward to some great developments in this industry.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Oral Questions

 

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Premier.

The latest net out-migration figures compiled by Stats Canada show a disturbing trend. Six years ago we lost over 700 people; five years ago it was 1,600 people; four years ago it was over 3,000 people; three years ago it was 4,900; two years ago it was over 6,900; a year ago it was over 7,400; and this year we have lost over 9,200 - twenty-five people a day, I say to the Premier, every day. Now, is this a crisis or what?

When are you, as leader of this government and this Province, going to take seriously your responsibilities and bring forward a comprehensive economic strategy to halt the haemorrhaging of our human life blood?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his questions. These questions are on a matter that I think is serious, and a matter that concerns all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think we all recognize in this House, and we all recognize in this Province, that since the collapse of the fishery in 1992 we have had a steady increase in acceleration in this levels of out-migration in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that when the fishery collapsed in 1992, when the hon. John Crosbie announced that the fishery was going into a moratorium, he announced at that time that he hoped that the program, or the measures that he put in place for two years, would be sufficient to carry over fishing communities, rural Newfoundland, until such time as the fishery could be reopened; and, if we cast our minds back, we will recall that was the way in which the problem was defined.

Mr. Speaker, two years later the fishery had not reopened and, as a matter of fact, we went from a closure of 2J+3Kl, the Northeast Coast of the Province, to adding closures on the South Coast of the Province, 3Pn+3Ps, and closures on the Gulf Coast of the Province, 4Rs, and even more communities found themselves dislocated from the fishery, and at that time there was an announcement of a program to last five years. We all know it is now only being run for four years, with the hope that after that period of time the fishery would come back.

The Leader of the Opposition knows that beyond a modest but important fishing effort this year on the South Coast, and a modest but important fishing effort this year on the Gulf Coast and 4Rs, the entire groundfish fishery of the Northeast Coast of the Province, the Northern cod stocks, that entire fishery remains closed. He knows as well that 99 per cent of the spawning biomass in offshore trawl surveys is missing.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I say this, because this question is important, is the simple reality remains that tens of thousands of our people remain displaced from their traditional way of life, and that is why this House has worked so hard, the Minister of Rural Renewal and the Minister of Fisheries have worked so hard, and we are working hard to ensure follow-up measures from Ottawa to assist this Province in post programming for TAGS so that we don't have an even more accelerated rate of leaving from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't want a historic account of what happened. I asked you: What have you done for a comprehensive economic strategy? You have done nothing, Premier, only beat around the bush.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, Stats Canada tells us that over the next twenty years Newfoundland and Labrador will lose another 40,000 people on top of the 40,000 we have just lost.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Over the next twenty years, we will lose another 40,000 people, according to Statistics Canada. A Memorial University economic professor said, `Every person we lose, we lose $3,000 in federal transfers, for each person', and confirmed, I could say, by government - those figures, government will confirm and I am sure the Minister of Finance will agree. The Premier might not know about it, but I am sure the Minister of Finance can confirm roughly $3,000 for each person in transfer payments is the net effect. Therefore, 40,000 people over the next while will be $120 million less in transfers into our Province.

I ask the Premier: Does this Province have a plan to deal with this drastic decline and reduction in transfers that we are going to need to pay for things like health care and for education? If he has a plan, will he table it here in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, yes, the government has a plan for growing this economy. The government has a plan for seeing the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador diversified, renewed and to the extent that it is necessary, change. But for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up in this House and suggest that he has just discovered that since 1992, since the collapse of the fishery, people have left this Province, Mr. Speaker, is an insult to the intelligence of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of five brothers in my family. Four of my brothers live outside of Newfoundland and Labrador because they have had to go somewhere else to find employment. That is the reality of families everywhere, and my family is no less touched by that reality than any other family in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that will not be changed by trite statements by an attempted partisanship and scoring political points, and Mr. Speaker, the latest indicators suggest, that is not working very well for the Leader of the Opposition. That will be changed by hard work and by a comprehensive plan.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition will permit me, or if the Speaker will permit me, I would like a moment or two to talk about the plan.

Mr. Speaker, the plan begins by ensuring -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In Question Period, the answers should be brief. If there is a question that requires a lengthy answer, then it should be done under Ministerial Statements.

MR. TULK: You want to know it now - you asked the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, briefly, Newfoundland and Labrador has to capture its full and fair share of the benefits of our own resources. In the area of offshore oil and gas, that is what we are doing. In the area of Voisey's Bay and mineral development, that is what we are doing. In the area of Information Technology, bio-technology, tourism, we have to diversify. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Province has recently taken a chunk of money up front on HST, of which we are using $127 million this year in the budget. We have taken a chunk of money to use over three years on Term 29 - we are using $40 million this year. So, that is $167 million that will not be there after 1999. I ask the Premier, what is he doing to ensure that we are going to be able to make up for that short-fall when the big chunk of money taken up front runs out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing growth in the economy. It is not for me to stand up and second-guess all of the private sector forecasters, but the reality is - and the Leader of the Opposition quotes an economist - this government would prefer to set projections out that are realistic, to achieve those objectives, and if in fact it is possible, to exceed those objectives.

We do not repeat in the House, and I am reluctant to do so, the forecast of everyone of the private sector banks in this country, the forecast of the Conference Board of Canada and the forecast of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, but all of those forecasters have said, that Newfoundland and Labrador, over the next two or three years, in terms of GDP growth, is going to lead the country - that is what they have said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite is, I think, quoting Mr. Wade Locke of Memorial University, who recently said publicly that he believes the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is deliberately underestimating the tremendous growth that he thinks is going to happen. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you want to quote Mr. Locke quote him in total.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to get confidence when your own government predictions have been wrong every year except one in the last eight years. It is kind of difficult then to have confidence in the government's figures, I say to the Premier, very difficult.

I say to the Premier, your own government's Social Policy Advisory Committee, stated that this Province has suffered a net loss of 20,000 young people. Now, those are people between the ages of twenty and thirty-four since 1993. They have painted that dismal picture, your own report that was tabled here, I say to the Premier. The report says that in the next twenty years the under forty-five age group will drop from three-quarters to one-half of our population. As this haemorrhaging worsens, I say to the Premier, and the transfers decline, is the Premier able to tell us who is going to pay for health care, services and care for our aging population?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition complains that our forecasts have been wrong and his complaint - so that it is very clear to the those who do not understand what he is saying - is that we have been too cautious and I dread to say the word, too `conservative' in our forecasts, because we have consistently out-performed the forecasts of the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The Minister of Finance is a prudent captain on the economic ship of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and he is bringing such strong leadership to the fiscal affairs of the Province that he manages to out-perform his forecast each and every year. Mr. Speaker, the reality is, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in terms of growth, has had more modest forecasts than every other private sector forecaster. So the Leader of the Opposition's complaint, I take it, is that we are not as enthusiastic as all of the private sector banks in this country, as enthusiastic as the Conference Board of Canada, as enthusiastic as the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and as enthusiastic as his friend, Mr. Wade Locke, the financial advisor to the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I charge this government with deliberately altering figures to justify the cuts they are making to people in health care and education here in this Province in their estimates. That is what is happening.

Now, at least the Premier's predecessor paid lip service, I would say, to a concept of strategic economic planning that he reached for a few minutes ago, even if the Economic Recovery Commission was a dismal failure. This Administration is not even pretending to develop an economic strategy. They are counting on the hopes of Voisey's Bay and offshore oil. They have no plan. What does the Premier have to show for his twenty-two months in office that can give people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador hope to cling to something here in the future for this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago - and I want those who are listening to this debate to reflect upon this - a few minutes ago, the Leader of the Opposition was up saying that we were going to be in such desperate financial shape, because of the numbers he was concocting and quoting, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland would not be able to pay for health care, would not be able to pay for education and we were near a state of financial collapse. Now, I would ask people to check the record. Now, in the space of three lungfuls of fresh air to think about it again, he is up saying that we are concocting a worse financial state so that we can justify cuts in health care and education. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition cannot figure out if he is up or down, in or out, but the leadership convention will answer all those questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Environment and Labour read a statement. I challenge him today to answer the questions.

The Premier stated a couple of days ago, Mr. Speaker, that we do not need a provincial oil spill emergency response plan. The minister stated that as well, yesterday, because there is already a federal one in place. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not read the report of the Terra Nova assessment panel. Is the minister aware of Recommendation 61, of that report, which indicates that the panel recommends the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador establish a coastal zone management plan for the Avalon Peninsula and the west side of Placentia Bay? the exact recommendation, Mr. Speaker, that I made only a couple of days ago, that the Premier made light of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in the House the day before yesterday, we do have an adequate plan in place and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Environment Canada and the Department of Environment and Labour here have a plan that can adequately address any of the spills that might happen along our coast and including Placentia Bay. In fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has prepared environmental sensitivity maps of Placentia Bay using all available information to the GIS which is the Geographic Information System. So, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared if an impending disaster happens, we have all of the ducts lined up to make sure that our environment is protected.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

So the minister is going to ignore the report I take it?

The minister said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the work is already done; he just stated the same thing again. I challenge him to answer the next question.

The Terra Nova assessment panels say: That is not so. Can the minister confirm that no action has been taken on the panel's recommendation No. 63, that the relationships between the relevant government departments during oil-spill response situations be reviewed and clarified so that each co-operating agency has a role that is clearly defined and clearly understood? Again, Mr. Speaker, the recommendation I made only a couple of days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated in the answer to the previous question and in answer the day before that, in case there is a spill, that the plans are in place to make sure that the environment is protected and I want to assure the House and the people of the Province, as we did yesterday, that the plan is in place and in case of an impending emergency, then we can adequately protect the environment.

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

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

In the minister's statement yesterday, if you may allow me - The ECRC is capable of responding to a spill of up to 10,000 tons -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that he cannot (inaudible).

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

We are capable of responding to a spill of up to 7,000 tons, Mr. Speaker, in seventy-two hours, far too long a period.

Mr. Speaker, the Exxon Valdez I say, had 117.000 ton spill; the carriers going from the transshipment terminal, Mr. Speaker, are more than three times that. Mr. Speaker, the minister said the equipment is here in Newfoundland and ready to be used -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask the minister and I challenge him to answer this question, Mr. Speaker, because I have taken the time to speak to the coast guard myself and while they say there are some resources here, Mr. Speaker, I have asked them if there were enough equipment here in Newfoundland to respond to three times the size of Exxon Valdez itself. They said: They have the resources here, some of them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask the minister: Based on the fact that some of the resources might have to be called in from New Brunswick, some of them from Nova Scotia, some of them from Quebec, in his statement yesterday, some of them from the Great Lakes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: - is this good enough for our Province, a Province moving full-steam ahead into the international oil industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said all along, we do have an adequate plan in place to address an oil spill but, Mr. Speaker, if there is a tanker that is going to come along our shores three times the size of the Exxon Valdez, and the spill up in the northern arctic, there is no way in the world that anybody could prepare or have everything in place for that but, Mr. Speaker, I just want to show you that Hibernia already have their plan in place in case there is an emergency and the C-NOPB plan has been co-ordinated by the federal government and co-ordinated by us, Mr. Speaker, there are plans in place and in case there is a spill then we will be well-taken care of.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the last day-and-a-half or so, concerns with respect to air quality have once again arisen in our schools in the Province. I ask the minister and I will simply refer to my questions of two weeks ago, regarding air quality in the schools, and the minister told us exactly two weeks ago that there is no risk and nobody should be suggesting that students, teachers, or other workers in the school system are at risk in any of our buildings because it does not exist. The minister went on to say two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker: There are no students, teachers or workers in our school system at risk in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If this is the case, I ask the minister, why today are we seeing the examples which are existing in Central Newfoundland where schools are being shut down because of concerns with respect to air quality, namely fungus and carbon dioxide?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A very serious issue, and I appreciate the question and opportunity to address it in the House.

The unfortunate part again, and the point I was trying to get across a couple of weeks ago with respect to questioning from the Opposition education critic, was exactly that, that the members opposite would try to suggest again today, now that there are students, teachers and workers in the schools in this Province who are at risk in any of our 400 school buildings, and we should be out there in some kind of a panic.

The fact of the matter is this. There was a study done some two years ago. Some fifty-five schools were sampled. All of them were found to be deficient on some of the criteria. The information - because the suggestion two weeks ago from the Opposition was that we had done a report and we had buried it and hid it away - was in the hands of the school board officials. They had done further testing in schools -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. GRIMES: - Mr. Speaker, like Buchans, and like Bishop's Falls.

Members of the House might be interested to know that we are very pleased, and I'm very pleased as the Minister, that the school board in consultation with the parents, the school councils working very well in those areas, have decided to err on the side of additional caution. Because the studies that have been done, and the members might like to hear this, and the further testing just recently, have indicated even in the case of Buchans, where the presence of a fungus has since been detected in the most recent studies, that the consultant who detected those fungi did not suggest that there was a health risk for the students, and did not recommend the closure of the schools. That is important to note.

But the parents and the school board themselves said, because they couldn't determine a corrective action they might take between now and Christmas, that to make sure of the safety of the students -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - they would close the school from now to Christmas, do some corrective measures, and hopefully -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - have the students back in school -

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

MR. GRIMES: - after Christmas. With respect to Bishop's Falls, Mr. Speaker -

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With respect to Bishop's Falls again, they had been doing some work. The corrective measures were actually being taken in the school. The action being taken disturbed some fibres in some insulation, which caused a problem that will be corrected by Monday of next week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister that it is an act of negligence that this report –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - has not been tabled in this House of Assembly. He claims it is a public document, yet he refuses to table it. He also states that those individuals in the Province who ought to know do know. I say to the minister that within the past week I have spoken with a director of a school board in this Province who said quite categorically that neither he nor his maintenance supervisor were notified of anything with respect to air quality, and two schools in that district were assessed in that report.

The report also found, I am told, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - that none of the –

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - schools studied -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a supplementary. He ought to get to his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - had ventilation systems good enough to meet the standards of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers. I ask the minister, what is his response to that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, the saddest part that I find in this is the approach again that the Opposition tries to take with the issue.

The reality of the matter is exactly this. It is known to the government and it is known to all ten of the school boards in this Province that we have some deficiency with respect to air quality in the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. It might be again interesting for people to know - and this is no reason for us not to do exactly what we are doing now, address the most urgent issues by virtue, Mr. Speaker, of putting $2.5 million in the budget in this fiscal year to deal with circumstances like Buchans, like Bishop's Falls, and like other areas - when there is an identified risk of any nature to the students, the teachers, and the other workers in the schools, the school boards take the appropriate action - they should be applauded - of vacating the buildings.

Two weeks ago there was no identified problem in any of the schools. That was the correct answer. The students were in all of the schools. Today they are out of two schools because there has been further testing done and there has been further work that has been ongoing that has caused a problem.

Everybody is doing what is in the best interest of the students, the teachers, and the other workers in the school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, I ask him to quickly conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is that it is no excuse for us not to do what we are doing, because we are very active, but this is an issue in every single jurisdiction in Canada. This is not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: If anybody had been hearing reports, they would have heard of instances in other jurisdictions as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite the minister's rhetoric, the act of negligence continues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: He refuses to let the people of this Province know what the reality is, what the truth is, with respect to the air quality.

This study, I am told, has found that some of the schools studied were experiencing peak carbon dioxide levels nine times in excess of the acceptable limit. Can the minister tell us which schools are so identified?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, for the members opposite, I really regret the approach again that has been taken because I wish they would want to deal with the matter in the interest of the students and the teachers and the workers in the school system itself.

There has been no act of negligence by anybody either at the government or within the school boards. A study was done two years ago. The information was provided to the school boards a year-and-a-half ago. Now, where there is any negligence in doing a report and providing it to the people who are actually doing something about it... I understand that some of the leadership candidates opposite want to get up and get on with some politicking. I was a little disappointed -

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I just remind the minister of the requirements of Question Period: Be relevant and be short. He is neither.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The Chair will determine when a question has been asked, and the Chair will determine when a minister has sufficient time to answer the question. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The point again, in asking the question, the hon. member, two weeks ago and again today, uses words like `negligence'. For anyone to suggest, with any credibility, that a report that was done two years ago and was supplied immediately to the people who are actually charged with the responsibility in the system for looking at the welfare of the students, the teachers, and the workers in the school, they have had the report for a year-and-a-half -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - they are actioning it. The fact of the matter of what is happening in Buchans and Bishop's Falls today shows that the system is working, not that there is any negligence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. GRIMES: People are doing their job, and getting the job done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions today were to be for the Minister of Human Resources and Development but now I will direct them to the Premier, and you preamble them nicely by saying there are no fish so you cannot do anything about the out-migration.

In Black Tickle, exposed in The Globe and Mail on Monday for all of Canada to see, was the situation in Black Tickle where the waters are teeming with shrimp. These people don't want money; they just want licenses and larger boats. There are only 230 of them, Mr. Premier, and probably not significant to you. Do you have an out-migration plan for them as well or are you going to give them the licenses for their boats?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many visits the Member for St. John's West has made to the Labrador Coast but she will know that if she relies upon an opportunity to deal with people from Labrador directly and not just from interviews and stories in the Globe and Mail she will know and I should acknowledge by the way that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member, if the member had an interest in the Coast of Labrador and had the time and I suggest if by some chance there is an opportunity to travel the coast, will know that there is very strong and able representation from the people themselves, from their own organizations and most recently, I have to acknowledge the Member for L'Anse au Clair has met with me directly on the situation in Black Tickle, has talked with the Minister for Development and Rural Renewal on Black Tickle, has talked with the Minister of Human Resources and Employment on Black Tickle, has talked with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on Black Tickle, has talked with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and indeed I am happy to tell the member, who otherwise would not know until she reads it again in the Globe and Mail what is going on in Labrador, that measures are being put in place to put emergency response programs, employment programs in place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a detailed answer on Black Tickle, with leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Notices of Motion

 

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act".

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce the following private member's resolution, which, Mr. Speaker, is very timely, according to the statements the Premier made today in Question Period.

WHEREAS the previous Administration used its power to legislate against public sector collective agreements that included wage increases and, in so doing, incurred the condemnation of the International Labour Organization, and muddied the international reputation of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for honouring its commitments and fairly compensating its employees; and

WHEREAS the provincial public employees of Newfoundland and Labrador, who have not had a raise in pay in about eight years, despite rises in the cost of living, deserve fair and reasonable pay for the work they do; and

WHEREAS the Premier and his ministers are entering into a period of collective bargaining with public employees and are doing so against a backdrop of statements about economic growth projections and commitments to allow civil servants to enjoy the benefits of revenue growth; and

WHEREAS it would only magnify the hurt of our public employees and further damage our Province's reputation if the Premier and his government were to break promises and signed collective agreements with public employees;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to negotiate, in good faith, with provincial public employees and to honour in full whatever commitments it makes to its employees, including any commitments to provide its employees with long overdue increase in wages.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills entitled, "An Act To Amend The Environmental Assessment Act", "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act" and "An Act To Amend The Shops Closing Act".

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask for your leave. I missed the Orders of the Day for tabling reports and I would like to table The Provincial Strategy Against Violence - Status Update. Do I have leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister - we are on notices, can we revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

 

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

 

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

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hereby table the Provincial Strategy Against Violence - Status Update for December 5, 1997.

 

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 31, The Professional Fish Harvesters Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act." (Bill No. 31)

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this year, when we brought in the legislation on the certification of professional fishermen, I deemed it to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that we could bring into the fishing industry today.

The fishing industry of the past has been an industry that has carried on without the professional attitude that it should have and that it deserves.

We brought in this legislation, and a certification board was put in place, but in order to - and we put appeal boards in place; because once it was identified as to who were professional fishermen, who were core fishermen and who were not, the right for the appeal of those individuals who were not deemed to be core, should be put in place.

We set up three appeal boards - two regional and one central - and we hoped that before year-end, those boards would be in place and would be hearing the cases of the individual fishermen who wanted to appear before the board. However, time not being there to gather the information - and the boards would have to gather the necessary information to identity all those people - we have to extend the time limit by another six months. Their time was due to run out at the end of this year, and that would not give them time over the winter months to hear the appeals that we expect from the fishermen across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So this is just a minor amendment asking for an additional six months for the appeal boards to hear the appeals of the fishermen over the winter months. Hopefully, by the end of the six-month period, the certification board will be in place, all of the appeals will have been heard, and the fishermen will be identified as to who are core fishermen and who are Level I and Level II fishermen.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a question to the minister: Right now, is it eighteen months minister? It is eighteen months now.

MR. EFFORD: Twelve.

MR. FITZGERALD: Is it twelve or eighteen?

MR. EFFORD: Eighteen.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is eighteen now and it is extended to twenty-four? Okay.

Mr. Speaker, yes, this is basically a housekeeping bill and I am sure there must have been - I do not know if the minister can inform the house, how many people are appealing their designation by the fish harvesters board. Maybe when he stands to close this particular bill - but there certainly has been a lot of activity. I have had a lot of phone calls to my office wondering where the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board was located. A Mr. Smith is doing a great job there. He heads up that particular board, and I must say, he has been very co-operative. Every time that I have called the office, he has always gotten back to me, he has always made every effort to look after requests and enquiries.

The piece of legislation was long overdue here in this Province, because the fisherman trade is just as important and just as professional as any other way of life here in this country.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see - and I know it is beyond the minister's capabilities, because it is a federal matter, but I still have a great problem with the core designation. And, to me, this is a way of getting people out of the fishery; Mr. Anderson, the federal minister, has already admitted that, in a piece of correspondence to me. In all the fishery committee meetings and all the inshore fishermen's meetings that I have attended, when problems with the core designation were brought up, it was always stated by DFO that it was not their intent to bring in the core designation to get people out of the fishery; it was not their intent to keep them from accessing further licences.

But I say, Mr. Speaker, it is their intent, that is why the core designation was brought in, and I personally do not see any need for it. I do not see any need for a core designation now that we have the professionalization of fishermen in this Province. If this particular board - and it is a board that is constructed of, I think, the right people; fishermen are represented, academics are represented, DFO is represented, the Provincial Government is represented, the union is represented. I think the board is made up of good people, and I think they will probably make the right decisions - I believe they have made them up until now.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is something that I think should be done away with; first it was SAC, then it was core, and what it is, is another way to get people out of this industry. In essence, what government should be doing is, instead of forcing people out by bringing in certain designations, they should encourage the people to bring forward a program so that they can exit this particular industry with pride and dignity, and I am talking about a license buy-out and I am talking about an early retirement, not to force people out because they have not been designated as core.

In many places around this Province, Mr. Speaker, where you have had brothers or crew members sharing the same boat, sharing the same fishing gear, getting up in the morning - I know of one particular family, two brothers fishing together. They went and bought a boat between them, got their own fishing gear, 50-50. They live next door to each other, get up in the morning and get into the same truck owned by the enterprise and drive to the wharf, get aboard the same boat, fish the same gear, make sales, and the money is shared 50-50. One is designated as core and the other is non-core.

This is wrong. All they have done is look at whose name the sales were made in, whose name the fish was receipted in, and this is the person who was designated as a core fisherman, while the other brother, with equal shares, with equal activity in this particular enterprise, has to go out now and buy a core enterprise. He has to go out now and take his savings and buy an enterprise because somebody up in Ottawa decided to sit down and write up a set of rules and regulations whereby certain people would be designated as core and certain people would not. If you were core you would be entitled to new licences, you would be entitled to any extension of quotas. The other person, in this case, a brother, was not entitled to anything.

When the minister gets up to close the debate, I would like for him to touch very quickly, if he would, on provincial fish inspections. The minister talks about quality, and I think he is right in talking about that. I would like to know why we, ourselves, had to get into doing inspections. Was it a situation whereby we lost control of the federal part of the inspections? Because I would imagine, Minister, that this particular inspection was paid totally by the Federal Government. Now, it seems, we are getting into doing inspections and taking away some of that control. Maybe we needed to do it, and if there is a justifiable argument for that, sobeit, then we should assume it. Because if we are going to expect the fishery to return, and expect people in this Province to once again earn a livelihood from this industry, then we certainly have to put up a quality product.

When the minister talks about quality, you go right back to thinking that in order to process a good-quality product, you have to land a good-quality product. We had the minister over in Japan with his entourage, and we have other people aboard that the minister has appointed, or a committee, looking at crab prices. And I am certain that when the final report comes in, the quality of the product we have produced here in this Province is certainly going to be at the top of the list as a concern.

I ask the minister, how can you, on one hand, say to a fisherman, you must land a quality product, and on the other hand say to the same fisherman, you cannot use a thirty-five-foot boat or a thirty-four-foot boat to go out and fish crab? That because you registered a twenty-foot boat, then that is the one you must take your thirty-five or your seventy-five crab pots in. That is the one you must go out and fish crab in, that is the one you must land it in, not allowing any room - or much room, anyway, to take ice and all the other necessary requirements that fishermen need. How silly a regulation - to see the government of this country say to fishermen: You are only allowed to go out and fish in a boat that you had registered to fish that particular species.

Now, what they did last year - because there was enough pressure put on the federal minister at the time, they were allowed to go out in their big boat, but they had to tow their small boat out to the fishing grounds. They could get in their big boat - jump into it at the wharf - go out to their fishing ground, go out to where they had their pots set, tow out the small boat, because that is the one they had registered, Mr. Speaker, and bring in the crab in the small boat, once again, towing it in from the fishing ground with the larger boat.

Mr. Speaker, those kinds of decisions do not make sense. The crab fishery can offer many, many opportunities. I do not think that we have even reached the potential that this particular industry has to offer, but we have to get away from this silly way of doing things and we have to listen to the fishermen. If we can accommodate them and make their trip to the fishing grounds safer, allow them to land a better product and get a better price, then that is what we should be doing, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister is soon going to have to stand and make a Ministerial Statement or issue a release on the fishery of the future. Here we are, five years into a moratorium and nobody knows what the fishery of the future is going to be like any more than they knew on that day, July 2, when people were told to go home because there was no job for them, that there was a moratorium on the Northern cod fishery in this Province.

Fishermen are demanding to know, Mr. Speaker, what that fishery of the future is going to be like. They do not know who will be able to fish. They do not know what they will be able to fish. They do not know what the quotas are. They do not know what the gear type is going to be. Mr. Speaker, those people have to know, the time is coming.

I think if we go out and listen to the fishermen, many of them, Mr. Speaker, would be able to provide us with a lot of information on what they would like to see done. Now is not the time for issuing licence fee increases, I say to the minister opposite, now is not the time to have fishermen paying, in some cases, up to 4,000 per cent more than they paid in previous years.

MR. TULK: `Roger', CBC in this Province - I don't know what's wrong with them. They are `some stunned'. They did not even mention you this morning as one of the leadership candidates. They mentioned `Byrne' and they mentioned `Shelley' and they said that the Liberals are saying that (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, they mentioned the right people.

Mr. Speaker, foreign fishing, I say to the minister opposite - another problem by no way being resolved. I am after making three trips on a surveillance plane out to the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks since I have been sitting in this House, and each trip that I have made out there, I have seen anywhere from eighteen to twenty-six foreign vessels raping the stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. They are raping the stocks, Mr. Speaker, while our own fishermen and our own fish plant workers sit here on this shore waiting to go back to work, waiting for stocks to return, and that is not right. That is not counting the forty or fifty vessels that are out on the Flemish Cap fishing shrimp - not counting that at all.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is still an awful lot of fishing activity out on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks. The only reason why it was reduced is not because of the arrest of the Estai and all the wonderful things we did there. Simple economics is the reason why it was slowed down, nothing less than that, Mr. Speaker. It was through pure economics.

When you see the people from Burgeo, Mr. Speaker, which up until recently was almost an isolated community - now they have a road going in. The only economic prospect there for employment is their fish plant. When you see the people from Burgeo wanting to get a quota of argentine, so that they can get their people back to work, I say to the member who represents that particular district, when you hear those people go out begging for a quota, and up until now they have been told no, there has been no quota given - they can look out through their windows, from what I understand, and see foreign vessels out fishing that same quota that this particular town needs in order to survive, but up until now we have given them nothing.

I wonder if the minister can table, sometime in the House here, or possibly provide it verbally, how much fish, how much cod - how much groundfish I will put it, is caught by foreigners inside our 200-mile limit? And I do not mean only cod; I mean turbot, flounder, halibut, blue fin, argentine, pelagics, and provide that as well.

I can assure you that if you saw those figures, and you saw the amount of product that some of our plants need in order to survive - that would be one way of getting people back to work. It will frighten you to death, I say to the minister opposite. If George Baker follows through on his commitments, if he follows through with releasing the information that he says he has acquired, it will frighten you to death to see the amount of fish that is caught by foreigners inside - inside - our 200-mile limit. There will certainly be many people out knocking on the Premier's door and saying: Why are you allowing this to happen, Mr. Premier, when our people, our own communities, are dying; our own people are having to leave this Province; our own people are going to the Department of Social Services in order to access funding to feed their families, and yet we allow those foreigners to come in and take fish right from our own communities, right from almost under our own street lights.

It is wrong, Mr. Speaker. More attention has to be paid to marketing, something that the minister should convince his own colleagues or even his own department to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Marketing, I say to the minister. When you allow a fishery to take place in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: You're light-years behind the times.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you go and talk to the squid fishermen down in my district and see if I am light-years behind the times. You talk to them and see where their sheds are, and see what is in their sheds. Here is a fishery that took place this year, fishermen got geared up and went through the expense of buying equipment, equipping their boats, going out on the grounds in all kinds of weather, getting squid, bringing it ashore for the family to dry, hoping to have a few dollars for Christmas, hoping to be able to provide for their families. Now they find themselves with their sheds full of dried squid, with no markets; but this very same government has gone out and issued licences for the same countries where we find our markets to come in here, inside our 200-mile limit, and fish in excess of 80 million pounds of squid.

MR. EFFORD: That happened forty years ago. (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, it did not happen forty years ago.

This is shameful, and if it happened, then this minister should be trying to change it, because up until now there has been no problem with people selling dried squid.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: There has been nothing compared to now, I say to the minister.

There are buyers in my area this year who, if they cannot move their squid, will go bankrupt. So what happens? Here we have the minister, wanting to be the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but he puts her on automatic pilot. He tells all about the things that should happen but makes no effort to make it happen.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You mean to tell me, Minister, that people should have to go out and catch a product, go through the expense and go through the effort of doing what they did, to find out there is no market? Surely goodness, Mr. Minister, if you are going to go out on one hand and say that we are going to take part in a seal fishery, and the seal fishery should provide whatever the market can withstand, then there is no reason why we cannot do the same thing with other fisheries as well - no reason whatsoever.

There has been nothing done with the squid fishery, and that was one fishery - and people in rural areas know - when the squid struck the shores, people were going around with a smile on their faces. People were happy. They were going out and spending their money, because not only was the fisherman making a dollar, but the son, the daughter, the wife, the father, were all out taking part in this cottage business. That is what it was; it was a local cottage business that provided great opportunities for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister has fish processors in his own district who have called me, Mr. Speaker, who once took part in this particular industry, and they are not happy with what has taken place.

First, we have to have some form of quality control in the squid fishery because there is no incentive there now to put up a good product. Buyers go out and they pay the same price for squid no matter what condition it is in. That has to change.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not correct.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct. I say to the minister that the only grading of squid is done after the buyer buys it. Granted, it is graded before it gets to the market, but fishermen's squid is not graded in their sheds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) are so.

MR. FITZGERALD: They are not, I say to the minister. You do not know what you are talking about. You can't tell me anything about squid, I can guarantee you that right now. I spend as much time out in my district talking to fishermen, taking part in the fishery myself at one time, grew up in it, made my living at it, I say to the minister, and this is one topic of which I know what I am talking about. I can assure you that you got your information wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You got your information wrong. I attended two meetings, Mr. Speaker, that the Standing Committee of the House of Commons participated in here in this Province. One was down in Tors Cove, which the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal attended as well, and I attended another in Catalina. I tell you, there are a lot of frustrated people out there, a lot of frustrated fishermen. Somebody has to start listening, because those people want to get back to work. They want to go back and do the things they normally did to earn a living.

They do not know who to trust anymore, they do not know who to believe anymore. When somebody on the one hand tells them that there is no fish, and they go out and they can probably catch fish such as they have never ever witnessed before, three and four feet long, around the rocks, when you hear people talking at government wharves...

Out where I live, my little community is not a fishing community. There are a lot of small boats there. People have cabins, what we call down in the bay. There is one government wharf there. Not a lot of people use it, but most people anchor their boats in the little coves going up through. When the water falls, for the most part, the boats are high and dry on the beach, they are down on their side, because they are in the mud, I say to the Member for Baie Verte. People can go out with their fishing rods in those boats when the water rises and they have caught fish like that. Caught them and released them. They do not keep them - never heard tell of it before, some of the stories you hear.

The fishermen are not lying. The fishermen are telling the truth, but obviously, we do not believe them. The only way to believe, I think, what fish is out there - because the sentinel surveys have shown great signs of fish. I mean, it was not uncommon for the sentinel survey to show anywhere from 20,000 to 35,000 pounds of codfish in traps in Bonavista this year. It was not uncommon for people to go out and have to give up fisheries because the by-catch was much too high. They could not fish lump, they could not fish herring. They had to take up their turbot nets, black-backed nets, and everything else because there is so much codfish there.

A few years ago, we were told we could not catch it because it was too small. This year, we were told we could not catch it because it is too big. Who do fishermen believe? I personally believe that the inshore fishery should never have been closed. The inshore fishery could have survived. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it should ever have been closed. It was not decimating the cod stocks. People, maybe, should have changed their ways, maybe we should have done away with the gill nets and said to the people, from now on you are only allowed to fish hook and line. Maybe we should have only allowed traps at a certain time and required a certain size mesh so the small fish could escape. It could have been done differently, but I do not think the inshore fishery should have been closed. You would still have had a lot of people in this Province, still going out and making a living to support their families and getting a high price for their product because it would have been a good product, caught with the hook, they would be baiting their fish grounds and it would do nothing to hurt the particular stocks that we are talking about here today.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that the minister might look at is science. He should start listening to the real scientists; I believe that the real scientists are the fishermen and the people that go out every day.

Get away, I say to the minister, the first thing he has to do is stay away from the slipper captains, the slipper skippers they are called. Do not be too wrapped up in the slipper skippers. You know who the slipper skippers are, there are a few of them out there and you see them going around now - they do not be going around with their lunch pail, you see some of those slipper skippers going around with their briefcases. They want the transferable quotas. They want to be able to control the fishery and decide who goes where. They sit at home, Mr. Speaker, or sit in their offices. It should never be allowed to happen. I say to the minister, my personal opinion is that scientists should be at arms length from government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Test fishery, Mr. Speaker, you hear a lot of the fishermen now calling for a test fishery. I agree with that. I think if we are going to get this industry open, if we are going to do it with the full knowledge of knowing what is out there to catch, then it has to be done through a test fishery. It has to be done by the fishermen, not this new survey - this acoustic survey where they go out and they hire a boat and they plot out a grid and they go from point A to point B and then from point C to point D, that does not work, I say to the minister. You and I can get on the Campaign - there will only be one of us probably come back - but we can get on the Campaign and we can go out and try to get what fish we want and I would imagine if you - when you were down in Bonavista - if you decided you were going to get a fish for your supper table, then you probably would not know where to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do with your donation from the IFAW?

MR. FITZGERALD: You probably would not know where to go, I say to the minister because some of those same people that we have taking part in those surveys today do it by, I suppose, information that is provided to them from an office up in Ottawa or here in St. John's and say here is the area you must survey, here is how you must do it. What you have to do is let the real fishermen go out that know the real fishing ground, that know how to really fish and let them tell you how much fish is out there. That is the only way we will know. You have one group of people - you have thousands of people saying, there is lots of fish and you have three people saying there is no fish. That is all I have heard come out, and everybody else somewhere in between.

AN HON. MEMBER: Arn or narn?

MR. FITZGERALD: Arn or narn?

But it is a very serious happening here in this Province today, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of people out there, a lot of fishermen and fish plant workers, that have told their story many, many times. I do not know how more often people can be expected to come forward and tell their story, I sometimes wonder. I suppose people have taken the approach that, the more we tell it, maybe we will get somebody to listen, maybe we will get somebody, Mr. Speaker, that will take what we say and try to take it to the powers that have the capabilities of making the decisions and hopefully we can get this thing back on track again.

Well, that is something that should be done, Mr. Speaker. We should certainly allow a test fishery, especially in area 2J+3Kl, especially in that particular area.

You know, I've never seen the spirits and the backs of Newfoundlanders broken before like I did this summer when they took away the right to go out and take part in a food fishery. I've never seen the spirit of Newfoundlanders broken before. The minister knows that as well, and any member here in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Never seen it, Mr. Speaker.

I attended some meetings with a group that went out to talk and let people come forward and vent their frustrations. Everybody had the same message, it was no different. No matter where you went, everybody was bringing forward the same message, because of what they were seeing themselves. All those people are not liars, I say to members opposite. Those people know the industry. I don't know of any fisherman - I've never met one - who would want to go out and destroy the stocks. I've never met a fisherman who would rather go and take part in a food fishery if he thought that the stocks couldn't withstand the activity that would be placed on it.

It wasn't the point of saying that Newfoundlanders are hungry and they have to have a codfish for breakfast or they have to have a codfish for dinner. It didn't have a lot to do with that, as important as that is, because it was always part of our diet, always part of our culture, to be able to go and do those things. People saw it as a right being taken from them. People saw it as another erosion of one of their rights. That is why we live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why when we leave this Province to go to places like Alberta, British Columbia, Korea now and Japan and New Zealand, that is why we only go temporarily, because we want to return to this Province. This is the Province that we love. We could always go out and do things by using a little bit of initiative, and with the sweat of our brow we could accomplish things ourselves that other people in Canada are taking their lives to pay for.

People could go in and they could build their houses. They could go in, cut their logs, extract their firewood. Not allowed to do that any more. You could go out and jig a few fish. Not allowed to do that any more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The IFAW, I say to the member opposite, no party should be taking gifts, whether it is gifts of money or whether it is gifts in kind, nobody, Mr. Speaker, should be -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you apologizing on behalf of the PC Party?

MR. FITZGERALD: I am apologizing on behalf of nobody. I wasn't part or party to it, I say to the minister, but by them accepting it, it doesn't make it right. It is wrong, and they should never be allowed to accept, right, no more than your party in Ottawa should be accepting donations from that particular party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I had a couple, I say to the minister, but it wasn't anything to affect me.

Mr. Speaker, this is something we have to pay attention to. While the minister stands up and brings in a house-keeping change, and that is all it is - probably the change that he brought in doesn't warrant me taking the time that I'm taking here this morning to talk about that particular change. It is a good change, it is a good bill, but the minister has to start paying attention to the fishermen out there. He is going out. The minister is approachable. He is listening to people, but he has to start acting.

He has to start taking on his cousins up in Ottawa. That is what the minister has to start doing. He can't go sitting around any more and letting some of those decisions that are affecting this industry, that are crucifying this industry, he can't just sit back now because he is the minister of the Crown and because his Premier is in cahoots with the government up in Ottawa. I suppose he is afraid to go against his leader. He can't go and accept this as something that should happen, or should be allowed to happen. The minister has to start speaking up, speaking out, as he is noted for. This is what has to happen right here in this Province today.

I don't know if this particular industry is to soon give answers, and if those particular people are not soon told or allowed to take part, and some plan put together to show them they have a future, then I fear what is going to happen in Newfoundland and Labrador. I fear what is going to happen in my district. There are something like I think in excess of 5,000 people in my district right now either eligible for or receiving TAGS, and that automatically puts them and makes a long-term attachment to the fishery by the very fact that they are a part of this program and that is just in my district. The Member for Twillingate - Fogo has the same thing and the member for the Conception Bay communities has the same thing because most of our rural Province was settled because of the fishery, and a lot of the people still took part in that particular enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, the boat's size is one thing and I do not know why the government of the day would ever go out and tell a fisherman that he is only allowed to have a certain size boat. I do not know, I mean, if you are going to be a taxi-driver here in this Province, the City of St. John's does not tell you that you have to drive a Volkswagen or you have to drive a Cadillac but still, we have the government of this country, going out and saying to fishermen that you are only allowed to have a certain size boat, and I do not think it is any of the government's business if I am a fisherman and I want a bigger boat.

If I feel that my enterprise can support a larger boat, it is none of the government's business. It is time for government to get off people's back and out of people's pockets I say to members opposite. There is no reason whatsoever that, somebody in a fifty-two-foot boat should be expected to go out on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, go out 200 miles offshore, put the safety of their crew in jeopardy in the fall of the year to take part in a fishery. It is not healthy, it is not safe and one of those days we are going to have a calamity through the actions of this government.

Many, many enterprise holders have said to me: Look, I am willing to go out and buy a sixty-five-foot boat, I am willing to go out, I am not looking for one dollar from government, I want to go out and I will buy it myself; I am not looking for any licences, not looking for any extra quotas, all I want is the right to use a bigger boat and, what is so wrong about that?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, there is no point in your going to a meeting because I know the way people leave you at meetings. I know the way people leave you at meetings, so do the people a favour and send your Deputy Minister, maybe they will get some answers, they do not need you because they will get no answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No boy, it is an important subject.

Then we have the minister, Mr. Speaker, saying that you have to land a better product. Those boats are going out not able to take ice, not able to take all their fishing gear but still the fear is there that they may come looking for something and I have called the minister on this. I have called the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa and I said: Minister, I do not understand the rationale behind those regulations, it does not make sense. The only answer he could give me, the only answer that I was ever supplied was: If people get bigger boats they will eventually come back looking for more licences. But I said: those people are willing to sign a document, sign an affidavit that they will not be looking for special treatment and they will not be using the fact that you gave them or you allowed them I suppose, the freedom to go out and purchase a bigger vessel, to come and say now that I must have this licence or I must have this increase in quota in order to support my enterprise. They do not want any of that.

So maybe, when we start talking about the fishery of the future we might try to clear up and get away from some of those silly rules and regulations that exist but serve nobody, and the minister must know because for the most part, the minister is a common-sense minister, and he knows that some of those things that I brought up here this morning are certainly some things that I know he agrees with as well but, he has to start speaking out; he has to start making a few trips to Ottawa and meeting with his federal cousins, telling them the way it is here in this Province, telling them what fishermen want and telling them the reason it is being done.

So I say to the minister, it is a good piece of legislation; I think I have had one phone call with somebody complaining and I know that the minister had the same call and I know that he answered the same piece of correspondence along with the Speaker, and that was from an individual in the Speaker's district. That was the only call that I have had to say that this was not a good piece of legislation and I was quite upfront with the man and the story in the local paper will say that and I do not think either one of us were very far from sharing the same views.

Because this industry is in a crisis, we cannot go and give everybody fishing licences, we can't allow everybody access to the industry, and we have to start thinking about our neighbours, I suppose. If somebody has a job, and if somebody is doing alright, whether they are a schoolteacher or whether they are a politician, somebody else has to live as well. We cannot all go out and have it all by ourselves.

I don't get any pleasure in getting up in the morning and going to work and seeing my neighbour looking through the window with no work to go to, with nowhere to go, people who worked all of their lives and supported this government and other governments, and paid taxes, and paid their own way. I don't get any privilege and I don't get any pleasure out of seeing that. You cannot live in this world alone, and you cannot go through it alone. Those people have to be listened to. They are going through very, very difficult times. It is about time that we started supplying some answers.

I believe that if the minister and his department would work in consultation with the fishermen and the fisherwomen, and the fish plant workers out there in rural Newfoundland today, I think we can still have a very vibrant fishery, but we have to start paying some common sense and bringing in some rules and regulations that would support and help the industry and help those involved, instead of doing it in isolation from the very same people whose lives they are controlling.

Thank you.

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

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

I am not going to take a lot of time today, but I am going to take a couple of minutes, I say to the minister, because, of course, my district, my part of the Province, is very well affected by many parts of the fishing industry. As a matter of fact, I just want to make a few comments on the seal industry and, of course, even yesterday's paper, and talk about the real oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the seal oil.

Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer and, of course, I have done a lot of reading in this last year, or year-and-a-half, about the potential for seal oil in this Province. Although the minister just brought attention to it recently in the media and so on, the truth is that research on this has been going on since 1987, and people are just starting to realize how beneficial seal oil can be to the human body. That industry needs every avenue possible to go forward, and do it quickly, because timing is essential now. If this industry can take off, the sealing industry could be a major boost especially to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. In my district itself, as we speak today, there is a plant being built that is going to be looking into the seal industry, to the hides, to the meat, but more importantly to the seal oil industry.

I can tell everybody in this House that they should read up on what is happening with the seal oil industry, get in tune with it, because it is nice to hear that it has taken off in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that they cannot keep it in the drugstores and so on, but the truth is that it is only a smidgen of what the potential is, because if this industry takes off and connects with the Asian part of this country, then this is going to boom. That is why we have to be four-square behind the seal industry and the quotas and so on for this Province, because it could be the answer - or a big part of the answer - to the revitalization of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Especially, of course, as I spoke about yesterday, not only is it going to create jobs and do something positive for us, but at the same time, as we increase quotas, what it will do is help us with the situation and the crisis in the fishery; so it is real good timing for that.

The next point I want to raise is about the squid in the Province. Now, a lot of people do not realize it; that small amount of squid that is caught by people out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador is the last bit of income they have for the year that will enable them to move on, at least to qualify for unemployment insurance. That last bit of squid - as a matter of fact, I mentioned it to the minister today, I have people in my district today, who have called me as late as yesterday, who have 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 pounds of dried squid that they went out and caught this year for which they could not get markets.

Mr. Speaker, that does not sound like a lot, or does not sound important to a lot of people but, believe me, for the person who is out there now with 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 pounds of dried squid stowed away, and are two, three or four weeks short of claiming for employment insurance, it means a lot. It is almost taking a full, long race and not crossing the finish line. That is the situation they are in. I would say to the minister, he said that he may have some names of people to whom these people may be able to sell their squid, I hope that he can provide me with those names after the House has closed.

So that is something that the minister, as minister responsible for Fisheries in this Province should look into for next year, to make sure that quotas are not given to foreigners or the Japanese or whoever it is, before Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can avail of selling squid or any other species for that matter. People in this Province should be able to sell our own resource before foreigners are given that chance. It really upsets a lot of people to know that this year, the little bit of money they get from the squid industry has fallen off because of the quotas given to the Japanese, Mr. Speaker. That is not right and it should never happen in this Province.

The last point that I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, and my colleague has already brought it up but maybe it is time for it, I don't know if it is or not but the food fishery - I know we talked about it a lot this summer - but next week, December 9, two individuals in this Province, eighty-one years old - I won't mention their names because I did not ask them for permission today but of course it was in the media a while ago - eighty-one years old and seventy-eight years old, brothers, with over 100 years experience fishing. Not as much as a traffic ticket in their lives, nothing. Law abiding people in this Province. The eighty-one year old man was fishing on the Labrador since he was nine years-old. I spoke to him on the phone, Mr. Speaker. They paid their dues big time, I would say, to the fishing industry and to this Province and sustained a living in the fishing industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: A prime example of a (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, that these two gentlemen, on December 9, will go into a courtroom to answer to charges and probably be convicted of breaking the law. These people, eighty-one and seventy-eight years old, with a combination of over 100 years experience on the water, decided, Mr. Speaker - and they realized full well that, sobeit for this day and age that they are going to be breaking the law but at the same time, they say they believe they should have the right, especially when they know in a small community that they live in, that the bay is full of fish and they can go down and catch ten fish. So that's what they did. They went ahead and did it.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to those two gentlemen on the phone twice now. I am going to try to attempt to make their hearing in Badger's Quay on December 9, where they will be probably charged and convicted of fishing illegally. Mr. Speaker, those two gentlemen have said that they do not want to pay fines. They are going to have to pay for this, if they are charged as being criminals, they will go to jail for it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a case that everyone of us, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, should look at. I would think what those two gentlemen are doing there is what a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians felt like this summer when they seen the bays full of fish, especially living in a small community of ten or twenty people. What have we come to in this Province? In my district, a small community of Round Harbour, I think the population there now is twenty or twenty-five people. People come there during the summer, they have retirement homes and so on but basically that is who live there.

A fisherman who is there, Mr. Speaker, I know him very well. He fished all his life. He is in his early sixties now. He knew that Small Harbour was full of fish. He knows that no police officers or fishing officers come down around that area but, Mr. Speaker, he did not go down to get the fish, like these two gentlemen decided to do. Mr. Speaker, it broke his heart to think that here was the bay full of fish. There was nobody around who was going to catch him but he knew he would have a guilty conscience if he went down to catch and just go off - as a matter of fact, he told me that he did not even have to go out in his boat. He could have done it right off the wharf and caught cod fish. Mr. Speaker, he would not do it. He said I would feel like a criminal for something I have been doing all my life.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture stands up here and talks about the scientists. The scientists are the fishermen, the people who have been telling them for years.

MR. FITZGERALD: Fishery officers are going around the Province taking fishing rods from the children.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that's true, I say to the Member for Bonavista South. Imagine, fisheries officers crawling around the rocks and the shores of this Province, Mr. Speaker, coming around the turns on the points looking for kids out on the rocks fishing for cod fish. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's important I know. That must be really important that the fisheries officers take their time to crawl around the beaches of Newfoundland to make sure that children are not fishing off the rocks and going to catch a cod fish. How silly it is after getting, Mr. Speaker.

I went to Ottawa, I met with the federal Minister of Fisheries. Of course he did not return any of my letters. He did not return any of my phone calls. He did not believe in meeting with us but, Mr. Speaker, I went to Ottawa and I waited in his office until he came out to speak with me. The first message I wanted to give him on behalf of everybody who spoke to me this summer, not just in my district, from all over this Province that talked to me, they said give Mr. Anderson one quick message before you get into a conversation with him. Let him know that we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are insulted that he thinks that we don't respect the resource of fishing in this Province. That we were insulted by that. That Mr. Anderson, not that he is from British Columbia, wherever he is from, insulted us as Newfoundlanders by thinking that we don't have the respect for the resource of the fishery in this Province. We have full respect for it, Mr. Speaker.

I told Mr. Anderson this in no uncertain terms this summer. That was the message that I was about to give him. These people and these fishermen had a reason for saying they wanted to go out and jig a fish, because the bays were full of them. The scientists are out to lunch, as far as I'm concerned, and they have been out to lunch for a long time. Ten years ago they were saying there was plenty so we fished it all, and they said: No, you were wrong. Now they say there is no fish, but the fishermen are telling us they are in the bays, and we should be able to go out and catch one.

The whole point of this, and I will finish with this, is we have made a mountain out of a molehill on this whole issue. Yes, the commercial fishery and going out and using draggers and trawl lines and all that is another issue. What we are talking about is down in Round Harbour or out in Triton, a man in the morning, on a nice sunny morning, catching ten fish on a line. The hook-and-line never ruined the fishery of this Province. Never did and never will. As a matter of fact, if it was open today it would never hurt it. A line into water will never hurt it.

As a matter of fact, I was a little bit disappointed, but I heard one person on an open line show one morning from Grand Falls saying: I don't know what they are talking about. They aren't going to starve to death. What is so important about it? Why don't they go to the market and get a few cod fish? I know a lot of people in this House don't realize, and I could never explain to them, what it is like for a man who fished for fifty or sixty years to go out with his grandson in a boat on a nice morning in the bay and feel a tug on a line, and the look on that little fellow's face. As a matter of fact, the skipper who took us out last year, seventy-eight years old, the year before when we were allowed to fish, he sat in the boat, didn't even fish himself. He just wanted to be on the water and see a cod fish being caught.

That is what it is all about. It isn't about statistics and scientists. That is all bull! That is propaganda. What it was was the big summit down here in St. John's and the Premier and the minister and Mr. Anderson and all of them making sure we put on a big show for the international community by taking on those tough Newfoundlanders, the ones who want to go out fishing. We are going to show those Newfoundlanders, that is what they were saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) taking on the crowd that rocked the bus.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. They are going to take on the crowd that rocked the bus, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister came here. The truth is on the food fishery - and I'm going to go to that court case hopefully December 9 with these two gentlemen and stand with them in support of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian who says: We should have been able to go out and jig a fish and eat, out of common decency, with a bit of dignity. That is what it is all about.

This minister, this government and this Premier should be in Ottawa next year and over the winter months saying it was unjust and criminal what happened in this Province last year. If anybody in this House believes that is forgotten, if you think that issue just passed us by and the people who didn't catch a fish this summer are saying: That is okay, it is forgotten about, I'm telling you, you are making a sorry mistake. Because people in this Province - and they will mention it to me again Christmas when I go home. The fact that they don't have the fish in their fridge that they should have had, the ten, twenty or thirty fish.

By the way, the whole argument I had with Mr. Anderson, I said: The truth is, sir, all you have done now is made criminals of people who would have done it with a bit of dignity. Because the truth is, if you wanted to save the amount of fish that was coming out of the water, if that was your concern, the truth is that there are just as many fish being caught, or maybe even more I would say, on the black market this past winter. Because every community I can go around to you can get fish. The truth is, the only difference what Mr. Anderson did was made them do it illegally. Instead of doing it legally with a bit of dignity, they did it illegally. They have the fish, and the fish came out of the water.

There are people offering people fish all over the place. If you deny that you are out to lunch on it. There are all kinds. There are people being caught every day on it. The truth is that the amount of fish that Mr. Anderson was going to save from this great food fishery to save our fish stocks, which is a big question in itself, is utter... nonsense. I don't know, I could use worse words but I think the Speaker would call me to order. It is utter nonsense.

Throughout the winter, and leading into next spring, for a morale boost for this Province, go, get ready with an announcement to tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians: Go out and get your few fish, jig your fish. You aren't the problem, you aren't going to hurt the fish stocks.

The shame of it all, and the last point I make on the food fishery, is the scientists. Imagine, adding insult to injury. Going to bar off half of Newfoundland so that you can go as far as St. Anthony or over on the South Coast. What are they going to do, put a concrete wall in the water to tell the fish when they come up to that boundary: Don't go to the Northern part of Newfoundland? What utter nonsense! Every now and then, the minister in Ottawa should remember when he is making his policies and regulations, there is something he should add to his policies and regulations, and it is a word that has been missing for a long time from a lot of his policies in Ottawa, it is called common sense.

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't have it. Can't do it.

MR. SHELLEY: Imagine a scientist trying to tell a federal minister and the Premier here that we are going to put boarders around Newfoundland now. We are going to put a wall up or a net in the water and say, fish when you come up to St. Anthony now, turn around and go back, because you are not allowed to fish over there. What a load of ridiculous scientific evidence, Mr. Speaker. If that is scientific evidence then we are in as bad a shape now as we were years ago when they used to tells us there was lots of fish around.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister here today, take heed of it. The issue is not gone, it is not dead, it is not over. It is going to come up again next year. And, Mr. Speaker, this member on this side of the House and a lot of people around this Province will not be as quiet - and you can take that as a warning, threat, I do not care how you take it - will not be as quiet next spring and next summer if the minister here in this Province, along with the federal minister of fisheries, stands up and says no food fishery again. You had better have a lot more and better reasons to back it up this time, because people will not settle for it. It is something that has hit the heart and soul of Newfoundlanders and it should be listened to.

So, on this particular bill, I wanted to make sure that we got those points out and that they will be driven home further as the year goes on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: What a speech!

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has had to go out on Her Majesty's business and has asked me if I would close debate on this bill for him.

I think there was - I say to the Member for Baie Verte, I am glad that the principle of this bill was not a huge principle because I do not know what time we would have got out of here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) see any legislation with huge principles come across on the Order Paper in this sitting of the House.

MR. TULK: Now, Mr. Speaker, he is going to get me into it again, I know I am going - yes, I am going to be after my member again in a minute. I am going to be taking him on again and he is on this morning - CBC is on this morning promoting him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh, I am sorry.

- promoting him as the top leadership contender over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? John Efford for the Tory Party?

MR. TULK: No, no, the Member for Kilbride, my member over there is being touted this morning by CBC as the top contender for the leadership. Next in line, they believe, according to one, John Murphy, this morning on CBC - next in line, they believe, in the caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I am going to get to you in a moment. Next in line is the Member for Baie Verte. The Member for St. John's East did not even get mentioned, and I was disappointed that the Member for Bonavista South, who, I happen to believe is one of the best members in this House, did not get mentioned, but I tell you what was even more striking, that the only way the Member for Waterford Valley - the Opposition House Leader could get mentioned - was John Murphy said, I hear from the Liberals that the Member for Waterford Valley may also be interested. Then he went on to say that outside of the caucus there were a number of contenders.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who were they? Doug Moores.

MR. TULK: They said a name that -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: He is upset because he never got mentioned.

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know what it is in the House, but I certainly smell smoke or something burning here today.

MS S. OSBORNE: There is (inaudible). Really, this is serious.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. gentleman that if anything in this building is burning, including the hon. gentleman, we should send somebody out to see what is happening. But the fire alarm has not gone and I do not suppose we are in any eminent danger, but maybe we should send out the Page to have security look and see what is happening.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, where was I? Yes, I was dealing with the outside contenders - never got mentioned. I say to the Opposition House Leader that the hon. gentleman from Cape St. Francis has the highest showing in the polls when it comes to being an Opposition member, but being a good Opposition member - what is wrong? What is making you so upset? We will try to boost you up a bit. I cannot boost you up as a House Leader after what he did yesterday. I mean, it was fantastic work that the Member for Baie Verte did yesterday. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he should move him over into the chair, because not only would he eliminate somebody from the leadership race, but once he moved him into that chair, he would be loyal to him. He would not be like the present House Leader, saying: Well, I am here serving as a support, as a pillar of strength, for the Leader of the Opposition, but in the meantime, I am announcing that I might run for his job. I find it terrible.

Mr. Speaker, if I could get to this bill and talk about some of the questions, the truth of the matter is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I cannot.

The truth of the matter is that what this bill addresses is the extension for the professional fish harvesters appeal board from eighteen months to twenty-four, so it can take care of some other people who have not yet had the chance to appeal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. gentleman that I agree with him a great deal about seals. I think seals have a tremendous potential for rural development in this Province, and I can tell you something - I mean, it is the most amazing piece of salesmanship, as the Member for Bonavista South mentioned, that ever I have seen done in this Province. The Minister of Fisheries appears on television -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, he appears on television, and he is talking about - and he is a diabetic, and he does not mind my saying that. Everybody knows that. He is a diabetic, and he is talking about the problems his diabetes has caused for circulation, and he holds out a bottle of seal oil capsules. He says: I have been taking two of those a day, and the truth of the matter is, the problems with circulation are gone. It works.

We have had a run on seal oil capsules in this Province the like of which has never been witnessed with any product in the history of this Province. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador is lining up for seal oil capsules, lining up for them everywhere in the Province. The drugstores cannot keep them. I understand that is true, is it not it, I say to the Minister of Fisheries?

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. TULK: That drugstores cannot keep them on the shelves.

MR. EFFORD: Cannot keep them on the shelves.

MR. TULK: They cannot keep them on the shelves. The minister's office is flooded with calls from people thanking him for advertising.

MR. EFFORD: `Beaton', we have had calls from Alberta and Toronto.

MR. TULK: He is soon going to have to hire on somebody over there to take care of the calls. There are calls coming in from Alberta. There are calls coming in from Saskatchewan. Everybody in the country -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Did you hear what he said?

MR. TULK: What?

MR. EFFORD: He said I am going to get defeated because of that.

MR. TULK: Everybody in the country wants to take the seal oil capsules.

Mr. Speaker, I think what we should do, and I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite to think about this, is encourage a private company to set up a factory to manufacture seal oil capsules, and the label should read `John's Seal Oil Capsules'.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, as the Member for Baie Verte said, I think the gentleman has started one of the biggest industries this Province is going to see. And when it comes to the worth of a seal, just imagine the worth of a seal in terms of seal oil. I believe that the worth of a mature seal in terms of seal oil is somewhere in the vicinity of $3,000.

MR. EFFORD: $3,000 to $5,000.

MR. TULK: $3,000 to $5,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is oil alone.

MR. TULK: That is oil alone. Now, what a value to be put on one of our natural resources.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that indeed, yesterday, in the Lifestyles section of The Evening Telegram, was an article about - what was the title of the article, I ask the Member for Baie Verte; he has it there.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Other Oil Industry.

MR. TULK: The Other Oil Industry.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman here single-handedly, the Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, may have indeed started an industry in this Province greater than anybody else in this Province has ever done.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, let me just say to hon. gentlemen that this bill is a very simple housekeeping bill and I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 31).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is a bill here in order to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: If I could, gentlemen? I think there is a bill here, Mr. Speaker, that we need to get moved and passed through Committee and through third reading, in order that people in this Province might be able to get a cheque before Christmas, and I want to thank the Opposition House Leader for saying: `alright, yes we would move into Committee of the Whole, do that bill and at the end of Committee we would move back and do third reading and get the bill through today so that we can get Royal Assent, and I understand that since both sides are aware of what we are doing here, that there is no objection to having the Clerk take the bill to the Lieutenant-Governor, have it signed giving Royal Assent to it, and bring it back.

Mr. Speaker, I would move, after the gentleman has had his say, that we move into Committee Whole.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On which bill?

MR. TULK: I will call the bill when we get there.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, understand the circumstances. We would not want to object to passage of this bill today through Committee and to third reading in order to facilitate ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians getting some money from the government Treasury before Christmas. So we agree with the procedure that the Government House Leader has outlined.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Mr. M. Penney): Order, please!

Order No. 10, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act", (Bill No. 6).

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments on the bill and if I could, I would ask for the consent of the Government House Leader, the critic, who is the Opposition Leader, was out of the House momentarily and he wanted to be back in to be able to participate; he has now arrived, so we can proceed. I do believe that the Leader of the Opposition will need to have a few comments at a couple of stages here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just very briefly, I had my comments mostly on second reading so I will not delay things here. This is one that we support to give rebates back - to amend the Income Tax Act, so that we can get that $40, I think, and $60 respectively, depending on the number of dependants, out to people. We have been on record from day one on the HST, that people with low income who have been hit hard with the extra increase, the 15 per cent from 7 per cent on heating fuels, electricity and other essential things, that the seniors have very little disposable income. We have indicated that this government has not gone nearly far enough. It is really only a pittance to an extent of what they are doing when other provinces have decided that HST was not really conducive to being able to maintain even some semblance of a standard of living by people in their provinces and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia went far, far beyond that. So we are the only province here - we are the Grinch now before Christmas. We are going to do something that I supported, however little it is, I supported it but it does not really address some of the fundamental problems that they are facing because of government policy here in the adoption of HST. I won't delay things any further and delay this bill. I know it's in a rush to get through and get third reading, to get things ready and get some money in the hands of people here before Christmas, hopefully.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one simple question and that is, if this bill receives assent today, when will those cheques be able to be sent out?

MR. SULLIVAN: Are they being printed now?

MR. H. HODDER: Are they being printed now, in other words?

MR. TULK: It has to be done by the (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: So therefore in passage today we will have some assurance that these cheques will be out to ordinary -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you going to leave the postage off them?

MR. H. HODDER: So, Mr. Chairman, that is good news for all of these people and as the Leader of the Opposition said, our only regret is that the amounts are lower then we would have liked.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: If I could, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the hon. gentleman, if we get third reading on this bill today, that rebate which totals some $7.6 million for people in this Province, if we get this done today I will assure him that it will be in the hands of people by Christmas. If it helps him in any fashion, get his name into the leadership contest on the other side, I will even - or him - take him out and see that they are delivered to everybody so that he can try and get a few delegates to get his profile up. Guaranteed, they will have them before Christmas.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill No. 6)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill No. 6 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 6).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me once again thank the Opposition for their cooperation. I would now call Order No. 17, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act." I had a substitute for that, and even the substitute has left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: It's terrible. Got all control gone. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could let the hon. gentleman deal with it, to be honest with you. I think I would move second reading. I called that but I don't think the Speaker has yet called it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 17?

MR. TULK: Order No. 17, Bill 35.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act". (Bill No. 35)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as I - no, I say to the hon. gentleman that the minister had to run out to do some very important things for the government. We have to keep moving the agenda forward in the Province. We have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I wonder what is wrong with him. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we recognize the problem that the Leader of the Opposition raised this morning about the terrible out-migration that is in this Province. It has happened before in our history. But we recognize that since the closure of the groundfish industry we have a tremendous problem. I say to him we are trying to move on all fronts to cure that problem.

If I could get back to this bill. That is the reason the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is out. This is an act to –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TULK: Oh my, I wish he would go back to sleep.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, he is embarrassing. I say to the Opposition House Leader that the Member for Cape St. Francis is an embarrassment to everybody, including me. He is an embarrassment. He comes in this House at 2:00 p.m. and he doesn't shut up till 5:00 p.m. He comes in on Friday morning, you would think he would be a bit sleepy, but no sir –

AN HON. MEMBER: He thinks he's paid by the word.

MR. TULK: Yes, he does, yes. He thinks he gets paid by the word. I agree with the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: There he goes, look. Yes, you would, yes. I will tell you, Bill Gates would have nothing on you, no.

Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the minister the power to increase or decrease the Newfoundland T'Railway Provincial Park. As we know, the T'Railway has been declared a provincial park. Provided that (inaudible) where decreased by the minister, the land that is now taken up by that T'Railway would revert to the Crown. It would further enable the minister to make a park available for public use for activities that he or she may prescribe, and it would prohibit certain listed activities within that provincial park. Of course, then you have to go on through and define the powers of the officers and make amendments to the regulation under the act to see that that is put in place.

That is basically what the bill is about. There is a number of other small things that have to be done here. Of course, you have to prescribe the penalties for violations of the act and so on. This bill gives back really, and it also gives back to the Crown, some powers that were removed by the regulatory reform commission. The government believes, and I think most Newfoundlanders would agree with us, that that regulatory reform commission, while it did what was in its mandate, that we do not believe that this is one of the things that needed to be changed.

It should be put back to give us the power as a government, and as a legislature really, as a legislature, as a Cabinet, that it should put back the kind of powers that we need in this Province to protect our provincial parks, and indeed see that they are kept not only for us, and not only for use by us, but certainly the lands in this Province are kept for future generations. After all, we are the people who are responsible to this House, and government, as the people who are responsible to the people of this Province. That is the purpose of the bill. I will move second reading, will I?

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss this bill. I would like to also say to the Government House Leader that while he may find the Member for Cape St. Francis being paid by the minute, I sometimes wonder if that is not how the Government House Leader is paid. I think the Member for Cape St. Francis does a tremendous job.

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

MR. TULK: I just want to educate the hon. gentleman. I tell him that I am probably getting paid for what I am worth in this job; I don't get paid anything for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I won't even comment on that one.

Anyway, to the bill, I really don't have too much difficulty with this particular piece of legislation. There are just a couple of things that I would like to point out.

First of all in clause 5, where it gives the minister the power under the act to make rules and regulations, we certainly have no problem with that part of the bill and, in actual fact, support this particular issue. It is a thing, I guess, where the minister of a department, and especially the Department of Tourism, should certainly have the right to determine exactly what is going to go in parks, and at the end of the day have a say in how the land will be administered and so on.

I agree with the point that land that is not used should certainly revert to the Crown. I have some concern because there is no real reference in here to environmental assessment of developments of the parks along the way, and I think in that particular area the minister should certainly be very, very careful to make sure that the environment is protected under this particular piece of legislation.

As well, and I spoke on it this morning when the minister put out her Ministerial Statement concerning a meeting that I attended last night where the municipality in part of the town that I represent has tried to bar the use of motorized vehicles, ATVs, skidoos, from the rail bed. Of course, I think that is certainly wrong, and I attended a meeting last night, along with the Member for Topsail, where this issue was talked about. There were people there from the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and there is no doubt in my mind that they went away from that meeting last night fully understanding how the people felt about what the municipality in my area is doing.

I have written the municipality concerning this matter. I have offered them a solution, I offered them a compromise, and it really didn't seem to work. Yesterday I had the opportunity to talk with the minister about that, and she informed me that she is now waiting on information from the town before she decides what she is going to do. Of course, that information that will come from the town will be to bar the ATVs and the skidoos and the motorized vehicles from the rail bed in Conception Bay South, and it is a position that I certainly oppose.

I told the minister that yesterday afternoon, as did the Member for Topsail, and he and I told a group in last night's meeting that is how we both felt on this issue. We both hope, I guess, today - I know I certainly do - that this will become legislation and that the minister will rule, especially in the district that I represent, not to accede to the wishes of the municipality but indeed to make the T'Railway in through there a shared use, as it is in part of my district. In Holyrood people use it for motorized vehicles, for skidoos and so on. I am sure my colleague from Harbour Main - Whitbourne, is well aware of that in that particular area. It has never been a problem up there and to this day, from conversations I have had with the Mayor and members of council up there, it is just not a problem and why, in the municipality, a part of which I represent it is a problem, is beyond me, Mr. Speaker, so again, I guess the biggest concern I would have here is again the environmental end of it, to make sure that the environmental part of this T'Railway and of course, the parks in the Province of Newfoundland, are certainly protected.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, there is not a great deal I can say on this bill except to say that when the time comes, I will support it.

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

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

It is a great pleasure for me to rise today and speak in support of this particular bill. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is a good idea to have a bill that says the minister has the authority to make a decision and rightly so, Mr. Speaker.

I recall a number of years ago, when in my former life working for a former minister and a former representative of Conception Bay South, we originally brought in the ATV regulations and as I have said last night, Mr. Speaker, at a public meeting, how things sort of evolve and change. I remember, unfortunately the minister could not make the public meetings and I ended up doing the public meetings in three areas of the Avalon Peninsula and I said last night very publicly, there were times that these people who were at this meeting last night, were avid ATV uses that, if they had had the opportunity back in 1994, Mr. Speaker, they would have just taken me and drowned me, because they were so opposed to what the government wanted to do but, Mr. Speaker, at that particular time, it was the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, it was the right thing to do because we have to protect our environment, and now, Mr. Speaker, this government, in its wisdom, has created a trail right across this Province, some 800 or 900 kilometres.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the council in my particular area has barricaded that particular trail and has said that they do not want the ATVs to use this trail. In other words they do not want a multi-use trail and at the end of the day, the minister will have to decide and I suppose it is very difficult for people on this side of the House to believe, to even consider, or even imagine that I, as a member of government would be agreeing with the member on the Opposition. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that there is one member who sits on the opposite side of the House, sees this trail as good for this Province. Imagine, imagine, ten of them over there and only one can actually imagine that we can get good tourism out of this, and when I think back, Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Cape St. Francis was out wanting ATVs to go on the bogs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Topsail has absolutely no evidence that there is only one member in the Official Opposition who supports this bill. We have not all spoken and might have more support than he thinks, therefore I have some reservations about that member speaking on behalf of this Party, and I do believe that the member should constrain himself to things that he knows about and that would be a very limited number of things.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: No point of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to that point of order.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that - and I agree with you, Mr. Speaker - there was no point of order, but there is now, and let me say to the hon. gentleman that he is doing a great job of drawing them out over there. We know that at least now there are two.

MR. SPEAKER: Still no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Could I speak to that point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis on a point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will have to stand in my place today and correct the Member for Waterford Valley. He said that the Member for Topsail thinks - I have a problem with that, because I do not think he can think.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

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

I realize, Mr. Speaker, where the members opposite are coming from and Mr. Speaker, and I know how difficult it is for the members opposite, maybe what they have done is taken out of context what I have said and I have said, that there is one member over there who shares part of the responsibility of representing people in the Town of Conception Bay South and has finally come out and said: I support 100 per cent what the government is doing.

What I had started to say, Mr. Speaker, was back in 1994, the Member for Cape St. Francis was promoting the use of ATV on bogs and he was pretty adamant about that and at the public meetings he himself stood up and wanted to do that, but when you think back about me saying that I do not know and I cannot comment on such. Well, Mr. Speaker, the polls say that they cannot either. At twenty-six per cent in the polls, I think it would be an advantage if I were on that side, but, Mr. Speaker, never in my lifetime will I ever envision me sitting in the Opposition side of a Tory Party, no way, not me, not the Member for Topsail. Born and raised a Liberal, Liberal minded all the way.

Now, back to the topic, Mr. Speaker, of the trails which I rose to speak on. We have a tremendous opportunity up in my district to promote this particular trail and it will bring economic benefits to this Province, even in the Town of Conception Bay South and Paradise area, we already see the revenues that are the spin offs with the repairs and the fuel that is being used for these vehicles. Mr. Speaker, none of us in this House are so dense as not to realize that the more monies that are generated in municipalities, the more revenues come into government and the more revenues that government get, more revenues they can disperse back out to the municipality.

So, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, are doing a good job in promoting tourism and it is only fitting and proper that the Minister of Tourism have the responsibility of making the final decision on this particular trail. I am saying here in this House, very loudly and very clearly, that I want the Minister of Tourism and my minister and my colleague to say publicly that the trail and the rail bed in Conception Bay South will be a multi-purpose trail. Any problem that exists on that particular trail must be dealt with and I believe will be dealt with in a responsible way.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in my place and say a few words on this bill, Bill No. 35, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act", no problem there and we have been on record on this side of the House to be in full support of the T'Railway across this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I have spoken in favour of that myself, Mr. Speaker, and it is a multi-purpose T'Railway, no problems with that whatsoever, no problem at all - ATVs, Ski-Doos in the proper location, when there is proper regulations put in place as the minister referred to. But I have to correct the previous speaker, the Member for Topsail on a few things that he said.

Now, he said there a couple of years ago when they were bringing in the ATV regulations that they would have drowned him when he was the executive assistant, I think, to the previous minister, people would have drowned him out there and they were quite upset and at the time I spoke up against what they were proposing, no doubt about that Mr. Speaker. We forced that present member and the previous minister to have public consultations on the ATV regulations. We told him at that time that there would be problems with the ATV regulations. The proper consideration had not been given to it and there would be problems and of course eventually, the government of the day appointed a committee to look at the ATV regulations and they did have hearings and the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne was the Chairman of that committee and they presented a report to this House - not to the House, but to the minister - and there has been no action taken on that and there was recommendations made with respect to that from that committee and we have heard nothing about it. Apparently we were told that there would be changes coming to the legislation.

Last year people thought that they could use their ATVs to cross bogs to carry out moose, Mr. Speaker and it was never ever clarified one way or the other from my information, but the member said that I opposed the ATV regulations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was promoting proper ATV regulations and proper public consideration. I had problems with the trails that they were talking about putting in. We brought up concerns that these trails would have to be built by private individuals but anybody could use them. Anybody could utilize these trails but the private individuals, Mr. Speaker, would have to upkeep and maintain these trails and we did not think that that was fair but that has not been addressed. That point has not been addressed and there were all kinds of other concerns that we had with respect to the vehicles themselves. There were certain vehicles out there, the four-wheelers with certain tires, would not do the same amount of damage as a three-wheeler would do, which is a different situation altogether. Three-wheelers tore up more ground than the four-wheelers, Mr. Speaker. So these were some of the concerns that we had at that point in time.

Now with respect to the trail itself, the trailway across this Province, there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this can become a great plus for this Province if proper regulations are put in place and proper utilization. With this bill, the minister would have the authority to - any lands that would be taken out of the trailway would revert to the Crown. No problem with that, Mr. Speaker. Why would there be? There should not be any problems with that if they need more land to be included in the trailway to create a park. Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't know why we would need it in the bill because I am sure the minister has the authority now to create provincial parks, I would assume.

They are talking here about powers of the officers appointed. They would have the authority of the forestry officials and what have you. That should not be a problem, it will create a few jobs hopefully. We have seen enough jobs disappear from this administration over the past few years. People are being sent out the door, right, left and centre, Mr. Speaker, from every building in the government administration. So if we can get a situation where we have a trailway across this Province, Mr. Speaker, and we have people hired on, even in the summertime, to enforce the regulations - job creation, Mr. Speaker, how can anybody argue against that? That is a good move, Mr. Speaker.

It talks about the penalties that may have to be imposed. Now I am not sure what the penalties are. I don't know if they are specific in this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MERCER: Just say you're in favour and sit down.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East said, `just say you're in favour and sit down,' but there is more to it, Mr. Speaker. When you speak on a bill people have to know where you stand on it. They have to know the concerns you might have. They have to know why you are in favour of the bill, Mr. Speaker. Just to say you're in favour of it and sit down, Mr Speaker, that is not quite the right thing to do. It is like when the ministers get up to answer questions on that side of the House in Question Period, well we only have a half hour, Mr. Speaker, they go on and on and on trying to kill the thirty minutes. The only thirty minutes we have each day to ask questions of the minister. But when we get up on this side of the House to speak on a bill, which is quite a serious bill, Mr. Speaker - and it could be quite beneficial to the Province and to the people of this Province - we have the Member for Humber East telling us just to say yes and sit down. That is not our job. We, on this side of the House, are supposed to give the government constructive criticism on the bills.

One of the bills of course that I am speaking of is Bill No. 35. It is quite relevant, Mr. Speaker, when we speak on a bill that we make constructive criticism to the government and give them some points that they should consider. Mr. Speaker, we have seen on a number of occasions where we, on this side of the House, made recommendations and brought concerns forward for the government to consider. Only yesterday, I think it was, we were talking about the changes to the HST, Mr. Speaker, where we brought forward a number of concerns - this is just an example, Mr. Speaker - where this HST legislation will hurt the low income people. We see now this administration, the Minister of Finance, bringing in a new bill, Mr. Speaker, an amendment to it and give a tax credit to the low income earners. Now if they had listened to us in the first place they would not have to bring in an amendment and we would not be wasting the time of the House. I say to the Government House Leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill is that?

MR. J. BYRNE: This is Bill 35, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act." We are talking about the trailway across the Province. Actually, the trailway I would assume, Mr. Speaker, would hook into the Trans Canada T'Railway I suppose. The one that is going to go right across the country. A part of the trailway to go right across Canada and what a move. In Newfoundland and Labrador and in Canada itself, what opportunities we have in tourism, if we promote it properly. This government is finally starting to catch on to what we have been saying over here that tourism -

AN HON. MEMBER: They are finally beginning to listen to you, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: They are finally beginning to listen to me, of all the points that we have been making.

They talk about when they are going to revert land to the Crown. I think it was probably a year-and-a-half ago that they decided to privatize many of the parks in the Province. Again, there was a major uprising in the Province to oppose government's plans to privatize the parks in the Province, and rightly so. Because again, at the time, it was one of these brainwaves that this administration comes up with, a brainwave to do it, and they start implementing it, creating all sorts of problems.

I had many, many, many calls from individuals in my district and from people all across Newfoundland and Labrador who had concerns about the privatization of the parks. Some of the privatization concerns were: Would the same services be given to the people? How much would the people who use the parks have to pay to utilize these parks?

As an example, in my own district, the park on Pouch Cove Road down there, on Bauline Line, the Pouch Cove Park, became privatized this summer. I had a number of calls, and one of the major concerns at the time - and this was not well thought out previously - was that the individuals who utilize that park a number of times during the summertime, and went there frequently, could not get a season pass. They had to pay every day they went in, and that drove the cost up. This one family, in particular, who had three children, went there quite often, and they had a major concern with that.

I contacted the park owners, and I contacted the Department of Tourism on this issue, and we tried to get something worked out. Eventually we did get something worked out, but it really wasn't to their satisfaction. They had to pay much more money over the length of the summer than they normally would. In that area, in the Pouch Cove area, there is not a lot to be doing for the children down there, so they utilize this park quite a bit. That was just one of the concerns that we had at the time with respect to the privatization of the parks.

Other things were: The people of the Province had paid to put those parks there. They had paid a lot of money through their taxes as a service that the Province would provide, and then we are going to privatize it.

Many of these parks that were privatized, I have yet to see, or it has yet to be made public, the actual deals that were worked out on these parks. Again, we don't know if it was a good thing or a bad thing for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the privatization of these parks. I expect that down the road we will see some of these parks closing because they probably either won't be utilized enough or people won't be able to pay the money to get into the parks.

With respect to this T'Railway again, I have to say that if the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador can properly promote this T'Railway... It is going to take money, there is no doubt about that, to properly promote the T'Railway, and I suspect there will be certain areas of the T'Railway that will be privatized, that there will be certain services provided for tourists.

Just as an example, we have the East Coast T'Railway from up around the northwest side of the Northeast Avalon, up around Cape St. Francis, and up through Pouch Cove and Flatrock and Torbay, and the people who are putting this trail in place have not actually gotten any money yet from government, and they are working on it. That is going to be a great, great trail. It is going to be a great service for the people of the Northeast Avalon. It is going to be a great attraction to draw people to this Province, to utilize this trail right around the Northeast Avalon and up through Torbay, Pouch Cove, Flatrock, (inaudible) through Logy Bay and hooking into the trails in St. John's, the Grand Concourse. Finally we are getting to do something in this Province for the tourists.

This morning, I think the Government House Leader was up speaking on the skidoo trails that are coming here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A great idea, up the Northern Peninsula, beautiful, beautiful country. And, Mr. Speaker, up the Northern Peninsula, there are great, great areas for skidooing, out in Central and Western Newfoundland. Now, the Avalon Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, really does not get the weather for a good skidoo trail because you have the snow melting, but up on the West Coast, in Central Newfoundland, the Northern Peninsula, Labrador, it is an excellent idea. I have to compliment the minister on promoting it.

Hopefully, in due course, Mr. Speaker, again we will draw - and by the way, Mr. Speaker, we will draw people to this Province. I do believe that the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island is the one who started this a number of years ago when he was Minister of Tourism, so he should be complimented on that. Maybe that member should still be Minister of Tourism, I do not know - the present minister, I suppose is not doing too bad, other than for the Lakeside Home, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not allowed to say that.

MR. J. BYRNE: I did not say she was doing a good job, I said she was not doing a bad job, there is a big difference - but the previous minister, who was there a number of years ago - before the previous Premier took a disliking for the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island - was doing a good job, Mr. Speaker. I think he was doing a good job. But I do not think he is ever going to get back there, that is the problem.

So I think the idea for the skidoo trails in Newfoundland and Labrador, up the Northern Peninsula, on the West Coast, Central Newfoundland can draw thousands and thousands of people here in wintertime, when tourism in the Province is down, and if we can possibly turn this around, we may end up having more people here in wintertime.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, there we go again - the Member for Conception Bay East and Bell Island mentions we can use all the hunting lodges there as stops, I suppose, or service areas, Mr. Speaker, again, a good idea. Personally speaking, I am not a winter person. I do not like the snow, I think it is misery myself, but people love it. To each his own, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: His head gets cold.

MR. J. BYRNE: My head gets cold for some strange reason in wintertime, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are people out there who love winter. I love summertime; I love going off to get my salmon with my fly rod, going off trying to hook a few salmon or doing a bit of trouting and what have you; and that is another industry that I think is under-promoted in this Province, the salmon fishing industry, trout fishing, and we have seen some major changes there.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had his quota.

MR. J. BYRNE: I got my quota this year, salmon up in River of Ponds, in on (inaudible), and I hooked my salmon and brought them out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, good, July.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with respect to tourism in this Province today, the Province is finally getting its act together, after listening to us preach, preach, preach on this issue, in this House of Assembly. I have been here for five years now, I have been preaching about it all the time and it is starting to sink in. And if it is handled right - now, we have to be careful here because if we have the Premier promoting it too much, we can see it being deflated.

If we had the right people over there, if we had people like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I just demoted him. If we can get salesmen like the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to promote this for us - not the Minister of Fisheries now, but people something like him, who have this sales approach, this sales pitch about them. Anybody who can get up there and get people to start swallowing seal-oil capsules, Mr. Speaker, they must have something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I cannot say it here, Mr. Speaker, I am starting to fall apart here now, I cannot be complimenting that minister, I will have to stop that. But with respect to tourism in this Province -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) show that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just off the topic, Mr. Speaker, if I could, just to get off the topic.

The poll that the Government House Leader is holding up there now and has been bragging about for the past two days, Mr. Speaker, puts us in a perfect position at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, a perfect position at this point in time to take the government the next time around.

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman - this poll that I showed him this morning shows us at 56 per cent and they are at 26 per cent down from 33 per cent. I say to him: yes, Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely right, they are in a perfect spot, there is no way to go but up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, let me finish this.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on that last comment by the Government House Leader.

Now, in the last provincial election, Mr. Speaker, we went into the election with 13 per cent in the polls and, we ended up with 42 per cent in the election. So, where we are today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman is wrong again - he went into the last election at 32 per cent and right now they are at 26 per cent.

MR. J. BYRNE: In 1993, Mr. Speaker, we went into the election with 13 per cent in the polls and we ended up with over 40 per cent. So, based on that with 26 per cent now, we are looking at 84 per cent in the next election. Wiped out, the whole lot of you over there wiped out, Mr. Speaker. The only one that is coming back is the member - no, I cannot - forget it. There is no one coming back, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I digress, let me tell you, because of the comments from the other side, but back to this very serious bill that the Government House Leader is interrupting on, this very serious - "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act" is a serious bill. I am going to complement the government - the Minister of Tourism, on bringing this forward at this time, and I expect in the future that we will see hopefully thousands -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, they are trying to interrupt me with some foolish little mind games they are playing over there, some simple little mind games. I have never seen such a crowd be so childish, immature and simple-minded in my life, Mr. Speaker. No wonder the Province is in the state that it is in today, with people like the Government House Leader, who is so childish, immature and simple-minded, who gets up on points of order all the time and does not have a clue what he is talking about, does not have a click or a clue what he is talking about, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you this. Now there is the prime example again, the Government House Leader standing up, walking across the House, not showing the proper respect to the Speaker, as per usual. He stands in his place every day when the House is open with points of order that are not points of order, Mr. Speaker, he does not have a clue. I do not understand how that present Premier - the previous Premier, Premier Clyde Wells, would not even look at the present Government House Leader, and now we have the present Premier having that same individual, the Government House Leader; so that will tell you now about the mentality of the two of them over there. That will give you some idea of the mentality of the two of them over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring back Sam. Bring back Sam Winsor.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I was going to sit down ten or fifteen minutes ago but they keep interrupting, they continue interrupting. I have points to make and I have to address the concerns of the people of this Province with respect to this bill.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is over there shaking his head. I suppose the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture doesn't like compliments. I just complimented him. The first time since I came in this House of Assembly that I actually gave the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and he is shaking his head, saying I shouldn't give him one. So I will take it back. Therefore, I didn't mean what I said earlier.

With the East Coast trails around the Avalon Peninsula, with the T'Railway across this Province and hook into the rest of the trail going across the country, with the skidoo trails that are proposed in this Province by the minister, and the utilization of the different lodges across this Province in remote areas, in areas you have to fly to in summertime, the T'Railway across this Province could be a great asset to the Province and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I've said that, but I'm starting, by standing in this House of Assembly, I'm catching the same problem the Premier has. The other day he gave a prime example of that. The previous premier - he is gone now and you have to speak well of the dead - the first premier of the Province, Joey Smallwood, believed you had to repeat and repeat and repeat things for it to sink into people. This Premier is doing it, and I'm starting to do it. I'm doing it here this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What are you saying, the Minister of Environment and Labour? What are you saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) first time if it was profound. It would be the first time, Mr. Speaker.

I think I made the points on this bill that I needed to make. It took me a little while to do it because of the interruptions on that side of the House. Sometimes the people on that side do make some good comments that need to be addressed. Most of the time they make comments that need to be ignored. I ignored most of the comments. I only addressed the legitimate points brought up by the former minister, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. I had to address the wrong statements usually made by the Government House Leader. That is why it took so long this morning.

With respect to the specifics of this bill –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can't get into the other days. With respect to the specifics of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I really don't have any major complaints other than to say that hopefully what is trying to be accomplished here will indeed be accomplished as time goes on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 35).

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

MR. TULK: Bill No. 29, Order No. 20, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act".

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill No. 29)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As members know, there are two pension funds relative to the teachers' pension. One is called the TPP, the teachers' pension plan, which has approximately $300 million in assets and falling as we speak. The second is the Early Retirement Plan for teachers, which was supposed to be funded by an extra percent being paid by the teachers in premiums and an extra percent of salary being paid by the government in premiums.

The initial view of it was that the teachers would take it up at only 50 per cent. In fact, they take it up approximately 100 per cent in any given year. That fund, instead of being self-supporting, as was originally envisaged in the early 1990s or late 1980s, is now defunct. There are insufficient funds in that to pay the annual liabilities.

As matters now stand, it is necessary to take monies from the main teachers' pension plan in order to pay the benefits to teachers who have gone through the Thirty-and-Out Program.

The teachers' pension plan now stands at $1.6 billion in unfunded liability, and some substantial part of that is due to the Early Retirement Plan as well.

Where we stand with it is that one of the agreements made some years ago was that if the teachers' Early Retirement Plan did not have sufficient funds, they would be able to use the assets from the main teachers' pension plan to pay the benefits, and that is now what has happened over the past year. So this enactment will allow us, reluctantly, to access the assets under the main teachers' pension plan to pay the benefits under the Early Retirement and Thirty-and-Out plans.

Having said that, it is a financial necessity. It is something that we do not like to do, particularly when we have been trying to deal with the teachers over the last two years and previously to come up with a solution that would voluntarily fix the pension plan. We had an agreement in principle, last spring, with the executive which was never put to a vote of the membership. More recently the executive held its own membership on a much more modest plan that would really have little impact on the plan. That was rejected as well. We now find ourselves in a position where - unless something is done to change either the benefits or the premiums that are paid, or both, that both plans will be bankrupt in the Year 2004 and there will be no money left to pay teachers pensions. In that year government will contribute something in the order of $120 million and these figures change, depending on take up. In our recent experience the year has been coming down rather than being extended outward. So we expect that by about ten or fifteen years from now government will be called on, out of general revenues, to pay $200 million per annum to fund pension benefits which were not provided for initially by government and then since 1980, neither by government nor teachers themselves.

So what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, and we have to do this and I suggest to Legislature it is the responsible thing to do, nevertheless it points to the fact that these pensions are in terrible shape and we hope to address them before the end of this fiscal year in one form or another. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We, on this side, have no objections to this particular proposal. It permits the obligations that the government has under contract to be fulfilled. We just say to the government that probably one of the problems here is that we have had so many teachers take early retirement with an uncertainty. We have had teachers leaving in mid-year. Sometimes they leave at the end of a certain month. Great numbers of teachers left at the end of November for example, just a few days ago. We have another group of people who will become eligible at the end of February.

Maybe if the government would give greater certainty that there would not be any changes to the teachers pension arrangement we would have greater predictability. Some of these teachers would stay on until the end of the school year rather than leaving in mid-year. In some ways the governments lack of giving assurances to teachers has in fact worked against the government in terms of its responsibility for the pension plan, when we have teaches who are saying, `I cannot stay on until the end of the year. I am leaving at the end of November or leaving at the end of February.' I know now many teachers who will be leaving at the end of February or the end of April, depending on when their time is fulfilled and that in itself has worked against the auxiliary pension plan proposal. We have had a lot more people taking advantage of it but we on this side understand the dilemma the government is in and we support the initiative taken here.

With that, probably with the cooperation of the Government House Leader, we could adjourn debate for today. Do you wish to call it now?

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

MR. TULK: How many people do you have who want to speak on this? Why don't we just stop the clock for three or four minutes and do it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Is that all you require? How much time do you require?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Alright. Then he can close the debate on second reading.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to go back again to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and say to him that what we should be looking at here is probably in the next few months saying to teachers, in a definitive way, that we will, if we change their pension arrangements, guarantee them that they will not have any negative impact if they stay on till the end of the current school year.

Many teachers have great frustration with that. I have had teachers who have called me and they have literally cried on the phone because they don't want to leave in mid-year. But if you are faced with the prospect when the budget comes down of having to possibly jeopardize your pension, and you are looking at your own financial future, then all of us in this House would do what many teachers do. If you are eligible to retire at the end of February, then you leave at the end of February.

Years ago teachers never left, with the exception of sickness or something like that, except at the end of a school year. In recent times they are so uncertain as to what the government proposals are, uncertain as to what their future would be in terms of their pension arrangements, that we have people leaving in the middle of the year. I know of one case where a person went back for three weeks in September, and then met the requirements, and then left. That isn't good for education, it isn't good for the students, and it isn't good for the teachers, not good for the teachers' pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board it is time to address that. Because there is a great (inaudible) comfort that teachers want. It is good for them, and it is good for the government's financial position. Also, probably most importantly, or just as importantly, it is good for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because no child deserves to have unnecessary disruptions in the teaching program throughout the school year.

I do believe the Member for St. John's East had indicated earlier that he wanted to speak, but with these few comments I will adjourn debate now or we can call the question.

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

MR. TULK: He doesn't know what he is doing from one minute to the next.

I move that the House adjourn until Monday at 2:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I put the motion to adjourn, the Chair would like to inform hon. members that Bill No. 6 received speedy passage here today and requires His Honour's royal assent. Normally this takes place in the Chamber, but because of the short time period we were unable for His Honour to be here. The Clerk and I will be visiting Government House this afternoon and visit His Honour to have royal assent for this bill.

Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn I understand that there has been a misunderstanding and perhaps we should put the motion to do second reading if we could stop the clock for a minute on this bill and any questions that need to be answered can be answered in Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: It is agreed that we stop the clock and that we go back to the hon. Minister of Finance if he speaks now he will close the debate on this Bill.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act' read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole on tomorrow.

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