May 14, 1999             HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                Vol. XLIV  No. 24


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I stand today to call on the Member for Ferryland to publicly apologize to the residents, staff and board members of the Hoyles Escasoni long-term care facility and to retract insulting remarks he made in the media about poor quality care at Hoyles Escasoni as compared with other privately run facilities.

It is bad enough that he released a draft report described as a work in progress by the CEO of the St. John's Nursing Home Board without even letting them know or discussing it with them. I think it just shows, as he has shown so often, his lack of respect for the boards, its volunteers and staff.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Someone has him on the run, Mr. Speaker.

The member crossed the line when he suggested that a work of a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse at a publicly funded facility does not compare to that of a registered nurse or licensed practical nurse at a private facility. The Member for Ferryland insulted the integrity of the health professionals and board members at Hoyles Escasoni when he publicly criticized the quality of care provided to 400 residents by 700 staff, compared to that being provided at privately run facilities in the City. He publicly insulted the residents, staff and management. Now he should do the right thing, he should publicly apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Chief Executive Officer of the St. John's Nursing Home Board has also expressed concern about the unauthorized release of the draft document on the Organizational Analysis of the Nursing Homes in the Region. Mr. Allan Bradley, the board CEO, said the release of the document by the member opposite was "regrettable" and served no purpose because the report is still very much in draft form. He said it has undergone significant revision and has not yet been shared with staff.

Mr. Bradley went on to say, "The Board is concerned that Mr. Sullivan has chosen to take much of the information out of context" - which is quite unusual for Mr. Sullivan - and "that in particular, he has taken statements contained in the report to cast the Hoyles Escasoni Complex in a very negative light." The St. John's Nursing Home Board said it takes great exception to some of the comments made by Mr. Sullivan that have reflected poorly on the quality of care and service provided at the Hoyles Escasoni Complex. They said caring and dedicated staff at the Complex have been done a great injustice by these comments.

Mr. Bradley also pointed out that Mr. Sullivan chose to highlight findings from the draft that he might have termed negative. In fact, he continued, there had been many areas where progress has been made, of which Mr. Sullivan is probably not aware.

I have learned - and I think this speaks volumes - that the member opposite, the Member for Ferryland, tried to quietly apologize to select people at the facility but that staff, residents and family members were incensed at his remarks and his apology was not accepted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Really.

He made his statements publicly and he should -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Members opposite are laughing, but I think it is very serious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Let the record show, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite are laughing.

He made his statement publicly and he should apologize publicly to the 700 staff and to the 400 residents who call Hoyles Escasoni their home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Member for Ferryland showed no regard whatsoever for the work of the people who take care of our older persons and shows an obvious lack of understanding about the long-term health care system. I have been told that residents and their family members are feeling quite hurt by the member's remarks. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the Opposition critic to challenge government every day, but to insult the staff and the board members has to be disheartening to a group of people who I am sure are doing the best they can to care for our seniors.

It is typical of the member opposite to try to make political points for his own benefit but he should be ashamed for trying to do so at the expense of staff and residents. It is time he realized that health is just too important for this type of behaviour.

I call upon him to do the right thing, to publicly retract his statements and to publicly apologize. I regret he is not here today nor yesterday, but I think it is important enough, wherever he is, that he should come forward and publicly apologize to the staff, to the residents and the board of Hoyles Escasoni, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I respond this morning on behalf of my colleague. How ridiculous this is here today. First of all, it is a personal attack on the member, it is accusations about the member, and the member is not even here. I will tell the minister that the member is out on personal family business today. She should at least have had the decency to wait till he is in his seat. He is quite capable of responding and he will respond, I am sure, when he gets back. I am still staying with this view, that it was a ridiculous statement today. It should not have been brought to this House of Assembly. Some due process should have taken place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a rather surprising ministerial statement. Obviously, members of this House have the right to bring forth public criticism of public institutions. We do have a health care system that is publicly funded, that is supposed to be open to public scrutiny. If members go too far, that is up to them to deal with that.

I want to say that we all have a very grave concern about ensuring that our public health care system is maintained as a public system, publicly funded, and not marginalized and privatized like the home care system has been done by this government, putting the situation in a way outside of the control of the government.

I have the greatest respect for the staff and management of the Hoyles Escasoni Complex. I think they do run a fine institution. They should be supported and given all the support that this government should give to ensure that it is and continues to be a first rate health care system. If there are problems that are fixing to resolve, and if members of this House can help to resolve that, then that is a good thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the school construction and renovation plans to which the Department of Education made a three-year commitment of $50 million in 1998-1999 and another $75 million in 1999-2000, announced in December, are progressing well.

New schools have been constructed and renovations have recently been completed throughout the Province. For example, students moved into new, state-of-the-art schools in Hopedale and Rigolet recently and the Premier will attend their official opening next week. In these two communities, for the first time students will have access to physical education programs and extracurricular sports in their own gymnasiums. These new facilities are already being used extensively by community groups as well. Also, students are enjoying the recent completion of renovations and extensions in Davis Inlet and Grandy's River. Students will move into their new school in St. Mary's in September. Plans are actively under way for new construction or renovations of schools this summer in Nain, Buchans, Picadilly, Gaultois, St. George's, Blaketown, Clarenville, Plum Point, Upper Ferry, Gambo, and Wesleyville. Design work and site planning continues for the construction of new schools in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Roddickton-Englee, Burgeo, New World Island, Lethbridge-Musgravetown, Arnold's Cove, Old Perlican, and Pouch Cove-Flatrock.

Of the $50 million committed last year, over $29 million has already been spent and the remainder of the work will be completed, and money expended, this year.

Of the $75 million, $21 million will be spent this year and the remainder will be expended as the construction is completed over the next two years. Plans call for all of these new schools to be completed by September 2001. If we are fortunate to have milder winters, this will allow for faster construction time and we may see the projects completed even sooner.

The benefits to our Province's education system are clear. Better schools enable teachers and students to access new technology and learning techniques that may not have been possible in an older facility.

However, another beneficiary of the school construction and renovation plan is the construction industry. This directly translates into jobs in the communities where construction and renovations are taking place, and is of direct benefit to the local economy.

Mr. Speaker, the progress to date clearly indicates this government's commitment to the delivery of a quality education to the children of this Province. We are committed to schools that are maintained at the highest standard possible, staffed with qualified teachers and equipped with the most modern technology and teaching aids, so that our children can access courses and programs that will ensure that our graduates are able to compete with students throughout the world for places in post-secondary institutions and the work place of the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for sending along the Ministerial Statement - be it ten minutes before it came down - but again the report of school construction and renovations certainly is common knowledge. It has already been released.

First of all, it is good to see that you are concentrating on adding gyms and making sure that gyms are attached to buildings, that technology rooms are there, that the curriculum is going to be able to be taught in these new schools; but the question that I would have to ask, in light of the information that I am getting around the Province, I am wondering if these buildings are going to be staffed adequately enough to make sure that these programs do get carried out.

As well, there are areas, I think, of St. Augustine's here in St. John's where children are in a desperate state. They are in a school that certainly needs to be addressed. Again, we cannot have enough of school construction to cater to the reform needs and I would wish that we could action all of the needs at this particular time so that we can move forward in reform.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are delighted that the government has moved quickly on the construction project announced last year, particularly in areas where new schools have been very, very necessary and long overdue - in Hopedale and Rigolet in particular.

The school in Pouch Cove and Flatrock - it is interesting. Some people have been fighting for this school for ten, twelve, fourteen years, and for a long time there was not very much money for school construction until the school reform issues were sorted out. Now that has happened, we are delighted that construction is taking place; however, the big issue of today in education is not school construction but in fact what is going to go on in the classroom, and are we going to have the full benefits of school reform? Is there going to be progress? There is a lot of doubt about that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: There is a lot of doubt about that in this Province today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to update Members of the House of Assembly on the significant offshore drilling activity that is taking place in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of building a vibrant petroleum industry in this Province. There is a strong confidence and long-term commitment from industry for offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador, making our Province a national and international contender in the oil and gas industry.

Since 1995, Mr. Speaker, the call for bids in our offshore area has resulted in approximately $500 million in exploration commitments, not including the call for bids for this current year. This has been achieved by making less than 5 per cent of the total lands available for bids to this point in time. We remain confident that this year's call for bids of ten land parcels totalling 1.3 million hectares will attract high interest for exploration again in this Province.

We currently have five rigs operating in Newfoundland and Labrador. Two development wells - an oil producer well and a gas injector well - are currently being drilled on the Hibernia field. The Hibernia field is currently producing just about 135,000 barrels of oil per day from its five production wells.

The Petro-Canada, Mobil, Chevron, and Norsk Hydro Consortium have drilled three wells to date, using the Glomar Grand Banks semi-submersible drilling rig, and operations recently got underway at a fourth location.

The first well, a successful delineation well on the Hebron field, encountered a very thick oil-bearing reservoir that flow-tested 3,500 barrels of 21 degree API oil per day. A second well, an exploratory well on the South Nautilus field, has penetrated oil-bearing sandstones and a third delineation well located at Ben-Nevis was recently completed. To date, no further details on these last two wells have been released to the public.

Recently, it was announced that the glory hole dredging program at Terra Nova has commenced. Development drilling at the Terra Nova field is expected to begin once the first glory hole has been completed. Activity continues to mount in offshore Newfoundland. On May 12 of this year, the Glomar Grand Banks spudded an exploratory well at a site known as Brent's Cove. This well is located five kilometres northwest of the Terra Nova field and will take about forty-five days to drill.

Husky Oil, the operator of the White Rose field, is also initiating a major multi-well delineation program. As of this April, the Bill Shoemaker rig spudded a delineation well that will take approximately ninety days to complete. The rig will also drill a second delineation well at a location to be determined after assessments of results from the first well are complete.

PanCanadian, another company, and its partners also spudded an onshore to offshore well in February at Shoal Point on the Port au Port Peninsula. Drilling operations are ongoing at this location.

Officials from the Department of Mines and Energy are currently reviewing an application by Vulcan Minerals, a Newfoundland-based company, seeking approval to drill an exploration well in the Flat Bay area of western Newfoundland as well.

I am also pleased to inform the House that we expect to have up to five seismic vessels operating in our offshore area this season. We expect to see at least as much seismic activity as last year and perhaps even more. Last year, 70,000 line kilometres of seismic activity was completed, which was the most in history.

There has been a tremendous amount of exploration leading to significant expenditures in our onshore and offshore exploration activity, but this is just the beginning. As I indicated, less than 5 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore area is currently subject to licenses, and we believe there are still large areas remaining in our offshore that will be of interest to industry. We have already seen the interest in our offshore expand beyond the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, our most prolific basin to date. With so much left to explore, we are only just beginning to reap the benefits of an industry that is a strong contributor to the economy and the people of this Province. Newfoundland and Labrador is expected to produce up to 400,000 barrels of light crude oil per day by 2004. This will then represent one-third of all the light crude being produced in all of Canada.

To end of 1998, total industry expenditures in this area have been $10.8 billion, which has resulted in significant benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador, and Newfoundland and Labrador-based companies. We look forward to continuing positive developments in this sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy. The statement I feel is important, because it does provide the people of this Province with an update on offshore drilling activity.

It is interesting to note that in a report that was prepared for NOIA, the executive summary of that report states many of the benefits, I guess, that we provide in this region of the world with respect to offshore activity. I would just like to mention just some of these.

The executive summary states, in part, "This region attracts investment because it offers several critical advantages for petroleum play. East Coast Canada's strong reserve potential provides an excellent hunting ground; its large potentially

hydrocarbon-bearing structures remain virtually unexplored;..."

"A growing infrastructure base complemented by an extremely versatile marine heritage allows for local supply of an expanding range of products and services. Coupled with ongoing improvements to offshore technology, this significantly increases the economic viability of regional projects and sharpens regional industry's competitive advantage. Finally, its geographical proximity to both North America and Europe afford relatively easy access (by cost-effective marine transport) to two of the largest markets in the world."

It is important that as this very important industry to our Province continues to grow and prosper, that members opposite and indeed any government be mindful of the provisions of arrangements entered into between our federal counterparts and this Province with respect to the benefits to each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian and indeed, from a royalty and a taxation point of view, to the Province generally.

In conclusion, I would like to state that the minister indicates that to the end of 1998 total industry expenditures were $10.8 billion, which resulted in significant benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador companies. Maybe at a later date the minister can provide an update by way of Ministerial Statement, if he chooses, to perhaps be more particular and more detailed into the exact benefits that we see as a result of the exploration on our offshore.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for updating the House on these important developments; however, what we see happening really is a response of the industry to the fact that in Western Canada the oil reserves are going way, way down and this is the next level of exploration and the next most important field for the oil companies to ensure that Canada continues to play a significant role in the provision of oil.

The real challenge, however, is what benefits are going to be given to this Province and its people as a result of this tremendous resource that we, after all, brought into Confederation. The real challenge is between perhaps St. John's and Halifax in ensuring that St. John's becomes the focal point of operations of the East Coast.

Perhaps the Premier can give us an update on what progress in being made in ensuring that we here in this Province are in fact the focal point, the headquarters of operations for these oil companies exploring our resources, and ensuring that our companies, whether they be providing direct services or ancillary services, are the ones to benefit and our people will be the major beneficiaries of our resource off our shores.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like rise and bring the House an update on the negotiations on a Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract between Hydro-Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and, in fact, between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Earlier in the week questions were raised by the Member for St. John's East who asked for an update, which I gave at that time. I am pleased, at the end of the week, to now confirm that in fact a Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract has now been reached.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the agreement which has been reached and negotiated will be put before the boards of both utilities, hopefully within a week. We tentatively hope for around the 20th as a date for consideration, and approved by both Cabinets, we hope, at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I will await approval by the boards before going into greater detail but I can report at this time that the consequence of putting in place a Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract - something which has been attempted by successive administrations, quite properly, in this place - will flow from that agreement alone an additional $1 billion of revenues to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over the course of the existing contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as part of this arrangement the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in its negotiations, has secured a guaranteed access to the Twin Co. block of power currently used to fire industry in Labrador West - I know the Member for Labrador West would be interested in this - forever. Under the current contract arrangements, under current language, when the contract now in place expires, that block would have reverted to Hydro-Quebec. That is the language of the contract.

Mr. Speaker, we have added two new provisions: One, the block reverts to CF(L)Co, which is owned 65 per cent by Newfoundland and Labrador; and, two, the block must always, by contract obligation, be available for the people and industry in Labrador West and Labrador (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the GWAC agreement which will be finalized, as I said, within the next week, together with the 127 megawatt recall which we initiated last March, have together flowed from the existing Upper Churchill contract, before any negotiation is completed on the Lower Churchill development, another $1.6 billion to the revenues of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, negotiations on the MOU continue. As I said earlier in the week, in response to a question from the Member for St. John's East, I don't expect those will close in the days or weeks ahead but I do expect they will close and conclude perhaps during the summer. I hope it would be July, or early August at the latest.

Mr. Speaker, I think an indication of the good faith of these negotiations, although difficult work remains to be done, is we have just been given notice that the Minister of Environment in the Province of Quebec has laid before the Legislature in Quebec, notice that the Province of Quebec will amend its own environment act, an act which requires that all projects in Quebec be reviewed by the Quebec Environment Act.

Such amendment gives the minister in the Province of Quebec the authority to negotiate a single environmental assessment process under federal legislation to expedite and facilitate, in an efficient way, environmental review of the Lower Churchill project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is something that Newfoundland and Labrador has asked for in a practical and pragmatic way, as it is not likely to be efficient to have a Quebec environmental review, a Newfoundland and Labrador environmental review, a federal environmental review.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge, in particular given that we are dealing with a sovereignist government, the serious nature of the Government of Quebec's consideration of this issue, that it is prepared to put aside sovereignist so-called considerations for a pragmatic and practical approach to a commonsense negotiation and a commonsense solution to the question, the difficult question, of environmental review.

I would simply close by saying that I think it is the intention of all parties that should a single environmental review proceed, it would proceed with the knowledge of, with the collaboration of, and with the partnership of, Aboriginal peoples in Labrador and in the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, that is my statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for providing an update so quickly after questions were raised only earlier this week on such an intricate agreement and, of course, such technical documentation. Of course, all parties will have to wait and see the details and the intricacies with respect to this agreement and indeed the benefits that may accrue to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am somewhat surprised though that the Premier has indicated there now will be an attempt to consolidate the process with respect to environmental review. A process such as that requires, in my view, very close scrutiny.

Our act is designed to ensure that the people of this Province are protected. One must be very cautious, I would say, before there is just a granting of a sharing of jurisdiction in any way with respect to environmental protection. So we await, Mr. Speaker, to see exactly the details and the intricacies, not only to the agreement, but in addition to proposed legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly the Premier's announcement of the final contractual conclusion of the winter availability portion of the contract is very welcome. I will inject a note of caution, however. It is certainly very attractive to see the upfront benefits and see them nailed down the way that they have. The Twin Falls power issue is also quite an attractive feature.

Although, a contract is a two-way agreement. You make an agreement: you give something away, you get something, you make a deal. The Province of Quebec has not been known to give too many things away, so we have to have a look at the details and see what the arrangements are. Obviously there is a quid pro quo. We get a contract: we get this, they get that. So let's look at the whole deal. Obviously we have heard the most attractive parts today. We probably ought to hear all the considerations involved before we pass final judgement.

It certainly sounds very attractive. I will grant the Premier this, that he certainly make it sound very attractive. We look forward to seeing the full details.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the House of Assembly of some changes with respect to this year's recreational salmon angling season. As my hon. colleagues are aware, this government introduced a two-year experiment in 1997 by issuing a requirement for a river specific licence for the Gander River.

The trial was initiated for two reasons. First, to determine the acceptability of such a licence by the general public as a means of generating revenue that could be used to fund river specific, enhanced salmon management. The second reason was to improve the information received from the licence stub returned to allow us to move toward river specific management.

Further, a preliminary technical evaluation has concluded that the river specific licence has not, to date, provided significantly improved data to justify its continuance.

In light of these two findings, I am announcing for the 1999 salmon angling season that there will be no river specific licence requirements, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Anglers will be allowed to fish on any river within the Province that is opened to angling with a regular provincial salmon licence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, while there will be no river specific licences, we remain committed to implementing river specific management measures wherever possible. By doing so, we want to ensure the conservation of specific stocks while allowing our anglers the greatest access to the resource possible within the bounds of conservation.

We have the most publicly accessible rivers in North America. We have worked closely with our federal colleagues in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that this year's salmon management achieves those objectives and moves us along the path toward river specific management.

In closing, I would like to extend my appreciation to the various volunteer organizations which have dedicated themselves to sustaining our provincial watersheds. I would like to thank the Gander River Management Association for their assistance with the pilot licence program and their advice to both levels of government. It is appreciated and will continue. As the House is aware, a Committee to address Outdoor Issues was formed this past year and held numerous public consultations on wide variety of issues. The Committee took advantage of this process to evaluate the first objective of this experiment. Based on the input the Committee received, it is their opinion that, while the anglers of their Province are supportive of river specific management, they are not in favour of river specific licences as a mechanism to support this.

I would like to encourage the public of our Province to try the angling experience of our salmon rivers. We have 60 per cent of Atlantic salmon rivers in North American.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his ministerial statement. I thank the minister for listening to the residents, especially the salmon anglers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the message they brought forward to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal when he travelled across the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister heard it loud and clear. I know at the meeting I attended in Clarenville, where many people came forward, they regretted seeing - because they looked at it as river privatization. They looked at it as not only the father being able to go salmon fishing, but many times the father takes the sons with them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: The daughters also, I say, with them.

Mr. Speaker, while we look it as $10 extra is not a lot of money, a lot of people realize that $20 or $30 is a lot of money. While we should realize the benefits that our salmon rivers offer for our tourists, and the new money it generates, I say to the minister we should also be ever mindful of the fact that there are one hundred commercial salmon fishermen out there as well who would like to be able to go and set their nets again, and enjoy making a few dollars to put bread and butter on the table.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Let us look at both sides of the salmon fishery when we start implementing new rules and regulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement in advance. As the minister indicated, we do have the most publicly accessible waters in the world. I think it is important that we keep it that way, and that is clearly what the public of this Province wants to see maintained.

I think with the river specific license, a lot of people had concerns that that was probably a first step towards privatization. Clearly the people of this Province react negatively towards any indication of privatizing the waterways of this Province. It is something that we as a population have enjoyed throughout the generations, and hopefully will continue to enjoy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education. Since our committee did indeed hit the road, we have been going around from place to place with a commitment to bring back to this House the concerns of the stakeholders in education in this Province.

As we moved around to ascertain the affects teacher cuts are having on our school programs, we have heard very troubling stories. Parents, school administrators, teachers, and school councils have expressed their disgust that this government has forced them to prove that there are problems in the system, and that these problems are very real.

Minister, why is it necessary for school councils to take out full-page ads in their local papers to show you that children are losing school programs?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question. Let me say again, as I have said for the past two weeks, that I am listening. I am listening to parents, I am listening -

AN HON. MEMBER: You did a great job on CBC last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: I am listening to parents, students, teachers and principals. In fact, I have had some excellent correspondence from some principals in the system, principals who have taken the time to write me with very valid reasons as to why we should consider allocating back some additional units. I say "additional," because we have already put back 236 at a cost of $11.4 million, as you know.

Mr. Speaker, these principals have come forward with some very thoughtful suggestions and they will be taken into consideration when we look at the entire picture for the Province, as to what impact the reduction of 182 teachers may have throughout the system.

As the Premier has said repeatedly, our concern clearly at this point is for any impact in rural Newfoundland that would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education that our students are getting.

We have a particular concern for rural Newfoundland because in a lot of cases the boards have consolidated to the extent that they can. While we have a declining student enrolment out there, it is very difficult sometimes to be able to apply an allocation of teachers based on student enrolment; which is precisely why we did not do that this time around. In fact, we chose to ignore the fact that we had a 4 per cent decline in our student population this year, as we have had for several years and will continue to have well into the future.

We are being very thoughtful in our approach, we are being very considerate in our approach, and we are indeed listening - listening to parents, listening to the students, listening to teachers, listening to principals, listening to education directors of the various boards throughout the Province, because we want to hear what those concerns are. Where there are legitimate concerns - again, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat - we will address them by putting additional teaching units back into the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustration of parents and students who are saying that the minister is not listening. She did not hear my question, and I am only this distance away from her. I tell you that if you are not going to listen, maybe you will look.

The Grand Falls-Windsor School Council Action Committee took out a full-page ad in the Advertiser to prove to this government that their schools are confronted with major problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Why, Minister, does the Grand Falls Academy Primary have a 600,000 gymnasium with the possibility of no gym teacher? Why is it that the school has plenty of computers but no technology teacher, Minister?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the questions that the hon. member is asking, I would ask the very same questions. That is why we are asking questions; questions that we are looking to get answers to.

Again, based on the number of students in the system, we have allocated teachers to try and ensure that they have the quality program that they deserve and they need. If we are being told that there may be some impacts on there - and we are being told that - then we will address those concerns.

Again I have to say that this will not be the first time that we will have added back units. In past years when we have reduced the teacher allocations based on declining student enrolments we have also had representation from boards, parents, teachers, and principals, and we have responded favourably; because when they have been able to show us that there have been legitimate concerns, we have responded to those. We will continue to do that because we have a commitment to a quality, sound, education in this Province for our students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, school administrators and parents say that their schools cannot accommodate classroom sizes of thirty to thirty-five pupils, and students can no longer go on being denied access to music, French, phys. ed., and computer technology. Educational stakeholders again say that guidance councillor, Library Resource 1001 - that is totally unacceptable.

Minister, can the people expect deficiencies in guidance as well as in library resource to also be corrected?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that parents and students are worried. It is no wonder that they are worried and they are going out to the caucus road show because of what they are hearing from the Tory caucus as they get out on the road, going around trying to create a crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Maybe this will happen, Mr. Speaker. There is a possibility of this happening, Mr. Speaker. What happens if..., Mr. Speaker? What happens if the sky falls in, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The issue here is that we have to be realistic and we have to be serious about what is happening in this Province. We will address those legitimate concerns, but the what ifs and the maybes and the possibilities are something I cannot deal with.

We need concrete evidence and we will get that from meeting with the boards that have been working very closely with us to make sure that we have the relevant information to make sound decisions on, working within our ability to do so.

We have been talking to principals and to teachers. These are the people who know how the teachers are allocated within the schools, because it is the principals actually who decide how the teachers will be utilized in each of the schools, not the school boards and not the Department of Education. So we are talking to all of these people, and we are listening.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, bringing back concerns from the people who are most concerned about education out there, they are very much concerned that this minister is not listening. They are so much concerned that Ern Walsh, the Principal of St. Francis Xavier School in Grand Falls, has sent, through us, 450 copies of letters from Herdman Collegiate - 300-plus letters - and these are from parents who are concerned about the loss of school programs.

Will you take these letters, and all the information made public in the Legislature, and consider this as proof - absolute proof - that the education system is indeed hurting?

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

MS FOOTE: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will take the letters. If they are letters from parents and students, I will take them and we will make sure that each and every one of them is read.

Mr. Speaker, we are listening. We are hearing what parents and students are saying, but we have to be realistic. We have to deal with real issues, not issues that are being concocted by the members opposite as they go out and try to get people creating a crisis of it, suggesting that there is a crisis out there, out there trying to stir up problems where maybe no problems exist.

We are listening to parents, we are listening to students, we are listening to boards, we are listening to teachers, and we are listening to principals. Am I listening to the member of the Opposition? Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker, but I am listening to parents, I am listening to students, I am listening to boards, I am listening to teachers, and I am listening to principals, all of whom have something valid to say. We will certainly respond in a very credible manner when we have identified the legitimate concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, perhaps I don't expect the minister to listen to me but I wonder: Would she look just behind her, to the Member for Humber East? Would you believe him? Because he stood before the cameras yesterday, he stood before the microphones yesterday, and he said that eighteen teachers out of that particular system is going to take programming away from the children of this particular Province.

If you do not believe me, if you do not believe what I have presented, will you believe him?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: I always listen to my colleagues in this caucus, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: They always, always, have a valuable contribution to make to this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Why, Mr. Speaker? Because each and every one of them listens to their constituents. Each and every one of them brings the concerns of their constituents back to the caucus, back to the government, and we listen to what is being said.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I will listen to every member of the caucus over here because they do such a good job in representing their constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Education. Madam Minister, last evening on CBC television you put forward an accusation that parents have been misled as to the impacts of teacher cuts on school programs. Specifically, you said that you were afraid that a lot of parents were being told things that were not true by teachers and principals. In other words, you accused the teachers and principals of Newfoundland and Labrador, your front line workers who toil daily in the educational system, of manipulating the process, of misleading the parents of the very children that they teach.

At a parent's meeting last evening in Lewisporte parents took great exception to the tenor of your comments and to that accusation about the role of teachers and principals. These parents want to know if you are going to apologize to the parents, to the teachers and to the principals for your comments last night which they viewed to be very derogatory and insulting.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I would never insult parents, I would never insult students, because I understand where they are coming from. They are being told: This may happen, there is a possibility this will happen, we do not know but this could happen next year. Of course I understand where they are coming from, and I appreciate every concern that is being expressed by them.

I know, too, that it is the boards that allocate the teachers to the schools. It is the principals that determine how these teachers will be utilized. We need to work together as a team to determine whether or not there are enough teachers in the system to carry out a quality education program. That is exactly what we are doing by meeting with the education directors of all of the school boards, by discussing with principals - and I have had discussions with principals -, and by having discussions with teachers. I have had those as well. They are as concerned as I am, and we are trying to get to the bottom of this to try and determine where there are legitimate needs. Let me repeat again, where there are legitimate needs, those needs will be met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to say to the minister that I attended all of the sessions conducted by this caucus but one, and never at one of those was there ever a suggestion by any member on this side as to what might happen. We were there to listen. I suggest that you should take the same attitude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the people who were talking about the problems of the system are parents and teachers, and they are putting forward their concerns. For example -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: For example, Lewisporte Primary. Five years ago they had twenty-four teachers. They have had zero drop in their population. They have nineteen teachers this year. That will be reduced to seventeen teachers next year. That is seven teachers lost over the last five years with zero drop in the enrolment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, do you have suggestions for the parents at Lewisporte Primary as to how they are going to accommodate that significant loss in their teachers for next year? Will it be in the music program? Will it be in the learning resources? Will they drop their French altogether? How will they accommodate it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only individual treating seriously the issue of education and the allocation of teachers in this House today is the Minister of Education of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will note, and I hope that those who are covering the House will note, that we have just heard the Member for Mount Pearl say there has never ever been a suggestion by anybody on that side of the House of what might happen. That comment followed a suggestion about three minutes ago - one's memory should be able to retain that - of a suggestion by the member who heads the task force that there might not be a gym teacher in Grand Falls, and there is a possibility there will not be a gym teacher. Then, shortly after breathing the words: We have never suggested what might happen, the Member for Mount Pearl gets up and asks: Will there be gym teachers, will there be music teachers, will there be sunshine?

Mr. Speaker, these members opposite are not interested in education. They are interested in playing political games, stirring up people's concerns, trying to score political points, not trying to work seriously and soberly with developing a quality education system for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a minister that has the concern, she has the will, she has the intelligence, and she has the mandate to make sure we have a quality education system. She is listening, and where necessary this minister, with the full backing of this government, will act in the interest of our students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

The Premier misses the point. We are repeating in this House the concerns of parents. We did not initiate those concerns, we merely bring them to the House as it is our mandate to do.

I want to ask the minister this. Parents of special needs children have very special anxieties. To quote a parent in yesterday's presentation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to read a sentence -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to read a sentence by a parent of a special needs child, who said: "services for special needs children have been cut to a point where their very safety has been jeopardized." That is what parents are saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, during the election the Premier and the President of Treasury Board in Grand Falls promised a round table discussion involving all the stakeholders dealing with special needs children -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister: When will that round table discussion take place? Will she do more to assure that the access to services will be on a service for needs basis, not on the present criteria that is being used?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if any one needs special attention in our Province it is those students with special needs. Let me say again, this government recognizes that we have children with special needs in our system. In fact, because of that recognition we have more special education teachers in the system then ever before. That number will only increase as the need increases.

We also have to be realistic. As much as we would like to be able to give every student with a special need a one-on-one, that is not within the possibility of our financial means. We will work very closely with the schools, certainly through my division of student support services, to ensure the needs of our special needs children are being met. Because while all children are important to us and we want to make sure that all children get a quality education, we have to be really cognizant of the needs of our special needs children.

We had a meeting, in fact, in Gander. Officials from my department were there, the Member for Gander chaired the meeting, and there was a representative from the school board there. We had a discussion about special needs. Coming out of that meeting, when there was representation from parents of Grand Falls-Buchans there as well, we subsequently had another meeting with the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans and the Member for Gander. As I mentioned earlier, my caucus colleagues are concerned and are there and ready and listening to their constituents.

We now are looking at a round table, as was committed to, in Central Newfoundland, again, based on a request by the parents of special needs children and in response to the members opposite, particularly the Members for Grand Falls-Buchans and Gander, to make sure that the needs of the special needs children are being met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for answering. I regret the difficulty that I had with getting the questions put forward, with the interruptions and the unwillingness to listen on behalf of the caucus on the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Obviously, they do not want to listen to special needs parents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon as well, a representative of the school board in Grand Falls -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Yesterday, in Grand Falls-Windsor, a member of the school board asked a question as to why there are so many vacancies in school trustees in this Province. There are seventeen vacancies across the Province, and there are three in that particular board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: That member of the board wants to know what you are going to do about filling the vacancies -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: What is your government going to do to ensure that the number of school trustee vacancies will be filled, and the number that we need in our school system will be addressed in a timely basis?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I guess the vice-chair of that school board did not have an opportunity to have a discussion with the chair of that school board, because we met with them just last week. The very same question was asked, and I let them know where there were elections previously, where the position was actually filled and a school trustee has since resigned, there will be a by-election called and I expect it will be early in the fall.

The other instance, where the election was held previously and where no candidate came forward to offer their name for election, we will fill those positions by appointed as required under the act. Recommendations have been made and accepted, and the boards will be notified of that in the very near future.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this morning are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. We sold the Marystown Shipyard to Friede Goldman for $1, a yard which had a market value of some $55 million and a replacement value of $85 million in today's dollars.

I would like to ask the minister today why it is not possible for us to see a copy of the contract which was signed between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Friede Goldman, why a copy of that particular contract cannot be tabled in this hon. House, and why the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are being denied the right to see such a contract.

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

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My understanding is - and I have outlined this to the hon. member, I think, on several occasions, as late as less than twenty-four hours ago - that the legal advice that we are being given is that this is a commercial project, subject to confidentiality agreements which many times occur when you sign a contract with a private company versus between governments to governments.

That was a part of the agreement when we reached it. We knew that when we signed a commercial agreement there would be a confidentiality clause; but, as I clearly pointed out to the member yesterday, when we signed this, we have, in fact, answered all of the questions that have been put to us about the contract. If there are other questions that the member has, I can certainly talk to the company about it.

We have already met with the union and we have met with other staff down there. In fact, we have met with the municipal councils about this. All of the questions they have put forward to us - with every question from equipment on - we have endeavoured to answer all of them and, to date, have done so. We have asked them, if they have further questions, to please forward them to us and we will speak to the company to get their permission to give them the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that it is my understanding that when this contract was being negotiated there were also negotiations under way about removal of equipment.

It is also my understanding that there was a letter of understanding signed between the then minister and Mr. J. L. Holloway, and there would be no equipment removed from the Marystown Shipyard for at least five years. Can the minister confirm that such a letter of understanding exists? Can she also confirm that this letter of understanding has not been incorporated into the contract? And, if not, why not?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand where this question is coming from. I will check about a letter of understanding but I have to say that no equipment has been removed. As a matter of fact, this company has made very, very substantial improvements to the tune of over $1 million for one piece of equipment. To the contrary, the company has been putting new equipment into the shipyard, not removing equipment.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to correct the minister. I did not say that equipment had been removed. I never said it had been removed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: I never said any such thing, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have some -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I do not need protection from anybody over there, believe me. As the saying goes, I am big and ugly enough to look after myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, my next question is again to the minister, on redundancy pay. It also came to my attention when we were in Marystown and met with the company -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no member should be allowed to make reference to any member in this House as being big and ugly. I ask the member to withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the Premier that I can't do anything about my size.

My next question is to the minister and it relates to redundancy pay. This is a concern that was expressed to us, I say to the minister, by the union. We are looking for clarification on who is liable for the redundancy pay. Would it be the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, or would it be Friede Goldman?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, my understanding would be whatever the collective agreement has been negotiated with, and the clauses in the collective agreement would certainly cover redundancy pay.

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees. Notices of Motion. Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear you when you said Presenting Reports. If I could have leave to present the Hydro report to the House, as per requirement in the legislation, I would present it by leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to present the report for the Hydro group of companies, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for the year ending December, 1998. I would recommend that members obtain a copy and peruse it because it is the report that shows one significant change from last year. That is, that it reflects increased sales to Hydro-Quebec in 1998 which resulted in $29.9 million of additional energy sales revenue as a result of the negotiation of the recall provision last year.

Of course, now today we heard the Premier discussing the Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract. You will see the financial implications of that reflected in the report that will be tabled around this time next year.

I commend to all members the annual report of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for 1998.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a petition signed by 1,710 people in the Province of Newfoundland, mainly women in the public sector, and I hope the President of Treasury Board is able to listen and respond to the petition. The petitioners say as follows:

WHEREAS the government of this Province, in its capacity as an employer, has failed to address anomalies in pay resulting from an unsystematic approach to classification review during the implementation of pay equity; and

WHEREAS many of these anomalies have been known to the government for many years; now therefore we, the undersigned, call upon government to meet immediately with representatives of the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees to identify solutions for this situation and then immediately implement these solutions.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is undertaking the implementation of pay equity in the public sector. It is something that has been fought for, for many, many years by the public sector workers because of the anomalies in pay between women's pay in women dominated classifications and the pay for work of equal value in positions that are mainly occupied by men.

The first agreement on this was made with the previous government back in 1987, I believe - or July of 1988 I think perhaps is the correct date - to implement pay equity in the public sector. We all know that it took a fair bit of time and they were going through sector by sector to do the review to try and achieve a pay equity so that work of equal value was attracting the same pay scales.

We know that this has been a great historic anomaly. We know that social justice and equity between men and women required that these jobs be looked at carefully to ensure that there was not a built in systemic discrimination against women in our workforce, and great efforts and strides have been made; however we do have, resulting from this process, and perhaps the date of the process starting, certain anomalies that have occurred.

For example, in the classification system now, a Cook I is paid more than a Cook II, and a Food Service Worker I is paid more than a Food Service Worker II, which is certainly an anomaly. The reason that these particular types of anomalies have crept in was because the Cook II position and the Food Service Worker II position were male dominated positions and were not included in the classification review that took place.

The result is that the Cook I position, which had mainly women in it, was looked at, was changed and upgraded, and the pay equity formulas were put into place that gave an increase for the Cook I position but the Cook II position was not looked at because at that time it was mainly a male dominated classification and therefore was not considered.

Now, of course, over time, these positions have changed and there is a greater number of women in these positions - women and men in these positions perhaps more equal - and the inequities of that situation are very evident.

Mr. Speaker, we must move quickly to deal with this situation. I know government has an interest in resolving it, but this is a particularly difficult bureaucratic problem that requires a great deal of effort to fix. It also requires a stepped-up effort, because this kind of inequity, the longer it continues, the more discontent is bred amongst the workforce, the more difficulties workers have in justifying changes in jobs, applications for jobs, moving into higher paying jobs, advancing with their careers. All of these things are held up and affected by a failure to properly implement a pay equity system.

Part of it has to do with the classification system going back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, and part of it has to do with the anomalies of when these classification reviews started, but it does require an extraordinary effort and an extraordinary concentration of effort by government to resolve these situations immediately. I am asking, and the petitioners are asking, that government commit itself to a speedy resolution of these problems -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - having all classifications reviewed and evaluated accordingly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise this morning and respond to the petition by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, this government has a good record in dealing with pay equity. Pay equity is a very important tool in collective bargaining for this government.

We have developed a system over the years that deals with gender equity. Government has fully supported its pay equity initiatives. I might add that government has directed substantial funds towards eliminating any gender discrimination in its job evaluation tool and pay practices.

Is the pay equity system, is the re-classification system, perfect? No, we do not think so, and there is always room for improvement. What I would say to you at this point is that this government fully supports pay equity and is very aware of gender discrimination and fully supports the job evaluations coming from classification requests.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to support the petition presented by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. When government were undertaking reclassifications of jobs, as the member said, these anomalies did grow. Statistics show that for every a dollar a man makes, a woman makes sixty-seven cents. When the man goes home at the end of the day and says: Another day, another dollar, a woman can say: Another day, another sixty-seven cents.

Because of these anomalies the jobs should be carefully examined to eliminate this disparity. The President of Treasury Board says that government has allocated funds and does support pay equity. While efforts have been made to eliminate pay disparity, because of the anomalies that have occurred in the reclassification pay disparity does in fact exist. Because most of the persons who are affected by this disparity are women. It is because of this that I ask the President of Treasury Board to have another hard look at it. It will take quite a bit of work but in the end it will be worth it, because it will bring the women equal to the men.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my colleague the Member for Humber Valley. It is a petition signed by 112 residents of the community of Great Harbour Deep; 112 of 133 eligible voters, or 84 per cent of the voting population of that particular community. The petition reads as follows:

To the hon. the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Humber Valley of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

WHEREAS we the undersigned residents of the community of Great Harbour Deep in the District of Humber Valley do hereby petition the House of Assembly to assist the residents of Great Harbour Deep financially in relocating to a community of each family's choice.

Here we have, Mr. Speaker, a petition. I do not plan to say a great deal about that. I am sure the hon. the member, after his times of trials and tribulations have passed, will return to this House, and speak to this petition himself.

The petition is from the residents. It is not initiated by anyone. It has a covering letter -

PREMIER TOBIN: Properly designed and constructed too, I might say.

MR. MERCER: Properly designed and constructed, because it is done under the auspices, I'm sure, of the very able member for that particular district.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this request was made to me. I talked to the Member for Humber Valley yesterday and I think the request was made just a couple of days ago. I think it speaks volumes of that particular member who in this particular time of his, as I say, trials and tribulations, has acceded to a request from his constituents in the community of Great Harbour Deep to have this presented forthwith. I think it speak volumes about the character of that individual, and it gives me great pleasure to be here today standing in my place on his behalf.

I would simply add that the covering letter is from the Town Council of Great Harbour Deep. It is signed by the mayor, Ada Glynn, of that particular community. As I indicated, it is signed by 84 per cent of the eligible voters of that community who feel that they would like to be relocated. They do hereby ask this House of Assembly, and through it the government of this Province, to provide them with financial assistance so that they may relocate to communities of their choice elsewhere within this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to note the petition put forward by my colleague. I know some of the people who live in that particular community. Some of them are personal friends of mine. I note that they ask for assistance, and do note that this is the second or third occasion when the concept of moving from the community to one of the other communities in White Bay or some other part has been under discussion. It is not the first time it has been discussed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Of their choice. That may not be, of course, Sop's Arm or any of these areas. They will make that choice. Mr. Speaker, we on this side - although I can only speak for myself, we have not discussed the issue with out caucus - but the people in that part of the Province have had discussions on this matter over some years.

I ask the government to look at the wishes of the residents there. However, also be sensitive to the people who have long-standing traditions, the other 16 per cent who would be adversely affected, who may not wish to participate. Be a facilitator but do not get involved in pushing the process unnecessarily.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition to the House and the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damages, including the school buses serving the schools in the area, and schoolchildren are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the 5 kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present this petition again. By the look of the names and the way they are printed there, in such fine writing, it is obvious that some of those names are signed by students that are attending, I would think, Matthew Elementary in Bonavista. It is a plea from the students and from parents in the area to ask that their five kilometres of road leaving from their communities into the Town of Bonavista be upgraded and paved.

At public meetings we have held down there - I should say that the parents held - they have come forward and asked that if we did not have enough money to complete the five kilometres of road, maybe we can do the worst sections. That will certainly be acceptable to them.

This particular road was built in the 1970s. The section of roadway to which they refer, the worst part of the five kilometres, measures about two and a half kilometres around a pond. At that particular time, if you talk to the engineers today working with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, they will be very quick to point out that the road that was built at that time was built in far inferior ways to what you would consider normal road standards today. There is a lot of sand and mud used in that particular roadway. There was no rock used there. There was no under base used there in order to build the road up and give it the stability to withstand the heavy traffic that is travelling over this particular roadway today.

As a result of that, the road has deteriorated to the extent that something needs to be done with it. Work has been needed there for the past number of years and the people have been very patient. They are saying now: The road is gone so far that we need something done and we need it done now.

It is a situation where the school teachers, the school principal, and the bus operators have come forward, travelled up to Newmans Cove, met with the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister and myself, and put forward a plea. They asked that other roads in the area be given lesser priority and that this particular section of roadway be looked at.

In fact, the constable who usually occupies the chair at the back of the room here where the Sergeant-At-Arms is sitting said to me: I am after hearing your petition so often, and I believe in your cause so much, I am going to give the first $10 towards it.

It shows that when you talk about something often enough, hopefully people will believe in the cause, and hopefully people will take it seriously, because it is a serious petition. That is why I stand here today to present their views and opinions.

I realize that there is not a lot of money brought forward this year. There is something like $16 million being brought forward in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation for capital works, road repairs and upgrading. Back in 1989, the Budget brought forward $49 million. There is certainly not going to be a lot of roadwork. When you look at the cost of asphalt, and you look at the cost of doing work, there is not going to be a whole lot to be able to be done with the need that is out there with $16 million. I think the rule of the thumb is something like $100,000 per kilometre to upgrade and repave.

We are asking for two and a half kilometres. They would like to get five kilometres upgraded and paved but they would settle for two and a half kilometres. I do not think that is expecting too much, when you consider that the schools have been closed in the area and people were expected to travel by bus into Bonavista. They have to go there to access government services, they have to go there to access health care, they have to go there to shop.

Even the transport truck drivers have threatened not to use that particular roadway -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - because of the damage that is being caused to their vehicles. It is a serious petition, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that government would lend their support to looking after the problems and correcting them.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Government House Leader is in a hurry to get home for the weekend. I say take your time.

AN HON. MEMBER: As well as several more people on this side and on that side.

MR. MANNING: Including myself, Mr. Chair. I want to be home for my son's birthday party later on this evening, but I think we have some urgent matters to discuss here this morning.

The President of Treasury Board is here again this morning. I'm very pleased to see her. Maybe we might get some answers and just some clarification on some points in the Executive Council Estimates.

There is certainly one, I note, in the Premier's Office -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I am going to read from it today.

In the Premier's Office we had a budget for Transportation and Communications last year for $145,000. It is on page 16, 2.1.01.03, Premier's Office. It had a budget for $145,000 that was revised for $165,000, Mr. Chairman, and now this year's estimates are again $145,000. So I would just like to know why the extra $20,000 is on the Premier's Transportation and Communications budget.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Did that cover all of his travel, or was there monies from other budgets?

MR. MANNING: No, I am sure there is money from other budgets for other travel, Mr. Chair, but I just want to question that one in particular.

MR. FRENCH: It covers his parliamentary assistant.

MR. MANNING: Yes, it covers his parliamentary assistant's travels. That would be interesting. We may be looking at a larger increase now since you have been appointed to the new committee, Mr. Chair. I am sure you will be travelling throughout the Province as a member of the `meetloaf' committee. I am sure you may need an increase in your budget for that. That is certainly one of the concerns that is brought up.

Also, we have on page 17, 2.2.03, Salaries in the Social Policy Analysis section. We had a budget of $161,400 which was revised to $114,000. I am just wondering, from the salaries point of view, was there someone moved? Were there numbers in the social policy sector reduced? It went from $161,400 down to $114,000 on salaries, and this year we have budgeted $157,300. So I am just wondering why the discrepancy is there. Why the reduction from last year? Then again, the budget is almost up to what it was last year. I am just wondering exactly what happened there.

Another interesting one I found on page 17 was under Offshore Fund - Administration, 2.2.04. We had Professional Services that were budgeted at $37,300 for the last fiscal year and that were reduced to $15,000, and this year we have a budget of $37,300. I am just wondering why the discrepancy is there also.

Also there are a few other concerns I have, such as on page 18, 2.2.06, Advisory Councils on Economic and Social Policy. In the Transportation and Communications budget, $78,500 was budgeted last year which, when revised, became $20,000. This year we have once again budgeted $78,500.

I will leave those few questions just to start the discussions off this morning in a pretty low key. I am easing my way in this morning. I just wanted to ask the President of Treasury Board those few things. Maybe she will answer those. We will see where we go from there.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's for his questions, but before I respond to his I would like to respond to the Member for St. John's West who asked me a couple of questions yesterday that I have been able to get answers to this morning.

One of these was on the Opening Doors program. The member asked me: How many individuals are employed under this program and how many are full-time, part-time and permanent? There are fifty-seven positions and all are full time. As people move out of the program, others move in from the waiting list.

The other question on the Opening Doors program was: Where are these people employed? These individuals are employed at various classification levels and are located throughout government, throughout the Province. However, as you know, the program operates from this building, and most of them are located in St. John's, as I said yesterday.

The next question was on the French language program. The question asked by the Member for St. John's West was: How many people are employed under this program which has a salary allocation of $278,200?

The answer to that question is that the program has a full-time staff compliment of eleven positions including a manager, three full-time instructors, six part-time instructors, and an administrative assistant. I might point out that all the expenditures are cost-shared. That is 75-25 federal-provincial funding.

Another question was: How many people are taking French language training? The answer to that question is that approximately 200 individuals are taking training on a part-time basis.

Now to get to the questions from the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's. I think his first question was relative to page 16, the Premier's Office, Transportation and Communications. I believe your question was about the fact that the heading .03 was budgeted for $145,000 and actually $165,000 was spent. We are now forecasting $145,000 again for this upcoming year.

I would like to remind the member opposite that the office of the Premier requires that the Premier do extensive travel from time to time to represent the Province's business. I am sure you were party to the information supplied this morning about the GWAC agreement, which is only one of the number of issues that the Premier deals with from time to time.

I think what we should point out here is that the Premier is carrying on the Province's business. Many of them are directed to economic development which we need so much in this Province to look after the demands by our taxpayers. This is the reason for this travel, and it is quite legitimate, I might add.

The next one was page 17. I believe your question was directed to 2.2.03. That would be Social Policy Analysis. Your question, which was unusual, was: Why was there a reduction? There was a budgeted salary of $161,400 and actually there was only $114,000 used. The real reason for that was due to the non-reoccurrence of the twenty-seventh pay period. The salary was cost for a full year for two permanent positions and one temporary position. The savings that were outlined in this reduction were basically due to vacancies for part of the fiscal year which I announced yesterday as well. I believe what is important is that the total for 2.2.03 was budgeted at $174,300, and out of that only $121,900 was used. We are being very frugal, I might add.

The next question was on Professional Services. May I ask the hon. member what heading that was under? Excuse me, I have it, it would be 2.2.04.05, Professional Services. That was the amount of $37,300 and only $15,000 was spent. I would like to mention to the member, as I did yesterday, that this fund is the Offshore Fund - Administration, and the appropriations provide for the centralized administration of projects under the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Fund. It is a federal-provincial initiative. It is also administered through the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology. The funding provides for coordination of activities surrounding this policy.

I would like to respond to the one for Professional Services, 2.2.04.05. The actual savings in that category was the fact that it included the hiring of an independent auditing firm but the costs of the professional services by that firm were less than anticipated.

I think the important thing to look at as well is that the bottom line on this was that there was a budget of $42,200 indicated early in the year and only $24,000 used, so there were considerable savings there. As a result, we forecasted $39,200 as spending for that category this year.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: As I said last night, Mr. Chair, the President of Treasury Board is doing very well in answering the questions that have been raised by this side of the House. I have no problem in saying that she is doing an excellent job as the President of Treasury Board in this regard, answering the questions here on the estimates. She is doing an excellent job. As I said to the Minister of Fisheries last night, maybe he should take a lesson or two from the President of Treasury Board.

I would just like to, if I could, ask a few questions as they relate to page 15 of the Estimates. I would like to touch, for a few moments, on Government House, 1.1.01. I would like to ask a few questions as they relate to Government House because I am very concerned, I have to be honest, as a representative in this House and as a person who lives in rural Newfoundland, watching what is happening to rural Newfoundland over the past number of years.

The question that needs to be looked at and certainly asked is, if we really can afford Government House, if we really can afford to operate Government House in this Province while we are looking at programs being cut in our schools, people leaving their communities and moving away to different parts of Canada, roads deteriorating, and complete communities being closed up.

We really have to ask ourselves, I think, and take a second look. That is not to be putting anyone down or anything, but we have to take a second look and compare this Province's Government House to other provinces in the country and have a serious look at the costs. I look at the cost of Government House, and we will just start with the salaries.

The salary budget for last year for Government House reached a whopping $412,100. Now, there was a reduction in the revised budget of $372,000. Maybe the President of Treasury Board, when she stands, can address the fact that we have a fair amount of money there, from $412,100 down to $372,000. Was there somebody laid off? Was there somebody retired who was not replaced? How come we had a reduction of $412,100 to $372,000? Then, on the other hand, we have a new estimate for this year of $402,400. Really, there is a little bit of a discrepancy there that I am sure the President of Treasury Board, when she stands, will address. I certainly would like to know.

I would also like to know, really, if we could take a moment to just run down through the salaries of Government House and ask ourselves - we look at this Salary Details on Government House and we have a private secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor who receives $97,453 a year. The secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor receives $34,948 a year. We have a resident manager receiving $31,625 year. We have a secretary to the assistant deputy minister receiving $22.404 a year. We have a gardener receiving $31,204 a year. We have the chef at Government House receiving $26,645 a year. We have a maintenance repair worker at Government House receiving $22,901 a year. We have a chauffeur receiving $20,826 a year. We have a seamstress receiving $18,018 a year. We have four domestic workers receiving $75,568 a year. A total salary budget for Government House last year of $381,592.

I just want to ask, can we afford it? I am just asking the question, can we afford it? Can we afford Government House in its present setting? That is the question I am asking. I think it is a legitimate question.

These are just some of -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I am questioning the fact of, can we afford it, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Pardon, I say to the director of the `meetloaf' committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, don't try to come back. It is too late to come back now, I say to the director of the `meetloaf' committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I am asking a very legitimate question, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. Can we, as a Province, afford Government House? There are other provinces in Canada that do not have this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I am glad my questions have awakened the member in the back row. I am very glad to see that he is awake again.

I just want to ask some questions. I think it is a legitimate concern, a legitimate question to ask. Can we afford Government House?

Some people may disagree. I am not saying we cannot afford it. I am asking a very legitimate question. Can we?

When we look at the situation in this Province today, and the out-migration that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Maybe if we took our dollars and reinvested them in some good quality businesses in this Province we would have those thirteen jobs plus other jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Well, I am very, very pleased. What district is he from?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. MANNING: Twillingate & Fogo. I am very pleased that the member is awake this morning. Maybe he should be getting up asking some questions on the education cuts in his district. We are getting the calls to our offices concerning Fogo, which we will be visiting next week. If he was speaking out on behalf of the people he represents, he would do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, the vice-chair of the `meetloaf' committee is back in his seat I see. I am very, very glad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to see that the vice-president of the `meetloaf' committee is back in his seat now, after his trip to Corner Brook yesterday and his show and tell on CBC TV last night. He said: Yes, yes, there are going to be cuts to programs. Yes, there are. He started listening to the people we are listening to. Was he out manufacturing what the people were saying? Was he, the Member for Humber East?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, the director of the `meetloaf' committee. Go back to your seat, I say to the director of the `meetloaf' committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: The legal beagle has fled.

MR. MANNING: The legal beagle has fled. There he goes, he is gone. Yes, Sir, he is gone. Run and hide.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to ask a few legitimate questions here but I keep trying to be drowned out by the members opposite. I say they are very legitimate questions. I asked some questions: Can we afford these things? We have to ask the questions. They are legitimate questions. In Newfoundland and Labrador, yes, there are some positive signs. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, there are some positive signs. I would say the fact that the Minister of Fisheries is at the helm of the Department of Fisheries has helped to provide some of those positive signs. I have no problem in giving credit where credit is due, but I do have some concerns if we can afford extravagance. That is the question I am asking here this morning.

I would just like to say, if I could, we talked about concerns in the Province and we all have very legitimate concerns. I come from a rural district that has some very legitimate concerns. We have out-migration in massive numbers, and hopefully -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) in the Province before.

MR. MANNING: Oh, it happened in the Province before, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, but I do not know if it happened in the numbers that it has happened in the past eight or nine years since this government came to power, I have to say, Mr. Chair. I do not know if we have had as many people leave this Province before and stay out of it, period.

I will just give the Minister of Fisheries a few numbers, if he would like, about out-migration over the past few years since this government came to power. In the year 1990-1991 we lost 711 people with out-migration; 711 people. That was the start of the snowball.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) snowball.

MR. MANNING: That was the start of the snowball.

If the minister will give me leave to continue on, I will give him some numbers. You asked me to give you some numbers, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I only had a chance to give the number for one year and he asked me to sit down. Can't you handle the truth, I say to the minister? You asked me to give you some numbers. I am trying to give you some numbers but you are not giving me the chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, here we go. Look, minister wannabe. Listen, the Minister of Fisheries asked for some numbers -

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, I told him for the fourth time, his time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let's talk about some facts and some figures. Let's talk about what is happening around this Province today.

When they stand and talk about out-migration, you would not know but it never, ever happened in the Province before. It has happened since Newfoundland was discovered. People came for the season, went back across the Atlantic Ocean, and a way of life has been developed.

I received an invitation to speak to a group of people in Cambridge, Ontario, in June month. They estimate the population of Newfoundlanders in Ontario alone to be in excess of 300,000 people. Now, that only happened in the last two or three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, only gone five years. That is just in Ontario alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, but you are talking about out-migration as if it never, ever happened; it just started happening five years ago.

The one thing I have to question is: How can anybody stand here in this House of Assembly and question the cost of the residence of the Lieutenant-Governor? I just cannot believe - the oldest parliamentary tradition - talking about being anti-Confederate, now to be against the residence of the Lieutenant-Governor. Not only is he questioning the cost, but he wants to lay off how many people down there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirteen.

MR. EFFORD: Thirteen people down at the residence of the Lieutenant-Governor. Now that is a real sensible position to take here this morning. Can we afford it? Can we afford this monstrosity, $10 million? Who built this? Who designed this? Tories, Tories! Ten million dollars, and you are questioning the residence?

He is questioning the cost of Executive Council, the cost of the Premier's Office. This is where I really get ticked off - questioning the cost of operating the Premier's Office.

Let me tell you what a Premier spends. Let me give you some facts and figures of what a Premier spends. This is from Executive Council, and this is what a Premier spends. Please issue a standing order for the supply of tobacco products for the Premier's Office to be picked up on an as is, where is, required basis - $5,000 for cigarettes.

Please issue a standing order for liquor and beer to be picked up on an as is required basis for the private dining room of the Premier's office - $20,000.

Please issue a standing order for the purchase of fish items for the Premier's office - $3,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: These numbers cannot be correct.

MR. EFFORD: We are not halfway yet.

Please issue a standing order to purchase frozen and seasonal products, as is, when is, when required - $1,500.

Please issue a standing order for dry cleaning of tablecloths, as is, when is, required - $1,000, the dry cleaning of the tablecloths.

This is a good one. Please issue a standing order for the purchase of groceries for the Premier's private hall on an as is, when is, required - $10,000.

What do we have: ten; eleven; twelve, five; fifteen, five; and twenty. That is $35,500, and $5,000; $40,500 for a standing order for the Premier's office.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years was that for?

MR. EFFORD: That was only one-month's supply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Just listen. I will tell you how long it is for. It says that here. That is for the month of April.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Yes, here it is, April 1, 1989 to March 31 - $5,000 worth of cigarettes - and he is up there questioning -

MR. TULK: No, cigars.

MR. EFFORD: Cigars, I am sorry. And he is up questioning the cost of the Lieutenant-Governor's residence.

Who was the Premier at that particular time?

The conscientious people are talking about education, talking about health, and there is not enough money. Make no wonder there is not enough money. Make no wonder when we took over government in 1989, how many billion dollars were we in debt?

MR. TULK: Loyola says $5.859 billion.

He would not say the $6 billion, but $5.859 billion.

MR. EFFORD: Interest payment on that alone is in excess of $585 million. Make no wonder they could not manage -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Just listen now. You have to hear this. Make no wonder they could not manage the administration of this government, of this Province, because by the time they smoked $5,000 worth of cigars, drank $20,000 worth of booze, and ate $30,000 worth of food, they had no time to do anything else. They had absolutely no time to do anything else.

Yes, you should hang your head in shame. You can stand over there now as if everything is jovial and okay.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that members opposite look into the past before they start questioning the administration of this government or the cost of the Lieutenant-Governor's residence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was that put then?

MR. EFFORD: That was put in the private dining room of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador - none other than the hon. Tom Rideout.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Tell us about the cigar cooler in certain other politicians' front porches.

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

I have recognized the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chair, I am very pleased that the Minister of Fisheries go up and enlightened us on some history. I am very pleased. I think that we all, everyone here in this House, need to be reminded of our history. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, he has to go further than the Murray Premises to remind him of his history.

MR. EFFORD: What is that?

MR. MANNING: The Murray Premises, I say.

If you want to talk about thousands of dollars - and I certainly do not stand up and say what happened in 1989 was right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, it was not right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pickle book.

MR. MANNING: I hope we do. When I started with my few words, before the Minister of Fisheries jumped to his feet, I believe I was discussing out-migration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I was talking about out-migration since this government came to power. I was on the first year, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I was started with the first year, the year of 1990-1991. The net out-migration was 711 people for 1990-1991. As I said before, that was the beginning of the snowball.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, we have always had Newfoundlanders leave this Province to go elsewhere to find work. I know many people in my home town, in my own communities around, the father would leave and go to work somewhere on the mainland or down in Labrador or wherever the case may be, but he always returned in the fall of the year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not all of them.

MR. MANNING: Most of them returned in the fall of the year but the family unit stayed there, the community kept alive, the school kept alive, the recreation programs kept alive because the people stayed there. The family unit stayed in place.

Now, what do we see in this Province today? What we see in this Province today, due to failed economic policies, is out-migration with mothers, fathers, sons, daughters - pack their bags and they are out of this Province and do not get the chance to get back. Before, we used to have people come home in the fall and the family unit stayed intact, the community stayed intact, the schools stayed intact. What do we see now? Barred up homes, U-Haul trucks. They are gone and they are not coming back, due to the failed economic policies of this Liberal government over ten years, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to go back to the year of 1990-1991 and out-migration. The snowball started in 1990-1991 with 711 people. Then we went up to 1991-1992, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I am just giving a little history here - you want some history - about out-migration since this government came to power. From 1991-1992, 1,669 people left this Province and never came back. The out-migration was 1,669 from 1992-1992.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I want to just ask the hon. gentleman about the flip-flops that they do on the other side. One day they are against something and the next day they are for it. I want to ask him if he shares the feelings and the thoughts of the Member for Lewisporte who believes that we should not have bought back the licences of people under the early retirement program? I wonder, would he address that issue? Because I think the hon. gentleman has accused us of helping out-migration by buying back the licences of people - older people, he says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did?

MR. TULK: The Member for Lewisporte.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, the Member for Lewisporte, but you are part of the party. I want to know if he agrees. Does he agree that we should not have bought them back?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: Answer the question.

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

MR. MANNING: I will tell you what I do not agree with, I say to the Government House Leader - which I brought up here the other day and members of the opposite side of the House turned it into something else - and that is total fisheries management from Ottawa. What I do not agree with is someone who has spent forty-two years in a fishing boat and did not get the chance to retire because of rules and regulations, that they did not take in historical attachment in the forty-two years in a fishing boat. When someone in Ottawa sent him a letter and said that he was not attached to the fishery, after forty-two years in a fishing boat, that is what I do not agree with.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, those are the things that I stood here the other day and talked about, and tried to get some assistance from this House to go to Ottawa and address. That is what I do not agree with, someone who went in a boat when he was twelve years old and was in it forty-two years later and someone in Ottawa told him that he was not attached to the fishery. Failed fisheries management, that is what I do not agree with. That is what I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

If I could get back to the record of this government on out-migration, that is what I am trying to get back to, but you keep interrupting me because I know the truth is hard to take. I understand the truth is hard to take, but you can get up and talk about the previous Tory Adminstration. I was not here. I cannot be held responsible for something I was not part of, I say to members opposite.

If we could get back to the out-migration, in 1990-1991, as I said, the snowball started when we had 711 people leave this Province and never return - 711.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: From 1990-1991, I say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, 711. From 1991-1992, 1,669 more became part of the snowball, became part of the red snowball, I would say. The first red snowball ever invented started here in 1989 and it has been snowballing since. From 1991-1992, 1,669. I will give the Minister of Fisheries time to add two of those together before I get into the next year.

From 1992-1993, we see a net out-migration of 3,078. Do you have that one, I say to the Minister of Fisheries? Okay. For 1993-1994, we see a net out-migration of 4,952.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The voice in the wilderness keeps coming from the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

In 1994-1995, that red snowball was rolling pretty heavy and picking up a lot of people in her wake. For 1994-1995, we had 6,974 added, and the snowball never stopped then. As you see, she adds on each year. If there were some good economic policies, maybe the snowball would not be adding on; maybe it would be declining, but that is not the fact. The facts are here. The facts are hard to take, I know. The truth is hard to handle, but it is here in black and white. That is why I am bringing it here to the House today, because I think it is one of the major concerns of this Province, one of the major concerns of this government, and it needs to be addressed.

For 1995-1996, the snowball picked up 7,436 more people. From 1996-1997, the snowball picked up 8,134 people. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, just in case you did not get it, for 1996-1997, the snowball picked up 8,134 people. Did it stop there? No. The best year so far, after almost ten years of this government, 1997-1998, the snowball picked up 11,434 people.

Just in case the Minister of Fisheries needs some assistance, from 1990-1998, while this government was in power, we had a net out-migration in this Province of 44,388 people.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Chairman, if that is a record you are proud of, I question that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I have never in my life heard such a wishy-washy, flip-floppy, bunch as that crew over there; never in my life, since I came in here. I have been around politics since 1979. Yes, for the hon. gentleman it has been too long, I will admit that, but I have never in my lifetime, as long as I have been here - they try to skate and slide out from under their own past record.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slither.

MR. TULK: Slither along the ground. I have never seen the like. They say: Don't hold us to the past. We have no past.

Well, I have to tell them that they have no future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: They do have a past. I have to say to the hon. gentleman that sitting in the third chair - I do not know where it is, but it is somewhere over there - is the Member for Lewisporte. They went out and recruited him - a big news conference out in front of Confederation Building with the Leader of the Opposition saying: At last I have found him.

He wanted to run in Bonavista North. He waited until the nominations for the Liberal Party were over in three or four districts up and down the (inaudible). He had his eye set - he wanted to come out and tell them how good he was with fisheries again. Elect me. I am back, newly dressed up from law school.

AN HON. MEMBER: `Backupable'.

MR. TULK: Now respectable because I have a law degree. Elect me and I will be Premier again.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to the hon. gentleman that there is a past for his party. There is a past for the Member for Lewisporte, and he brings it with him into this House. He brings his baggage with him.

The flip-flop party on the other side. I have never seen anything in my life like it. All of us in this House agreed - that party agreed last year, the Member for Bonavista South was particularly vocal in agreeing that we should have early retirement of people in the fishery.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, tell him what age.

MR. TULK: He wanted it down to fifty. We were prepared to move below 55 but the federal government was not.

The Member for Baie Verte was very vocal. What does the Member for Lewisporte want? In Hansard last week, he said: You have cut off the rebuilding and the revitalizing of rural Newfoundland and Labrador by allowing the out-migration to take place.

That is what he said we did. Now, how have we done it? How did he say we have done this? By buying back the licenses from the older people as a means of getting them out of it, putting them on an early pension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: I ask the hon. gentleman, when he stands up and starts going through those Estimates again, I want him to stand up and tell me - especially a person from Placentia & St. Mary's, a very rural district, a very good district, very good people - I want him to stand up and tell me: Does he agree that we should not have, last year, put those people on an early retirement package?

MR. EFFORD: Or buy back licenses.

MR. TULK: Or buy back licenses? I want him to stand up and tell me: Does he agree with the fisheries expert on the other side, the expert on everything -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is neither one over there.

MR. TULK: Yes, there is, the Member for Lewisporte.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes, that is right.

MR. TULK: The Tories brought him back as the star. The Minister of Mines and Energy must remember the press conference outside of Confederation Building, out in front of the building, snow blowing in their eyes, rain pelting down, and here is the Member for Kilbride, the Leader of the Opposition, saying: He is back. I got the star.

What he did not realize is that the star had a burning tail on it. It was on its way to extinction. That is what the hon. gentleman is on his way to.

I want the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's to stand up and tell me if he agrees with the hon. gentleman, that we should not have put those people on an early pension, that we should have left them out there to starve -

AN HON. MEMBER: Beaton, we have got to photocopy that.

MR. TULK: Oh, that is going out. Don't worry, that is going out in Lewisporte. I happen to shadow the place. Myself and the Members for Exploits and Grand Falls will ensure that if they want a travelling road show on the other side we will give them one. We will give them two. We will give them three, if they need it. We will hold them accountable. You cannot walk into this House day after day and say: Whatever somebody wants, give it to them - like a pack of cards, deal it out -, and at the same time come in and make those kind of statements.

I am sure that the Member for Bonavista South, if he were here, would stand in his place and say: No, I cannot agree with the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Yetman was on from St. John's South yesterday. What was she asking for?

MR. TULK: I do not know.

MR. EFFORD: Pensions to be lowered to age fifty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Pensions to be lowered again. Whenever there is a parade you will see a Tory at the head of it. I want the Member for St. John's South to tell me if he is going to get ahead of this parade, that the Member for Lewisporte, the former premier, the twenty-nine day premier - I want to know from him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) I remember you stood in your place one time a couple of years ago (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, protect me from the hon. gentleman. Look, he is going after my buddy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) oh, he did.

MR. TULK: Are you finished? I will soon be finished too, I think.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to know is this. I want the hon. gentlemen, and I would ask the Member for Humber East to let me finish asking him the question, I want to know from the hon. gentlemen: Does he agree that we should not have bought back those licences, that we should not have put people on early retirement? Here he comes, the Member for Bonavista South.

I want to read you a statement that the Member for Lewisporte made on May 11. I am going to ask the Member for Bonavista South if he agrees. If the hon. gentlemen would listen? He says across the House to this government: That is what you have done. He says, "You have cut off the rebuilding and the revitalizing of rural Newfoundland and Labrador by allowing the out-migration to take place..." How did he say we did it? "[B]y buying back the licences from the older people as a means of getting them out of it, putting them on an early pension."

Is the Member for Bonavista South hearing what I am saying? In other words, the Member for Lewisporte is telling that member, who went to Ottawa last year and did a fine job to help get some money for his people in Bonavista South, that we should not have done it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Listen, I am fifty-five next week. I would have to be about 110 before I would be able to ask a question again from that side to this side. While I might be around for a few more years, maybe until I'm 108 or something, I do not intend to stay on until I'm 110.

Mr. Chairman, I think my time is just about up. I have got a few more things that I want to point out to the hon. gentleman. I want the Member for Bonavista South, I want him on the record; I want the Members for St. John's South and Placentia & St. Mary's on the record. I do not expect the Member for St. John's East to stand up at all, because he wouldn't know a cod if it smacked him in the mouth. I am not sure about the Member for Conception Bay South. Maybe he should get on the record.

MR. EFFORD: No, he would not know a cod from a sculpin.

MR. TULK: I do not know. He is getting out there a little bit. Get on the record, tell us where you stand. Here he comes, old Whitbourne road. Another gentlemen that got run over last night by the Mack truck from Placentia & St. Mary's. We are waiting to hear from him as well. We want him on the record about that road.

The Member for Bellevue got his number yesterday evening. I tell the hon. gentlemen that he cannot sit over there and just slide and slither and skate around. Go out in the Province. You know what they did? They are reading the Hansard over there from 1985 to 1989 and they are copying everything that we did to defeat the government of the day, sending out committees, but the difference was that we came back and presented not just the criticisms but said: Here are some solutions. What do you get over there? (Inaudible), maybe, yes it might. The world might fall in. Chicken little -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Not true.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. TULK: By leave? Do I have leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. TULK: Just a delay.

CHAIR: No leave.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to see that we are on a history lesson here this morning. I am very pleased to see that when I stood in this House today and brought up the out-migration record of this government for the past ten years I managed to get a couple of ministers up on their feet. I am very pleased. The truth is bitter, I say to the members opposite, and the record of out-migration caused by this government for the past ten years is just as bitter.

We talk about accountability. The Government House Leader stands in his place and talks about accountability.

MR. TULK: Not true, I never used the word.

MR. MANNING: I think you had better check Hansard.

Mr. Chair, he stands in this House and talks about accountability. Let's talk about accountability for a few moments. Let's talk about Trans City and this government over the past couple of years. Let's talk about the almost $30 million that Trans City cost the taxpayers of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's talk about the middle distance fleet (inaudible) $30 million!

MR. MANNING: Oh, the director of the `meetloaf' committee is back on the go again. I say go back to your chair, Mr. Chair.

Let's talk about accountability. Thirty million dollars Trans City has cost the taxpayers of this Province and we talk about accountability. That could buy a lot of cigars, I say. Let's talk about S.C.B. Fisheries and the millions of dollars that it has cost taxpayers of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who started it?

MR. MANNING: It does not matter. Yes, it matters who started it. Yes, I would say, it matters who started it, but I thought that the present Minister of Fisheries would end it but he continues to go with it.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I realize the hon. member for Placentia & St. Mary's has a big responsible position in this House. Yesterday he struck a select committee of this House called the `meetloaf' committee. I was not consulted, but I was made the chairperson of that committee. I guess the question I have to ask today: Is that a paid position or is it a volunteer position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: No point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chair, a few years ago when the hon. Member for Bellevue was appointed parliamentary assistant to the Premier, he felt that it was a stepping stone to that greater, higher office that we call the minister.

We talk about history. Back in the other administration that was the route, and I am sure that the Member for Bellevue felt that that was the route. The Member for Bellevue did not understand the process, did not understand the criterion that it takes to become a member of the Cabinet. You have to be a Tory first, I say to the Member for Bellevue. You are not going to meet the criterion, I say. Talk about special positions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MANNING: The sandbagger is awake again. Oh my God! Did you ever see, did you ever witness a member of the House of Assembly grovelling like the Member for Humber East grovelled yesterday out in Corner Brook? He said: Oh, no, I agree with you. Then he is in here agreeing with the minister. Now he cannot agree with both of them! He cannot agree with both sides! You have to stand up and agree with one side or the other, I say to the Member for Humber East.

You can't agree with the minister and agree with the people out there that are saying the programs are being cut in the schools, but you did so yesterday on CBC television. You said: I agree with you, the programs are being cut. Then you stand in the House and say they are not being cut. It is either they are being cut or they are not being cut, but you should make up your mind, I say to the Member for Humber East. Stand on your feet and tell the people in your district, tell the people who sent this letter to the minister -

MR. MERCER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: I don't want to see the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's get unduly agitated by making these statements, and saying that I say one thing in one area and something in another. Let the hon. the member opposite know that when I say something I mean it, and I say it again. When I am a member I know where I stand. I am not like the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne who has his member come up from Placentia & St. Mary's and basically sandbag him, saying: We want to run a road through the middle of his district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MERCER: We have that member sitting in his place and not saying a word!

Mr. Chairman, my point of order is quite simply: What I say in my district I say in this House and I say to my colleagues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Humber East does not stand in the House and stand in Corner Brook and say the same thing. I think if anybody watched CBC television yesterday evening they would know what I am talking about. He agreed with the people in Corner Brook yesterday that programs were being cut. The Member for Humber East showed his true colours yesterday on CBC television. That is why I appointed him vice-chair of the `meetloaf' committee, because he showed his true colours. I say the Member for Bellevue I know is honoured to be chairperson of that new committee, and the Member for Topsail, the director of that committee.

I am sure the three members are very pleased that they have been appointed to the `meetloaf' committee. I think we have to look at the make up of the `meetloaf' committee, and people like the Member for Humber East who stand in one part of this Province and say one thing and stand in another part of this Province and say something else. That is what the Member for Humber East is guilty of.

I find it very interesting that the few short comments I got up to make this morning have brought on such an outburst from the members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: So here we go, it is the Minister of Mines and Energy. The Government House Leader just a few moments ago said to the Minister of Mines and Energy: Do you remember the news conference that was held out here when the Member for Lewisporte announced he was running? You asked the Minister of Mines and Energy did he remember the news conference out on the steps of the Confederation Building.

I ask the Minister of Mines and Energy, who was the leader of the NLTA: Does he remember another conference that they had out on the Confederation Building steps? Does he remember the day he went out there and cried crocodile tears for the teachers of this Province? Does he remember that he stood up to fight on their behalf? Does he remember that news conference, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, if his memory is clicking so good this morning?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Does he remember that news conference? Yes, indeed you do. Then when you got in here, what did you do? You sandbagged the teachers of this Province. I think next week I am going to announce a sandbag committee, because there are a good many over there who are sandbagging. I am going to announce a sandbag committee and I might put the Minister of Mines and Energy in as chair of that committee. I will have to take that under advisement over the weekend and see if he is the top sandbagger over there. That is going to be a really tough decision, to come up with a chairperson of the sandbag committee, but I will leave that one to next week.

I want to get back, if I could, to the issue at hand, to the record of this Liberal government for the past ten years on out-migration. I was trying to get at here and the Minister of Fisheries jumped to his feet and the Government House Leader jumped to his feet. As I said last night, I am very pleased that he is back up in the front benches. I think he adds a lot to it. The Government House Leader comes from a rural part of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I was in here before, Mr. Chair, and the Government House Leader was back where the Member for Humber East is now. Back in that area, anyway. I remember that major fisheries petition he was supposed to present in the House. I wonder what ever happened to that major 15,000 or 20,000-name fisheries petition that was signed across the Province. I bet you if they had to send it in to the Member for Port de Grave it would be presented. They sent it in to the Government House Leader, and what did he do with it? It disappeared, it is gone.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have noted that the Member for Waterford-Kenmount was called `Mr. Flip-flop' a few years ago. Now it has rubbed off on everybody. It has spread right across, particularly the back row over there. Do you know what the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's said this morning? Take the money that we spend for the residence of the Lieutenant-Governor and put it into business development in this Province. That is exactly what he said. Take that same amount of money that we are spending on the residence of the Lieutenant-Governor and put it into business development. What was the Tory platform during the election?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not to support business.

MR. EFFORD: To close down any agency of government that was investing into small businesses. Is that not what the platform said? Now, what a flip-flop. Just a couple of months after the election they are now -

AN HON. MEMBER: He did not say it! (Inaudible)!

MR. EFFORD: Hansard will clearly show what you said, and we will get -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Here is the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, the Member for Bonavista South, saying: We want the age of retired fishermen lowered to fifty. Here is the Member for Lewisporte in the front bench saying... what? What exactly did he say? He said: You have destroyed rural Newfoundland. You have cut off the rebuilding and the revitalizing of rural Newfoundland and Labrador by allowing out-migration to take place, by buying back licences.

MR. MANNING: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Point of order.

Since we are talking flip-flops, Mr. Chair, we will go back to the election. We will talk about tax cuts. The Premier of this Province said we could not afford them during the election campaign. While this party espoused to have tax cuts for this Province, the Premier of the Province said we could not afford it, and then flip-flopped out in the lobby yesterday. He said we can. Now, talking about flip-flops, there is your flip-flop. The biggest flip-flop the Province has seen in the past three months has been from the Premier and this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Now let me finish. What did the Member for Lewisporte say? He said: By buying back the licences from older people as a means of getting them out of the fishery and putting them on an early pension. In other words, he is condemning both levels of government, federally and provincially, and his own caucus, for supporting an early retirement program. I can suggest on this side of the House that we will ensure that every Tory district in Newfoundland will get a copy of Hansard. Every part of rural Newfoundland where there is any fishery worker or retired fisherman will get a copy of Hansard.

Let's go back to the out-migration snowball the Member for Placentia-St. Mary's got up to 1998. Let's take the snowball and go backwards. Let's go right back to 1992. Who was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada in 1992, and pre-1990? Who would you think?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) John Crosbie.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, your lawyer. Who attended down to the Delta Hotel when he came down to announce the package? I was there that night with the fishermen. What did he announce? Two hundred and fifty dollars a week. Remember? What happened? They stormed. The police got around the door, they would not let them in. Before he got out of the hotel he had it up to $450 a week. Now, how did it all happen? Who started the snowball? Who started the out-migration? Who played a major role in the destruction of the resource? Who built the middle-distance fleet? Who allowed the factory-freezer trawlers on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador? Who caused the destruction of our resource?

Let's bring the snowball back to where it all started. What did that minister say? He said: Within five years the stocks will be back. Who warned the Minister of Fisheries of the day, in Ottawa, about the cause of the collapse? The fisherman of this Province and the scientists of DFO. What happened? Instead of recognizing the caution, he doubled the quotas against scientific and fishermen's advice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did that?

MR. EFFORD: The hon. John Crosbie, your legal man. That is how we got on to the snowball effect, that is how we got the out-migration of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If you are going to be flipping and flopping, you better maker sure you flip the right way. Because it is very obvious what happened to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It was destroyed again by a Tory government in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, all of what you have just said is not wrong. As I have said in this House on numerous occasions, I give credit where credit is due. It was announced at $250 a week and that was not right, I agree with the Minister of Fisheries. We got it up to $400 a week. We had the program go from NCARP into TAGS, and we got it extended. Why, I ask this House, did we get it extended? Because we had a voice in Ottawa who was in a decision-making position that could make some decisions, who had some backbone when he stood up in the House of Commons or sat around the Cabinet table. If you want to go flip-flop, let's talk about the sealing, I say to the minister!

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

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: He won't let me talk!

MR. EFFORD: I will let the hon. member talk when he has all the facts in front of him. Who closed down the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador? John Crosbie. Who closed down the sealing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador? John Crosbie. Who went against scientists? John Crosbie. Who went against the fishermen? John Crosbie. Why did people leave rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Because of John Crosbie.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: There is no point of order. Good ruling, Mr. Chairman.

What I am trying to get at, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, if he would just listen - and I know where the Minister of Fisheries comes from. He comes from a rural part of this Province. He started off small, I remember. I remember him out in his little truck selling little cigarette candy and rubbers. Remember you used to sell the little rubbers, I say to the Minister of Fisheries? You would come knocking at the store and ask: Would you like to buy any rubbers today? Right, I remember the Minister of Fisheries. I know where he came from.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, the Minister of Fisheries used to call them rubbers. I am going to bring in one of his bills from back in those days, ten rubbers at ten cents each.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. EFFORD: For the protection of my own credibility (inaudible), I have to make sure the hon. member clarifies what he means by little rubbers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: There is no point of order, Mr. Chair. All I am saying is that I understand where the Minister of Fisheries -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: All I am saying is I remember you travelling around. I understand where you come from. I am pretty sure there is a bill home - if I can find it - with Efford's Wholesale, yes, and ten rubbers at ten cents each. I am sure I have seen that. If I can find that bill I am going to bring it in and give it to the hon. Minister of Fisheries, because I am sure he would like it for the archives. I remember him.

Look, he graduated from that and he went on, and I say congratulations. I give credit where credit is due. That is why when I stand here today and I talk about what is happening in rural Newfoundland, at least I know there is one Cabinet Minister - one! - over there who understands. It is not the Minister of Mines and Energy and it is not the Government House Leader. No, the Government House Leader, I would have to say yes, he understands to a certain extent too, knowing his - but he does not have a total grasp on the situation because he has kind of removed himself from it.

The Minister of Fisheries knows exactly what is going on in rural Newfoundland. It is too bad, I say to this hon. House, when the Minister of Fisheries heads off to Ottawa that he does not have a minister in the federal government like there was before when it comes to raising issues in this Province. It is too bad that he does not have a minister in the federal government that can make a decision. It is too bad that he does not have a minister in the federal government who has some sway with the other members.

When the minister and the all party committee went up to talk to the Minister of Fisheries about what is happening in this Province as it relates to the sealing industry, what happened? He got snubbed, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. He was up looking for a seal cull. He should have gone straight to the Prime Minister and looked for an Anderson cull to try to get this straightened out.

In rural Newfoundland today we are facing an economic crisis brought on by failed economic policies for the past decade. How often, I say to the members opposite, do we have to stand in this House and ask questions? How often do we have to stand in this House and bring forward the concerns of rural Newfoundland? How often do we have to stand in this House and bring forward story after story of what is happening in rural Newfoundland before these people on the other side of the House will listen?

I say the Minister of Fisheries, yes, he understands it, he knows what is happening in rural Newfoundland. That is why he has been leading that parade, I say to the members opposite. He has been leading that parade for quite some time. My only wish was that we would have somebody in Ottawa that would listen to our Minister of Fisheries and his all party committee. That is all I am asking, if somebody in Ottawa would finally listen.

The Minister of Fisheries is not being heard in Ottawa. He is being heard in Port de Grave, he is being heard in Placentia, he is being heard in Fogo, he is being heard up on the Northern Peninsula and down the Labrador Straits, but he is not being heard where it matters, and it matters to be heard in Ottawa. I would say that the time is coming pretty soon that maybe we will get someone in Ottawa, even from that side of the floor, that will be heard. I hear a few rumblings around that things are happening so I just -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know what, do you know something? I only have one problem.

MR. MANNING: What is that? He is more popular than you are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Government House Leader that knowing the Minister of Fisheries, knowing the present Premier, knowing the former premier that stood in this House when I was here before, that I think if the Member for Port de Grave ever became premier you would be in the same seat you are in today, knowing the way things operate. I understand that. I know full well, sir. You would not be back in the third chair, you would be up in the front again. If the Member for Port de Grave ever became premier he definitely would want someone like yourself to handle the concerns of rural Newfoundland, I know. I am sure that he would want someone to be able to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I just have to have something in my hands.

Mr. Chairman, all I am saying is that we have, for the past ten years, watched a snowball in this Province. It is a red snowball that started here when this government came to power. It started off small, but it enlarged as it rolled down the hill and people rolled away to the airports, people rolled away to the ferry in Port aux Basques, people rolled away to the ferry in Argentia. The snowball got larger and larger until we ended up, after ten years of economic policies on the other side of the House, where we have almost 50,000 people who have left this Province.

That is a record. If that is a record that the members opposite want to stand up and say they are proud of, go ahead. I am telling you, I would not want to stand up and say I am proud of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, my God! The Member for Topsail has found his way over here. Is there any chance of a couple of you coming over and bringing him back?

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch your back.

MR. MANNING: I am telling you, watch your back. He is staying side on, I tell you. He is over there now to say thanks for appointing him as director of the `meetloaf' committee. You are welcome, Sir.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MANNING: The Member for Humber East wants to get up and say a few words. Come on, get up. Bring in the message from Corner Brook that you received yesterday. Come on.

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: You almost lost him in a slipway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I begin my few remarks, I have to ask the hon. the Member for Topsail to take his place on the right side of the House. My goodness. He is going to become infected over there with the Tory philosophy.

Business policy, for the record, as written January of 1999.

MR. TULK: During the election.

MR. EFFORD: During the election.

For the record: A PC government will eliminate the payroll tax, a regressive tax on jobs that unfairly impacts our local businesses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: A PC government will end the practice of providing loans or grants to businesses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Just imagine, a PC government will end the practice of providing loans or grants to businesses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) put that together.

MR. EFFORD: Wait now. Let's take it the next step. We have ended all loans and grants to businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, the Member for Lewisporte stands up in the House on Monday of this week and condemns the government for buying out the licensing of fishermen - the licensing retirement program - and implementing an early pension at age 55. Now he wants to take away all of the money that people living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are receiving for a pension. That is exactly what he said. He condemned this government for being a part of supporting retired people, retired fishermen, fisher people and plant workers in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Take away the money for the businesses, take away the pensions, take away the license buy-back program, and what do you see?

Let's take it to the next step. Last evening here in this House of Assembly, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne - what does he want to do? How many jobs are in businesses around (inaudible).

MR. TULK: About 120 (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: One hundred and twenty jobs. He has now made a commitment, representing the Harbour Main-Whitbourne district. He wants to see all of the businesses in that particular area close down; 120 people out of work. There is something for the people on that side, for the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, to absorb. There is a means of supporting rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MANNING: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I would just like to ask the Minister of Fisheries: Were the jobs in the Whitbourne area, which are important - why weren't the ones in Grand Falls-Windsor important when you were the minister, when you put the Berlin Wall up through the middle of Grand Falls-Windsor? I ask that question.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) on the record, clear. I am not representing Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I am representing the District of Port de Grave. I can tell you one thing; there are lots of roads built out there. There are lots of roads in Port de Grave district. We are not shutting down and closing roads. We are not taking away construction that means jobs to people. We are closing down businesses in Port de Grave district. I am not in here demanding to a Minister to Works, Services and Transportation: Do not spend money in my district. In fact, I am lobbying to get more money spent out in the district.

MR. TULK: John, you have to get into Hansard what he did.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, yes.

I can tell you, we have to make sure that every statement that has been made here in this House of Assembly on the impact on rural Newfoundland and Labrador by the Tory policy have to be sent out to every single resident in their constituency. Every single resident in their constituency has to hear the policies of the Member for Lewisporte, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

In fact, I do not know but the Member from Bellevue and myself will hand delivered them to the workers in Whitbourne and let them see for themselves what kind of representation... I have to send out one to Florence Yetman in St. John's South so she herself can see about the retirement package that your party is asking for the people living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You have that right. I know my way right around Newfoundland, too.

I can tell you, they will receive a copy of the Hansard. They will see a copy of the statement and the position of that party over there on what they want to do to rural Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, building rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not taking away. The economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador is bringing forth policies that you stand by. You do not flip from January to February to April or May. You bring in a policy and you stand by the policy that is solid.

MR. TULK: You do not say we want people in the fishery retired at age fifty, and the next day come in a say we should not have done it.

MR. EFFORD: That is right, you should not have done it. That is what we have to look at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, rural Newfoundland and Labrador started to go downhill under the leadership of a provincial Tory Party and a federal Tory Party. It is going to be pretty difficult to turn that tide -

MR. TULK: It is slowing down.

MR. EFFORD: It is slowing down. It is difficult to turn the tide around to get the economy built up. It is going to take some firm policies put in place, administered by a government who believes in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the economic growth of rural Newfoundland and Labrador for the long term.

MR. TULK: You do not use it to play politics.

MR. EFFORD: You do not use it to play politics.

I suggest to any member who feels that what has been said over the last twenty-four hours in this House of Assembly by members opposite - or the last week - should stand in their place and correct it so that the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who they represent will have some level of confidence that they are supporting solid policies and not flip-flopping all over the place.

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

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman from Harbour Main-Whitbourne is a young member to this House. I do not want to see him get slaughtered, banged around -

MR. EFFORD: I do.

MR. TULK: I happen to like him, and I know that the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's would also like to give him a chance. He only has nine minutes left to stand up and clarify where he stands. I know that the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's would happily sit down and let him speak in his place. Is he going to stand?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to the Minister of Fisheries here this morning that any statements that I make in the House of Assembly, you can send them wherever you like. You can hand deliver them to my district any day. As a matter of fact, I will assist you if you want to come down to the district; because if I get you down to the district I may be able to show you some of the concerns that we are facing down there that are fishery related. I invite you to come and visit my district at any time, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, and you can take copies of any statements I make here in the House of Assembly and send them wherever you like. You can certainly send them to the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. I stand here representing the people in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. I intend to continue on standing up here representing the people of Placentia & St. Mary's and bringing their concerns to this House of Assembly, and bringing the concerns and issues that are in my district here. I say to you, feel free to take any statements or any comments I make and deliver them wherever you like, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I say go ahead.

If I could get back to the Government House Leader for a moment, he asked me to clarify a few things earlier this morning. I am not sure if my memory serves me correct. He was shouting out something across the floor at me at where I stand on something. Anyway, if it hits you -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). The former Minister of Fisheries, the Member of Lewisporte, had said that we should not have an early retirement, that we should not have done it. The Member for Bonavista South I think stood in this House a good many times (inaudible). I want to know does the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's agree with him. The people in this Province want to know. (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I am very surprised that the Government House Leader would even ask me that question.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). You were out and you are back. (Inaudible) you were out for a while and you are back now. You were not here last year when the Member for Bonavista South was standing up -

MR. MANNING: No.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I want to know where you stand.

MR. MANNING: The Member for Bonavista North was out and back too. Right? We were out and back too. I would say to you that a fair amount of my district depends upon the fishery, and has depended on the fishery for many years. I came here the other day in this House of Assembly and brought forward a private member's resolution because I wanted to address -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: - some of the concerns that the people in my district face and the people that are involved in the fishery. I brought that forward here the other day. Because I think we could formalize a committee here, a group, even if it is headed by the Minister of Fisheries, to start addressing some of the concerns in fisheries management in this Province.

Mr. Chair, I want to let the Government House Leader know that there are many parts of the program I do not agree with, but I do agree with giving the people the opportunity to retire. I say to the Government House Leader - if he was listening - that I do agree with giving the people the opportunity to retire.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) licence (inaudible)?

MR. MANNING: I agree with parts of the licence buy-back. I do not agree with it all, I will be honest with you, but there is a portion of it I agree with. I have major concerns with the program for (inaudible) that the program did not take in historical attachment.

MR. TULK: Do you agree with the principle?

MR. MANNING: I agree with the principle. What I have a problem with is it is not doing away with many licences.

MR. TULK: The Member for Lewisporte (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The Member for Lewisporte stand in his place and say what he has to say, and I will stand in mine and say what I have to say. I say to the Government House Leader that there are many parts of that program that are lax. Many parts of that program have left people in this Province in very tough economic shape.

I say that the Government House Leader, who represents a rural district, who represents many people in the fishing industry, should be standing on his feet and trying to do something about the inequities in the TAGS program instead of standing here and trying to find out what the members opposite think.

I just want to say to the Government House Leader that the debate this morning has been very fruitful, very constructive, and I think that if we learn any message here it is that we have a lot of problems as they relate to programs such as the TAGS program, such as the federal sponsored program. I think, when you look at the concerns that are in your district as well as in my mine, that we all should be addressing the inequities in that program so that the people out there who have spent their lifetime in the fishery get a fair and equitable chance to continue living here in this Province.

That is what I say to the minister, and with that I will leave it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we move the adjournment, I presume the Member for St. John's Centre is the Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) down the line.

MR. TULK: Going down the line.

We do have three heads here on which we have a time limit. I think it is twelve hours, somewhere around twelve hours, that we had in total when we started yesterday. We have not put the vote on either one of the heads yet. We can do it one way or the other. We can move out of Executive Council the first thing on Monday and then move into the Legislature, then move into Consolidated Revenue Fund right after, and put them all the one time, or we can pass one, move to the other one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I just wanted to make you aware that there are two other heads. I know the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's wants to ask some very telling questions about those other two as well.

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

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