April 27, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 14


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER(Snow): Order, please!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the results of the Call for Proposals for development of the former Baie Verte asbestos mine in Baie Verte. Four proposals were submitted in response to the Call for Bids which closed on March 6. They ranged from the purchase and removal of milling equipment to the development of a new magnesium metal plant.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased with the range and calibre of these proposals received for the property. It was evident from these proposals that a lot of time, effort and money was invested in each of them.

Upon a review of each of the proposals it was determined that two of the projects were worthy of further consideration. The first proposal was submitted by Geotech Surveys Inc. on behalf of the Canadian Magnesium Corporation. Mr. Speaker, a key principal of this proposal is Mr. Christopher Verbiski, one of the co-discoverers of Voisey's Bay. Canadian Magnesium Corporation intends to develop a commercial magnesium plant to extract and produce magnesium metal or magnesium oxide from the large asbestos tailings pile on the site, subject to a positive feasibility study and the development of a pilot plant on site, to confirm the extraction process. This concept is very similar to the ones proposed by Noranda and SNC Lavalin for the development of a commercial magnesium plant at an asbestos mine site in eastern Quebec where the technology has been proven through to the pilot plant stage.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal is well researched and presented, and the proponents have identified many of the challenges to bringing their concept to fruition. In the coming months, the company will be completing a full feasibility study and pilot plant testing to determine the possibility of continuing with this proposal. If successful, the project will result in several hundred millions of dollars being invested in the area and could create in the range of 300-400 jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Therefore, I have decided to award the mineral licence for the 800 hectares of exempt mineral lands to the Canadian Magnesium Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, it is possible that a second project may be compatible on this site. However, it does require some further study. Northco Forest Products Ltd. of Baie Verte proposed to lease one of the large buildings at the site for the establishment of a new modern integrated sawmill operation which the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods has been reviewing as well. The property was rated as a prime site for such an operation given the existing infrastructure, strategic location, the opportunity for expansion, and the reduced capital costs.

Therefore, I have asked senior officials of the Department of Mines and Energy - and the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods will assign officials as well - in conjunction with an independent consultant, to conduct a preliminary study to determine the practical feasibility of approving a sawmill operation adjacent to a magnesium plant at Baie Verte. If compatible with this magnesium proposal, the sawmill project will proceed this summer. This project will bring together three small independent sawmill operations on the Baie Verte Peninsula, to develop a new modern integrated sawmill operation at the site. It would create fourteen new full-time positions.

Mr. Speaker, this a positive announcement for the Baie Verte area which I hope will result in renewed economic activity for the area.

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 like thank the minister for sending me a copy of his statement today before I came to the House. Certainly it is good news for Baie Verte and the Baie Verte area. Of course, Baie Verte is the centre of some twenty-one communities on the Baie Verte Peninsula that rely on fishing, logging and mining.

Of course, Baie Verte itself has a long history of mining. It was a very prosperous town at times, Mr. Speaker. If you want to see an example of boom and bust in the Province, it was the community of Baie Verte, like Buchans and some other mining towns, of course.

When we hear news like this, it is exciting. Of course, like the minister said, there is some time here yet. There is a feasibility study and so on to be done, and we are cautiously optimistic. Hopefully things will come to fruition at the end of the day.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this can turn into something positive in the near future, because right now times are pretty tough in rural parts of this Province and we need to see developments like this happen in a lot of parts of this Province.

With the sawmill industry, Mr. Speaker, that is a bunch of loggers in my district who have gotten together and put the initiation there to go forward and do something in a modernized way with the sawmilling operation in this area. Along with the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, they have been working on that. We hope that it is compatible and that both of those operations will come through and put people back to work, because that is what it is all about. If we can do that, then I guess parts of rural Newfoundland that desperately need these jobs are going to see that.

Hopefully this is a good news announcement and at the end of the day we will see jobs. That is the bottom line.

I thank you very much, and I would like to thank the minister for the statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of his statement. I am very pleased, along with the people of Baie Verte, that these proposals are worthy of further consideration. I think that is really what the minister is saying, that there are projects that may come to fruition. I hope, along with the people of Baie Verte, that they will. But what concerns me is that I do not want these proponents coming back to the government and saying that the viability is depending on further concessions from this government. Let us have in place proper amendments to the Mineral Tax Act and a proper royalty regime so that these become the basis for development and not some concessions that are asked for later on down the road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to release the second Indicators Report on post-secondary education in Newfoundland and Labrador, the most comprehensive review of higher education ever produced by government. The first such report was released in February of 1996. Newfoundland did then, and now continues, to lead the way in Canada by being the only Province to regularly publish performance and accountability information at the post-secondary level and it is our intention to continue this practice.

This 140-page document covers key aspects of higher education, graduate outcomes, educational attainment, labour market success, student satisfaction and cost of education. Where possible, the results of certain follow-up surveys of some aspects, such as labour market success are intended to be released as they become available rather than wait for another full comprehensive report. The following are some of the highlights: The proportion of adults with a high school education and above nearly doubled between 1976 and 1996, while the proportion with less than Grade IX decreased by more than 50 per cent and, as well, the rate of improvement was higher than in any other part of Canada.

In 1995-1996 there were 32,275 students enrolled in some form of post-secondary education program in this Province, an increase of 59.1 per cent since ten years earlier, 1986-1987. Sixteen months after graduation, two-thirds of the 1995 graduates of post-secondary programs had obtained full or part-time employment, and a majority of those who graduated from post-secondary programs in 1995 were satisfied with both the institution they had attended and the program they had chosen.

Mr. Speaker, Postsecondary Indicators '98 is part of the department's response to the Auditor General's observation in 1995 that monitoring and reporting mechanisms were inadequate. Since that time, the department has become a recognized leader in educational accountability, both at the post-secondary and K-12 levels. In 1995, Mr. Speaker, one of the components of the Postsecondary Indicators program was an international award winner from the American Educational Research Association.

While we have made encouraging gains in both the numbers attending post-secondary institutions and the education levels attained, particularly among female students, there are still some concerns. Over the next ten to fifteen years, Mr. Speaker, the extreme enrolment decline seen in the K-12 system will carry over to the post-secondary sector. A projected 44 per cent decline in the number of K-12 graduates by 2010 is expected to have a significant effect on post-secondary enrolments, particularly at the university level. The Department of Education is committed to tracking these indicators over time to ensure that any areas of concern identified are monitored and addressed accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, two issues: student loan default and labour market success have received much attention in recent weeks. In this Province, the report shows that default ratios are lower than the Canadian average for university students, for public college students and for private institutions. As well, Mr. Speaker, the report shows that there is no significant difference between graduation at public and private colleges in comparable programs when it comes to obtaining employment.

Mr. Speaker, due to the unprecedented growth and expansion of private sector training, and to ensure that student interests are properly served, I am announcing today that government will undertake a review of the current Act, regulations and policies governing private training institutions in the Province. The review will cover all aspects, Mr. Speaker, but will pay particular attention to such issues as bonding of private institutions, wind-up provisions for institutes that encounter difficulties and access to student loans. As well, Mr. Speaker, additional staff will be put in place immediately to enhance the department's monitoring capabilities of the private, post-secondary institutions in the Province. These additional staff, Mr. Speaker, were requested by both students and the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Career Colleges.

I commend the report to everybody's attention.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If that was a Ministerial Statement, at least, I had a copy of one this time, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I can say is, if that was a Ministerial Statement, it is an understatement that it is long overdue.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this Province, students who have gone back to school, whom we should be encouraging every day to go back to school, who have gone through a process with this department in which this government was supposed to be responsible for protecting the student who goes to any institution in this Province; that is number one.

Number two, Mr. Speaker, any other institution in this Province, public, private or whatever - there are some great institutions in this Province that provide a great opportunity for students to move on into post-secondary, Mr. Speaker, but the shame of it and the truth is, that this department and this minister have been incompetent in making sure, in the last several years especially, when we saw the ballooning of institutions in this Province grow in numbers, when the numbers at Memorial have gone down in the percentage of students attending, and the number in private institutes has gone up, skyrocketed, popping up like flowers all over the place, that this minister and this government have not put the right mechanism and system in place.

Now we are going to see a review of the regulations, we are going to see a review of the policies. I wonder how many policies have been changed to date. The shame of it is, as late as yesterday morning I spoke with students who have left institutions in this Province, who have given up, who have been devastated by the process they have gone through, and said they have not been protected. Now we have more institutions. God knows who is going to announce an institution tomorrow, and what regulations they have to go through.

The minister should admit - and that is what this is, an admission that this minister and this department have not put a procedure in place, not put a system in place, to protect the student, the ones we should be encouraging to go to an institution. Like I said, as late as yesterday I talked to two students who have said they had given up on the whole thing. They are going to try to go to work in Alberta somewhere. Like one of the members in Ottawa told us: There are 100,000 jobs in Ontario, come up here.

I have an answer for that man. He should send 100,000 jobs down here where they should be, in Newfoundland and Labrador. These institutions that are in this Province, that this minister and this government - they have got a failing grade. The Department of Education in Newfoundland and Labrador has an F, because they have not lived up to what they should have done. They should have been listening to more of their own review -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SHELLEY: - their own regulations, Mr. Speaker, but they have failed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for a copy of his statement.

Finally we have some answers to the questions I have been raising since last November in this House. It is pretty clear the issues that were raised have now been revealed in this Postsecondary Indicators '98, it is called now.

What the minister did not say about his report is that it also indicates that there are very significant differences in income between people attending private colleges and public colleges, and it is much lower for those with private colleges, but the student loan debt is much higher. The default rate for student loans is nearly twice the public colleges, closing in on 40 per cent. That gives you an indication what kind of education they might be getting in many cases.

What he did not say as well is that this document reveals that nearly 60 per cent of the instructors in the private college system have less than a bachelor's degree. I am concerned that when he does his review, which I have been asking for for some months, that he also look at the quality of instruction. That is a very important factor in the ability of students graduating from the private sector colleges, to be able to guarantee that they have a good quality education and that they can get jobs with good incomes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the minister has finally released this report and I hope that he will listen to the indicators that are there, that there must be some drastic changes in the private sector system if it is going to be allowed to attract students coming out of our high schools to that system and be able to guarantee them a first quality education.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise all members of this House and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador of the activities undertaken to date by the All Party Committee of the House of Assembly on Post-TAGS and to outline its next actions.

The All Party Committee was formed with a mandate given to it by this House to convey, in a non-partisan manner, the concerns of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on the importance of a meaningful post-TAGS program to the national political parties in Ottawa.

The Committee travelled to Ottawa last week on short notice in response to certain reports that the federal government was close to a final decision on a post-TAGS program. While our intelligence indicated that the federal government was not at the final stage of its decision-making process, we did not want to leave this to chance and I thank all members of the Committee for their co-operation in responding accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee met with the national caucuses of the Liberal, Progressive Conservative, New Democratic and Reform parties. It also met with representatives of the national media in Ottawa. These forums provided the Committee with an opportunity to convey, in a non-partisan manner, the key messages we all, I think, agree upon, as follows: that the groundfish crisis represents one of the greatest challenges ever faced by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; that the survival of many of our rural communities is at stake; that the post-TAGS challenge remains a federal responsibility; that the current TAGS program failed to meet its adjustment objectives; that this is not, and I want to emphasize this, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the fault of the individuals or communities concerned; that the TAGS challenge must be recognized as a longer-term problem which requires a longer-term solution; that regular federal and provincial programs are insufficient to deal with this problem and new approaches are necessary; that an effective and adequately funded post-TAGS program is critically important to the provincial economy as a whole.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, if I could add here, that I think it should be recognized by every person in this Province and every person in this House, and I think most people in this House do, but certainly by every person in this Province, that if there is not a post-TAGS Program, the consequences of not having one will be far-reaching, far more felt as well by people who are not or have not been on the TAGS Program, that the devastation in this Province will be at levels that we have not seen; and the other thing, Mr. Speaker, we pointed out, is that anxiety levels are building in the Province and that timing is becoming critical, especially for those individuals whose TAGS benefits are expiring in increasing numbers with each passing day.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee was particularly strong in its representations that it is unacceptable for the federal government to simply leave those individuals coming off TAGS to their own devices. It is for this reason that we urge the federal government to bring in a new program immediately and not wait until the scheduled expiry date of the end of August.

Mr. Speaker, while in Ottawa, I was assured by the hon. Pierre Pettigrew and the hon. Fred Mifflin, that contrary to recent media reports, the federal government had not yet reached any final decision on the post-TAGS issue. Accordingly, the All Party Committee's representations to date can be considered timely and effective. The All Party Committee intends to go back to Ottawa this week to meet with the Bloc Quebecois caucus and to also meet with the special federal Cabinet Committee that has been established to deal with the post-TAGS challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I might mention as well, that I would hope we would have some meeting times by the end of the day and in any case, I would report whatever progress is made to members on the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, by working together constructively in this manner, I am confident we can make a difference on such a critically important issue to the future of this Province. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to respond to the Ministerial Statement and I thank the minister for providing me with the statement prior to the opening of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any other issue that is more important to this Province today than this particular issue. This is about survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I left last Wednesday - I think part of the Committee left on Tuesday - Mr. Speaker, we were in a big rush. We were summoned to Ottawa because I thought, and I understood, that there was going to be a pending announcement, there was going to be an announcement made soon, and the reason for the big rush to get there, was to try to protect the 2,000 people who were being taken off this program within two weeks time. That, was what I thought, only to get to Ottawa, supposedly to meet with the Liberal caucus, of which fourteen people showed up out of a count of 155, where we had our own minister, our own federal minister, stand before the microphone and respond to a question by saying: that the people who are slated to come off this program on May 9, are off, there is nothing else for them; everybody who has been off the program up until now, is off, gone, nothing else for them, Mr. Speaker.

We are used to having strong representation in Ottawa, I say to members opposite; we are used to having people like Don Jamieson, Jack Pickersgill, John Crosbie, our own Premier, strong representation in Ottawa. Now, all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, we have a representative up in Ottawa who accepts what the federal caucus tells him, represents his Leader, represents his Party and forgets about Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I say that is unacceptable.

It is one thing for the minister to stand here in his place and read a Ministerial Statement, but minister, it is time for you and your troops to be counted as well. It is time for you to speak up and talk to your friends and your cousins in Ottawa. It is time to speak up and demand a change and demand that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who are entitled to this program continue to be supported by your federal cousins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is what we have to do here and to accept anything less is totally unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, you can take it any way you want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of the Ministerial Statement today on our All Party Committee. I want to say I was pleased to be able to participate in that Committee, and I want to tell all members of the House that it is a good thing we did go to Ottawa. It is a good thing we did go.

When we were there - I agree with the minister - we acted in a very non-partisan manner. Anyone who would hear us, we went to see. We went to the NDP caucus, we visited with the Liberal caucus, and what a shock we got. We all got a big shock, and I say this in a non-partisan way, but the minister responsible for this Province told us that he was not working on a post-TAGS program for the 3,000 people - 2,700 in this Province - who are coming off TAGS in May.

What we found out is that we have our work cut out for us in Ottawa, all of us on both sides of this House have our work cut out for us in Ottawa, because we have to convince the Parliament of Canada -

AN HON. MEMBER: Our own (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - and our own minister, someone has said - that this is a crucial and vital issue for all of the people of this Province.

I think that everybody in this House has agreed on that point, that we have to go there again and talk to the ministers, as the minister has said, and talk to the Bloc Quebeçois, anyone who will listen to us, anyone who will support us, in making sure that this is raised as a national issue that has to do with: What kind of respect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - does the Parliament of Canada, the Government of Canada, have for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair. Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to respond to the minister's statement and first of all say that I am pleased to be a part of the Select Committee that is dealing with this decision in Ottawa, and to say that it is of crucial importance to all fisherpeople in all communities within this Province. There is certainly no room, no room whatsoever, in this issue to play politics on either side of this House. I think the message that we have to send to Ottawa is one of solidarity. That is what we are out there saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We are out there saying to the fisherpeople in this Province: Stand together. We are saying to people in the other industry sectors: Support the people in this fishery, because if we are not united we are not going to conquer this.

I do not want to come into this House, Mr. Speaker, and hear the things I am hearing here today. I want us to be unified. I want us to set an example for every person in this Province, and go to Ottawa with an united front, all talking out of the same side of our faces.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Oral Questions

 

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, we have recently seen a Committee of this House summoned to Ottawa to respond, on brief notice, to the need to lobby the federal government on the circumstances surrounding 20,000 residents of the Province who will soon see the conclusion of the existing TAGS program. It now appears that another visit to Ottawa will be necessary.

I find it strange, however, that such visits should be necessary at all. After all, the present Premier was the author of the current program, and one would expect - knows full well - the circumstances that have led to the need for TAGS in the first place.

I ask the minister: Is this not a failure of the present government to properly inform and convince the federal government of the obvious need for a successor program?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I ask if I could address this question because it is a very important question. It is a question that transcends politics.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that what is happening in Ottawa today is not a fault of the present government, or the second-last government, or the government before. It is a fault of successive national governments in this country, and it is the result of being a Province on the periphery of Canada, that have attitudes in Central Canada that do not accept that we have an ecosystem down here of which we should have more control and management. Mr. Speaker, we see it in the sealing industry.

So I say to the hon. gentleman: Yes, this government has been after the present government to put a TAGS program. We have had various meetings with various people since last October. But, Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that there exists in this country - and, Mr. Speaker, I am not proud of this, and I was not proud when a national reporter looked at me and said: How much more do we have to pay for you fellows down there?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say to him?

MR. TULK: What did I say to him? I said to him: The national government - and I used the word `national' because I don't want to get involved in saying it was a PC government or a Liberal government. I used the term `national government'. The national government has destroyed - and this is important - an ecosystem in this country, and people live in ecosystems. They have destroyed an ocean, the greatest food basket in the world, successive national governments, through their mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. gentleman that the problem and the reason for an All Party Committee doing away with the partisan politics was to try to take on an attitude that exists, that was shown by that national journalist.

I looked at him and said: What price do you think my people are paying? What price do you think Newfoundland and Labrador is paying for the mismanagement of the government of this country, successive governments? Don't ask me what price you have to pay. There is no price. There are people in Newfoundland and Labrador who have to be looked after and have to be helped out of a situation that has nothing to do with them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. gentleman that I believe there will be a post-TAGS program, but I think what is important for us is to influence the type of program that is coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: And to make sure that we, as a Province, all of us, have a voice in how that is put together.

I want to say to him, that is not easy to do either. It was not easy for the man who now occupies this chair when he was Minister of Fisheries; it was not easy for the hon. John Crosbie when he was Minister of Fisheries. It is not easy to change the attitudes of the people of Central Canada but, by God, we will give it our best try!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, according to George Baker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and yourself met privately in Ottawa last Wednesday with a couple of Cabinet ministers. Obviously, if you had met Wednesday with a couple of federal Cabinet ministers I would assume it would be to discuss the TAGS program. Maybe the minister would like to share with the House what came out of that particular meeting as it relates to the 20,000 people who are now on this particular program.

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

MR. TULK: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that there were a couple of people in federal politics last week - and I am not going to name them in this House but he knows who they are - who were announcing that the decision was imminent; we had better get up there because the world was coming to an end up there; we had better get up there immediately to do that.

I, just to be frank with you, dropped in and said to Pierre Pettigrew: Is there a decision forthcoming? The answer was: Not immediately. We hope to get it done soon. But it is not coming in the manner in which (inaudible). That was the purpose of just dropping in to see him.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, we are getting a lot of mixed signals coming from government officials, particularly where the government stands and what it would support in a new TAGS program. We are hearing of early retirement, we are hearing of license buy-back, economic diversification. I would like to ask the minister two simple points: Where does he and his government stand on: (a) income replacement; and, (b) early retirement for those fifty years and older with a long-term attachment to the industry?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I know he is trying to play a bit of politics here today but let me just say to the hon. gentleman, he knows full well that while we were in Ottawa we had a full discussion within the All Party Committee. And let me just say to him that everything ...

I have made the point to the federal government, and I refuse to state what we consider to be a figure. Because if I do, I will tell that national journalist in Ottawa what I think the price tag is on the destruction of the North Atlantic groundfishery, and I refuse to do it. My job and his job and everybody else's, is to say to the federal government: Look, this is your responsibility. We are dealing with the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Live up to it. Once you have admitted that, do you want after that to sit down with us and say: How do you think we should work?

Let me tell him, Mr. Speaker, how I think we should work. I think we have to take each situation as it exists. That is a tremendous job, I say to him. I know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you stand on it?

MR. TULK: I am standing in the Legislature, if he wants to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not a laughable matter.

MR. TULK: No, it is not a laughable matter and it is not a partisan matter, and the hon. gentleman is trying to do that. We are prepared to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Put your proposal (inaudible).

MR. TULK: The proposal was put down at the hearing. We said: Yes, we are prepared to participate in early retirement, we are prepared to look at each individual situation on its own, whether that is fifty or fifty-five. Let's discuss it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know that.

MR. TULK: You know that. We have told you that. For a gentleman to stand in this House and ask me where we stand on income support or income replacement - either one, because myself and his House Leader had a little discussion on the difference between income support and income replacement - for him to ask me that question ... We say to the federal government: You have to take care of our people, and you don't throw them out.

The one thing that Harrigan said to us, that fellow who came down here from Central Canada, was that the people of this Province want to work. They want to work first in the industry to which they have been accustomed to working and, secondly, they want to work in their community; but they will work anywhere they can, rather than take anything from any government. I thank Mr. Harrigan for making that statement.

Where do we stand? We say to the federal government: You have to look after our people and then we will start talking to them as to where they take their life. Let me just say to the Member for Bonavista South that obviously that includes supporting income support or income replacement, but helping people to move clear of that is also part of the objective.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister opposite that this member is not playing partisan politics. When I ask a question, I say to the minister, I ask it because it is a sincere question that needs to be answered.

Minister, the Premier of this Province portrays himself as the great communicator. His theme in the last election was a brighter tomorrow. He often spoke about his wonderful relationship with the Prime Minister and his federal Cabinet ministers. Minister, why has the Premier of this Province not gotten directly involved in those crucial negotiations that will lead to the life or death of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) partisan.

MR. TULK: No, he is not being partisan. Of course he is not being partisan.

Let me say to the hon. gentleman that first of all the Premier has been, as you know, very supportive of the route we have taken with an All Party Committee in this House. He has been very supportive of that process. He has also been very supportive of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and myself doing our job and making representation to the people in Ottawa. He also, I would remind the hon. gentleman, met with the Prime Minister last Thursday night in Montreal. He did that.

Obviously, the next question that people would like to ask is: Where is he today? Yes, he is on his way to a petroleum affair in Calgary, I believe it is. But in the process there is a chairman of that committee, and he is called Mr. Ralph Goodale, who heads up the EU Committee, which is very similar to the Economic Policy Committee of this Cabinet, which in the final analysis will be the direct committee (inaudible). The Premier has every intention of meeting with Mr. Goodale to discuss the issue of post-TAGS while there, and to be in contact with any ministers he needs to be in contact with in Ottawa.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, surely you, as a minister of this government, have an open-door welcome with your cousins in Ottawa. Surely you are aware of Ottawa's intentions.

I ask the minister: What degree of comfort can you offer the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are going to be booted off this program within two weeks?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I wanted to I could stand here today and ask the hon. gentleman, and be as partisan as he is now being: What was the problem between the cousins that he represents in this House called the PC Party of Newfoundland and Mr. Crosbie when he was the federal fisheries minister?

MR. FITZGERALD: I was not here then!

MR. TULK: You were part - you were related to those cousins. Those cousins that you talk about, you were related to them. When Mr. Crosbie was pushed by his people here to go after foreign overfishing and laughed and said, "It cannot be done" -

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. TULK: I could bring up that - I could also ask the hon. gentleman, has he read Mike Harris' book. Has he read Mike Harris' book which documents very well that Mr. Crosbie made a political decision contrary to scientists -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) what Mr. Crosbie said.

MR. TULK: - I believe it was in 1988-1989, whatever, but I will not do that to the hon. gentleman. What I will say to him is this: that successive governments, provincial governments in this Province, have found it difficult to convince - and since he wants an answer, I will wait until he is finished lining up questions.

The successive governments in this Province and successive unions and successive people have had difficulties convincing - regardless of the partisan politics - convincing national governments that indeed this is a tremendous problem. And two people who could do that - two people who did that and did it very well, and I say this in totally non-partisan fashion, were John Crosbie and Brian Tobin. But, I would say this to them: that we have a tremendous job to do. We have had two programs, and people are saying, the attitude that that national reporter exhibited, and it would turn your stomach, that attitude is now set in even stronger. And I say to him: put aside the partisanship, let us go after it and hopefully take care of those human problems that exist in his district and in mine and other districts around this Province.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, we are talking about real people here. We are talking about people who get up in the morning. We are talking about people who have to pay hydro bills, people who pay telephone bills, people, Mr. Speaker, with a commitment to raise their families, people like you and me. Mr. Minister, moving to Ottawa or moving to Toronto or moving to Alberta is not an option for a lot of those people.

Minister, what have your government done to prepare yourselves for the financial implications that will surely result if we are set adrift by Ottawa?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a minute ago, the hon. gentlemen was standing there asking me why can I not convince my cousins in Ottawa to put in a post-TAGS program. Now, he is up asking: What have you done in the event of them not doing? It seems to me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: We will deal with the problem if we have to - we have dealt with other problems - but let me say to the honourable gentleman, I would not tell you, I would not tell anybody else, for the very simple reason that I am not prepared, if you are, to let Ottawa 'off the hook'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: A puppet to Ottawa.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

My questions today are for the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

About five months ago, I drew to government's attention the huge out-migration problem our Province is facing, and I made reference to Statistics Canada. Six years ago the number was only 700 people; five years ago 1,600 people; then 3,000 people the following year. Three years ago it jumped to 4,900 people; two years ago, 6,900 people, not-at-all. All these years are years since Premier Wells took over the Government of this Province, I might say.

One year ago it was 7,400 and up to last fall it was 9,200 and we all know the recent statistics that show in the last quarter of last year there were 3,127 people, the net out-migration of this Province. And we have seen the government's own economy document that we have, showing that they project a loss this year in the vicinity of another 9,000 or 10,000 people. I ask the minister: How much longer will this haemorrhaging have to go on before the provincial government and Ottawa announce a concrete strategy to turn things around for Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good and sensible question.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman opposite, that the numbers are not what anybody in this Province wants to see, that they are not numbers though - let me also add this to it - that they are not numbers that have been caused by this present government. But what has really happened there - and if he wants to compare what has happened in governments now with what happened with previous governments -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fifteen years ago.

MR. TULK: Yes, we will. We will talk about the Peckford Administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am giving a piece of facts and information. I happened to sit over where he is, in Opposition. Let me just say to him that when you eliminate what has happened to the groundfishery, when you take out that factor in out-migration, the numbers under that Administration were greater than they are now. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not to say that -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well, you are his cousin, or maybe he is your uncle.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have never seen (inaudible) wash their hands of the facts.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) wash their hands of everything they can.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that he knows as well as I do, that one of the things we would hope to do under a post-TAGS Program is to get into some economic diversification in this Province. I have told him this; and, by the way, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate the non-partisan fashion in which that member operated when he and I were interviewed by Don Newman. He was very, very good and I would hope that the Member for Bonavista South would take a lesson from him. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to him that what he is saying does not make a pretty picture. It is one that we would hope we can help solve through an economic diversification program under a post-TAGS Program and, Mr. Speaker, we would hope there is something forthcoming in that regard as well.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very well aware of statistics and they might be camouflaged with increased birth rates in the 1980s. I am very much aware of statistics, but the out-migration to which I am referring has occurred since 1990, I say to the minister, and during the mandate of the government. Our biggest concern out there now is not really what caused the out-migration, we all attribute that to various purposes. Since December, when I raised this issue, and prior to that, this government has had an opportunity: they have had a Throne Speech, they have had a Budget in which to lay out a strategy to address this pressing issue here in our Province, but neither one addressed the out-migration crisis and people are starting to believe in this Province, Minister, that the government really does not care.

I ask the minister now, in light of your having had more than two years under this mandate and under this Premier, to lay out opportunities to turn things around, tell us minister: Where is the government's plan?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad if the hon. gentleman wants me to outline where the government's plan is, and if he wants a briefing, I will give him one of those.

Mr. Speaker, this government has moved forward on various numbers of issues and I will deal with the mega projects first.

We moved forward on the Churchill Falls issue and I think there is a fairly good acceptance that if we can sign that deal -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do they stand on it?

MR. TULK: Well, we are still waiting to hear where the hon. gentleman stands on it. In spite of, I believe, all kinds of briefings, we are still waiting to hear where they stand on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that project in itself, Hibernia, Terra Nova, and we will go on to other oil fields which I am sure the minister could lay out. Voisey's Bay - it seems we are hung up a bit on whether we give it away, or we say, we are going to develop this for Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt - and I see the Minister of Mines and Energy nodding his head - as the chief minister leading the charge on that one, let there be no doubt that we will not give away one ounce of that mine - if there is no smelter, no mine.

Mr. Speaker, those are the mega-projects. The problems that have been created in rural Newfoundland have, by-and-large, been created, as the hon. gentleman knows - the biggest part of them has been created by the shutdown of the groundfish industry. While we have had a very good upturn in the shellfish industry, in the crab, and we would hope, this summer in the shrimp industry - hopefully create 200 or 300 jobs down in the Port Union-Catalina area, down in the Bonavista South area, hopefully create some jobs in my area and so on - while we have had an upturn in those areas, the shellfish industry does not provide the same kind of intensive employment as did the groundfish industry. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has stated that here on a number of occasions.

Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is out pushing to diversify the fishing industry in this Province, doing a very good job of it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to clue up his answer.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that I cannot get through all of the things that we have done and we are attempting to do in this Province in such a - it is a really bad question to ask. Maybe you should save it for the Estimates Committee or something like that, because it takes too much time to get through it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He scared all the media out of the gallery, his answer was so long and boring, I might add. Thank God for John Crosbie; we would not have a gravity-base and 6,000 jobs. Thank God for Chris Verbiski and Albert Chislett; we would not have a Voisey's Bay. I ask, what strategy? In recent years, I say to the minister, some influential -

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo is not being questioned here today. The former Member for Fogo is being questioned here today.

In recent years many influential mainland economists have said, and suggested, that the solution to this Province's economic woes, due to the centralization of many rural areas of this Province, is a massive drop in population. I do not need to mention names to know who they are. That is much the same kind of thinking that motivated the resettlement program we had back in the 1960s.

I say to the minister, it is clear that the current federal policies regarding EI, regarding transfers for health and social services, and TAGS, are starting to accomplish the very down-sizing that these economists wanted to talk about, and did talk about, and recommended.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary and I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will start my question again. Can the minister tell us what, if any, arguments his government is putting forward to counter this mainland thinking? Why has the government been absolutely unsuccessful at convincing the federal government and the Canadian federation that what this Province needs is not down-sizing, but the kind of investment that turned Ireland around?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman - I hope I can continue where I left off, but let me say to him that with regard to the Ireland model, I am as familiar with that as he is, and I know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is as familiar with it as he is.

He asks: How successful have you been? Let me just say to him that over the past two or three years there has been well over $600 million - and I can give him those figures outside the House - that this Administration has managed to get out of the federal government to undertake certain projects and to have them pushed well over $600 million towards the economic development of this Province.

Let me just say to him that with regard to our strategy, I am sure, as much as he has been around this Province, that he must have heard talk of the regional economic development boards that we have in place in this Province. He must have heard talk of that. I am sure he must have heard talk of the fact that we have recently been out asking them for 100 initiatives that we hope to work with them in the next year. He must also be aware that we have been very active in promoting tourism. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and myself have been working like dogs on a project down in his district, trying to get the feds on side to fund a project down in his district so that we can develop that East Coast trail that he is such a proponent of - and he is - way right down into his area to encourage the development of tourism in his area. He must know about that, Mr. Speaker.

I promise the hon. gentleman, as I did his colleague, that on tomorrow - I do not have it with me - I will bring in a list of stuff, this long, that we are working on. I hope he does not do as the hon. member for Baie Verte did, leave it on the table of the House and not even bother to read it.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister is obviously aware of the investigation into AbbaCom Logic, and while I will not get into the specifics of that particular company because of the investigation that is ongoing, I have some questions about the policy that may have led to that particular situation arising.

Mr. Speaker, a spokesperson for the industry department has said that companies that apply for EDGE status are subject to a background check. However, those who work for the company are not subject to a background check. For those companies which have had a long standing tradition of service in the Province, Mr. Speaker, this policy may be okay.

Will the minister agree that to conduct a background check on a new company, one without a background, is perhaps a practice in futility?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member realizes I cannot speak to the particular case that is in the media, while it is under police investigation. Certainly when any company applies to the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology for EDGE status there are a number of things that they have to go through. In terms of the types of background checks, one of the things that we do is a Dun & Bradstreet on any company which is applying for EDGE status. That gives us all of the financial information on that company. It also gives us background information on the principals involved in that company. It also tells us about any writs that may be outstanding or any issues that may be of concern to us.

So, there is a very thorough background check done on any company that has a background to check, Mr. Speaker. If it is a new company it is very difficult to find information about that company.

We work very closely with all of the funding agencies. Any company that is applying for EDGE status must come in with a business plan with three-year projections. Before any company gets any benefit from the EDGE status that they have acquired, that is given to them by the EDGE Board and approved by Cabinet, they must submit on an annual basis an audited financial statement before any benefits accrue in terms of tax breaks. If that audited financial statement is not forthcoming, they do not get any of the benefits that come with the legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

 

Notices of Motion

 

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is a Notice of Motion that I wish to give on the make-up of the committee, but I understand that the Opposition House Leader wishes to have a few minutes with regard to that motion before I put it. I would just ask that we revert after we have had that discussion to put the motion. It is the make-up of the committee.

 

Petitions

 

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition: Petition to the House of Assembly.

The petition reads, Mr. Speaker:

To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in Legislative Session convened:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland.

WHEREAS the TAGS program - whereby the federal government compensates fisheries workers for its mismanagement of the fisheries resource - is due to expire in August and many people entitled to funding have already been, or are about to be, taken off this program prior to that date;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take a lead role in convincing the federal government to announce and implement, without further delay, a successor program to TAGS which includes income replacement, license buy-backs, early retirement and economic diversification, and to give immediate consideration to those who are entitled to compensation and are now or are about to be taken off this program. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that was circulated today with the gathering of not only TAGS recipients, I say to members opposite, but concerned Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, what is happening here with this particular program, I can assure you, will reach much further than the people who are presently receiving income under the TAGS program. It is the life of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is the life of the garage owner, it is the livelihood for the convenience store, for the grocery store. Mr. Speaker, it is survival. That is what people see happening here in this Province today.

When we hear people talk about the 52 per cent or the 51 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are against this particular program, I have to look across the House with disgust, Mr. Speaker, to know who implemented that particular poll. I have to look across the House, Mr. Speaker, with disgust when I see and when I hear who paid, with the taxpayers' dollars of this Province, to put forward a poll and release it to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians saying 51 per cent of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador disagree with a program. That, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable.

If the hon. member did a poll in his own riding and found out that he was unpopular, would he go out and promote it? Would he shout it out? You know what I am talking about, I say to the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is on the other side presenting a petition, and he has the right to do so, but first of all he should get his facts straight. If he wants to name names of somebody doing something to harm Newfoundlanders then I say to the hon. gentleman: Name the people. Name them, or otherwise stick to the facts.

MR. FITZGERALD: I could name them, Mr. Speaker, but I won't go through thirty-seven names.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Honourable members are well aware of the procedure during petitions. The material of the petition has to be adhered to, and they are not permitted to involve in debate in any other topic.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't intend to name names, Mr. Speaker. I don't intend to name names. It was a poll paid for by the Liberal Party. That is what it was, a poll paid for by the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker, let us progress beyond that. I have to talk about the Government House Leader. He was irritated today when we asked him questions. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what this House of Assembly is here for. That is why somebody sent me to occupy this seat here, to ask questions on their behalf, to speak up for issues that concern them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not to use it (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It is not playing politics, Mr. Speaker. That is why I am here, I am a politician. If I am accused of playing politics, I am sorry. That is why I am here; I consider myself to be a politician. But when we question the government, when we question members opposite about what they are doing, rather than saying it is Ottawa's problem, blame it on Ottawa, come out and tell your story and we will bring somebody else down for you to listen to. Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that.

If we don't need a provincial government then I don't know why we are costing the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador the salary of forty-eight people in sitting here in this particular House, and the cost of running this building, if we are going to slough it all off on Ottawa.

I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, that Ottawa's decisions led us to where we are today. I fully agree that Ottawa should be the level of government that pays the particular tab for the response program that is needed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: But we have to be ever mindful, Mr. Speaker, of the need to impress upon Ottawa what that obligation means. We have to be ever vigilant to speak out for the people in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, leave has been withdrawn. I will have a chance to rise again.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South. It is calling upon the federal government to own up to its responsibility and commitment to the people of this Province, people who put their trust into elected representatives, the federal government, to carry out the proper management and administration of a resource here in our Province.

It is asking in this petition for a successor program to TAGS, which includes income replacement, licence buy-back, early retirement, economic diversification. In other words, it is asking basically for a program that is going to address the needs, that has to look at dealing once and for all with the closure of the fishery, and a basis that is going to be able to allow the people to carry forward; not a program that is going to have a very limited amount of money, unable to achieve its objectives.

The TAGS program failed. It set out certain goals in the TAGS program, an adjustment program, to adjust people out of the fishery. They even eliminated mobility dollars under TAGS for the last two years. They eliminated mobility in a program that was looking at adjustment. They eliminated the opportunity for a licence buy-back in a program that wanted to adjust people out of the fishery. When you want to get people out of a fishery and you want to bring it down to a level that the fishery can support, you have to put money into a buy-back program. It has to have sufficient dollars to achieve that.

It also has to have sufficient dollars to allow people to have an early retirement from the program. Under the basic program the reverse bidding process, or reverse auction process, that program eliminated or moved out of the fishery a certain number of individuals that was far short of what was needed. There are people out there today in their forties and fifties. I spoke with people in the last three days, since I came back from Ottawa, who are willing and want to move out of the fishery, provided the buy-back is sufficient to allow them to retire their debts. They have debts.

The last year before the moratorium some people went out and spent tens of thousands of dollars because the fishery in my district, in the last three years before the moratorium, were three of the best years in the fishery in some time. They invested heavily in the last year, in the spring of 1992, only to find out that on July 2 they shut it down, costing people tens of thousands of dollars of investment. They want to be able to get out of the fishery without a debt and with a sufficient amount to be able to carry them through a retirement under the program. There are people who want that.

There are other people out there today who also want to be able to continue in the fishery of the future, and we need these people. That fishery, a primary aspect of our resources, creates tremendous jobs in our economy. We are seeing movement into other particular fisheries. They have picked up some of the slack, but there are too many people out there today who need a program of post-TAGS.

There is 71 per cent, almost, with less than a Grade XII education; Grade XI or less, 71 per cent almost. Forty-one per cent of the people have less than a Grade IX education. People who trained and worked in the fishery for thirty years, there has to be a program that allows that bridging to retirement for these people.

It happened with Marine Atlantic. Marine Atlantic shut down its service from Yarmouth to Bar Harbour; from Digby to St. John, New Brunswick; from Prince Edward Island, Borden, on to Cape Tormentine in New Brunswick; and what did they do for these people? They gave them a certain retirement severance package, a bridging to carry them. People who were under the age, they gave them a bridging to carry them to a retirement age.

We need some form of program in some way that is going to allow people to be able to get out of the fishery at a certain age. What that age is, is negotiable. I would say it has to look at people in the fifty age bracket for the simple reason that many people aged fifty to fifty-five have thirty years or more in the industry, they have a Grade VIII education or less -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there has to be a factor. If you are fifty-four and spent only five years in industry, it is a lot different from someone who is even fifty-one and has spent thirty years in industry. There has to be a recognition of people who have spent their lives in an industry. I know people who are in their early fifties, whose sons qualify for this program for the full duration because they have been in it five years when their parents have been in it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - for over thirty years and cannot qualify now, they are being dropped off, because one of those years they were sick. That is wrong. The program has to be able to look at individuals historically.

By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: It has to be able to look at - and the one size does not fit all, I agree. There has to be a recognition of the basis of someone's livelihood around a particular industry. They cannot be thrown to the wolves now to be devoured when they spent their lives in it. They do not have the education to pursue other training outside the fishery and there has to be, I say, as a last resort, some form of mobility for people who want, of their own volition, to get out and to seek greener pastures elsewhere. That option for people who want to do so, I think should be provided for people who have been a part of this program from the beginning.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Member for Bonavista South and the Opposition House Leader that we support this petition. There is no earthly reason in the world why we should not support the petition. Let me just say to the Opposition House Leader - and I want him to hear this, I really do want him to hear this - Let me say to the Opposition House Leader as opposed to the Member for Bonavista South, that the manner in which he is conducting this thing is purely in keeping with the kind of attitude that I think we must have as a Province and as a Legislature.

He illustrates very well, a point that I think we have been making and we have made as an All Party Committee at our meetings in Ottawa, and as we have been making throughout this whole session, and that is that one size does not fit all. Yes, we have no problem in a general sense of saying that we support income replacement; we support licence buy-back; we support early retirement, we support economic diversification and we want immediate consideration. And we say to the federal government that you cannot dump those people; they are entitled to compensation and are now about to be taken off the program, you just cannot dump them.

But, let me just say to him that this petition and the speech just made by the Opposition House Leader, very well illustrates, I believe, what has to happen here. This concept of one size does not fit all, that you have to deal with communities, you have to deal with individuals where they are, and there are people - I mean, he is absolutely right when he says that there are people who have been in the fishing industry for fifteen, sixteen, twenty, twenty-five years, and there are some people, I recognize them today, from the Member for Bonavista South's district; I met with them two weeks ago, and they are still in the gallery - who have been involved in the fishing industry, were involved in a year-round fishing industry and they are different from somebody just down the shore in my district in Bonavista North where you had a seasonal fishery. Because those people were used to a level of income that was twelve-months around. Then they suddenly found themselves on TAGS and now, they find themselves to the place where they are getting nothing.

So that is a community of people whom you have to deal with on a different basis from say, Fogo Island, where you have a seasonal fishery, where people were not used to that same level of income. There was a difference. And you have to deal with the fact that there are people who spend a certain amount of time in the industry and now find themselves being dropped off TAGS - and I accept the hon. gentleman's word for that - that they find themselves being dropped off TAGS and somebody who was on the harvesting side of the industry for maybe ten or twelve years or even less, is still on. I mean, that is the type of thing that I think has to be dealt with by everybody concerned with this problem, the unions, provincial government, federal government, and that is the kind of thing where we have to convince people in Ottawa, of the approach. I say to him honestly, that is the approach we have been taking over the last five to six months, to say to them first of all: this is your responsibility and you cannot do it by regular programming, and there is an arrogance - you deal with it on a community and individual basis; and one size does not fit all.

Once you accept those principles then you can work with almost anything. I say to the hon, gentleman and to everybody else in this Province, it will be a tremendous task, because you will have to deal with so many other different kinds of situations.

I am not sure - I am scared of the fact, to be frank with you, that if we just say: alright, it will be income support, buy-out of licences, mobility allowances and take a blanket statement, five or six elements of the program and try to enforce that on everybody, I am not sure that will do the job that we want done. While those are broad components of the program, I think we have to give much more detail and much more on an individual and community level. That will take a tremendous amount of work. But I support the petition, the government support the petition, and we are taking a lead, we hope, and we will continue to take a lead on this whole issue to try to ensure that all people get what they deserve and not be regarded as people taking a handout - support the fishermen.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a similar petition, signed by a number of residents of the Province of Newfoundland, who are here protesting today, asking the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take a lead role in convincing the federal government to announce and implement, without further delay, a successor program to TAGS which includes income replacement, licence buy-backs, early retirement plus economic diversification and to give immediate consideration to those who are entitled to compensation and are now or are about to be taking off this program.

Mr. Speaker, this House, based on an all-party resolution or unanimous resolution of April 1, decided to endorse a program for a post-TAGS Program and outline the elements that are required to make the post-TAGS Program effective. We need a substantial program, not just a program - a substantial program - that is going to be effective in dealing with the problem. Now, we know, Mr. Speaker, what has happened. What has happened is that the program that was announced for TAGS had some of the elements that we are talking about here today but the reality was, that instead of 25,000 people qualifying for the program, there are 40,000 people who qualify for the program.

All of the money that was designed to provide assistance to people other than income support ended up going into income support. Not because that was all people wanted but that was what people had to have. The Government of Canada was not prepared to ensure the funds were adequate to do the job that had to be done. So, we are now faced with a situation, as the previous speakers have said, that there are anomalies - there are anomalies in the existing program for sure. I spoke to a woman this afternoon who is being cut off TAGS in two weeks time who has had twenty-two years working in the fish plant - probably still in the gallery - being cut off on May 7.

When we were in Ottawa, we found out that up until now, there appears to be no intention, on behalf of the Government of Canada or the minister responsible for this Province, to fight for or even contemplate the inclusion of that lady and the 2,700 others in this Province who are in the same situation in any Post-TAGS Program. Now that, Mr. Speaker, is an abomination.

I think all hon. members in this House have to know what this was like, where we were up in Ottawa looking for support for this Province. We went to the full national caucus of the New Democratic Party, and I want to assure you that we were welcomed with open-arms. On less than twenty-four hours notice, we went in on the national caucus during their meeting - the full caucus - and after a few minutes by me and the Government House Leader and the Minister of Fisheries, we were stopped by the Caucus Chair, MP Nelson Riis. He said: You do not need to tell us more. We know the problem that you are in. Peter Stoffer, our member from Nova Scotia who sits on the committee, our eight MPs from the Atlantic Provinces, have kept us informed on this issue. We have a question for you: What can we do to help? How can we help you convince the Government of Canada that they have to help Newfoundland?

This was an All Party Committee. This was members of this House in the Liberal Party, in the Liberal Cabinet, in the Conservative Opposition and the NDP, visiting, in this case, the NDP Caucus looking for support to convince the Liberal Government of Ottawa to listen to our people.

I want to tell you that we have our work cut out for us, because the Government of Canada is listening to other voices. The Government of Canada is listening to other voices. I am not convinced that they are listening to us, I am not convinced that they are listening to the Cabinet, I am not convinced that the Liberal Government is listening to the people of this Province, I think they are listening to other voices.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: We have got to work together to convince them to be on our side.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to rise today to support my colleague on his petition. I am going to talk about this whole issue as it relates to our trip and the trip we are going to take next, Mr. Speaker.

You talk about partisan and non-partisan: If you have a bunch of politicians travelling together you are going to find different things and different opinions. It is guaranteed to happen.

I can say this, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly going to report what I saw, because that is our job. When we go as a committee to Ottawa, if somebody asks me what happened in Ottawa, I am going to tell them.

Here is the reality of what happened - you can stick any label on it you want - I was disgusted by the minister who is representing Newfoundland. I would not know any other way to phrase it. Everybody was. We were totally, totally disgusted to sit in that room, Mr. Speaker, with a delegation there and have the minister come up to the microphone and make the announcement that nobody knew about it. I do not think his own colleagues knew about it. I mean his own colleagues in Ottawa, the people who were sitting next to me. That is what we have to report. I will not stick to that issue, but the point I am making is that things happen and you report what happened.

The other thing I was disgusted with, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I am just making the points, legit points. As I said - I do not know if you heard the first part - I am reporting like any other member would report. When people in my district asked me the weekend what happened in Ottawa, I told them. If I had a problem with a Tory up there or a Reformer who said something to me, I told them. I had some problems with the Reformers and I had my say about the Reform Party, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Okay. I am just making a point here.

The other thing I reported on, Mr. Speaker - and I will use this as another example. I just used a Liberal story as an example and now I will use a Reform Party example.

We were in there sitting down, Mr. Speaker, and what they know about the seal industry -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) the seal industry.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that might be a good idea, I say to the Government House Leader, because we were starting to get through to some of them.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that once we started talking to the Reform Party I wish we had had some more time. Because the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, myself and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, we all spoke about something with them that they knew hardly anything about, which was the seal industry.

The Member for Twillingate & Fogo had to get up, Mr. Speaker, after the minister had left - he had gone to another meeting - to explain to them that the reason they do not find all the bones and the full fish in the seals is because a lot of the time, as of course we all know, the seals eat the stomach of the fish. That is what happens. That is why you do not see them all the time, but you do see them sometimes, Mr. Speaker.

The point I am making is that the mentality of Ottawa and how it relates to Newfoundland is a shameful sight. We ran in and out of meeting, not having enough time to say what you wanted to say. It was almost like they were sort of: Okay, come in and say your two cents worth and get the heck out of there. I have no time for that, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, we are going back this time - and I have already said it to the Government House Leader - as a group. We were rushed the last time. We are going to go in and sit down and have sufficient time for any of us who want to speak.

I will give another example, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Torngat Mountains who had a tremendous story to tell - I have to tell you, of all the people who said their piece, his was one of the ones that I really listened to closely. Do you know what the shame of it is? He only had a chance to say it to one group. He (inaudible), because there was not enough there. I don't want to say what group that was because for sure you would say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: We were.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, no, I duly respect that. In our caucus here we have groups come in and there are certain time limits and everything else. That is why I am saying - and I will get to the point of it - that we are all going up again together. Now I don't want to be rushed into a room where they say, `Okay, you have three minutes now.' And you don't get a chance to speak.

I want to be able to say we have sufficient time to give the story, to give our side of it, as an All Party Committee who has gone there to convey to them ... Because after seeing the minister, and after seeing - well, I will show you how non-partisan I will be - one group of caucus show up with such small numbers, that was devastating to me, Mr. Speaker, to go up there and see such small numbers of MPs who want to listen to Newfoundland's concerns.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) if you name them.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I won't at this stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: And I will tell you why. (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I know, but I am not going to do that. I am still not going to do that because I am going to get to my point in my few minutes on this particular petition.

I went up there first and foremost as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian and secondly as a politician, but first of all as somebody who lives here. I don't bloody well want anybody up in Ottawa rushing me and saying, `Get your two cents in and get the hell out of there.' Because it is not like every day we go up there.

What really bothered me, Mr. Speaker, is the psyche of the way they were thinking. And for this Dennis Mills - I don't mind naming him in this Legislature, I think he is the MP for Mississauga if I am not mistaken - to come up there at the microphone and say there are 100,000 jobs up here. Boy, you are going to have to look at moving them all up. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are people who live in Ming's Bight, Fleur de Lys, and everybody else around this Province, who are not too fussy about that answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: I will clue up by saying this, Mr. Speaker: We will go up as an All Party Committee to present that we are going there not for a hand-out, or for a job loss in this Province. We are going up there because of a way of life that was changed in this Province. We are representing people in this Province, and we are not going to be rushed through any doors for anybody, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just had the opportunity to read the prayer of this petition. I have no problem supporting the prayer of the petition, but I think we should go a little further. Standing here in the House of Assembly and talking about what we should be doing, I think each member on each side of the House, the All Party Committee, knows full well what we should be doing. All we are doing now is playing politics, talking in the House of Assembly, and just making points back and forth across the House. Who is listening?

The truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that we were in Ottawa last week. Whether we went there on a rushed mission or whatever, we were there. We made our presence known, and we raised the issue that every minister and every MP in Ottawa, on all sides of the House, is talking about a post-TAGS program.

Here is where I have the concern. As I said out in the foyer of the Confederation Building today, it is not enough just to talk about finances about a post-TAGS program. We have to go the next step. You are not going to get compensation for people displaced in Newfoundland forever and ever. What you have to do, and what we have to do, is change the mentality and the attitude of the bureaucrats in Ottawa to put in a proper management program for the fishery of the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That is the responsibility of everybody in Newfoundland, and it is not going to be easy. It is not going to be easy. It has been there since Confederation, it has been there since I have been in politics in 1985, regardless of who was there, and I don't see a whole lot of change today.

Let me tell you what I just had to do, Mr. Speaker. I just had to go in and make a phone call to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada and say: Why are you closing down the personal seal hunt in Newfoundland? Well, we don't know if the numbers are all taken. I said: Who gives a you-know-what about the numbers? There are 6 million seals out there eating the fish, and we have 20,000 people who cannot go fishing. Where did you get your brains? Two thousand miles away, doesn't understand the issue, has no understanding of what takes place in rural Newfoundland, has no understanding of the logistics and what is going on here.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, that we stopped talking about it, and passing pieces of paper back and forth, and going out and commenting on it, and being partisan about what we should .... As the Member for Labrador said, let's all here in this Province say the one message. It is not enough just for money alone. It is not enough for the 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 or 25,000 or whatever. We need a management plan. We need decisions made here in this Province. We need to understand the coastal communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: He is taking care of that himself, Sir. We (inaudible). He is a good man at taking care of that himself. If I was as good at (inaudible) as Mr. Mifflin is, then we wouldn't have a problem.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need an opportunity to work in their communities. This issue here on TAGS and income for people is only a small part of the problem. I heard an MP say this morning: What about the grocery store worker? What about the truck driver? What about all the spin-off people? Don't those people matter? Well, those people are not going to get jobs unless people get back in the fishing boats, unless people get back into a means of earning a living from the sea, whether it be cod or caplin or seaweed or any species from the ocean. There are lots of resources in that ocean. When we learn to utilize it, when we learn to use it to our advantage, then we will earn a living from the sea.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Just now I asked the Opposition House Leader if he would give me leave to re-introduce this motion at a later date after we had a conversation.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice and by leave move that the following committees be composed of the following members:

That the Striking Committee be made up of: the hon. Beaton Tulk, Member for Bonavista North; Mr. Percy Barrett, Member for Bellevue; Mr. Bill Ramsay, Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; Mr. Loyola Sullivan, Member for Ferryland; Mr. Roger Fitzgerald, Member for Bonavista South.

That the Government Services Committee be made up of: the Member for Topsail, Mr. Ralph Wiseman; the Member for Cape St. Francis, Mr. Jack Byrne; the Member for Trinity North, Mr. Doug Oldford; the Member for Port au Port, Mr. Gerald Smith; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, Mr. Anthony Sparrow; the Member for Conception Bay South, Mr. Bob French; and the Member for St. John's East, Mr. John Ottenheimer.

That the Resource Committee be made up of: the Member for Labrador West, Mr. Perry Canning, Chair; the Member for Baie Verte, Mr. Paul Shelley; the Member for Humber Valley, Mr. Rick Woodford; the Member for Bellevue, Mr. Percy Barrett; the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans, Ms Anna Thistle; the Member for Bonavista South, Mr. Roger Fitzgerald; and the Member for St. John's South, Mr. Tom Osborne.

That the Social Services Committee be made up of: the Member for Humber East, Mr. Bob Mercer, Chair; the Member for Ferryland, Mr. Loyola Sullivan; the Member for Burin - Placentia West, Ms Mary Hodder; the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne, Mr. Donald Whelan; the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, Mr. Gerald Reid; the Member for Torngat Mountains, Mr. Wally Andersen; the Member for Waterford Valley, Mr. Harvey Hodder; and the Member for St. John's West, Ms Sheila Osborne.

Mr. Speaker, I would move that those Committees be composed of those members.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable members have heard the motion. All in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

Motion carried.

MR. TULK: If I could, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: I have asked the people who are the Chairs of those Committees - the Member for Topsail, the Member for Labrador West, and the Member for Humber East - to have a schedule ready for us, because their life starts today by the previous motion that we made, I think it was April 7, that the schedule be ready to go tomorrow. I would expect -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow is day one.

MR. TULK: Yes. Well, we will do what we have to do.

 

Orders of the Day

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

 

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before moving to the Budget Speech, I would call Motions 3, 4 and 5, if I could, which is first reading of some bills.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Credit Union Act," carried. (Bill No. 7)

On motion, Bill No. 7 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environment Act," carried. (Bill No. 6)

On motion, Bill No. 6, read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon, the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And Occupational Certification". (Bill No. 5)

On motion, Bill No. 5 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to Consider the Raising of Supply to be Granted to Her Majesty, otherwise known as the Budget Speech, and we are looking forward to hearing the words from the hon. members opposite again.

I think it is the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the raising of Supply be granted to Her Majesty, otherwise known as the Budget Speech.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not certain how much time I have left on the Budget Speech because I know that I concluded debate back before Easter. I think there are about ten or eleven minutes.

Mr. Speaker, most of today we have been talking about a very important issue here in this Province and that is the TAGS debate, and the need to continue income support and to continue to look after fish plant workers and fisherpeople who have contributed so much to the economy of this particular Province. The first thing we hear people talk about is funding, where does the funding come from, we cannot afford to do this or we cannot afford to do something else. Before I move on to another topic dealing with the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I remind members opposite that we have an account up in Ottawa with $14 billion to $16 billion sitting in it, an account that has been built, Mr. Speaker, and contributed to by every working man and woman in this Province. It is an account, Mr. Speaker, actually, that has been built by the poorest of the people in this Province. It is a situation whereby people who presently collect Unemployment Insurance, number one, pay more and number two, collect benefits for a shorter period of time and are denied programs that were once offered through the Unemployment Insurance Act.

So now, we have built up that particular kitty, that particular slush fund to about $16 billion and all we are saying to the federal government, if you are honest and sincere in looking after the needs of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, then maybe it is time to give a little something back. Maybe it is time, Mr. Speaker, to show that we are getting away from regional diversification; maybe it is time, Mr. Speaker, to show that every region of this great country should be treated alike. Mr. Ottawa, if you are not going to share your employment with us, maybe you can share your wealth with us. We are all Canadians.

When we joined this country back in 1949, one of the areas where I suppose we should have been more vigilant and should have paid greater attention, was to the fact that we signed over control of our most important industry to Ottawa, and when you hear of the mentality of people in Central Canada, the people in Western Canada, those people who cannot comprehend what we are going through here in this Province, I say to them very quickly: one way to bring it to reality, Mr. Speaker, is to compare it to your own province, compare it to Saskatchewan, compare it to Alberta, compare it to when you people joined Confederation, that if you decided you were going to allow the central government to control your agricultural industry; compared to Alberta, if you were going to allow the central government to control your forestry industry; or in B.C., Mr. Speaker, a similar situation. And because of rules and regulations, and because of decisions made by the federal government of this country, that the wheat farmers were not allowed to grow wheat anymore; or the loggers out in British Colombia were not allowed to log anymore - compared to that, and then, Mr. Speaker, the thought strikes home. Then, Mr. Speaker, the reality of it hits home. They may not be able to comprehend what is happening in our fishery, but if they were faced with the situation where their major resource was controlled by the central government and they were not allowed to do what they normally did to earn a living and to earn a profit, Mr. Speaker, I would say that you would see a lot more than the demonstration in the provincial buildings of their legislature.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have become very patient upon till now. Almost, like divide and conquer, we separate them and we take a few off of programs today, and we take another few off tomorrow in the central part, and we move out west and take a few more off. We have a lay-off here, a lay-off there, Mr. Speaker, and because of the geography of our Province and because there are only a few coming off a particular program, whether it is EI or the TAGS program or whatever, we do not always get the big outcry, Mr. Speaker. I compare it to somebody's insurance been renewed. Many times we hear talk of people paying a high premium for their insurance cost, and I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that if everybody's insurance came due at one time here in this Province - if your fire insurance premium and your auto insurance premium became due on the same day, everybody in this Province, you would see the biggest outcry, you would see the biggest demonstration that you ever saw in your life.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to move a little bit away from the TAGS problems right now, and a little bit away from the fishery, and talk about some of the other things that have been included in this particular Budget; or what has not been included. That is what is important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I have to look at is the condition of our roads - not only the Trans-Canada, in fact, the Trans-Canada, for the most part, is not a bad highway, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. The Trans-Canada is not a bad highway. There are certain areas now that we are concentrating on, that need to be upgraded and need to be recapped and, for the most part, a lot of that is being done. It is being done because of a Roads for Rail Agreement, an agreement whereby, the federal government reached out again and took our mode of transportation, the railway, away from us, and said: In turn, we will give you some money to upgrade your roads. I do not know what is going to happen when that pot of money is spent. I do not know who is going to maintain the roads, or who is going to maintain the infrastructure that is left behind after that, Mr. Speaker. But at least up until, I do not know, probably the next eight or ten years, we have an income; we have an income from the federal government to look after our Trans-Canada Highway and our regional trunk roads.

Mr. Speaker, the roads in my particular district - the roads in Bonavista South, for the most part, were paved and constructed or reconstructed, I suppose, before the pavement, about twenty-eight or thirty years ago. It was done at a time, Mr. Speaker, when everybody was after pavement, everybody was after some blacktop. That was the secret to getting elected. Mr. Speaker, that was the secret.

The member who could provide the most pavement was the member who came here and was re-elected in this House of Assembly. That was the secret. And for the most part, Mr. Speaker, there was great competition as to who could get the most paving done, who could provide the most pavement, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was not the case (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it may not have been the case, I can only speak for my area, but I am sure it was. You probably got no pavement at that times because your area was always represented by a Liberal member, so, you probably got very little pavement.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have little time left, so in order to give me more time I will move an amendment to the Budget motion. It is seconded by the Member for Baie Verte. That amendment reads:

That all the words after the word "that" be struck and replaced with the following: this House acknowledge and condemn the government's failure to manage competently the Province's finances, its failure to live up to its duty or its promise to provide adequate direction and funding for social programs such as health and social services, its failure to secure the future of our Province by investing appropriately in education and students, and its failure to discharge effectively its responsibility to plan for and invest in economic recovery and employment growth in a province, in particular, in rural areas so desperately in need of development and jobs.

So, Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment to the Budget motion, seconded by the Member for Baie Verte. Is that motion in order?

MR. RAMSAY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we have a copy of the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure you can.

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible) the Speaker rule on the amendment as to its -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs rising on a point of order?

MR. A. REID: No I am not. I am rising right now, Sir, as House Leader, if you do not mind - not on a point of order. I would like to see the amendment, if you do not mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has not seen the written copy of the amendment. I do not know if the Table has received it.

MR. A. REID: Well, I am assuming that we can proceed with the debate, then. If the Speaker has not received the amendment, then the House is still open for debate, and we are debating. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker? May I ask a question, please?

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

MR. A. REID: I am assuming you are going to get the amendment, you are going to rule on the amendment at a later time? Am I correct in saying that? So then, are we -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

What I said was I have not seen the amendment yet.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we provided three copies of the amendment to the Page upon his moving the amendment. If the Chair has not received one, or others have not received it, three copies were passed. I have a further copy, if Your Honour would like to see it and rule on the legality of that amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I have it now, Mr. Speaker, but maybe you, Sir, should determine whether or not it is in order. You might even like to take a brief recess to see if it is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: We will recess for a few minutes to have a look at the amendment. We will come back in about five minutes.

 

Recess

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules that the amendment is in order. We are now debating the amendment.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whether the amendment carries or not is not an issue, I say to the Minister of Justice. It at least gives us an opportunity to highlight the things that are not in this particular Budget, and the needs of our people out there in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I was talking about before the amendment was presented was roads. As I stated at that particular time, that was your ticket to the House of Assembly. If you got a fair amount of pavement, a fair amount of blacktop in your district, then you were coming back here to the House of Assembly. That was the way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Roger, did you copy that off me?

MR. FITZGERALD: I would never copy anything off you, I say to the Government House Leader.

That was your ticket here to the House, and in order for that to happen .... Many times the allotment of funds that was put forward was enough money to pave eight and ten kilometres but it was always stretched to pave fifteen to twenty kilometres. It was always stretched to the limit. Where you should have two inches of asphalt, you were probably left with an inch of asphalt or half an inch of asphalt. Where you should have upgraded the roads and put in culverts, that was all forgotten.

It was not uncommon to see a group of people in rural communities come out and gather around the asphalt spreader as it came in their community, if they were not getting the road done to their particular driveway or to their particular house, or through their town. That was a regular occurrence. When the asphalt crew would move in, the people would come out to find out how much road work was being done, how much pavement was being done, and if it was not to their liking they would gather around and picket the asphalt spreader, stop the construction crew from moving on, and in most cases they were successful.

A lot of the roads that were built were certainly inferior and not built to the specifications that we see roads constructed today. I would venture to say, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, that a bottle of rum may have gone a long ways back in those days in order to have your driveway paved, or a few feet of pavement put in somebody's driveway. Now we are paying the price.

A lot of those roads now have deteriorated to such a condition that it is almost better for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to send in the grader and take up the pavement. It is almost better for him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: In the community of Lethbridge, I say to the hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will make note (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You should make note because I brought it to your attention many times, but it seems that nobody is listening. We have had petitions. I have had letters from students attending school in Lethbridge.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know what the word on the street is, but I will tell you one thing: I am not hearing that the minister is a pretty good minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not?

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not hearing that in the particular area (inaudible), and it does not come from me, I say to the minister.

The minister who was very kind and responded to a condition in my district is the lady sitting behind the Premier's chair here today. I commend that lady, as a Minister of the Crown, who met with every member here and said: Where are your priorities? I commend the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: She is not a partisan person. She does what she was elected to do. She will come here and play her politics in this House, which is meant to happen, but after she leaves here she is the Minister of the Crown and a Minister of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I commend the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am serious. She responded to a need in the district, Mr. Speaker. She responded to a need whereby not only the parents but students as well who were travelling on the bus were complaining about not being able to eat their breakfast in the morning, not being able to eat and get aboard the bus and go over the bumpy road on the way to their school.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about school reform, and in school reform we are talking about closing schools, and we are talking about providing opportunities, I say to members opposite, for people to be able to attend school and have all the means of competing with their peers in other areas.

Somebody going to school down in King's Cove should have just as much opportunity as somebody attending school right here on the Prince Philip Parkway, I say to members opposite. If we are going to believe that, and that is what members opposite continue to preach, if we are going to really believe that, then we have to start paying attention not only to the number of computers that are in that particular school, not only to having it well maintained and making sure we have clean air - very, very important - but we have to take control and we have to be responsible for making sure that our students not only learn in a friendly environment but are able to be transported over a decent road in order to go to school.

Mr. Speaker, I have students in my district who probably travel from three-quarters of an hour to an hour on the bus. They have to get up in the morning at 6:30 to prepare for school. I do not hear them complaining about it. I do not hear them complaining about having to get up early, but I hear them complaining about the condition of the road that they have to drive over. I hear them complaining about the condition of some of the buses. I hear them complaining about a fourteen-year-old bus that has been taken from another province in this country that we call Canada, where everybody is supposed to be treated alike. I hear them complaining about having to get aboard a fourteen-year-old bus to take their children to school. That is what I hear.

How many people in this room drive a fourteen-year-old car? Not very many. How many people in this room drive a fourteen-year-old car?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: A fourteen-year-old Jaguar, I say to the minister, that is only used for a couple of months of the year, is not a prime example. I know what the minister drives. I walk by his house every day. How many people sitting in this Chamber would go and put their children aboard a fourteen-year-old car, five days a week, to make a jaunt to school? Not very many, Mr. Speaker. Still, that is what we are allowing to happen in this Province today. We are allowing our students to be - sixty-nine, seventy, seventy-two, whatever the bus can hold, pile them aboard. It does not matter what the road is like. We will beg to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and we will probably demonstrate. We will keep the children out of school for a couple of days. The problem never seems to get solved.

If we are serious in this House about attending to the needs of our students out there, if we are serious about allowing them to go into the classroom and arrive with a mentality that they can learn and they can absorb what is being taught, then that road from their driveway to their school is very important. It is not being done.

I have six schools in my district. We have three high schools and three elementary schools. In one elementary school that was built back in about 1965 or 1966, that school is in so bad a shape, the structure of the school is so bad, that the repairmen would not take a chance on crawling up underneath the school to attend to a problem they had there. You know what they had to do? This is no secret. I will tell you what the problem was. The problem was, the school was infested with rats!

What did they do? They put out the rat bait. They put out the Warfarin. That is the proper name for it. They put out the rat bait. All of a sudden there was an awful stench in the school, something smelled. We all know what it was, it was dead rats. The maintenance people from the school board were summoned then to attend to the problem. They decided they were going to look up underneath the school. That is where the smell was coming from. They followed their noses. The structure of that school was so bad they had to cut holes in the floor. They closed the school, they cut holes in the floor, and got down underneath the school in order to retrieve the dead rats.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was that?

MR. FITZGERALD: That was in Lethbridge, I say to members opposite, and it only happened last year. That school is still occupied. That is shameful, I say to members opposite, to allow that to happen in 1998 here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a shameful thing to happen. That is how bad the school is.

The high school in Musgravetown, in the Member for Terra Nova's district, although about thirteen or fourteen communities I represent attend the high school in Musgravetown, you go into that school today when it is raining and you cannot find a garbage container, you cannot find a wastepaper basket. It is not because they are not at the school; there are lots of them, an ample supply. When it rains they are all distributed over the school in order to catch the leaks coming from the roof. It was only the other day one of the schoolteachers told me that one large garbage bucket that holds fifteen gallons of water was dumped three times; filled, and dumped three times one day.

We are saying we expect the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to compete in that kind of an environment? Is that what we should be saying, that this Budget is such a wonderful document? Is it any wonder why we pass an amendment here of non-confidence in the Budget?

I fully realize we cannot go out and build all new schools, I fully realize we cannot go out and pave all of the streets, but I think we can attend to a lot of those needs.

I think back to the other day when the Minister of Justice was up and went on with what a wonderful Budget this was, what a wonderful document, how happy everybody would be, dancing in the streets. Wherever he was going to go in his boat he was going to take the document with him and shout it from the rooftop, the former Minister of Education who was reminded of this many times. If that makes him happy, to know that is happening in our Province today and we should be proud of it, I am not certain where he is coming from, not certain how in touch he is with the reality of it all.

That reminds me of the people we met up in Ottawa the other day. We heard a fellow get up and say: There are 100,000 jobs here in Toronto, and he did not say any more than that. It went without saying what he was referring to. What he meant was: Tell 100,000 of your people, or 20,000, to come on up here. We have a place where we can put them to work.

I was very quick to point out to him, Mr. Speaker, that moving to Toronto is not an alternative for a lot of people. Moving to Central Canada, when you have less than a Grade IX education, which 41 per cent of our people presently on the fisheries program have -fifty, fifty-five years old, have their worldly belongings right there in their homes which cost every dollar that they have made for the most part; well kept, well maintained. What is it worth? What is a house worth today down in Port Union? What is a house worth today down in Trepassey? Talk to people with $50,000 and $60,000 homes, selling them for $8,000.

So you are saying that I should go down and tell my people, or you should go down and tell yours, there is a job up in Toronto, boy, go there and take it. Mr. Speaker, it is not an option for a lot of those people, to board up their homes. That is what they would have to do. There is nobody rushing in to buy their property. There is nobody rushing in to rent their property.

If you are going to Toronto to go to work, the price you are going to have to pay for rent, board and lodging, is certainly going to be very expensive. You will not be able to keep the heat on in your house down in Duntara or Open Hall or Red Cliff. You will not be able to do that and afford to pay your $900 or $1000 rent up on O'Connor Drive somewhere. You will not be able to do that. You will have to board it up and move away. People do not understand that.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke the other day here in this House about a constituent of mine where I went one day to make a donation to the local fire department. I gave my credit card to buy gas. He looked down at the credit card and he looked up at me and said: I am sorry, I cannot use it - because I was trying to get it for a couple of weeks time - I am closing tonight. The bank is closing my business tonight, a business that I have been in since 1967, one of fifty-three businesses. He was number fifty-three in an area where the population, I suppose, of the three communities is about 2,000 people, Port Union, Catalina and Melrose. There are about 2,000 people there, maximum, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-three businesses have closed.

I talked to his neighbour today to enquire how he was doing. His conversation with me was: I do not know what is going to happen to me tomorrow. I have been in this business since 1967. It is the only job I know, it is the only business I have ever had. I have my car and my house up as collateral against this business. I have borrowed on it in order to keep it afloat hoping something better would happen. Mr. Speaker, I spoke to his neighbour today, I called him to see how he made out, to see what he was doing. His neighbour said: His car is gone. His wife's father who was living with him put into a home, put into Shirley's Haven down in Catalina, a beautiful home. He is going to be well cared for, I can guarantee you that. Mr. Speaker, that is what they had to do. He has gone to Toronto to look for a job, fifty-five years old, and she is trying to arrange to do something with her furniture - not a very nice way, I say to members opposite, to find yourself at that stage in life.

That is what it means out there today. The minister can say that we are not paving this road or we are not paving that road because it is a dying community, it is at the end of the line. No wonder it is at the end of the line.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Those are words from your people, I say to the Government House Leader. You know what I am talking about, you have them in your district. You have them in your district, the Member for Bonavista North. I know his district.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I know his district very well. There are a lot of good people there, there are a lot of sincere people and there are a lot of people there who get up every morning and go to work, but there are a lot more people there who would like to get up every morning and go to work.

I do not get any satisfaction from getting up in the morning and going to work and seeing my neighbour looking out the window with nowhere to go; I do not get any satisfaction from that, Mr. Speaker. I do not get any satisfaction from being able to go and take my wife out the odd time for supper and know that my next-door neighbour cannot do that; that does not give me any satisfaction whatsoever. One thing we have to remember is that we cannot go through this world alone, we have to help ourselves and we have to help those who are less fortunate. But, Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and that, is just one example. And as I tell it and as I say it, I am sure there are other members here who can relate to similar stories and probably tell stories that would have even a more negative sound to them.

Health care, Mr. Speaker, down in my district - and I will talk about my district because that is the one I know best, but I think it is representative of the whole area, all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There were always five doctors working out of the hospital, five physicians working out of the hospital, and there were two fee for service in private practice, that is seven, and there were two more in Catalina, that is nine, there was one in Trinity, is ten, and another one up in King's Cove, that is eleven. There were eleven doctors serving that particular area, and I am only talking about a few years ago - eleven doctors; right now, there is one doctor in Bonavista in private practice; two doctors in Catalina, one just returned to work but there was only one there for at least a year, there is nobody in Trinity, nobody in King's Cove and one doctor in the hospital in Bonavista, Mr. Speaker.

He just recently returned, he was there and because of the workload, because of the unfairness whereby he could not have time to spend with his family, he moved away, and you cannot blame him. After that, every time a doctor came to Bonavista, he came as a locum and every patient, every resident of the Golden Heights Manor, everybody who entered that hospital through Emergency, had to go and tell his story. You know, there is something about a doctor-patient relationship where people would like to be able to visit the same doctor on a regular basis; there is something about a doctor-patient relationship, Mr. Speaker, where you can go forward and the doctor will know who you are, why you are there that day, and with a brief question, will be able to respond and look after your needs. I tell you, it is not a very comfortable way or an assuring way for people in that particular area to find themselves.

That is not the exception to the rule, Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing on the Northern Peninsula, the same thing in most parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but, what did the government do? The government said: We have a problem here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a real problem with doctors serving out in rural areas and we have to do something. So they had this giant brain thrust and said what we are going to do is, we are going to cut back what doctors can charge in St. John's. What we are going to do, Mr. Speaker, is say that a doctor today practising in St. John's, we will only give him half of what he can charge on MCP, so what did they do? They drove them out of St. John's to the mainland; they drove them out of the Province altogether and this was the people over there, the decision-makers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

These are the people over there, Mr. Speaker, who say: Trust us, because we are doing the right things. Those are the people who go out and brag about the wonderful job they are doing. Shame! Shame, I say, to people opposite, Mr. Speaker.

There is nobody who expects anybody to solve all the problems of this Province. There is nobody who expects to solve the economy of this Province overnight but we can go out and listen to the people. We can listen to the stakeholders and respond to some of the needs. If you have a problem in health care, go out and talk to the people in health care. Talk to the doctors, talk to the nurses, talk to the janitors and they will tell you how you can save some money. You do not have to do it by laying people off. The mentality of this government today is that the only way to save money is to give somebody the pink slip - send them home.

MR. EFFORD: Are they Tories? They should go.

MR. FITZGERALD: It does not make any difference who they are, I say to the member opposite, because everybody's life is important. Every child and every senior in this Province today has a right to those services, whether he is a Tory or a Liberal and for the likes of you to sit over there and get on with that silliness, somebody will clean your whistle for you one of these days.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, but not you.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, because I would not waste my time on you. I would not waste my time with you but somebody will.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go getting mad.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: But, Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening in this Province today and as much as we disagree, as much as the need is, the least we can do is try to respond to the need.

I was talking to a gentleman the other day who told me he called somebody involved with the department, one of his co-workers was going to lose his job.

MR. SULLIVAN: And he accused you of playing politics.

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not pay much attention to what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture says. It is sad that nobody listens to him.

MR. SHELLEY: He is in the back where he should be now.

MR. EFFORD: I am a lot further than you will ever get.

MR. FITZGERALD: In the back - that is where he will end up, in the back of the bus, I say to people opposite. I believe he is afraid of the federal minister. He is afraid to take him on. He talks a lot around the little cliques here, in a little conversation here, but he will not approach the minister. He will not approach the minister because he is afraid. He is a loose cannon. The Premier had to rein him in the other day.

MR. SHELLEY: Rein in whom?

MR. FITZGERALD: Rein in the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He made some comments about a seal cull. It almost ruined the industry.

Mr. Speaker, what we have to start doing is listening to people out there directly involved in a particular occupation and not be afraid to ask their advice. We raised the questions here in the House of Assembly and when we raised them the first thing that members opposite shouted and said was, `You are being political.' So what are we doing here if we are not politicians? This is the place to be political. Then the member for - she talked about what an unfair thing to be playing politics. That is what this House is for, Mr. Speaker, this is politicians here asking the questions that need to be asked, bringing forward the points and if we do not do that then we are certainly not doing what people sent us here for. The Government House Leader knows that. The Government House Leader spent time in Opposition and he knows what it means to ask questions and bring forward -

MR. TULK: I did it better than you do.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe you did, I say to the Government House Leader, but you cannot blame a fellow for trying.

When you look at -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: A lot of difference now, I say to the minister, a lot of difference now. You soon forget your background. You soon forget where you came from. It is a situation where if we have a problem in health care, talk to the people involved in health care. If you have a problem in fisheries, talk to fishermen. If you have a problem in education, talk to the schoolteachers. That is not being done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the students.

MR. FITZGERALD: Talk to the students as well, absolutely, Sir.

I will just refer to a story whereby this gentlemen was involved with a government department and his colleague, his co-worker, was going to lose his job. He called his department head and said: How much money are you going to save by doing away with this particular job? I do not know what his salary was; it was something like $18,000 or $19,000. He said: I tell you what; if you want to come by and have a chat, I can show you how you can save twice that amount of money and you will not have to lay anybody off. You can continue keeping the man employed.

The department head would not even listen, was not interested in hearing it. He wanted to lay somebody off. That was the answer, to send somebody out the door.

Well, everybody we send out the door is somebody else who is not buying gasoline; it is somebody else who is not buying groceries; it is somebody else who is not going to their local convenience store; it is somebody else who is not paying taxes. That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker. Out-migration in this Province has never been greater.

I left this Province myself back in 1965, Mr. Speaker, and went away for eight years. While I was away it was always in my mind that I was coming back here. I wanted to come back. Every hour I was away I wanted to return to this Province. But I fear, Mr. Speaker, the people who are leaving this Province today are not coming back. The people who are leaving this Province today are our educated, our finest, our youngest. The people who are going to go out and buy shingles to shingle their house, or to build their house, buying furniture, buying supplies for the house, those are the people who are out spending their money on gasoline, buying new cars. But it is happening in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. It is not happening in this Province. It is not happening in this Province because I am not sure we are putting the effort into trying to keep our young people here.

Forty-one per cent of post-secondary graduates left this Province last year. Just imagine, 41 per cent. There is not one person here who does not know a neighbour who has a son or daughter in Alberta, or over in Korea, or down in Australia, or up in British Columbia, or in Toronto somewhere, working, and they are not coming back. Those people are different than when I left, Mr. Speaker. I left because I wanted to go. It was almost part of being a Newfoundlander, that you had to go and see how the other half of the world lived. Not today, Mr. Speaker. Those people are leaving today saddled in debt. They are the people who are creating opportunities in other provinces. They are not coming back here. By the very nature of that happening, rural Newfoundland and Labrador will die. It is shameful, and the haemorrhaging must stop. It must stop, and the only way we are going to do it is to reach out and talk to other people, listen to other people, because as much as we believe that we have all the answers, I am sorry but we do not. We do not have all the answers. The people we should be consulting are not being consulted.

If members opposite, or members on this side - I do not care who you are - think that you can become elected and sit in this House of Assembly and get lost in the crowd, and go back to your people again and they will send you back here, boy, you are in for a sudden surprise.

The Government House Leader smiles because he knows; he felt the wrath of turning his back on his people.

MR. TULK: They taught me some lesson.

MR. FITZGERALD: They have you taught you a lesson, you are right, and you have learned from it. The Government House Leader learned the wrath of it, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you the days are gone when you can go and do those kinds of things. The days are gone when you can drift away from your people and not go back until you knock on their doors again. Those days are gone. You could get away with it one time. There were no roads, the coastal boat would drop in to the odd community, you would show up and somebody would see you. There was no radio, Mr. Speaker. If there was, only a few people in the communities had them. You could be very quiet, you could get lost in the crowd. You could go back and because you were a Liberal or you were a Tory, whatever particular area you were from, you could probably get re-elected on the strength of that.

Mr. Speaker, when you go now, knock on people's doors and look them straight in the eye, I can tell you that they will size you up. You are going to have to put forward what you have done for them, where you were when they needed you. The day is gone when you could get elected on people's coat-tails.

Our municipalities, our local communities, are dying and the first thing the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs says is that we are going to bring forward a debt-relief program. It is a good idea, needs to be done, should be done, Mr. Speaker, but in order to access the debt-relief program you have to make an agreement that you are going to increase your taxes to certain levels in order to pay back the greater part of it.

How do you go to a community like Plate Cove West which has 35 per cent of its people moved to the mainland, with their houses boarded up, and tell them you are going to up their taxes another 50 per cent or another 60 per cent, when you cannot collect taxes now at the rate that is presently being levied? How do you tell somebody that? What sense does it make? I mean, if you cannot collect fifty dollars, how will you collect $100? That does not make sense. I do not know if there is anybody here who realizes, Mr. Speaker, or I should say who does not realize that simple statement, but still that is what is being done.

Communities today are out there turning off their street lights, doing away with their water supplies. Mr. Speaker, they cannot pay their debt to Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal financing. For the most part, they are willing to do away with some of those services, as long as you do not come, Mr. Minister, and tax us. There is very little sympathy shown, Mr. Speaker. We are living in very uncertain times.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are some positive things happening out there as well. I have an FPI plant in my district where Fishery Products International is presently spending $11 million. It is going to create probably 150, 160 jobs there. Somebody might say to me: Boy, you know, that is great. But how about the other 900 people who used to work there? My comment is, that that is 150 more than were there yesterday.

I do not believe that we are ever going back to the way we were, and I do not believe that we are ever going to see the numbers involved and employed in our fishery again, but I still believe that we are going to have a thriving fishery. In fact, we have it now; we have it right now. This particular industry is not dead by any stretch of the imagination. Certain sectors of it might be on life support but I can assure you that it is not dead and it is going to provide many opportunities for the rest of our people for years to come.

This particular employer, Mr. Speaker, is a good employer. Fishery Products International is a good employer. I worked for them myself for thirteen years and was proud every morning I woke up and went to work in the fish plant. I fed my children, educated them, clothed them, and I can relate to what some of those people are going through.

Mr. Speaker, $11 million - just down the street there is another new industry playing a big part there, Atlantic Marine Protein, a seal tannery. I went in there the other day and they were tanning seal skins, they were putting the meat through and they were processing the oil; 140 people working in a little plant. A local Newfoundlander went in there, bought the plant, spent some money to upgrade it, did the work and is now providing 140 jobs. That is positive. There should be more of it done. We should do more to try to get our local people doing those kinds of things, because I can assure you that there is nobody going down to Twillingate making cars, there is nobody going down to Bonavista making headlights for cars.

AN HON. MEMBER: There might be.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, there is not. Lets not even think about it. Be realistic. There is nobody going to those places, Mr. Speaker, making -

AN HON. MEMBER: Roger, the people in Pasadena are now making (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I know. There is nothing wrong with that, and we should try to get that, but I can assure you that there will be nobody going down there to set up (inaudible). I do not believe that. We have to be realistic, and there are things we can do. When you hear of someone setting up a factory to make rubber gloves, and someone making (inaudible) clamps, all realistic things, it can happen.

Mr. Speaker, tourism is another bright spot in my district. There has been a fair amount of money spent there already. It employs people. Here again, it is an opportunity. It is seasonal but it is an opportunity.

There is one story yet to be told in Port Union, the Coaker Premises, seeped in history. You go down there - and the Speaker knows it very well - you almost get goose pimples when you walk through the area, it is so full of history. There is a story there left to be told, and I think there is a opportunity there that will provide us with a chance for some people to be able to live there and maintain their families and maintain a home. Those are some of the things that are positive. You cannot be negative about everything. You have to speak positive when positive things are being done.

Mr. Speaker, government itself has to reach out to those communities. If it means guiding somebody, or taking them by the hand and leading them in order to get them involved and promoted, then that is what has to be done.

Let me return to education for one brief second again. That is where we are going now, taking our people out and entering into a three-year and two-year agreement through HRD and dropping them off, some of them half-way through a course, and saying: I am sorry, your funding has run out. Yes, you have done very well; yes, you have progressed, but we cannot support you any more.

What we have to start doing is taking those people one step further. Not only should we be sponsoring them - and what is wrong with somebody who is getting unemployment insurance, if they decide that they want to do to school? What is wrong with that? What is wrong with attending school and receiving unemployment insurance? Why should you have to go and beg for someone to allow you to do that? That is what you have to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I have not eaten yet today because I have been all geared up for this. I have many points. I took my seal oil capsule. I take one every day.

Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is take people one step further. Instead of dropping them off, allow them to go to university, or allow them to go and draw their EI while they are attending a post-secondary institution or doing ABE.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FITZGERALD: Anybody, if they are on unemployment insurance. Why not? Why maintain the stupid regulation that you have to sit at home and you cannot do anything because you are receiving EI?

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberals or Tories?

MR. FITZGERALD: It was the Liberals who brought it in. I do not know how many are doing it. I guess they are both doing it.

Mr. Speaker, then what we have to do - we have gone and trained people. How many carpenters have we trained? How many heavy equipment operators have we trained? But we have dropped them off. Gone are the days when you can go to school and get your Grade XII, or your Grade XI, and come out and be ready for the workforce. It does not happen that way any more. Let us take them a step further and let us provide subsidization while they are on-the-job training. Encourage some employer to help them along the way. Then, when someone goes knocking on doors, instead of going and looking for a job with no experience, you are going and looking for a job with six or eight months' experience.

You go out today and many of our Newfoundlanders, especially a lot of our TAGS people, being the mechanically-minded people they are, they wanted to go out and do heavy equipment courses. They did their heavy equipment courses, but when they graduated they found out there were not any jobs there because they had no experience. You cannot blame the person who is doing the hiring. If he can hire experienced people, that is who he is going to look for. Because he probably has a $100,000 rig that he does not want to give to anybody unless he knows they can do the job. What an ideal way to sponsor that individual while he is training for six months. I can guarantee you one thing, a lot of them will find themselves continuing to work. A lot of them, Mr. Speaker, would not need to go back and draw unemployment insurance or look for any other hand-out from government after that was done.

Payroll tax: Who ever heard of a province, with about 40 per cent unemployment, charging a tax to employers that pay people and hire people? Now who ever heard of that? Just stop and think about it. I would suggest that we probably have at least 40 per cent unemployment here in this Province. We always hear tell of the 20 per cent unemployed. Well, I can tell you that we probably have 50 per cent less than twenty-five years old working. What government should start doing is releasing the employment figures, not the unemployment figures. If the employment figures of this Province were ever published you would hang your head in shame by the mere fact of supporting a payroll tax. I mean, just stop and think about it, a tax on jobs. I know an employer in my hometown who has laid people off when he reached a certain point there of paying people because he did not want to pay the tax, and you cannot blame him. That is survival. A payroll tax - who ever heard tell of a tax on jobs with 40 per cent unemployment? This is something that has to change.

Boys, I am going to tell you if you do not start listening and if you do not start consulting people out there, what you saw there today, that demonstration, that is going to be nothing to what you are going to see.

AN HON. MEMBER: That demonstration has nothing to do with us.

MR. FITZGERALD: What do you mean, it has nothing to do with us? Those are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out making their voices heard. Nothing to do with you! Why are you here? So Newfoundlanders, no matter what their problem is, it is either Ottawa's problem or somebody else's. (Inaudible) some responsibility, boy! It is all of our problem. Ottawa is responsible for providing funding. There is nobody going to argue against that but I can tell you one thing, it is our problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: If you do not hear from them, they can wear the same cap that I just put forward earlier. I said that already. Mr. Speaker, those are the things that we have to get away from, `... it is not our problem.' How can somebody say - if somebody calls you with an unemployment insurance problem, do you tell them it is not your problem, call somebody else? If somebody calls you regarding Canada Pension, old age assistance, it is not your problem? Boy, you do not do much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is right, because you know it is your problem. Mr. Speaker, he said something that he should not have said and he regrets it. I understand that. I will leave it at that. He spoke out of line. He said something that he regrets and I accept that. I mean, we all make mistakes. I accept your apology because it is our problem. We should always be mindful of that, that if it is negative -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The government represents Newfoundland and Labrador. Is there another provincial government in this Province? He said it is Newfoundland and Labrador's problem but it is not this government's problem. Mr. Speaker, it is the problem of all of us.

I do not get any satisfaction out of standing in this House asking the minister questions regarding something that is negative. The minister does not get any satisfaction standing and giving answers when he knows that the control is somewhere else. I understand all that. We have to be very vigilant. If we do not have representatives up in Ottawa who are taking the case of our people forward, then we have to do that kind of thing ourselves. I can assure you that I will do it. I will raise the concerns that are brought to my attention in this House, and I will raise them at every opportunity and in every forum that is provided to me, because it is important.

We have to approach and proceed in as strong and forceful a way as possible in order to provide some opportunities for our people. I remember asking questions in this House about Hibernia when Hibernia was on the go. What I mean by Hibernia on the go, I mean the construction of Hibernia. I talked about this one particular company that was there that brought in workers from other areas. Kenonic Controls brought in workers from Alberta. In the meantime, we had our own people here, trained, who could do that type of work - very skilled work. But we have skilled tradesmen and skilled craftsmen who travel all over the world providing their skills and expertise.

I remember raising the question here. The minister's response was: What are you talking about, boy? We have 6,000 people working out there. What is wrong with you? You are not satisfied? No, Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied. As long as there is one Newfoundlander unemployed, as long as there is one person who can do a job and we select somebody from outside this Province, rather than that person, then I am not satisfied. That is what is happening.

We saw Marine Atlantic the other day - the same situation, a prime example: threw us a pittance, Mr. Speaker, and asked: What are you complaining about? You are getting five jobs, you do not need fifteen, we do not want to live in Newfoundland, I do not care if it is a Newfoundland service or not, be happy with what you have. That is not the way it should be.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, talks about George Baker being wrong when he talked about foreign fishing, that it will not open all our fish plants.

MR. EFFORD: He was wrong.

MR. FITZGERALD: It will not. I agree with the minister, it will not open all our fish plants, but if it creates one job, minister, if we can get one fish plant worker, if we can have one plant open then, boy, it is worthwhile, because what it means, it is the survival of another community, that means the survival of another family; it means somebody, a local person will be able to live here in this Province, live and prosper in a place in a Province that he holds dear. And that is what is important and that is why I cannot understand people willing to accept part of something when we could be getting so much more.

We can talk about all the mistakes that were made in the past, Mr. Speaker, but I will not even go back to that. Those days that the mistakes were made, we should learn from them and move forward. Both Parties, Mr. Speaker, have made mistakes and will continue to make them, but we should never be afraid of making a decision or never be afraid of taking a chance if we check it out and if it is going to be positive for our people. Let us not be paranoid, let us not be afraid to go the extra step to help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Boys, if they are not here, I can assure you, that you, will not be there.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit down and debate in the Budget Speech unless I refer to Government House. I must refer to Government House, the cost and the waste of money in maintaining Government House; $500,000 a year, no disrespect for the Lieutenant-Governor, a fine man, a Bonavista Bay man; no disrespect, Mr. Speaker, but, do we need a Lieutenant-Governor? We can argue that all day whether we need a Lieutenant-Governor or whether we do not, but I can tell you one thing that if -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You mean to tell me the Lieutenant-Governor's House is not in the document, not in the Budget Speech, not in the Budget? The cost, Mr. Speaker, $500,000, 13 jobs. Somebody said: What, are you against lay-offs? She said you were not against layoffs. Well, you give me $500,000 and I will hire a lot more than 13 people, Mr. Speaker. And if we need a Lieutenant-Governor, then that is fair enough. But let us put him in a suite of offices here in this building, or somewhere else where we are either holding space or leasing space. Let us do that, Mr. Speaker, like they do in provinces that are much, much wealthier than we are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Alberta.

MR. FITZGERALD: Alberta, Ontario, Mr. Speaker. If the Lieutenant-Governor wants to have an office, then he should have one, he should be provided with that. But we do not need to maintain the big residence down on Military Road. It does not need to be done, we cannot afford it. If we are going to cut back, and lay people off, Mr. Speaker, than this is one place that we can start looking. It is one place where we can save some money and we will not hurt anybody. If you want a place, Mr. Speaker, to put your archives, or if you want a place for an art gallery, a museum, there it is.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, right here, worked at Government House at one time and he was relating a story to me when he was a student. He would be out cutting the grass. He is not a bad looking fellow now, and I think he dressed pretty well when he was growing up and he was not an insult to anybody. I think I would proud to meet him. But when there was a function on the go at Government House, they hid him away. They used to take him and hide him away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: My colleague, my seat mate here was told to go in through that door and stay there until those people leave. Our own Newfoundlanders, boys, our own Newfoundlanders. I do not know what you think about that, but that is what happened. They were `plips', attending to their work, Mr. Speaker, but when somebody came to visit they were told to hide away. We do not want you seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is another reason, Mr. Speaker, why we should do away with the cost associated with Government House. If we need a Lieutenant-Governor - and I understand that we, as a Province, cannot say that we are going to do away with the Lieutenant-Governor; that has to be done again by a federal consensus of so many Provinces. But, Mr. Speaker, one thing we can do, it is within our power to do away with Government House. We can do that, and we can put the Lieutenant-Governor up in an office complex here, I do not care which floor it is. The duties can be carried out. And the member can buy his house. I understand he lives in a big house now. He can buy a bigger one. He will have another big house.

We can put it on the market. We can either sell it or we can (inaudible). All I hear is about the beautiful grounds that are - and the grounds are beautiful, there is no doubt about that. They are nice grounds and it is a nice building, but there are other things we can do, and there are other things today that we can spend our money much more wisely on than providing the Lieutenant-Governor with a mansion to live in.

Those were good when the good old days were here and we were spending the money, right? When we were spending the money and the helicopters were going, and the fishing trips were on the go. The good old days - nothing wrong with them. We are paying for them now, boys, and the price has been very great, greater than any of us care to talk about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: Do you want me to finish it up, just for another four minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave for three or four minutes?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I will adjourn debate. Just give me a couple of minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about things that are happening down the road in ten years time. I will support anybody who is doing something positive in this Province. I will support the members opposite, I will support the government, on whatever they do that is positive for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I will tell you, things that we hear announced - the Lower Churchill, very important, needs to be done; Voisey's Bay, got to have it - everybody will support the Premier and government on those types of projects because I am sure they are positive for this Province. Everybody will support them.

What we need is something today. We need something now. A better tomorrow has to be turned into a better today. People are getting fed up with waiting for tomorrow. They are finding their children are leaving, they are finding themselves having to leave this Province, not being able to work, having to go and access government programs and other forms of income which they do not want to be a part of. They want to work.

We do not want Eugene Harrigan or anybody else coming here and telling us we are good honest people and we need to work. We do not need that; that goes without saying. We know that, we know who we are, we know who we represent -

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, withdraw leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: - and I plead with the government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's leave has been withdrawn.

MR. FITZGERALD: I plead with the minister to speak up and speak out. Thank you.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2;00 p.m., at which time we will be back to hear from -before I do that, tomorrow, Tuesday, April 28, the Social Services Estimates Committee will review the Estimates of the Department of Environment and Labour at 7:00 p.m. in room 5083. Where is that, in the University somewhere?

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House stand adjourned until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

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