The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a local young athlete who is showcasing her kick-boxing skills to the world.

Melanie Haire, a sixteen-year-old Harbour Grace youth, recently was part of the Canadian national team to travel to Kassandra, Greece, to be part of World Pro Kick-Boxing Association World Championships, April 24 to April 29. Melanie won Silver in the eighteen years and under category. Other members of the team from the Province included: Michael Foley, who won Gold and Silver at the competition; Jason Foley, who won a Bronze; and Sean Hunt, who also won a Bronze.

Mr. Speaker, this prestigious international event brought together fifty countries and approximately 1,000 competitors. I am proud to see Harbour Grace and this Province represented in such an event.

I want to congratulate Melanie and the entire Newfoundland contingent on their achievement. It is another great example of the high-quality calibre of our youth and local athletes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity today to offer congratulations on behalf of the Members of the House of Assembly to Eugene Manning, a Grade 12 student of Fatima Academy, St. Bride's, in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. In the past couple of weeks, Eugene has won three scholarships totaling $94,200: $50,000 from the TD Canada Trust Scholarship; $25,000 from Memorial University Alumni Entrance Scholarship; and $19,200 Millennium Scholarship Excellence Award.

Eugene is the son of Eugene and Joan Manning, and has an excellent academic record, finishing off Grade 12 with a 98 per cent average. Eugene is a very community-minded person, as a founding member of Friends of Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve. He is an active member of the Youth Advisory Council of the Avalon Gateway Regional Economic Board, and has just returned from Washington, D.C., where he attended, with 400 other students from fifty different countries around the world, the Future World Leaders Summit.

Eugene plans to begin engineering studies at Memorial University this coming September. He will be off to Ottawa this weekend with his family to accept his Canada Trust Scholarship.

Once again, we congratulate him and wish him well in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to present a member's statement on a matter from my district, a passing of a very prominent citizen?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS KELLY: Thank you, very much.

I rise before the House today to pay tribute to the late Bill Bennett, who passed away on April 21 at the age of seventy. Mr. Bennett was a well-known bush pilot. He was well-known in Gander and Appleton, and indeed all around this Province. Many knew him through Gander Aviation, his air service and charter company which was in business for nearly forty years. He was well-known for providing air ambulance services to hundreds of communities in our Province, particularly as part of the Grenfell Mission. He provided a valuable lifesaving service to those in isolated communities who required medical attention. Mr. Bennett would often transport patients to the nearest hospital in stormy weather conditions, risking his own life to save others.

In his lifetime, he accumulated more than 30,000 hours of flying. A true pilot at heart, Mr. Bennett was still flying his one plane, a Beaver, last summer.

He was also very well-known for his hunting and fishing lodges both on the Island portion of our Province and in Labrador. His lodges attracted visitors from around the world. An expert sportsman himself, Mr. Bennett took a hands-on approach to the business and would often personally assist guests with hunting and fishing. His passing is a sad event for the District of Gander, for our aviation industry, and indeed for this Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you send a letter of condolence to the family of Mr. Bennett, on behalf of the Legislature.

Thank you.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, known as C-NOPB, has today announced a new Call for Bids for the Province's offshore area. Premier Grimes is also promoting this new call today at the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston, Texas. There will be fourteen parcels up for bid this year, with three located in the Flemish Pass Area, four in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, three in the South Whale Basin, and four adjacent to the Newfoundland West Coast area. These parcels compromise a total of 1,969,664 hectares.

Last year's Call for Bids resulted in work expenditure commitment in excess of $88 million. This Call, coupled with previous calls, is a clear indication of industry's continued confidence in the resource potential of our offshore.

Mr. Speaker, with Hibernia producing at 140,000 barrels per day; Terra Nova to begin production later this year; the White Rose development plan under review, and the potential for a Hebron/Ben Nevis project, we are anticipating major growth in our petroleum sector. All of these fields are located in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, which has been the area of the offshore where activity has been focused to date.

Although interest in the Jeanne d' Arc Basin continues, industry interest has continued to extend into the South Whale Basin, Flemish Pass area, and offshore Western Newfoundland. This continued interest bodes well for the future exploration activity.

I am optimistic that exploration activity in these relatively untested areas will provide the new discoveries that will lead to a combined and continued expansion of our petroleum sector.

Companies interested in bidding on land parcels must submit their work expenditure bids by November 20, 2001, to the C-NOPB. Winning bids are solely based on the amount of money a bidder plans to commit to exploration on the parcel during the first five years.

Mr. Speaker, the 2001 Call for Bids is another opportunity for companies to invest in a Province that has a stable economic base, sufficient and significant natural resource potential, world-class research facilities and a $1.2 billion worth of onshore infrastructure for our offshore oil and gas industry.

We look forward to another successful call and we remain confident that the industry will continue to invest in the Province's offshore area.

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.

This is, indeed, a positive announcement when a new Call for Bids is being put forward in this fashion. Obviously, members on this side of the House wish all companies and all parties well throughout this process.

It is important to keep in mind, of course, and I always use an opportunity such as this, that members on both sides of the House keep in mind the purposes of the Atlantic Accord and in particular, section 2(c) which states that one of the purposes of the Atlantic Accord is to recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the principle beneficiary. It is, indeed, incumbent on the government of the day to ensure that any activity, as it relates to our offshore and the benefits as it relates to the people of the Province - it is incumbent upon members opposite and members of the government of the day to keep in mind that the purposes of the Accord are kept in mind for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are the primary beneficiaries of this great resource.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do hope that the Call for Bids will show some significant interest in exploration in these areas. We should keep in mind and in perspective, the $88 million that the government referred to as the call for last year has to be compared with the $2 billion value of the oil recovered from Hibernia alone. So it does not strike me as a particularly significant amount of exploration for what we would believe to be a significant world-class oil and gas area offshore in our Province. This government has to do more to make sure that the value and virtues of oil and gas exploration off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador is important in value.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform everyone about the National Child Benefit Process Report 2000, which was released yesterday across the country.

As most of my colleagues know, the National Child Benefit was created in 1998 by federal, provincial and territorial governments to help reduce child poverty and support low-income families enter and stay in the labor force. Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is proud to be a partner in the National Child Benefit. The partnerships we have established through the NCB are an excellent example of federal-provincial cooperation.

Since the launch of the NCB, the Province has introduced major new programs and enhanced existing ones to assist low-income families with children. The National Child Benefit also includes a federal income supplement that goes through approximately 54,000 children in low-income families across the Province and is valued at around $31 million. This supplement and our programs and services are making a real difference in the lives of families, children and youth, and demonstrate our commitment to reducing child poverty and helping low income families with children.

The 2000 Process Report shows that fewer Canadian children are living in poverty and more families are earning money from employment. It also shows that the number of families receiving income support has declined significantly since 1997. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador there are about 18,000 children living in families on income support. While that number is still too high, it is down from about 26,000 in 1997, and represents a decline of about 30 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, while we know that a number of factors are key to this trend, including an improved economy and changing demographics, we also believe that the kinds of programs and services we offer are making a difference in the lives of children and their families.

Monsieur le président: nous savons que plusieurs facteurs contribuent à cette tendance, entre autres, une économie améliorée et des changements démographiques. Nous croyons également que les programmes et services que nous offrons affectent positivement la vie de ces enfants et de leur famille.

Annually, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador invests about $17 million in NCB programs and services that include the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit for low income families, including families on income support, and extended drug card benefits for families returning to work. About 24,000 families receive the NLCB. Losing benefits for their children is a major issue for parents who are rejoining the workforce, and these initiatives are designed to respond to this concern.

Other successful NCB initiatives include family resource centres who help ensure children up to the age of six get a healthy start in life. There are an estimated 1,100 families and 1,300 children attending NCB funded family resource centres monthly in our Province. There is also a unique pilot project for children with autism, community youth networks for youth between twelve and eighteen, and enhanced childcare initiatives including increased funding for subsidies. These subsidies allow low income families to go to work or take advantage of training opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, we are all very proud of the work we are doing under the National Child Benefit. The programs and services we offer support our continued focus on reducing child poverty, helping people find employment, and providing families with supports they need to ensure their children get off to a healthy start. These are major priorities of Human Resources and Employment, Health and Community Services, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They also complement the goals of the Strategic Social Plan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his statement, and I would like to make a couple of comments.

I know the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is proud to be a partner in the National Child Benefit. I remember back in 1998 the fight that we had with the previous Minister of Human Resources, to get the government not to claw back the National Child Benefit from people who were on social services, just because they were on social services and did not have a job, when employment was so low and remains low here in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) New Brunswick and Nova Scotia did that.

MS S. OSBORNE: And we finally did it, mercifully. When I asked the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: When I asked the minister to provide the people who were on social assistance with a list of the jobs that were available in the Province, then it turned around.

There are 18,000 children living in families on income support and that number is still too high. It is down from about 26,000 in 1997. Demographics have changed. There has been a lot of out-migration in that period, and a lot of the out-migration has been people who are in that situation. While the progress report shows that fewer children are living in poverty -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: The face of child poverty is starting to change in the Province, but it is changing from single mothers on welfare to working poor mothers who are holding down at least one job. As the minister said, welfare rolls may be shrinking and some jobs may have lifted some people barely above the poverty line, but poverty stubbornly remains for many single mothers who have traded a welfare cheque for a pay stub.

There is a modicum of credit due to government for the initiatives, but the fact remains that we are still sadly lacking in affordable daycare that will allow our single mothers to go out to work and not just -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: - work in underpaid, part-time, non-standard jobs, but in meaningful jobs.

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 an advance copy of his statement. I would like to say and acknowledge that some of the positive changes have been made in recent years, such as extended drug coverage benefits and other programs. While this has done a lot to enhance the lives of people in the Province, there is still much work left to be done. There are still many workers who work hard every week, full-time, who are still living in poverty. What we need in this Province is a living wage, not a minimum wage.

It is also not a good sign, I say to the minister, that in 1989 when child poverty was at the rate of 14.6 per cent, a unanimous resolution was made to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Now, the latest reports of 1998 show that child poverty has increased 4.4 per cent, or 3.4 per cent, higher than when that resolution was made. That is indicative of the work that needs to be done in this Province and in this country in the area of child poverty.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on an issue which affects Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the future of an industry which is the backbone of our Province's economy. This afternoon, the shareholders of Fishery Products International elected a new board of directors. The new board will now lead FPI as has been directed by the shareholders of that company.

Mr. Speaker, this issue has received a great deal of attention over the past number of weeks, as it affects several plants and hundreds of fish harvesters and plant workers in rural communities around the Province. Many concerns have been raised, and I stand here this afternoon to reaffirm government's commitment to protect the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, especially those affected by the corporate actions of FPI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: In recognition of FPI's corporate nature, all interested parties recognize that there was no role for government to play in the election of FPI's board of directors. In fact, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Danny Williams, also recognized that the government should not intrude into the situation, and I quote him from the Fisheries Broadcast: I think it is an internal corporate battle. You can't get involved in exactly what goes on with the board of directors.

Mr. Speaker, for government to get involved would have seriously undermined the rights of shareholders and potentially devastated the share value of the company. This would have seriously impacted this Province's reputation as a place to do business, and hampered our ability to attract new investment.

Mr. Speaker, now that the new board is in place at FPI, this government remains actively committed to ensuring the protection of the current FPI plants, the communities, and the workers which depend upon them. We are also committed to ensuring that all the current plants are utilized to the fullest potential, irrespective of who sits on the board of directors of Fishery Products International, today or in the future. Representatives of the new board have repeatedly stated their intention to vest in the company and to grow FPI in a manner which will positively impact the rural Newfoundland communities and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government will hold the board accountable and ensure that they fulfill their commitments.

Mr. Speaker, in a circular distributed to the shareholders of FPI, the new board said, and I quote: We realize that FPI's strength and potential is derived from its strong partnership with the communities and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not intend to close any of FPI's processing plants. On the contrary, we are committed to reinvesting and enhancing these facilities. Suggestions made that we intend to shut down Newfoundland-based operations are scare tactics of the worst kind, and absolutely untrue.

Mr. Speaker, the new board of directors at FPI have repeatedly made this commitment to the shareholders of the company, to this government, and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can assure you that we will be exceedingly vigilant in monitoring the actions of this board so as to protect the interests of the people of this Province.

This government, and indeed the people of the Province, must hold this new board accountable for the commitments and promises which they have made. FPI is the creation of this Legislature for the purpose of maximizing benefits of the fishing industry for the people of the communities of this Province. This government is committed to undertake any legislative amendments necessary to achieve this end.

Furthermore, I have written and spoken to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, requesting that the Government of Canada confirm its commitment that all current and future FPI quotas are harvested and processed for the long-term benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We will hold the board accountable and will request that they outline for government how they plan to fulfil and uphold the commitments which they have made to the communities and to the people of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just want to make a few brief comments on the minister's statement because we will have an opportunity, and a chance, to debate this thoroughly in Question Period in, not only this session today, but in other opportunities as well.

I will say to him at the onset that I understand why you are quoting our leader and in the context that you have quoted him in that sentence is correct. At the same time, if he went on to quote or understand what our Leader and our Party, though him, and through all of us in this Legislature have said, about what is important is the protection of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and what is important is ensuring that the act, that is the law of this Province, enshrined, passed, and proclaimed in this Legislature, is upheld and fulfilled to the extent that it should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite that this is an extremely important issue, extremely important issue. The people in the Province have many, many questions today, as they did six or seven weeks ago, about how this new board proceeds, how it intends to live up to its promises that it has made to grow a company, invest further, grow jobs, is critical; but in my view, our responsibility and obligation is clear, it is to the Legislature. It is to the legislation that we have passed and in so doing, living up to our obligation to the Legislation, ensuring that every company, and in this case the new Board of Directors, because they operate under the same act in terms of collusion, in terms of harvesting, in terms of processing, in terms of marketing Newfoundland products. That is our obligation.

I say to this House and to the people of the Province today, that no matter what board is there, no matter what CEO is there, no matter what chairman, chairperson, or chairwoman of the board is in place, that this side of the House will ensure that the obligations and responsibilities of that legislation will be lived up to for the protection of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was at that shareholders meeting as a guest this morning and 106 shareholders voted for the dissident slate, 1,429 shareholders voted for the management slate, but the 106 shareholders had 82 per cent of the votes. Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed the primary, flagship, international fish processing company controlled in the interest of this Province, being taken over by its competitors from Iceland, New Zealand and Nova Scotia. This government, to its disgrace, has actually facilitated that take over by its indifference and its inaction.

This is a day, Mr. Speaker, when many people out at that shareholders meeting this morning, from throughout this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, thought they were at a wake. It is a disgrace to this government and to the future of this Province to see this very, very significant and important company being taken over by its competitors. And, act or not act, the future of this company, and this Province, under the new group is very, very uncertain and this government is responsible for it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the government today. I am not sure if the Deputy Premier will answer, the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Fisheries. I am not trying to be facetious because some of the questions asked today may go across interdepartmental lines.

On March 26, in this House, I asked the question: Did government - after Mr. Risley had come to see the Premier, when he was not, frankly, interested enough to ask any questions at the time - instruct the Department of Justice to seek a legal opinion to see if these actions that were occurring, and now have subsequently occurred, did these actions, in any way, or would they in any way, fly in the face of the legislation? The Deputy Premier, at the time, indicated that Executive Council had instructed the Department of Justice to get an opinion and then to give that opinion to Cabinet. He also went on to make a commitment that once they had that legal opinion, that he saw no trouble in tabling it in the House.

My question today then is for whichever minister will answer: Did the Department of Justice provide that briefing to Cabinet and/or the Liberal caucus? If so, when did they provide that briefing and if they did provide that briefing, will they table it now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous consultations between the Premier's Office, the Department of Justice, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture involving this position for the past number of weeks. Yes, there have been consultations, both within the Department of Justice and outside, seeking legal advice and opinion as to what the FPI Act,1987, actually did say, and what it permitted to be done or what could not be done.

One of the pieces of advice that we received was that there should be no comment from government, in fact, in any manner to the public that might influence the shareholders meetings itself. That is a corporate occurrence that is sanctioned by the Corporations Act, and shareholders are permitted to exercise their right of vote as they see fit. That was the first instance. The second piece of the equation was to determine what, if any options, government might have available to it if certain things happen that might be deemed at any particular point not to be in the best interest of the people of this Province, or in a community in which FPI operates, or any plant worker that might be involved in that company.

As the members opposite well know, and I stated in an earlier Question Period, FPI is a creation of this Legislature. When it was created there were certain rules and regulations put in place, as part of that legislation, which said what could or could not be done by those who were in control of FPI. The intention at that time was to control the company because it was a big player and would be a big player in the fishing industry of this Province to ensure that its actions were always in the best interest of the people of this Province.

Rest assured, as I indicated earlier, it is a creation of this Legislature, and this Legislature -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I do not want a dissertation from the minister. There was a commitment made on March 26 in this House by the Deputy Premier, while the Premier was sitting right there. He made this commitment: That a legal opinion was sought from the Department of Justice. When we get it, frankly, I see no trouble in making it available to this House.

Will you make that opinion available in this House? Yes or no, Mr. Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, there have been numerous consultations and legal advice sought. It was not deemed to be in the best interest while the shareholders meetings were happening and the parties were doing what they felt was necessary in terms of the shareholders meeting which took place today, for government to become involved. There have been ongoing discussions based upon various pieces of information and advice that I received from legal council within and without, providing advice to the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries in terms of telling him where we stood from a protection point of view.

We also met with the mayors from all of the communities who have Fishery Products International operating within their communities and the union personnel, and explained to them that the legislation does protect those communities. You cannot speculate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

The bottom line is: Yes. There have been different opinions, pieces of opinions, rendered on different issues as they arose.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, while the opinion of the government may have been not to comment during this dispute, the horse left the barn today, Minister. The new Board of Directors is in place. There was a commitment made by the Deputy Premier on March 26 that all legal opinions would be tabled in this House. They do not belong exclusively to you. Will you table those opinions sometime today, sometime tomorrow, or sometime the next day?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in undertaking to have the various opinions on the various pieces compiled and put together and tabled in this House. I can also assure the Leader of the Opposition, my understanding is that meetings in fact have been arranged between the new board. We will be meeting shortly with the minister in the next couple of days or so. With regard to the legal opinions, I have no problem in having them put together by whatever the minimum amount of time required to have them complied. The information is there. If you want to put in a brief form to be submitted, not a problem.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the concerns that people have today are obvious. They should be obvious to everybody. I would like to ask questions surrounding the act itself. For example, in the act -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your act.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your act.

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you have a point to make? It is not my act. It is the acts that you are getting on with minister. Now if you would like to get up and stand up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

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

If you could ask the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I might add that if you could ask the minister to (inaudible) his comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: With respect to clause 7 of the act - and again, that might be up to the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Justice, or the Deputy Premier to answer. With respect to clause 7 of the act which states: FPI shall - it does not say may - shall not "...sell, lease, exchange or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its property or business which relates to the harvesting, processing and marketing of seafood."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this: Will you commit, or will the minister commit, to ensure that that section of the act is still in play, and that the new board of directors clearly understand that section of the act is clearly in play?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague has said, we have had many discussions in the past three or four weeks on this issue. The legal advice that we received is that we should not get involved. Your current leader admitted the same thing, that we should not get involved in the selection of the board of directors of this company. However, we have given the commitment, we have told members of the dissident slate that were elected today that we will uphold the rest of this legislation pertaining to FPI.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this question. So he is going to tell the new board that the marketing arm of FPI, which has been successful in marketing as a part of the business of Fishery Products International, will not be sold off to any foreign interests, either in Iceland, New Zealand, or anywhere else, that all and substantially all of that marketing division will remain in tact? Is that what the minister is saying he is going to tell the new Board of Directors of FPI?

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

MR. REID: As I said earlier, yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be telling them that. We have already made representation to the new board. I hope to meet with them, along with some of my colleagues, in the next day or two. This legislation has been on the books since 1987 and we will ensure that all of this legislation is adhered to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In terms of the current operations, clause 7 is a very important clause. If I may just have a little bit of latitude, under the act, the powers of the board are clearly defined, but clause 7 gives this Legislature the power to act. It is very, very important. So we want to be clear, and I want to ask the minister to be very clear, that in terms of the communities that FPI currently operates in, in terms of all of the communities that it currently operates in, all of the operations that FPI currently has, is government's commitment the same, that there will be no change in FPI status in those communities unless first the communities decide that for themselves? Is government's position as it was in 1999, as it was spelled out on March 26, by the Deputy Premier? Is that still the position of government today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The current board has notified everybody they have spoken with in the last three weeks - the communities, the government and everybody else who wanted to listen - that they will not be closing down any facilities in this Province. We will hold them to that commitment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, boards come and go. Boards come and go, as evidenced today, but the legislation that protects this industry is what our obligations are. I am glad to hear the minister say - and I want to be clear, so I will ask him again because I am not sure he said it - that there will be no change in status in the communities that FPI currently operates in and runs operations in unless, first of all, there is a commitment from the communities themselves or that the communities themselves say it is okay. Is that the commitment that this minister tells to the people of the Province today and, in particular, to the rural communities where FPI is currently operating in?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, and the Premier, met with mayors and councillors from the affected communities. We also met with union representatives from those communities and we told them that we are committed to making sure that the assets and resources attached to FPI, and to those towns that currently operate under FPI, are protected under the legislation and if necessary, as my colleague said earlier, if the legislation is not strong enough - and I think it is as we look at it today - we can come back into this House of Assembly at any time and change it to make it stronger if it is so required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this question because he has not answered it to the satisfaction or answered it directly, in my view. I want to ask him: Is he saying what the Deputy Premier said on March 26 when he said this: Let me inform the hon. gentleman of one thing, any attempt to circumvent the legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Any attempt to circumvent that piece of legislation - that is what he said - or any attempt to do what the failed NEOS bid was unable to do in 1999 would not take place unless the communities themselves expressly said yes to it. Is that still the commitment of government today?

MR. REID: Did I say that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I told you what you said.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know how many ways I can say it. We are committed to ensuring that FPI remains intact and that the benefits derived from FPI are derived for the people in the communities and to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: They are not saying it, Mr. Speaker, and here is where the trouble is. I will ask them again: Is the Minister of Fisheries' stand the same as the Deputy Premier on March 26 when he said: As far as this government is concerned will remain in place and any attempt to hurt Newfoundland rural communities, as we said in 1999, will only be allowed when those communities say so? Is that your position today? The same position that the Deputy Premier took on March 26?

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying is that the government will ensure, in cooperation with the communities and those affected by FPI, we will ensure that the assets are protected for the interests of those involved, and that means the communities, the workers, the fishermen and everybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Clause 6 as well, of the FPI Act, deals with the issue of: FPI cannot request continuance under the laws of any other jurisdiction. Now there has been some opinion put forward on this issue which indicates that it is possible - and I say possible - that clause is not enforceable.

I want to ask this question, possibly to the Minister of Justice. Clause 6 of the act states that FPI cannot request continuance under the laws of any other jurisdiction. Does your research or opinions that the Department of Justice has shown, does that prevent FPI from being registered in any other province in this country, or in any other country for that matter? Have you been provided any legal opinion on that? An important question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the advice that we have is that it shall continue to operate only under this Province. It may, of course, carry on business in another area for the purposes of complying with the other jurisdictions' ability to be in their jurisdiction, but that it must remain registered here and be operated pursuant to the laws of the Newfoundland and Labrador corporations act, and not pursuant to the laws of any other jurisdiction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. Minister, in light of the statements you made in the House yesterday, and outside of the House, I would like to ask you what you, or your government, will be doing to protect the assets presently at Marystown, owned by Friede Goldman? Can you tell us the direction you are taking in order to make sure that those assets stay in Marystown to be of benefit to the people in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me just say first of all, to the Leader of the Opposition, if I said something different, or if he thought I said something different outside to the press yesterday, I apologize to him for that, because that certainly is not the intent of any statements that I make.

There are possibly a number of ways that you could protect the assets of FPI. They are being explored. One of them, of course -

AN HON. MEMBER: Friede Goldman.

MR. TULK: I am sorry, Friede Goldman. And FPI, I say to him.

We are exploring a number of legal options with the buyers here and in the U.S. At the present time we do not see that they are under any duress, if I could, during the 120 day bankruptcy period. Of course, as I said before, we will leave no stone unturned to see that the assets are protected for the people of Marystown. I think what the Leader of the Opposition might be referring to yesterday - I think I said one of those stones - to the press was the use of the Legislature. That, I would say to him, is probably a bit premature at this time, but it was necessary. (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister continues to refer back to chapter 11. That is what he is hanging his hat on to protect the assets at Marystown. I say to the minister, my understanding of chapter 11, while it protects the assets at Marystown as far as seizure and bankruptcy is concerned, it does not stop Friede Goldman from selling the assets in Marystown.

I ask the minister if he has considered what will happen if the assets are put up for sale and what his government will do, again, to protect the assets to the benefit of not only the people in Marystown, but the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: It is a good question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Of course, Friede Goldman could sell the assets. Selling them, or removing them, would be two different things.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, this is a contract put in place by you and your government. I ask you again, since it is a contract between your government and Friede Goldman, why don't you bring an end to this and just cancel the contract?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that cancelling a contract is not the only way that you can secure those assets.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did they live up to their commitments?

MR. TULK: No, they have not lived up to their commitments. That is well known. They know that. We know it -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - and I am thankful now to see that the Member for Cape St. Francis knows it, that they have not lived up to their commitments in the sense that they have paid up the $10 million, or provided the amount of labour that they were supposed to provide in the second and third year. In the first year, of course, they provided more labour than really was called for in order for them to live up to their commitments.

Now, to the hon. gentleman's question. That may very well be one of the areas that you might have to undertake, but there are other ways as well. To be frank with you, we will, before the 120 days are up, let everybody in this Province know exactly how we intend to protect the assets. I say to the hon. gentleman that the ultimate weapon that you have is right here.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, a final question to the minister. Since there was an agreement in place that Friede Goldman haven't lived up to as it relates to the man-hours provided, is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador now one of the creditors that have gone forward looking for payment to this government, to the taxpayers of this Province, along with the other creditors that are looking for funding from Friede Goldman as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I would say to the hon. gentleman, that he is ill-informed. I have to say that to you, because the truth -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, no. The truth of the matter is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: In his question he made the statement that other creditors have gone to Friede Goldman, and that implies that you have gone to Friede Goldman on Marystown. There have been no calls by any creditors, including the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the Marystown assets, on FGN. I am sorry. I have to say to the hon. gentleman, under Chapter 11 they are not tied into the assets of Friede Goldman Halter.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions are for the acting Minister of Health. Great concern has been expressed by physicians about the inadequate space allocated for obstetrical patients at Unit 5, North B at the Health Sciences Centre. Of the forty beds in the unit, twenty-four are in wards with four babies and four mothers in one room, a room that measures, I might say, about 20 x14 feet. With eight patients, that is four mothers and four infants, in such a small space, physicians say they have little room to maneuver around in order to provide adequate and reasonable levels of care, or to provide for adequate privacy.

The present arrangement, Mr. Minister, according to some of the physicians, constitutes a public health crisis. The minister has known about this for some time. I ask the minister: What is your government doing about it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the question from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley. Indeed, some concerns have been expressed in the last number of days with regard to the issue that he has raised. My officials have been in contact with the Health Care Corporation and have been advised that adequate space is available. That is not to say that from time to time there are not some difficulties that do arise. My officials are assured that, as I said, the space is there. Certainly the space is there to deal with the concerns. Certainly when problems of this nature arise it is a concern to all of us. None of us want a situation where the quality of care is in any way negatively impacted. We are working with the Health Care Corporation to ensure that a high level of care is available to all of the citizens of our Province, not only here in St. John's but indeed right throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I ask the minister: Is the minister saying that he has directed the board of the St. John's Health Care Corporation to change the wards that are there now into semi-private type arrangements, and to find additional beds at the Health Sciences so that there is sufficient space for mothers and their infants, so they can get the care they deserve in the crucial days following delivery? Is he saying that he is going to change the whole arrangement over there so that adequate space can be made available, and has he directed the Health Care Corporation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the hon. member that what he heard is not what I said. If he wants to provide the answers as well, to the questions he asks, then I would suggest that he send me a written copy beforehand. Indeed, the answer I gave is nowhere near what he misinterpreted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, or whoever will answer for him today. The Minister of Fisheries today referred to the shareholders meeting of FPI as resulting in a change of directors. Will this government not acknowledge that in fact what has happened here is a takeover of FPI by its competitors from Iceland, New Zealand and Nova Scotia? And, how can this government justify its indifference and its inaction in the face of the takeover of the premier Newfoundland fishing company with operations in thirty-two countries of the world, which has done a job for the last seventeen years for the people of this Province and for the communities of this Province in which they operated?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the Leader of the NDP, who happens to be a lawyer, is standing in the House of Assembly today saying that we should have interfered with the selection of the board of directors of FPI. Every piece of legal advice that we have received said that you could not do that because to do it would be tantamount to nationalizing FPI. The effects that could have on the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, not to mention the company itself, would be astronomical.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Province knows that what happened today was the takeover of this Newfoundland operation by its competitors with the help of institutional shareholders.

Why did this government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; I ask him to get to his question now.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Institutional shareholders, such as pension funds from other Provinces, played a strong role in this happening. Why did this government not use our up to $2 billion worth of pension funds, public pension funds, to also play a role in influencing the future of this company and maintain it as a Newfoundland and Labrador company?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite how many shares he held in FPI, because I doubt if he had any. In fact, prior to this year, the total shares held by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in that company was less than 5 per cent.

I have to also tell the hon. member opposite that all during this debate, the board of directors of FPI was in constant contact with the previous Chairman, Mr. Young, and all through this I asked: What is it you want the government to do, or is there something that the government can do, to prevent this from happening? The answer came back every time, saying: No, there is nothing you can do with the selection of the board of directors of FPI.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is time for one quick question.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions again today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Minister, we have all followed the press, I guess, over the last several days and we find that one of my federal cousins - not one of your federal cousins but one of mine - is now putting a motion before the House of Commons in Ottawa concerning the cleanup of the St. John's Harbour. I would like to ask you today, Minister: Have you written your federal cousin, the former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and is he onside and will he support such a motion in the House of Commons?

I know that the provincial government has already committed their share to the cleanup. I wonder, have you people made any representation to the federal government in Ottawa to come forward with their share of the money for the cleanup of the St. John's Harbour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say that recently I met with the ACAP group and they came and asked if our commitment was still firm toward the cleanup of the St. John's Harbour. I indicated to them that: yes, it was; providing, of course, they could find the other one-third per cent funding so that the project could be complete.

I indicated to them at that particular time, they were to write to the federal minister, the regional minister for Newfoundland, asking for a meeting to be arranged. I told them that I would do that, and as of this particular time it has not been done. I am waiting to hear from the regional minister so that we can meet, ACAP and myself, to deal with the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today again to present another petition in a long line of petitions on roads in my district. Surprise, surprise, I know, to a lot of members opposite.

This particular petition is from the community of Westport on the Baie Verte Peninsula, still one of the communities, one of the 900 kilometres of unpaved roads in the Province. When the minister asked me on different occasions about priorities, I have always said to the minister and previous ministers that a gravel road anywhere in this Province is a priority. To look at the statistics again, of 900 kilometres of unpaved road in the district, according to the information from the minister recently, that I asked for - and I thank the minister for providing me with that information - there are some 1,400 kilometres of pavement in this Province that is twenty years to thirty years old. So, we have a combination problem in this Province now of not just the embarrassment of having gravel roads but the fact that we have so much old pavement in the Province, like the La Scie highways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will allow the minister to get up after, to make some responses, if he wants to. He gave me the information. I am just telling him what he gave me: that in fact we do have a serious problem. We simply know that $18 million this year, in this year's budget, that was bragged about by the minister and the government, saying it was such a big increase, the minister knows himself you certainly cannot address the serious problem we have in this Province of some $200 million in requests this year on urgent roads, on roads that are not paved. Again, like I said, the combination now is that we have some 1,400 kilometres of old pavement in this Province. I have spoken to members on both sides of the House who have said the same thing - even the minister himself.

We have 1,400 kilometres of old pavement, 900 kilometres of gravel road, and we have $18 million to address a $200 million problem. You do not have to be a Finance Minister or a genius to figure out that if you keep addressing this problem like we do every year - when all the members line up at the minister's office, we run over begging for a few crumbs to address a problem that has basically gotten out of control.

Mr. Speaker, I have said before to the minister's suggestions, he can plagiarize our Blue Book again if he wants to, but the truth is that we need a plan to address the problem. Back even when the former Minister of Fisheries was the Minister of Transportation, we said the same thing, and the other ministers said the same thing, that every year we cannot run to the Minister of Transportation begging for a few crumbs to get each district in this Province which has gravel roads and old pavement, fighting over a few crumbs that the government is throwing out.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that we have always made besides having a plan is talk to the federal government because the problem has gotten so far out of control that we need the cooperation of the federal government to address these roads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of Bill 13, entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act," carried. (Bill 13)

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of Bill 11, entitled, An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act, The Dieticians Act, The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 And The Social Workers Association Act.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act, The Dieticians Act, The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 And The Social Workers Association Act," carried. (Bill 11)

On motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker. Again, I move first reading of a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Medical Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999. (Bill 12)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999," carried. (Bill 12)

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. (Bill 15)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act," carried. (Bill 15)

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 3, Mr. Speaker. The Concurrence Motion, the Social Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the Social Services Estimates Committee has had the opportunity to review and discuss a number of departments, including: Justice; Health and Community Services; Human Resources and Employment; Labour; Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; and Education.

I must say that all members who participated in the deliberations had the opportunity to discuss and review, and I guess selectively pick out various aspects of each department. I must say that all of us can say that the meetings were extremely successful and that was indicative by the amount of time in which some of them took place.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting committees, I guess, was education. When we looked at education we reviewed the new mandate of the Department of Education, and we seen very early and very quickly that the realignment of the Department of Education and the addition of early childhood development to the department's existing K-12 education system literacy mandate are indicative of the government's renewed commitment to investing today for a brighter tomorrow.

Between 1997 and 1998, and 2001 and 2002, the number of students in the K-12 system will have declined by over 14,500. That is almost 15 per cent. During that same period the expenditure per student, excluding capital, will have grown from $5,557 to $6,434, an increase of 15.8 per cent.

In recent years the Province's investment in education has increased at a higher rate than any other province. The Province's pupil-teacher ratio, of one teacher to every 13.9 students, continues to stand as the best in the country. The Canadian average, in the most recently published data, was sixteen students for each teacher. The ratio of our Atlantic counterparts range from 16.9 to 17.4 students per teacher. In September 2001, the ratio of this Province will further improve to approximately 13.3 students per teacher.

I guess one of the things that has happened is that government's reinvestment from the efficiencies that we have done through the amalgamation of schools and education reorganization. The $160 million has been committed since Confederation - the $160 million has been committed for school construction and renovations. The largest investment in education since Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Approximately $82 million has been reinvested to retain teaching units in the system since 1997-1998, despite an enrolment decline, as I mentioned earlier, of over 14,500 students. School boards have retained all savings from school closures, resulting in $23.4 million being reinvested in capital expenditures.

To date - and I will have to name them, in fairness, when I congratulate the minister - eight new state-of-the-art schools have been constructed in: Buchans, Clarenville, Hopedale, Nain, Norman Bay, Pollards Point, Rigolet, and Upper Trinity South. Planning or construction is underway for ten more in Arnold's Cove, Burgeo, Englee, Roddickton, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Lethbridge, Musgravetown, Lower Trinity South; Manuels, New World Island, Plum Point, Pouch Cove and Flat Rock. In addition, some major renovations and extensions have been completed on twenty-seven schools and communities throughout the Province.

This amount of investment goes to reassure the people of the Province that their concerns which were raised during the Jobs and Growth Consultations are being addressed, and that education is the cornerstone of the Province's economic development. Our unwavering commitment to continued investment in our education system and recent changes that seen responsibility for education spread over two departments allowing a more intensive focus on K-12 and post-secondary education. That is a clear indication that we have taken the message in the Jobs and Growth strategy very seriously.

The provincial government is investing $800,000 this fiscal year to achieve parity in the school busing system throughout the Province. Previously, all students in the Province, with the exception of St. John's junior and senior high schools, had access to school bus transportation, provided they lived 1.6 kilometres from the school or more. K-6 busing was introduced in St. John's for the 1999-2000 school year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I am just trying to let you know there is a school being built in your district. Pay attention, you might find out where it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Unbelievable.

Starting in September 2001, junior and senior high school students attending schools in St. John's, who live 1.6 kilometres or more from their designated schools, will receive free school busing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I agree.

Government is allocating an additional $1 million to the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board for the purchase of books. Government is also investing $5 million to implement the recommendations of the report -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could just take his seat for a minute. The Chair just wanted to bring to members' attention again, I know we have chairs that are swivel chairs and it makes it easy to move around but many members often turn back on to the Chair. We know that is not an acceptable practice. I just want to remind members about that.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Government is investing $5 million this year to implement the recommendations of the report of the ministerial panel on education delivery in the classroom.

The Social Services Estimates Committee also had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education to discuss some of the initiatives.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did she say?

MR. SWEENEY: I am going to tell you now what the hon. minister said, and how pleased I am to have had the opportunity to meet with her and hear the initiatives of this new department.

She reiterated the importance of education as the cornerstone in the communities of this Province. The minister announced the establishment of a Student Investment and Opportunity Corporation with an initial allocation of $4 million to help provide programs which will give them more opportunities to gain work experience and employment to offset the cost of their education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne has probably lost interest at this point, I guess. We have gone out of high school and into secondary education.

In March 2000, $6.5 million was announced to expand the Prince Philip Drive Campus of the College of the North Atlantic. I should ask my colleague from Bay of Islands the amount that was spent in Corner Brook. I think that is in over $3 million. Unfortunately, he is not paying attention either. I hope he is aware that there is over $3 million being spent on the campus at the Grenfell College in Corner Brook.

There was a total increase to the provincial operating grants to Memorial University, as well as to the College of the North Atlantic. Government is providing $3.3 million in additional funding to Memorial which would eventually enable a 10 per cent reduction in tuition fees, beginning this September, 2001. Funding will also be provided to the College of the North Atlantic to freeze tuition costs. The tuition reduction at Memorial will result in a savings of $330 per year. I might add that the tuition at Memorial University is the lowest in Atlantic Canada. With the continuation of the tuition freeze at the College of the North Atlantic, for the third consecutive year, the College will continue to have one of the lowest tuition fees in Atlantic Canada. I must say, I have to congratulate the minister and her department on her initiatives.

We eventually went on and met with the Department of Human Resources and Employment and reviewed their budget. It was noteworthy to see that the department is developing a new computerized pay system that will enhance service delivery and ensure that clients receive fast, efficient, and timely responses to their income support. The department will continue to support clients making the transition to the labour market. They have endeavoured to develop programs in partnership with community agencies and other groups. These programs focus on the link between economic and social development. Again, that is a major part of the government's theme in the strategic social plan.

Government has also, in that department, already committed, and will continue to commit, $3 million for NewfoundJOBS. The Single Parent Employment Support Program will provide $500,000 to assist single parents find meaningful employment. The minister already reported earlier that that program is very successful, with many, many people finding a better means in life.

Under the Employment Assistance for Persons with Disabilities, the EAPD program, people living with disability will continue to access support of their homes.

These initiatives, together with our growing economy, have been instrumental in reducing our social assistance caseload to less than 29,000 in December, 2000. The lowest level since October, 1992.

Let's see what else I have here. In Health and Community Services, and the critic for health may want to pay attention here as well, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will increase its budget allocation to the Department of Health and Community Services by $162 million this year, bringing the department's budget to $1.4 billion for total gross in current capital expenditures. Government will continue to make significant investments this year to improve on the accessibility and quality of care. Among the initiatives in the budget, as was discovered in the Estimates: $3.1 million to reduce wait times and wait lists for patients requiring cardiac surgery and cardiac cauterizations; I am very pleased to say $700,000 for new mammography units in Carbonear, Corner Brook and St. John's to further the commitment toward the development of the comprehensive province-wide breast screaming program; $5.1 million for anticipated increases in the utilization of the Province's drug subsidy program; $2.1 million to increase dispensing fees.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I have been reminded by my colleague from Torngat Mountains that I forgot to mention the new building for a school in Postville.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true, another school?

MR. SWEENEY: Another school.

MR. TULK: How many is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Four in six communities. Way to go!

MR. SWEENEY: What a member!

MR. TULK: What a government!

MR. SWEENEY: What a government!

Four hundred thousand increased funding for the medical transportation assistance program, to provide financial assistance to people who incur high costs of accessing medical and hospital treatment.

Other spending in health and community services will total over $50 million for the ongoing capital projects in several places throughout the Province; $17 million as part of the $69 million James Paton Hospital redevelopment in Gander.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Almost. Hopefully this year.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Don't forget my long-term care facility.

MR. SWEENEY: I have been reminded by my colleague from Trinity North that he has $10 million allocated for a long-term care facility in Clarenville.

MR. FITZGERALD: Ten million in the budget for Clarenville? Where is it? Where is the $10 million (inaudible)?

MR. SWEENEY: Ten million this year for the new Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in Stephenville, which has a total cost of $30.3 million.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is important when people stand in this House to speak, that they put forward the correct information. It is important, when the member gets up and starts talking in the millions of dollars, that he puts forward the correct amount. My understanding was that there was $0.5 million for the design and engineering work for a long-term care facility in Clarenville, not $5 million. Correct me if I am wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: I have to say to the Member for Bonavista South that it is also important to hear the figures that were said. It was not $5 million; it was $10 million, I said. I should have said that it was half a million dollars toward the engineering and design of an eventual $10 million construction of a complex in Clarenville.

I hope the hon. member understands that. He does not want to hear the truth. That is the difficulty of sitting in the Opposition, I know.

There is also $2.5 million for the Grand Bank health care centre, which has a total cost of $17.3 million; $11.2 million for new facilities in Fogo and Bonne Bay; $0.5 million for my colleague's design in Clarenville; and, again, $7.5 million for several renovation projects throughout various health facilities across the Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: Boy, you had better take care of them now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I hear the hon. Member for The Straits saying about taking care now. This government has taken care of your needs with the funding of Norstead, as I understand, so I would not be very critical of this government.

MR. TULK: I took care of you in January, sure.

MR. SWEENEY: The hon. Premier of the day certainly took care of that area at the time, and he looked after you quite well. There is an old saying in Newfoundland: Be careful not to bite the hand that feeds you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who is feeding who?

MR. SWEENEY: The more important question, I say to the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis, is: Who is feeding who what?

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly. You picked up on (inaudible). You're smarter than you look.

MR. SWEENEY: I thank the member for his compliment.

MR. J. BYRNE: You're welcome.

MR. SWEENEY: It is not often that the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis is in a complimentary mood.

Let's see what else I have. Government will also spend $32.4 million for capital equipment throughout the Province: CT scanners, mammography units, therapeutic equipment for acute care settings, and priority equipment for resident care needs in nursing homes.

I guess I will have to be totally fair about the whole thing. We will talk about the increases in salaries that the department has found and the government has found for its health care workers. We have $1.3 million being directed to personal care homes, to increase funding to facilities and to subsidies for -

MR. SULLIVAN: How much?

MR. SWEENEY: For $1.3 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The Budget has not been approved, I say to the member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. SWEENEY: The Budget has not been approved yet. That is the process which we are going through right now.

We have $5.2 million on programs and services to ensure children get a good start in life through an early childhood development initiative. We have also met with the hon. Minister of Labour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that tie.

MR. SWEENEY: I have to compliment the minister; it is a nice tie.

MR. TULK: Do you like that?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. TULK: I tell you, that tie is perfect. The Leader of the Opposition in the gallery sent me down a note saying he hated it. You know what he hated? What is going to get him - the red.

MR. SWEENEY: The red before a bull.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I have the opportunity, I will continue later.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise today to speak on the concurrence on the social services. I, too, will begin with Education. The Budget of 2001 certainly indicated that this government was looking at a new mandate, especially as it involves youth, and that is encouraging; because I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to youth, they are certainly the future of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and we must ensure that the education that they receive is indeed an education that will prepare them to move forward into the post-secondary and indeed into life.

The inclusion now of early childhood education - I assumed it was included before, anyway - especially with regard to early literacy, that there is going to be now a focus especially on that particular part of the education system whereby we can look at an education system that literally begins in the womb and continues on a lifelong journey. It is important, I say to you, when we see the education of our infants, our children, our teenagers, our young men and women and onwards, that they are getting the type of support that they need once again in order to prepare themselves for the life that is ahead of them. It has been certainly a proven fact, I say to you, with regard to intervention at the early stages of a child's life, it is most important at these very early stages that the child is exposed to as much in the way of, I guess, learning experiences as are possible. It is at these early stages that children learn how to speak, they learn how to read, they learn how to write, they learn how to adapt to the society that is around them. It is certainly a very positive move, if this Budget indeed focuses on putting programs in place that will address the early education of our children.

Moving forward from the early education stage, I would just like to focus, if I could, on the K-12 system. Some of my colleagues will rise as the debate goes on and will, I am sure, touch on the other aspects of the social services concurrent so that they can speak on that aspect of it. When we talk about the social, Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasis how important it is for any government, for any budget, to make sure that the people - because that is what social means; social refers to people - have their needs addressed; that every person in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador be assured that they have enough food, that they have adequate clothing, that they have clean water, that they have good housing, that they have opportunities in education, employment, in the different aspects of life, that they have the opportunities to be certainly the best they can be.

We must ensure that the finances of our Province support the programs that are necessary to ensure equality, at least the very basics, equality in the very basics of living: food, shelter and clothing. I know when we look at the social aspect of any budget that it calls for a tremendous amount of dollars, but we also have to be sure that the dollars that we do put into our education, our social programs in general, that they do indeed address the priorities at any particular time. It is important that we be fiscally responsible in making sure that the people of this Province have the very basics.

To return back to the education, and I refer to the K-12 system, it is encouraging to see that there are dollars being put into new buildings, that there have been dollars put into programs, that there are dollars being put into holding on to the various, I suppose, human resources that are required to run the K-12 system. That is not to say that the K-12 system now is at a level where we do not need to look at some of the shortfalls, I suppose, of programming, of the physical plants, of the things that are related to making sure that the learning environments of our K-12 system are indeed at a standard that ensures the health and safety of all those that use it.

When we talk about the education system of K-12, Mr. Speaker, most people are still talking about the aspect of reform; reform meaning change. I would suggest to anyone that any education system - and the education system of Newfoundland and Labrador is certainly no different than any other education system - when it comes to reform or change, our education system has been evolving since really the first class back perhaps as far as 400 or 500 years, maybe 1000 years if we even go back to the Vikings. With regard to the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador, there have always been changes that have been necessary in order to move our education system forward.

The buzz word of the late 1980s, and the 1990s, had to be reform. Education reform was talked about, not only in this Province, but in the other provinces of this nation and, indeed, in other nations as well. The reform package that was sold to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the early 1990s was a reform package that many people naturally assumed would bring about drastic, long-lasting changes to the education system, changes that would ensure neighborhood schools, new schools or better schools, smaller classes and these things that, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, you would expect to bring about a situation, learning environments in the schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, that would, now as we move further into the new millennium, into the year 2000-2001, be very much settled; where the curriculum would be sound and moving forward; where the class sizes, in reality, should be down to about, certainly, twenty to one, if not fifteen to one, in some areas; where we would be assured that every school in Newfoundland and Labrador would have a roof that did not leak; where the furniture in the building would be up to scratch; and where the technology in the building would be comparable to the time. I say to the Member for Bellevue, those things have not happened.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, I have been here. I have been here, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

There has been disappointment expressed, because what has happened in the 1990s has not been reform, I say to you Mr. Speaker, it has been restructuring. The restructuring has been done in such a way that instead of lowering the class sizes, in many cases it has made for overcrowded schools, schools that were built - the member is shaking his head, but the member knows that the new school in Blaketown, for example, is now at a point where it is overcrowded. I say to you Mr. Speaker, that with regard to schools, like the one in Blaketown, the student-pupil ratio in that school is not where it should be, because it is a school that was probably built for 200 students less than what it is accommodating now, and this September, or the following September, there will be, perhaps, even more students going into that school. They have some problems. That is only one example, I say to you, Mr. Speaker..

It is important for us to get away from the statistics that are so often referred to. The teacher-pupil ratio, the per capita, just for a minute again - I hate coming back to this, Mr. Speaker - but the teacher-pupil ratio, in comparing it to other provinces, to other countries, is much like comparing apples and oranges. The way that the teacher- pupil ratio is looked at in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is that anyone, any teacher, any educator, any administrator that is part of the system, is included in this particular ratio. What we have is really not reality, because again in many of the schools that I am familiar with the teacher-pupil ratio is certainly, in most cases, not below twenty-five to one.

It is most important that we realize that we have to look at, especially something like the - I have to chuckle, I say to you. You put me off track that time, I say to the Member for Bellevue. I apologize if, indeed, there is sleepiness coming over you. I will try to gesture or something to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, boy, liven it up a bit!

MR. HEDDERSON: - liven it up just a little bit.

I will get back, once again, to talking about the K-12 system and how important it is, especially at the primary level, that we make sure that we keep our class sizes at a level where - certainly, a thirteen to one ratio would be absolutely fantastic, or even a fifteen to one ratio. This would give the primary teachers more one on one with regard to instruction, to ensure that the curriculum - there have been, I guess, concerns raised, and we will just branch off into the curriculum. There have been concerns raised about the curriculum, especially at the primary level. The primary level, as I say, is the basis for what happens in the rest of the grades, and how important it is, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we have adequate resources in place at the primary level, to ensure that the students of this Province get an excellent start. The amount of dollars that are invested at the primary level will give you great savings as you move up through those particular grades.

Of interest, as well: There is mentioned in the Budget, the amount of money that has been used to ensure that the air quality in our schools, certainly, is up to scratch, that the health and safety of the students in our Province is not compromised. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in 1997 -1998 there was, because of pressure from parents and other groups and the schools themselves, a program put in place whereby many of the schools in this Province - and I say many but not all - were tested for air quality. The tests were done and, as a result of these tests, some remediation took place, but we found out in the years to come, as we look back to 1998, that some of these schools that were tested for air quality in 1998 and remediated, basically a year or two or three years later were causing difficulties for the people who were in those particular schools. We have had schools close down because of air quality. We have had schools that had to be closed down for temporary periods of time while air quality was looked at.

I am not convinced, in looking at this Budget, if indeed - because what we are hearing back from the boards is that they are strapped when it comes to maintenance, when it comes to renovation, and when it comes to dealing with emergency repairs with regard to their buildings. So, it is most important that some sort of an on-going assessment be done of all schools in this Province, to ensure that the air quality in these schools certainly would be up to scratch. The textbooks - and again I am just trying to stay on the schools themselves. I just made note of textbooks because one of my colleagues brought up, just before Christmas, about the state of textbooks in a particular school. Textbooks certainly are very, very important tools as we try to instruct our students, Mr. Speaker. The textbook that my colleague presented to this House was a textbook that should never be used. It should be recycled, I suppose, is the word I should use these days. There are some problems, because not all of the courses, Mr. Speaker, have the required textbooks that are necessary, because in waiting for new courses to come in they are being forced to, I suppose, depend on used textbooks, until the new courses come about. Again, these are some of the problems.

Also, in some of the new initiatives, especially the Language Arts, there are provisions made by the department to provide class sets, but I shouldn't say full class sets, partial class sets of novels or reading material that goes along with these particular courses. The onus is on the school to make do with these partial, I suppose, books, rather than a full class set. They have to, in some cases, fund-raise, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that every child in that particular class does have access to the reading material.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that there are some fine initiatives, and I don't deny that.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to inform the hon. member that his time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: So, I am left.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to talk about an issue that I believe is relevant and of great importance to Newfoundland and Labrador. We are on the Social Services budget, but how do you separate the social needs of people and the resource needs of people. I don't think there is any separation. I think one has to be tied to the other. Otherwise, you can't provide the necessary income for people in the communities, for children, for education, for health services or any other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The reason why I want to take this opportunity to talk about it is, what took place in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I guess it is the conclusion of what has been talked about over the last couple of years, and what impact it will have on children, families, communities, in the next one, two, three, four, five years, or on into the future.

When I did an interview today down at the Delta hotel, I expressed my concerns but I also said that I hope and I pray that I am wrong. I really sincerely hope that my concerns will not come true. But look at the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, look at the rural communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, look at what kept it alive, look at what we have done in the past, where we were a decade ago, where we are today, and where we may go in the future.

I said this earlier today in a conversation with an individual down there: Newfoundlanders, for some reason, either cannot stand prosperity or once prosperity comes their way they cannot wait long enough to get rid of it. There is always some dark cloud that will fly over to cause a problem.

I also said to a processor, a small plant operator, who supported the takeover of FPI, which I was quite surprised at: Look at tomorrow, look at your future, because you are small and there is going to be no place for you.

My other point, I said: if it is not broken, why try and fix it? It is not broken, so why are we fixing something that is not broken?

I hear these promises about what this new group of people is going to do. Are they good business people? Absolutely. Are they successful? Absolutely. Are they rich? Yes. The question I ask is: Do they have a social conscience? No fishing industry, no company, no part of Newfoundland, can exist today, in this day and age, ever in the past or into the future, make money, yes, make a profit, but combined with that they must have a social conscience. If the present or the former CEO board of FPI was totally committed to the shareholders on Bay Street, or wherever they exist, you would not have as many plants operating in this Province today as you have.

Let's look at the individuals. Let's look at John Risley. One individual, a multi-multi-millionaire, started the hard way, started with nothing and came up through. Here is what his mentality is. Here is what he said publicly in St. Anthony, and maybe the Member for The Straits was there when they had a public meeting up there about the shrimp plant. They were talking about employing 200 to 300 people in the plant in St. Anthony. Those were the numbers. That was the combined multi-species. As a government, we gave them a crab licence. They had the groundfish licences, so with the shrimp, the groundfish and the crab, with that expectation, you would think they should have been employing 500 or 600 people. This was his comment in a public meeting in St. Anthony: I am not interested in creating 300 or 400 jobs - he told that to the people in the hall - I am interested in making money.

If you sit on the business side of the table, there is nothing wrong with that. I was in business and I wanted to make money, but put on the other side of the table the people living in the communities of St. Anthony, Harbour Breton, Triton, Bonavista, all of the other communities where the FPI plants exist today, and if you use that type of business thinking, the shareholders will make a greater profit, there will be greater dollars to invest in the FPI operations, or wherever they want to build and expand, but there has to be someone lacking, someone who will make less. That is the question I am asking. That is one of my fears.

The other fear I have is the actual breakup of FPI. A question you have to ask: Why did this company want to get a hold to FPI? They are already into the fishing business. They already hold a great deal of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia, in Newfoundland, in Iceland and in New Zealand. What is it they want? Why is it they want it?

Let's talk about the IFP. Who is the largest competitor of the IFP company and the shrimp companies in Iceland? FPI. Who has done the magnificent job of marketing cold water shrimp? FPI. There is one thing that I have a concern about. Prove me wrong and I will say thank you, thank God I am wrong. Who markets most of the products here in Newfoundland for the smaller companies? Cloustens, FPI. Who has the social conscience to deal with the fishermen, deal with the small companies and deal with the people in the communities? FPI. Would they make more money if they never had that social conscience? Absolutely. Absolutely, they would make more money.

The other thing that you have to be concerned about is the transfer of quotas. I am glad I heard the Minister of Fisheries answer the question today that he has already contacted Mr. Dhaliwal. We saw it happen out of Burgeo. Why today is Burgeo a ghost town as far as employment? Burgeo had 10,000 tons of red fish. John Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, was on the board with this group today, transferred that red fish to Canso, Nova Scotia. Today you have several hundred people working in Canso, Nova Scotia, and no one person working in Burgeo. Not one individual working in the fish plant in Burgeo. Do you wonder why we are all concerned? Do you wonder why we all question what is going on? The question, you ask: What can you about it? Well, I do not know what can be done about it in the future.

Let's suppose this new company decides to close a fish plant in Harbour Breton. Can a government tell them they are not going to close the plant? Absolutely not. How can you tell a company they are not going to close a plant if they have no fish to put through it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or to open one up?

MR. EFFORD: Or to open one up? It is not even sensible thinking to say that we can stop somebody from closing a plant. If they decide to close Harbour Breton and process all of that fish in Marystown or vice versa, or close Bonavista and process it all in Triton, or the other way around -

MR. TULK: Like they were going to do last year.

MR. EFFORD: Like they were going to do last year, but they did not do it because they had a social conscience. I am talking about the new company in the future. Whether it is Vic Young or John Jones or whoever, because you live in Newfoundland and because you are in the community of Newfoundland and you deal with people every day, that forces them to have a social conscience. But if you a businessman in Nova Scotia or in New Zealand or in Iceland, what do you care about the communities, whether you lose a vote or whether you lose popularity in Newfoundland? That is my concern. I have no allegiance to Vic Young. I have no allegiance to anybody on the board of FPI. What my concern is, is the mentality and what these people can and cannot do. That is where my concern is.

They talk about importing fish. I have seen a lot of companies try to import that H and G cod. I have seen a lot of companies, and I have not seen any of them make money yet. They say they are doing okay in Arnold's Cove, but I can tell you one thing, they are the only company. If you look at the profits, the end of the year financial report of National Sea, you wonder why. If they had the local cod to process, they would have a greater profit than they had last year. They had problems done there.

Our problem is, access to raw material. If we had access to raw material, then we could employ our people. What we are doing in the shellfish industry today, the shrimp and cod, we are trying to divide it too thin, too much through the communities, and we are trying to further divide it, and soon not only will we dilute the stocks but we will also dilute the job opportunities of the people of the communities. That is the reason why I have tried to place so much emphasis on trying to get the people of the Province, the scientists, the union, the companies and everybody else, to put some energy and work in the return of the groundfish. I am not going to talk about that because we all know the reasons why it is not returning.

One of these days that shellfish is going to disappear, as sure as you are sitting down in these chairs. It has nothing to do with overfishing. That can happen. It just has to do with nature in itself. When there were thirty-nine boats fishing crab, most of them were from 3L in Conception Bay when they first started the crab industry. The crab industry failed, with only thirty-nine boats. Today, there are 3,515 boats fishing crab. So add that with nature itself, because it is a cyclical species, it will go down. God forbid, with the debt load that is carried by the fishermen today compared to the debt load in 1992, 1992 will be like a Sunday school picnic if anything happens to that crab stock.

What is the other negative thing I am concerned about? What is the one thing that we faced in 1996 when I was asked to be Minister of Fisheries? The cartel, and it was alive. Don't anybody say it was not there. They got together, controlled the prices, and they manipulated what the fishermen were going to get. This company now is taking the FPI present group out of the picture, who brought some fairness to the fishing industry. They now have the control of the fishing industry combined into about 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the fishing industry.

Do you think now that the fishermen will be able to go to company A, company B or company C and negotiate a price over and above the minimum price set? Absolutely not. There is already today evidence in my own community, where a fisherman got extra pennies for his fish last year and has already been told the year, we are not even going to talk to you. It is already happening, so the competition is another key factor. Once you allow the fishing industry to be in the control of a few hands then you have some concerns. This is a provincial issue. This is just not an issue for one person or one side of this House. This is a provincial issue. We say we cannot do anything about it? Boy, how many times have I heard in the last twenty-five or thirty years that we cannot do anything about it?

We have more resources per capita in this Province than any other part of this country. Look at the ocean, look at the forestry, look at the agriculture, look at tourism, look at the oil, look at the gas, look at the minerals, and yet we cannot get up in the morning and say we are confident we can get through the day. Our population is decreasing, going to all other parts of the country; then we have the multinational companies getting greedy and we suffer and suffer and suffer.

Yes, I have concerns. I have concerns because I am a Newfoundlander, because I live in a community that depends on the ocean, like hundreds of communities around Newfoundland and Labrador; but add to those communities - and this is what I really find difficult to understand - every urban centre in Newfoundland and Labrador depends on the rural communities.

You take that $1 billion out of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, how many businesses in St. John's, Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook, Goose Bay, how many companies would go bankrupt? You would be shocked to know how many companies would go bankrupt today. So, the whole of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador depends on the fishing industry; not only, but it is a major part of the economy and the development and the success of the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. FITZGERALD: Where is it going to be controlled from now?

MR. EFFORD: My concern is: I only hope, number one, that they maintain a social conscience. Number two, I only hope and pray that they do not break up this company. I do not know how many people in this House have been down to the Boston Seafood Show, but I have had the pleasure to go down there. I can tell you one thing: it made me feel proud when I went to the Boston Seafood Show and saw FPI as the most noticeable company and booth in the whole of the Boston Seafood Show, which was the largest seafood show in the world. They had the number one recognition for the five years that I was down there at the Boston Seafood Show.

Give that respect to the fishing industry of Newfoundland alone, besides what it does internally in the Province, the respect worldwide. It is just not dollars and cents. It is not just what we make today; it is what we make next year and the year after, and maintaining that respect and credibility into the fishing industry.

The shellfish now - Mr. Risley, does he want the scallops they have in Nova Scotia? That is the question you have to ask. FPI has a major scallop plant in Nova Scotia. Does somebody else want the groundfish? FPI owns 92 per cent of all offshore flatfish stocks; 92 per cent. Can you imagine the value in dollars and cents that is today? But, when the stocks return to the numbers that we expect them to return, what will it be worth? Just think about it.

So, we have the shellfish in Newfoundland, you have the groundfish in Newfoundland, you have the scallops in Nova Scotia, and you have the marketing company. You have four or five companies here involved in this. Will one company want the marketing? Will the other company want the shellfish in Nova Scotia? Will somebody else want the groundfish in Newfoundland? These are all the questions. Will it go the way of the past? These are all the questions that have to be asked.

When you get people like Mr. Crosbie, a very influential man when he goes to the Bay Street investors and talks about what can happen if this goes to court, or what cannot happen - very influential in changing the minds and thinking of people. When you get people like Derrick Rowe and John Risley, who like to millions upon millions upon millions, and have made millions upon millions -

MR. FITZGERALD: Guess who was showing around the gentleman from New Zealand today?

MR. EFFORD: I have no idea.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Ed Roberts.

MR. EFFORD: I don't talk to Ed Roberts anymore, so I am not going to comment on it.

Anyhow, seriously, I just wanted to express my concerns. This is a major issue, because we, today, have a billion dollar industry in this Province. The same export value, by the way, as the Iron Ore Company of Labrador who employs - What, 2,500 to 3,000 people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Okay, and the fishing industry 20,000 people. A billion dollar export value. We have to ensure, as people in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen hundred in total.

MR. EFFORD: Nineteen hundred.

We have to ensure the people in this Province that we cannot go backwards. For the sake of the people in our communities, for the sake of the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the sake of all of the people in this Province, we have to ensure, in whatever means possible, that we move forward and not backwards. God knows, in the last twenty-five or thirty years in the fishing industry we have moved backwards enough. Why do we have fish plants working ten or fifteen weeks of the year when they should be working forty or fifty? We had enough resource out there to keep every plant in Newfoundland and Labrador going full-time but the foreigners, the multi-national companies and the factor freezer trawlers took it away, and now we are paying a price for it.

So in these few moments and with these few words I just wanted to express and bring to the attention of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador exactly what can happen in this Province in the fishing industry and what kind of an impact it would have on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am not going to say I am any different than anyone in this House of Assembly, I, for one, do not want to see another person in this Province lose a job. In fact, what I want to see is people working longer weeks of the year and longer seasons or whatever the terminology you put on it, and stability in the income of those communities in the future. That can only work one way, that we focus on our resources and we maximize our resources to the benefits of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and not to some multi-national companies.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a great pleasure today that I get up and speak on this social debate. The first thing that I would like to address is a topic that was brought up earlier in the House of Assembly by my hon. colleague from Waterford Kenmount. It has to do with the obstetrical unit at the Health Sciences Centre. I have had some experience with my children in the obstetrical unit over - proudly having grandchildren for me. I visited and I have seen the close quarters and have heard complaints from a lot of the patients there who - I guess they did not take the dimensions of the room, but they realize that there are four moms and four babies in a room twenty by fourteen that is really only suitable for two people.

I noticed that when my hon. colleague was up asking questions that it was treated a little bit lightly by a couple of members opposite. There was a little bit of snickering, so to speak, going on. I took great offence to that because as a woman and having given - I say to the members opposite, if the hat fits wear it. They know of whom I speak.

However, being a mother of six children I know the joys of going in and having a baby but I also realize that there are some moments after you deliver - and by the way, the case room over at the new Health Sciences Center is state-of-the-art. When you have your baby over there you are kept down there for ten and twelve hours, which is totally unnecessary. Then you are herded, so to speak, upstairs and put in a room with your baby, also with three other mothers and their babies, and that room is twenty by fourteen. Now there are many times after you have delivered a baby that you want quiet time and some personal time for yourself. I say that having eight patients - that is the four moms and the four babies - in a room this size is not conducive to that.

This government, in its health plans, constantly advocates for early intervention. One of the greatest things in early intervention in the health of a baby is when a mom is able to breast-feed. I say to you, what new mother would want to - how conducive is it to breast-feed your baby when you are in a room with three other women and three babies? Of course, after the birth of a child, which is normally a joyous time in a family, a lot of family, friends and older siblings of the baby come to visit. How conducive is it to a new mom to start breast-feeding her baby when she is put in a situation like this? It is almost impossible to pull the curtain around because the area there is just too small. The nurses cannot get around the bed, physically cannot get around the bed. There is a mom's bed, there is the baby's little bassinet on wheels, and normally there are one or two visitors - but even if there are no visitors, there physically isn't space for the nurses to get around the beds when the curtains are pulled. This is a very serious situation. We are talking about newborn babies and the ability of mothers to breast-feed and be able to do that in a modicum of privacy, at least. I say this is not a very nice thing and I think that my hon. colleague, who did not get to finish his questions today, will probably be addressing this issue a little bit further as the health critic.

I suggest that when I heard the complaints - when I seen it for myself and then heard complaints from the moms, I mean I thought that it really was not a good situation. Then I heard complaints from other mothers who had been in and people who had been over to visit their relatives and said: My gosh, it is an awful place. People are herded in there just like cattle. It is really cramped quarters. It is really not a good place to have moms who have just delivered, and their babies. When I seen letter in the paper this weekend from Dr. O'Shea, I then realized that when a doctor will take the time to go to the paper with a situation like this that it is, in fact, a serious situation. It had confirmed how serious I thought the situation was.

I would suggest that when the minister responded today he said no, he did not make representation to the boards, that they changed the situation. Now the responsibility of this is being dumped from the government out to the health boards, but the spaces are over there and the doctor has confirmed that the spaces are over there in the hospital. These rooms can, in fact, be turned into semi-private rooms and more of the vacant rooms which have been shut down can be utilized. I think to do it is cost negligible and just means that this government must have the will to talk to the health care boards and see to it that this is done so that the moms are not ushered out of the hospital immediately, because that is basically what is happening. The doctor said they have one thing on their minds, and that is to get the women up into the rooms and discharged sometimes within a twenty-four hour period after giving birth to a baby. While you do feel well enough to go home at that time, there are some supports that do need to be in place for the moms, especially for the moms who are breast-feeding. I do not know if I read it in the letter, but I am getting the impression that breast-feeding is starting to be on the decline because of the situation that these mothers find themselves in.

That is all I have to say on that particular issue in our social services committee. I do trust that the government will make representation and look upon this as quite a serious problem. As I said, it is relatively cost negligible. It is just a matter of utilizing other rooms and putting two beds into what is now four-bed wards, and not conducive to the women.

The other thing that I would like to address today is the issue of a Child Advocate. Now I realize that the Premier had that in his platform and I think it is the will of the government that a Child Advocate be instated here in the Province, as was suggested and strongly recommended by the All Party Committee on children's rights. However, I notice here in the Speech from the Throne that they also spoke about appointing an Ombudsman. It says: "My Government will introduce legislation during this Session to create the Office of the Ombudsman." That is something that the Opposition has been crying out for, for some time, since the Ombudsman's Office was disbanded some years ago. I am also very pleased to see that the Ombudsman will be established as an Officer of the House of Assembly, and so it should be, that it have the same status as the Auditor General. I am very pleased to see that.

However, when I turn the next page and I see: "My Government will also be establishing a Child Advocate to advance the concerns and issues of our children." I am very pleased to see that. However, I do not know if it was an omission error, if it was just omitted and it was meant to be that the Child Advocate would be an Officer of the House of Assembly, or whether it was by design that it was left out, that the Child Advocate will not, in fact, be an Officer of the House of Assembly but will be answerable to a minister. That will negate any good that the Child Advocate can do because it will put the Child Advocate as reporting to the minister. The Child Advocate is not going to take the policies which the government has in place now and some of the policies that are not strong enough for the protection of our children, and policies that are not child friendly - the Child Advocate may not, in fact, feel like going back to the minister with that, but if the Child Advocate is an Officer of the House of Assembly then those issues can be addressed more at an arm's length. I really would like to have it cleared up, whether the Child Advocate will be an Officer of the House of Assembly.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) I am not sure that the government has made up its mind as to where it wants to go in that particular direction. I think it is looking at what is going to happen in other jurisdictions to see what their success has been, but the hon. member is making a good point.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I would be very concerned. I say to the hon. the Government House Leader, I would be very, very concerned if the Child Advocate is not at arm's length and does not enjoy the same status as the Auditor General because that puts all of the government policies - and I am not suggesting that the government has design to make policies that are not child friendly, but obviously there are some policies and practices that are going on out there that are not that child friendly. If there is an arm's length person who is reporting back to the House of Assembly, then the necessary checks and balances will be in place. Basically, we are talking about the children of our Province. Now that we have a blank page and we can write our own direction when this Child Advocate is appointed, we can appoint one who would have the children of the Province - have their best interest at heart.

It says that the Advocate will offer advice on children's programs and services. That is something that is happening now from the various stakeholders out there in the community, the various committees and things. They are already offering the government advice. I would say that we need somebody in place who can, as I said, be at arm's length and report back to the House of Assembly. An ideal situation would be a case advocate. However, I realize that would probably not be tailored to the economic needs of the Province, that the government probably would not be able to handle a case advocate, but if we had an advocate who could take complaints and then appoint the person, the child, or the representative of the child, a systems advocate, one who could point the child in a direction of where to go to get the necessary help.

Also, if there was a case which came in - and God forbid that it ever should happen again like which happened back when the Mount Cashel thing started to be reported years ago - somebody who could take that and treat it more as - that particular one could be treated as a case. Once again, because of the system that was in place at the time, where one person covered for the other person who covered for the other person through the justice systems and stuff - unfortunately, that was allowed to continue and the victims were allowed to remain victims even though they had probably moved out of the building. They were allowed to remain victims for years because there was nobody there to address that situation.

I do hope that the government, when they are appointing a Child Advocate - they do have the blank page, and they have the very strong recommendations from the All Party committee as to the kind of Child Advocate that should be appointed - I do hope that they take into consideration the most important players in this, and that would be the children.

I will move on to another issue now, and that is respite workers. We still have respite workers out there who are taking care of many of our most vulnerable citizens, people who are physically challenged, people who are mentally challenged, people who have a myriad of problems, and they are being paid $5.84 an hour. That is one bad thing. The other thing is that the care givers or the families of these respite workers have been designated the employers. Along with that, and to add to that, many of them do not mind being designated employers; however, workers' compensation is not available to them. This puts a lot of people in serious jeopardy. One is the worker who comes on, because many of the people they take care of do have severe physical challenges and need to be lifted from the wheelchair into the bathtub and things, and many of them have developmental challenges that cause them to sometimes act out and become somewhat violent.

If you have a respite worker there who is being paid just $5.84 an hour, that is bad enough. Then, when they are not covered under workers' compensation, that compounds the problem. Many of the people who would be willing to work for that, and very good respite workers out there, are taking a second look because they realize that if they are hurt on the job and cannot go to work any more, there is absolutely no protection out there. This has a detrimental effect on the people they are taking care of, because now good respite workers are not available. It certainly is affecting the employment, but I would say that it is affecting the families and care givers as well. Because if the respite worker who is taking care of the person in their charge is injured, then that respite worker, I think - I stand to be corrected on this - I understand they can hold the employer responsible and sue them and go for damages. I think that when the government divested itself from the responsibility from being the employer for the respite workers, it put a lot of people in this Province in jeopardy. Who now is responsible for the respite workers, and who is responsible for the people who find themselves in a situation where they need to have respite care, either because of physical needs or because of developmental needs?

At this time, too, I would also like to address the government's handling of people who are mentally challenged. I have brought this up in the House of Assembly before and it remains a major concern to me. That is when folks who are suffering from mental illness, or who are developmentally delayed, find themselves in a situation where they are acting out and they cannot be reasonably physically handled or controlled by the person who is taking care of them, and they have had to call the social worker. When the social worker is called, unfortunately, the only thing she can do in a situation like this is say: Call the RNC; or, in the case of another jurisdiction, call the RCMP.

They have come and, because of the lack of facilities, they have had no other choice but to take the person who is suffering from the difficulty and bring them either to the lock-up or, in the case of a person who is a juvenile, to the remand center. I have suggested in the House several times before, that this should really be addressed. I am really concerned about that treatment of our people who are developmentally delayed or suffer from a mental illness.

If a person was suffering from an appendicitis attack, which is no less an illness than a person suffering from a psychiatric illness, they would be taken to one of the medical facilities, not to a lock-up and not to the remand center.

When I did bring it up in the House of Assembly, it was suggested that I am trying to get people back into the Waterford Hospital. That is not so. A facility in either of the hospitals, not just in St. John's, but any of the hospitals throughout the Province regionally. A facility should be made available where people can maintain their dignity in spite of the fact that they are suffering from mental illness and find themselves in a situation over which they unfortunately have no control, or people who are developmentally delayed from birth and find themselves acting out. I think it is really not humane to be bringing them in. In some instances, when they are brought to the lock-up, if it is in the middle of the night, the psychiatrist on call is not necessarily called in; so they are left there overnight with people who probably have been picked up drinking in public and things.

I think that we should have a long, hard look at that particular procedure. I do not know if it is a policy on the books, if it is because of lack of facility out there or what, but I think that we should have a long, hard look at that procedure so that we can treat our vulnerable people and people who are suffering, in a more dignified manner. I know that if they go to the lock-up, the psychiatrist is called in and they do eventually get the treatment; but I do not think that people who are not doing anything that is criminal or anything untoward against the law, although it might be criminal if you are acting out in public, but it is through no fault of their own, because of their disability and I think there should be a separate facility where we can bring them.

Madam Speaker, that is all I have to say for now.

Thank you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise today to certainly have a few words on this debate over social programs and social issues within the Province.

Madam Speaker, let me just say that I think the progress that this government has made on social reform in this Province is absolutely wonderful. We have made tremendous progress over the past few years, starting with revamping the entire social policy of various departments in government and initiating a new Strategic Social Plan for the Province for the first time in fifty years.

Madam Speaker, in doing this, we certainly recognize where there have been inadequacies both within our education system, within our health care system, and within the kind of social programs that we deliver to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Having recognized that, through the revamping of a new Strategic Social Plan, we have also looked at ways and means in which we will implement new programs and new policies to offset these differences for people in our society.

Madam Speaker, I want to touch on a couple of those issues today, because if I was to stand here and reiterate all of the successes that we have had and changes that we have implemented in social policy for the betterment of the people of our Province, it would certainly take me the rest of this afternoon and probably most of the week, but let me start by certainly touching on a couple of the issues that have been raised by my colleague from across the House, the Member for St. John's West.

She talked about the Child Advocate, and no doubt the issue of a Child Advocate has been raised on a number of occasions within the Province both by people within our own government, the people in the Opposition, and a number of groups and organizations around the Province. Madam Speaker, we have to ensure that there is a voice for children in this Province, and that there are proper mechanisms in place to deal with the issues and the circumstances that sometimes surround our lives. As a government, we have certainly made a commitment to the public that we will proceed with a Child Advocate and we will look at doing so in a way that will allow for openness, that will allow for accessibility, and that will allow for results for the people who have to use the system.

Madam Speaker, I am not talking about a token office or a token position. I am talking about providing a service, a very valuable service, that is important and necessary to people in the Province. Over the course of the last few months, I guess, this government has taken a lead with establishing a children's advocate service, and they have completed consultations with all the government departments and stakeholders within government itself in terms of seeking their input and feedback from them in terms of how this office should be set up and what functions it could provide in terms of offsetting the services that are delivered through their departments. We have undertaken a lot of research with regard to other models that have been implemented in the country. Right now, there are seven provinces across the country that have already established advocacy legislation as it relates to children.

We have studied these models, we have looked at how they have delivered their services within their provinces, and certainly examined what has been most effective and what has been least effective. In doing so, Madam Speaker, what we have done is we have used the examples and the models that have been developed by other provinces to establish what will be and should be and will provide the best service to people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have also undertook to complete a series of consultations with the public in terms of groups and organizations. Back just a while ago, we had over 100 individuals participate in consultation sessions on child advocacy in terms of giving us their recommendations and giving us, as a government, direction in terms of how we should proceed with this.

I want to thank them, at this time, for their input into this process, because it certainly shows the level of enthusiasm that is out there for this particular service, and certainly the level of interest in ensuring that it is established properly and that its functions are what we require. I think it is commendable of government to be able to foresee the need for this service in light of events that have happened in our Province's history, and have probably come to surface in the recent few years, but it is very important that we be able to move on this, and we will move on it in the very near future. We will, before the end of this year, hopefully, have established the first children's advocacy office in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to speak this evening on the home care workers because, in terms of addressing the social needs of people in our communities and in society, I think that this year our recognition of the valuable role that home support workers play in our community and in society has been a priority with this government. In the past year, what we have done in increasing the salaries for home support workers is not only showing them the confidence that we have in their ability to provide these services to our most challenged residents in society, but it is also a way for us to tell them how much we value the work that they do and how much emphasis we place on the role that they play within our communities.

I guess, when you look at social programs and social policies, there are so many things that we want to do and our agenda is a lengthy one. While we are making tremendous progress, there are some things that sometimes we have to examine: priorities. I guess, when we dealt with the home support workers, we dealt with them in terms of a priority, in terms of a priority service that they would provide as a part of our Province, and we certainly made sure that any increase that we would give them would be substantial.

I can honestly say that this is a group of people who, out there in our communities, perform valuable work. They do so sometimes under very difficult circumstances, and we certainly realize that. We were very happy this year to be able to spend $43 million in the home support program, and to be able to provide services to approximately 2,700 people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We were able to do that and still allow for an increase for home support workers. I wanted to indicate that, because sometimes when we make those decisions and we make those allocations, they tend to get lost in the shuffle.

I wanted to indicate some more of the expenditures that we have made in the Department of Health and Community Services this year that have certainly gone a long way to helping people in their everyday lives, and offsetting the costs in our system.

This year we were able to provide another $50 million to health care boards in the Province, to help them stabilize their board budgets. This did not include the salary increases and the reclassification costs. We did that over and above the monies that we gave to the boards to stabilize their budgets.

Some people, Madam Speaker, may say that what we should be doing is investing more into community health instead of into taking care of the overruns and the over expenditures, but I would have to say that it is always a challenge for governments to be able to deliver good community health services, and good community health programs, while at the same time, maintaining beds and hospitals and maintaining essential services to people in the Province. It is a challenge that we have certainly been faced with in recent years and recent months.

Madam Speaker, I want to say that in providing this money to health boards in our Province, we have also requested that they do three-year plans within their board regions, so that they could outline to government what their plans are over the next three years for the implementation of health care within the perspective regions in which they operate.

We look forward to them identifying how they can increase accessibility and availability of services to the people of the Province, and at the same time be more efficient in how they administer those services, and certainly more efficient in the delivery of these essential services to the people of the Province.

Hopefully, Madam Speaker, in having the boards identify what their plans will be for health care over the next two to three years, it will certainly give government what we need in order for us to set our priorities for that period of time as well. Hopefully, it will allow us the opportunity to then be able to invest more into community health programs and community health services.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out, in particular, this year, that government made allocations of $32.5 million for new and improved health care technologies in the Province. As you would know, $17.5 million of that money came as a direct negotiation and agreement with the federal government that was done at the First Ministers' Conference, at the time led by our minister, who is now the hon. Minister of Finance. At that time she led those negotiations and, as a result of it, we did secure a number of dollars, $45 million over three years, to be invested into equipment, diagnostic equipment in the Province. That, being coupled with the $17.5 million that we achieved this year under a special program for diagnostic equipment, will allow us to invest over $32 million this year into those types of equipment for hospitals around the Province.

As you know, Madam Speaker, this is a much needed program. For some time we have been needing to make those necessary investments into replacing some of the equipment around the Province, and also upgrading some of the other equipment that is in our hospitals and so on.

I also want to indicate some of the other programs that we did make available this year as part of the Budget. Most of you would know that there is $50 million that will be spent in capital projects. A lot of these projects are presently on the way in the Province already, and these monies are being invested.

I was just going through my notes here, because I was going to give you an example of where some of these monies are being invested and in what particular areas it is being invested, because I know that it is of concern to all members in the House. Madam Speaker, I have it here now. This year we will invest something like $50 million to support capital projects throughout the Province and $17 million will be invested into the James Paton Hospital for redevelopment in Gander, $10 million for the new Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in Stephenville, which will now bring that total project to a cost of over $30 million when it is completed by the end of 2002.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one is that?

MS JONES: In Stephenville.

Madam Speaker, we also invested this year another $2.5 million into the Grand Bank Clinic and Long Term Facility, which has not achieved a total cost of over $17 million investment into this particular facility, which will provide a vital service to the people of the Burin Peninsula.

We have also provided $11.2 million for a new facility in Fogo and Bonne Bay, and have also started the work for a long-term care facility at Clarenville which was certainly a needed facility and one that was indicated by the member in that area as being a priority for service.

We also invested $7.5 million into renovation projects for various hospitals and health care facilities around the Province. I think that it is important to note that, Madam Speaker, because it is not only maintaining the level of service that we provide in the health care system but it is also about providing proper facilities and proper equipment so that people that are out there in the health care system have the tools they need to do the job that needs to be done.

That is why, Madam Speaker, we saw fit this year to make substantial investments, again, into cardiac care services. This year we invested over $3 million into cardiac care for the Province and that will allow us to increase the number of surgeries that we perform on a weekly basis. We will be able to increase it anywhere from twelve surgeries up to twenty surgeries by this fall. That needs to be done, because, as you know, the wait list for cardiac care in this Province has been a lengthy one. We have tried on a number of occasions to address this problem and put more money into it, expanding the cardiac cat labs to allow for extra facilities. We have put new money into hiring extra staff to operate these facilities, and again this year we have invested over $3 million into continuously upgrading the facilities so that we can perform more surgeries on a daily and on a weekly basis, to be able to cut down on the waiting lists.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! Good Speech.

MS JONES:. We have also made investments into physicians. Last year we negotiated an MOU with physicians in the Province in terms of a strategy to recruit and retain physicians in our hospitals around Newfoundland and Labrador. This year we will spend approximately $11 million in this budget, again to recruit and retain physicians.

Madam Speaker, as you know physicians are a very important component of the health care system. They are part of a team that makes up all of the services and all of the human resources that we need in order to deliver proper medical care in the Province. We, as a government, certainly understand the necessity of being able to negotiate separate agreements with certain aspects of the health care service and that was why we were certainly eager to negotiate with physicians in the Province. The MOU that we signed will certainly give us what we need in terms of being able to have the flexibility to retain and recruit physicians for hospitals in different areas of the Province. I guess I should say that as part of this MOU we invested I think it was a total of $45 million which was a substantial investment indeed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: One of the other things I want to talk about, Madam Speaker, before I finish is the early childhood development program. This is a new program and it was just signed this year between the federal and provincial governments. It is a program that will allow investments into early childhood development over the period of the next five years in the Province. This is, I guess, for us one of the areas that was identified as a priority when government undertook to redo the Strategic Social Plan for the Province. We all know, we have all had the statistics, we know how important education is and how important it is to be able to provide early education to children in our Province. We have also looked at the statistics knowing how education levels are linked to health care services and that the highest end users of health care services in a lot of cases are people with the lower education levels. It is important, Madam Speaker, that we be able to address this problem as a Province. This year we will invest $5.2 million into early childhood development programs.

This money is in addition to what we already invest into programs like the Family Resources Centres, and into current daycare programs that we provide in various areas of the Province. We will look at a number of priorities under this particular program. It could range from early childhood education and investing in centres to providing services for children with mental challenges, with autism and with other challenging needs that they may have.

Madam Speaker, this is a program, again, where government has certainly not sat down and made the priorities on its own. We have gone out to the public and we have consulted. We launched a consultation session back a couple of months ago with various groups and organizations in the Province. We established priorities, working with them and being able to meet what their needs are in society. Any plan that you see for early childhood development, over the next year and into the next five years, will certainly be done with the information and the input of the people who work with social programs and with children in our society.

I think it is important to note that we have probably made more progress and more change in social reform as a government than any other government in our history. We have done so because we have taken the initiative to, not only just go out and consult with people, to listen to what people say, but we have also taken the time to implement their suggestions, to design programs that have been able to meet their needs, and we have also found ways to generate new revenue, to be more fiscally prudent, so that we can invest into these types of programs, realizing that social development is as important a component of society as economic development.

Madam Speaker, I think that it goes without saying that when we revised the Strategic Social Plan after fifty years in this Province we turned a new corner in social development. We stood up and made people realize that we have to meet the social needs of the people out there in our communities and in society in order to move forward and have good, strong economic and healthy communities. We are certainly doing that, Madam Speaker, and we are doing it in small ways and in big ways.

I will give you one example of what we did in the last year. When we implemented family resource centres and programs in communities around this Province, we put, for the first time ever in history, programs for children in the most rural areas of this Province. We put them into the most isolated areas, we put them into regions where there were no child care services, we put them into regions where we felt there needed to be programs for children and parents, and an environment in which they could work together to build that type of relationship.

We have had a great success level from that program. We will be encouraged and have been encouraged to carry forward with these types of initiatives, which allow us, not only to build program and services for social development in the more urban areas of our Province, which is important, but also into the more rural areas of our Province.

It is this type of recognition, Madam Speaker, that has allowed our communities in Newfoundland and Labrador to grow and to develop at a rate that, probably, they could not in the past. I have certainly seen evidence of this in my own district. I have seen how there has been tremendous growth in families, in children, and in the communities in general, and how they have come and bought into these types of programs, and into the social agenda of government.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's had a real impact.

MS JONES: It has had a real impact, and the impact it has had in the lives of people has not gone unnoticed by the people in this government. These are the types of investments that we will continue to make on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue to move on things like Child Advocacy, ensuring that children in our Province have a voice. We will continue to move on recognizing the valuable work that is done by home care workers in our society, and being able to work with them to provide them with, not just a better work environment, but also a better wage rate for what they do. We did that this year. I cannot reiterate that enough, because it is such an important program.

We will continue to meet the needs of the cardiac patients in our Province. We will continue to invest money into new diagnostic equipment, like we have done in the past year, because these are the things that are important to communities, they are important to people, and they are important to the health and welfare of our Province. These are the kinds of investments that we, as a government, have held out as a priority, these are the kinds of investments where we see real change in real people.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we were able to make these types of investments in the past year. I am certainly sure that this government has not only set the direction for ourselves, but we have set the direction for many generations of Liberal governments that will rule in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Premier.

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, I would like, if I could, to spend a few moments this evening speaking about -

MR. SULLIVAN: I spoke with the Government House Leader just to get leave to enter into the record a notice of motion on private members, where it did not get done today.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes okay, sure.

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

I give notice that I will move the following private members' resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that the government and House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador inform the new Board of Directors of Fishery Products International Limited of their firm resolve to hold the company to the obligations and limitations required of it in the Fishery Products International Limited Act.

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, I have to say to the hon. gentleman that tomorrow's debate, unless we want to get on the record, will probably not be very long. The truth of the matter is, that is the kind of thing that I want to speak on this afternoon. I want to take off from where my good friend from Port de Grave left off, and that is the social aspect of what Fishery Products International means and has meant to this Province.

Madam Speaker, my good friend from Port de Grave raised a number of issues and they are issues that all of us in this Legislature are concerned about. I have had a fair amount of time in this Legislature, and I want to say to you they were the same concerns that were registered in 1983, 1982, 1984, when Fishery Products was initially established in the Province and were the same concerns that were brought out in 1987 when Fishery Products was privatized. Not everybody in this House may already know this. The truth of the matter is, when Fishery Products International was first put together it was a company which was owned by the federal government, the provincial government, and 25 per cent by the Bank of Nova Scotia.

What happened in 1987 was very clear. The then President and CEO of Fishery Products International, a person whom I have a great deal of respect for, Mr. Vic Young, came to the government of the day - which was a government of a different stripe that I represented when I was in Opposition, and I think my friend from Terra Nova and my friend from Port de Grave were in Opposition, and my friend from Stephenville, I believe, was also in Opposition. There may be other members in this House who were in Opposition at the same time - but came to this House and said: We want to make this a private company and we also want to establish the Fishery Products Act, a piece of legislation. Built into that piece of legislation was, at the time, a note which says that not more than 15 per cent of the shares of the company can be held by any one individual.

The Fishery Products Act has stood us in good stead for a period of time but like every piece of legislation, it was not perfect. It did not say that you must process this much fish here. It did not say that you must keep plants open here, even if you lose money. The truth of the matter is - and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North would know this very well - that from1987 until the present day, there have been a number of plants which have been closed down that were originally owned by Fishery Products International. In St. Anthony the doors were locked. Englee, I think, was owned by Fishery Products as well. That has been shut down. Twillingate has been shut down.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Twenty-four. There were thirty-two, and there are eight now.

I say to the Member for Ferryland, if you go around the Province today and look at the places that have employment problems - as my friend from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair says, employment is perhaps the biggest social need of everybody. A job can cure a lot of social ills.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Twenty-four that is not with the company now. Some of them are open, but the truth of the matter is that Fishery Products International, from 1987 on - I think it was 1987 but it could have been earlier than that. But Fishery Products International closed down of their volition. Some of them were taken over by the people. For example, in Englee I understand there is a bit of work going on with Daley. As a matter of fact, in St. Anthony a shrimp plant is now owned by one of the chief people today in the movement to take over the Board of Directors of FPI. Burin, Trepassey, Ramea, Burgeo - Trepassey, in the member's own district, was shut down by Fishery Products International. I say to people in this House and I say to people in this Province that not only now do we have to start worrying about what will happen, not only today. Maybe we should have, as a Province, been far more vigilant in what was going on with Fishery Products since 1984 to the present day. Maybe be should have been far more vigilant then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Who was in government? Let me say to the hon. gentleman, the crew that he represents is responsible for this legislation, is responsible for putting this act in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long have you been in government?

MR. TULK: I have been in government about the same amount of time as the hon. gentleman has been in Opposition. I have to tell him something, that my contribution in government, I hope, is a lot more than his has been in Opposition, but I am not going to get sidetracked by rabbit tracks when I am after moose. He is only rabbit tracks.

Madam Speaker, let me just say this to you quite clearly, that maybe today if we had been more vigilant in this House and in this Province, we would have seen FPI taking over Clearwater, taking over a Nova Scotia company. Maybe if we had bought the shares as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that maybe we should have bought, maybe today we would have had a group of Newfoundlanders taking over Clearwater and bringing it into the FPI fold as opposed to the other way around. Now, it is of concern to us. Let there be no doubt about that. It is of concern to every single individual in this House and every single individual in this Province. But what did you do about it? When this issue arose some three or four weeks ago, the FPI legislation was in place, and last year, if you recall when the NEOS deal came up, I think all sides of this House - if memory serves me correct but I think it does - said no. The 15 per cent will not be removed and at that time we stopped a takeover bid. What we had here was a different approach. It was an approach to change the Board of Directors. I think we should keep in mind, all of us, that is all that has happened today. Fishery Products International has not been broken up today. It is a fear that if Fishery Products International has not been broken up today, there has been a change in the Board of Directors. There has been a change in the Board of Directors. Now there is a very vital question here. Can you have a private company traded on the stock market? Can you have in the business world of today a Board of Directors who are not subject to their shareholders? Can you have that? Will the Board of Directors become too complacent themselves? It is a very vital question. Will the Board of Directors - who in this case, by the way, did not have a large amount of shares in FPI - become too laid back and say: okay, we are protected by legislation. Nobody can change us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, last year there was less than 5 per cent of the shares in FPI owned by Newfoundlanders. Today, I suppose if you look at the NFPC group, there is somewhere around 13 per cent to 14 per cent owned today by Newfoundlanders, but the truth of the matter is: Can you have a Board of Directors who are protected by law? Can you have a Board of Directors in a private company that is protected by law? Will they serve the Province well anyway? Would they ever open up St. Anthony? Would they ever open up Twillingate or would they continue to close down more? Would they continue to make the company profitable? Would they continue or would they push to see that the company got into new food technologies? Those are vital questions. Would they get to the point where they say: Alright, let's get into - which the hon. gentleman was talking about yesterday I believe - more processing of product in this Province? Those are all vital questions. While you have the fears for your society, for the type of province you live in, and while you have the fears that the company will break up, all of us agreed in this Legislature - and that is the reason, to be frank with you, that the fisheries minister this afternoon said that the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party had agreed that we could not intrude, I think his words were that it would be too intrusive for us to say: No, you cannot change the board of directors. That is what we would have had to say. We would have had to say: No, you cannot change the board of directors.

Now, I have to ask another question. If you are going to be responsible here, you have to ask another question. Once you make that kind of statement, what have you said to businesses who want to come into the Province? You can come in and establish, but any time we feel fit, we will pass a piece of legislation or we will use an act of the Legislature that says you can no longer be a private company, that you can no longer carry on business; you can no longer change a board of directors. So the concerns are there. They should have been there since 1984. We should have been pushing a company, I believe, as a Legislature, all of us, regardless of whether you are with the PCs or with the Liberal Party in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: The start was 1983.

Should we have not been pushing to say FPI is our flagship and FPI should be pushing forward faster than it is? The answer to that, in hindsight, like I have said to the Member for Bonavista South, is 20/20, but we did not.

Today, I think, is a reminder to all of us. I have a concern. As an individual member, I have a concern. I have what I regard as the best fish company in Newfoundland, bar none: Beothic Fish Processors Limited; the best, most community-minded, most involved, now processing, I think, some twenty-three species. It could be more now; that is what it was last fall.

AN HON. MEMBER: Best labour management.

MR. TULK: Best labour management. Best managed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Importing crab.

MR. TULK: Importing crab today from Greendland and processing it, employing some 1,200 fish plant workers and some 700 to 800 fishermen. The question, the big concern that I have, to be frank with you, and that I had about the NEOS deal last year -

MR. FITZGERALD: He wasn't very happy when your colleague said that the plant was for sale. I got a few calls.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman, I am not going to get into what my colleague did or did not say. Beothic Fish, as I have said in this House, was never for sale. Let me just say to you, that is a company -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Can the hon. gentleman sit back, I wonder, and perhaps get a bit of education that he needs.

Let me just say that I have a concern about that company. I have a concern about cartels in this Province. I have a concern about consolidation, because that is what cartels are, and what happens when that happens to the small - it is not a small company. When you have well up to 2,000 employees, it is not a small company. It is one of the most advanced companies in this Province, I say, one of the best community-minded companies in this Province, thanks to the person who is the owner and CEO, by the name of Kevin Way, following in his father's footsteps (inaudible). So what do we have to do? Where do we go from here? We could not have stopped any of this; we could not have intruded.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, we could have stopped, but we could not have intruded into that deal that went on today.

Mr. Speaker, I just say to this House, and I want to say this quite clearly, that I think the process that we have to take is: we have to know the position of what the company is, we have to be far more vigilant, as a Legislature, than we have been in the past. The truth of the matter today is, if you look at Clearwater and look at what they are doing, for example, in Nova Scotia, in the area of food technologies, they are far more advanced, I believe, than we have been in this Province. They are far more experimental. We should have been there. We should have been doing those kinds of things, those futuristic kinds of things, in this Province, and we did not do them. A good company, FPI is a good company, was a good company, still is a good company, will remain, I hope, a good company. We have to remain vigilant, as a government and as an opposition in this House. It is one of the most important things.

Let me tell you something: if you go through - I want to say this to members on the other side - I believe they will see, if they read all of the Hansards that we were involved in from 1984 onward, I think they will see that when it came to the vital crunch about fisheries in this Province, all of us in the Legislature stood four square behind where we should be. I think all of us did that, regardless of whether it was the government on this side, which at that time was on the ninth floor and was the Peckford Administration, or whether it was the Opposition. We stood four square and we have to stand four square behind Newfoundland and Labrador, and this board -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: It affects everybody.

MR. TULK: It affects everybody. I say to the hon. gentleman, it not only affects your job; it affects your social life and it changes your culture. As I have said to a number of people, and I will keep saying it, if you want to keep it - look, the most efficient way to run this Province, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. We gather everybody up and we put them all in one little place. In this case, it would be the Avalon Peninsula. We would take everybody in Newfoundland, if we wanted to be cost-efficient, cost-effective, and we would put them on the Avalon Peninsula. Because, the number of roads that you have to build, the number of water and sewers that you would have to put in, the number of schools and the number of ....

It would be economies of scale, but it would destroy this Province. It would destroy the culture of this Province, and we do not want - none of us - to destroy the culture and the kind of life that is in this Province. But, there is a price to be paid for it. You cannot say that everything is going to run according to the business model. There has to be some social conscience. We, as a Legislature, have to ensure that social conscience is alive and well in this fish company, or otherwise we should bring to bear on them, and we will, as a Legislature, whatever the power of the government and the Legislature of this Province has.

I say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, I campaigned in Englee this year. I have to tell him, out of all that nonsense that came out about spending money and so on, I just could not say no to them. I do not think it got me a vote in the world. I never did it before in my life.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) say no?

MR. TULK: No, and I did not, but I do not think it got me a vote. As a matter of fact, I think I lost them. I never did it before in my life, in politics, in twenty-two years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I never. I am sorry, I never. I never did it before in my life.

I remember Englee. I remember it very well. When I knew the Englee that I knew some twenty years ago, where it was a community that was proud of itself, flourishing, and now suddenly, because their fish plant had shut down, which was shut down by FPI in the name of good business and then somewhat opened by the Daleys, but not enough to provide that community with the kind of living that they need and that they want, I could not say no to them. Neither should I, and I did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I have to say to the hon. gentleman that if he looked - the mistake was mine - at what happened the year before, the money was spent earlier. The money was spent there the year before, I know. I know all about it. There was money spent there the year before that, and I know all about that; but, it was spent earlier. I say to the hon. gentleman that probably had to do with the transition that went on in government here last fall. I say that to him quite sincerely. I think that is where it was. I will tell you, politically I should have spent it a month and a half before, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I never said that. I never said there was no strategy. I say to the hon. gentleman, I have looked at the problem in Englee myself, in the last four or five months. I say to him, the problem in Englee is very simple. It is finding a supply of raw product. It is very simple. If you find the supply of raw product, you would open up Englee in May month. The search and the push -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: My friend, I have to say, I think it was about ten years ago that we got on, we suddenly woke up and realized that there were offshore quotas in this plant for shrimp that was taking $150 million a year, and it was not done under - I am not saying it would not have been - but it was not done under a party that I represent. In any case, the truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we have to move forward and the key to it is the processing and quota licences that are available.

It is of major concern what is happening today, but it is not something that you could have intruded into in this House. With that. I agree with the leader of the PC Party. We have today to call those fish companies, get them in, see what their plans are, and then we proceed from there.

I think the social concerns, feelings of all of us about rural Newfoundland, are quite clear, and I believe that we will survive.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly interested in discussions going on here today in relation to what has happened in the Province today in regard to FPI. I certainly listened to the former Minister of Fisheries who made some comments, and just recently the Deputy Premier, with certainly interesting comments. I am sure, as most speakers have said, it is an issue that affects us all and certainly concerns us all. As a member who has the fishing industry playing a very important part of the economic well-being of my district, everybody is concerned about what has happened today. Certainly over the next weeks and months, hopefully, we are going to see something positive come out of it. We are all very concerned about the negative things that have been raised, and certainly the issues that have been raised in regard to the marketing arm of FPI, in regard to the quotas that FPI holds.

I talked to fishermen in my own district over the past couple of weeks, who have raised some major concerns with me. They are very concerned about what they would call a cartel, what they would call control. It is an issue that concerns every Newfoundlander, because the fishing industry is the backbone of the Province. It has been for 500 years, Mr. Speaker, and it will remain to be so, and I have many people in my district who are depending upon the fishing as a resource.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have had some issues raised with me that I would like to make a few comments on, with regard to the fishery. Just last week I met with some officials at the provincial Department of Fisheries in regard to the fish plant in St. Mary's, and the concern that has been raised, that a couple of years ago they had a new owner, Mr. Greg Maloney, who bought the plant and has been operating it for the past couple of years. Certainly a major concern there is that a workforce of over 210 a few years ago now is down to thirty plus. In the last year, a handful of people managed to get enough hours to qualify for EI in the St. Mary's plant. Certainly it is a big concern for the people down there, as we head into the 2001 fishing season. It is something that concerns us all, and we raised the issues last week with the provincial Department of Fisheries. The concern that was raised was the amount of product that leaves the Province unprocessed, and the fact that 90 per cent of the crab landings in Newfoundland last year left this Province in an unprocessed or a semi-processed state. Certainly, that was an issue that was brought to the table and an issue that is not easy to find an answer to. It is certainly something that affects all of us when we see 90 per cent of the crab landings here leaving the Province in an unprocessed or semi-processed state. As I said in the meetings and afterwards, before someone eats the crab the meat is taken out of the shell somewhere. My question is: Why are we allowing in this Province, and why have we continued to allow in this Province, all these processing jobs to go out the window with the unprocessed product? That is an issue that is going to have to be addressed here if we are going to see rural Newfoundland survive, if we are going to see the communities in rural Newfoundland survive. Certainly it is a big issue and a major concern, and something that we hope to continue to address. Until it is addressed in the proper fashion and in the proper way, we will be facing a major decline in population in rural Newfoundland and a major decline in the services in rural Newfoundland. The time has come to address the issue of unprocessed fish products leaving this Province. The time has come to address the issue of the jobs that are lost because of the unprocessed product that leaves this Province. It is certainly something that we have to look at.

I had telephone calls last night from my district, in my hometown of St. Bride's, where the fish plant there, owned by Mr. Jim Lewis of Holyrood, Supreme Seafoods Limited, has been negotiating for the past year - or little over a year now - with a company, Grand Atlantic Seafoods, to purchase that plant. There are a lot of people left there with concerns because they cannot seem to get any answers to what is going on.

The lump fishery starts on May 12 and people are very, very concerned. I raised that issue here today also. Once again, we have a concern being raised in one of our rural communities about the future of the fish plant, knowing that it is one of the major economy engines that pushes our communities in St. Bride's and St. Mary's, and those other places. It is the same thing. There are a lot of concerns out there that need to be addressed in regards to the fishery.

I find here in the House of Assembly that the fishery does not get as much attention as it should. Over the last couple of weeks it has because of the FPI situation, but over the past several years that I have been here, I find that the fishery is not an issue that is front and center here in the House a lot of time. It concerns me, knowing that the benefit that the industry derives to the Province as a whole, knowing the jobs that are associated with that industry in the Province, and to find that the fishery ends up on the back-burner here in the House of Assembly many times, certainly concerns me and concerns the people that I represent. Hopefully, over the next little while, we will get to address some of these issues in more detail, and we look forward to doing that.

I would like to make a few comments today on Concurrence and the Heads of Expenditure referred to the Social Services Committee. The first one on the heading is the Department of Education. I would like to just relay a bit of information, if I could, Mr. Speaker. Over the past couple of years, there is a school in my district, Fatima Academy in St. Bride's, that has been lobbying for funding to carry out some needed renovations and educational improvements to the infrastructure. It is a building that was built in the late 1960s that has seen very little work done with it in regards to repairs, maintenance and so on, that has been continued on a daily basis or a yearly basis. There are some major educational concerns that were raised with the Avalon West School Board first, and then on through to the Department of Education. The past school council that was at Fatima, the present school council at Fatima, have lobbied intensely over the past little while for funding to make needed repairs to that school. All the students and parents have been involved. It has been a community effort.

I believe it was last April that we had phase one announced, which was about $375,000. It was announced during the federal by-election campaign in our District of St. John's West. There was some concern raised about the timing but, at the same time, the money was welcome. Phase one, which was announced in April, 2000, was $375,000, which included the construction of a corridor linking the primary, elementary and junior-senior high buildings; construction of a new library; renovations to washrooms and the wiring of the entire school for computers.

This work was carried out and a couple of months ago this work was finished up, which saw some major improvements to the school. There were some concerns raised about the furniture for the new library, and things like that, that were being addressed; but we continued, as a community, to lobby for extra funding to do phase two to carry on the necessary renovations and improvements that were needed to phase two. On April 12, the Minister of Education, in her wisdom, announced the phase two funding to the tune of $625,000 to upgrade and modernize Fatima Academy. This brings the total investment of phases one and two to $1 million, and the people on the Cape Shore were absolutely delighted with this announcement. Phase two has been a long time in the works. For several years phase two has been in the works, and to have phase two announced and to put the finishing touches on what we hope will be improvements that will provide a quality education in an appropriate environment for these people was welcome news indeed.

I would certainly like to take the opportunity today - I know it is not something that happens here in the House very often. but I would like to take the opportunity today to thank the Minister of Education on behalf of the people of the Cape Shore, Mr. Speaker, for this money, over $1 million worth of renovations in the past year. It is certainly welcome news indeed, and it is going to make some major improvements and it is certainly something we look forward to.

At the same time, there are always extras that are needed but we are very pleased with what we have. This, as I said earlier, has been a true community project right from the students in K-12 who attend that school and have been lobbying over the past year or so, have been sending letters off to the minister in the department and in the school board. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate those people who have been involved. Certainly, it is a community effort that we are all proud of on the Cape Shore. As a parent of two students who attend that school, I welcome the news also; but certainly as the member for the district, as the representative of the people here in the House of Assembly, I certainly welcome the news of phase two of Fatima Academy. I think it would be remiss if I did not thank the minister for her involvement and certainly for her support over the last little while.

At the same time, we have some major concerns raised with another school in my district over the past little while that we will be looking into. While we have some concerns in a school in Placentia, Laval High School, I spoke briefly with the minister on it today and had some correspondence to her earlier in April, to find that we do not have - I mean, I am very, very surprised that there is not an application for capital funding for Laval High School presented to the Department of Education already. I was under the impression there was, and certainly it is something we will be pushing over the next little while to make sure that it happens; because there are some major concerns and improvements needed with Laval High School. It is something I intend to follow up on and ensure that the application for capital funding is put to the Department of Education. The minister in the department cannot do anything until that application comes in. That has to come from the Avalon West School Board, and I am not sure if the people out in that area even realize that they do not have an application on hand at the department. I think most people, including myself, were under the impression that there was an application within the department for the work that is needed at Laval. I met with some of the parents. I talked to the principal just this past weekend, and he certainly has some concerns. Certainly over the next little while I intend to follow up discussions with the minister on that, and hopefully we can find some funding within the budget to address the concerns at Laval and to have those concerns that have been brought forward by the staff, that have been brought forward by the parents, addressed over the next little while. There are some major concerns there. We saw some renovations carried out last year with the roof maintenance and things, and I am of the understanding that the Avalon West School Board said that the work that is needed at Laval can be carried out under the regular maintenance and repair.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about that, for the simple reason that they could not even find paint last year to finish off painting the classrooms under the maintenance budget. How are they going to find it to carry out major renovations? That is something that we will be working on over the next little while, and something that we will be taking forward here in the House, and I wanted to raise that issue today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments on concurrence.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to concur in the report of the Social Services Committee?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be into Private Members' Day, debating the motion that the Leader of the Opposition just presented to the House about an hour ago, about the FPI situation.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn, and that this House do adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.

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