March 24,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to

inform the House that the necessary legal documents are now being duly executed

by all parties for the acquisition of the 25 per cent interest in the Hibernia

project relinquished by Gulf Canada Resources.

As all hon. members will recall, Newfoundlanders welcomed the

announcement on January 15 of this year that Mobil Oil Canada, Chevron Canada

interest. That event was accompanied by a collective sigh of relief and a

renewed feeling of optimism, not only by those directly involved with the

project, but also by Newfoundlanders throughout the Province.

Since January 15, the necessary due diligence has been done

by the new owner, Murphy Oil, and all appropriate legal documents required to

effect the acquisition were drafted. Closing is expected momentarily. The

ministers concerned and myself signed the documents over the last

day-and-a-half. Closing is expected momentarily, representing the last step in

an often difficult process which began in February of 1992 with the disturbing

news from Gulf Canada Resources that they were intending to withdraw from the

Hibernia project.

With the current full commitment by all parties to the

Hibernia project and the Province's rights under the various agreements fully

protected, the energies of those involved must now be focused on the successful

completion of that project.

Government will continue to effectively monitor all aspects

of this project with particular emphasis on ensuring that employment and

industrial benefits are maintained at the highest level. At the same time,

government recognizes the importance of doing whatever it can, as outlined in

the Province's Strategic Economic Plan, to create an attractive and competitive

environment for further investment in the development of petroleum resources in

the Newfoundland offshore area.

Mr. Speaker, we will not allow our emerging oil industry to

suffer the fate of the Province's fishery. Our new industry is now on a firm

footing and this government will ensure that it stays that way. It will be

managed in a manner that maximizes both benefits to the Province and the

recovery of this valuable non-renewable resource.

We must now move forward. Now that Hibernia is secure, we

have to further encourage exploration and the development of other oil fields.

Hibernia's legacy will be state-of-the-art fabrication and construction

facilities and a highly skilled workforce. We cannot afford to let either lie

idle.

This government has made it abundantly clear that it is

prepared to entertain proposals for the development of other existing oil

discoveries. However, such proposals must be technically and economically sound

and provide benefits to the Province commensurate with the value of the

resources to be exploited. We have no reason to believe that these objectives

cannot be met.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that other oil fields offshore

Newfoundland will be developed in a timely and orderly manner and thus sustain

this industry and contribute to the strengthening of the economy of the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to first thank the Premier and his office for allowing

us the opportunity of looking at the statement and for receiving the statement a

few minutes prior to the announcement at the opening of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little dismayed with the idea of the

Premier standing to announce that they have been doing the legal work on this,

it is in a sense that it hardly merits a statement. I mean, one assumes that

that is what they were doing anyway, that they were doing the legal work to help

facilitate the signing of these documents, now we see that they are going to be

signed momentarily somewhere down the road and I am sure that they are, probably

within the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: - but, Mr. Speaker, in a conversation with

his Minister of Energy, the minister suggested to me that they will be signed

later on today in other parts of the country. I do not know if the minister

talks to the Premier nowadays or not, but, Mr. Speaker, I find it also passing

strange that there is absolutely no mention here of any sense of responsibility

to the federal government who made this project happen. It was their impetus

that drove this project, it was their commitment to the development of this

resource in this Province that saved this project for the people of this

Province, Mr. Speaker, thanks to John C. Crosbie, because we all know in this

Province what the Premier thinks of this project, he referred to it as just two

small fish plants.

I am pleased though, today, that it is being signed within

the next few hours, and I want to go on record and so does my party to

acknowledge the commitment that John C. Crosbie and the Federal Progressive

Conservative Government, for their commitment to this project because that is

who really made this project go and it is shameful that the Premier did not

acknowledge the commitment that these people made to this particular project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Does the member have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

express my pleasure as well in noting that the remaining uncertainty about the

future of the Hibernia project has been removed. I wish to also go on record as

indicating my support for the development of this project. Also, my appreciation

for the fact that in this particular activity the 25 per cent interest in the

Hibernia project, part of that is being taken up as equity participation by the

for mega-project development. That if there's going to be that type of

development, and if government is being asked to put up the money, then they

should be equity participants. We are pleased to see that that is a significant

portion of the financing of that project.

I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that this uncertainty has been

removed, with the signing of and the execution of legal documents today or

tomorrow or next week. It doesn't make any difference. If they're going to sign

them they're going to sign them. I join in going on record as supporting the

continuation of this project and the development of our offshore.

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

Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a brief statement if I may. I

rise to notify the House that my officials have received the report of Judge

Reid of the Provincial Court who held a judicial inquiry into the circumstances

surrounding the death of Ralph Yetman on March 17, 1991, at the Brittany Inn

here in St. John's.

Judge Reid characterized Mr. Yetman's death as one by

misadventure. He indicated further that the hotel management and the security

guards were entitled by virtue of the Petty Trespass Act, the Innkeepers Act or

the Criminal Code to eject Mr. Yetman from the hotel premises in the situation

that existed at that time. He found as well that the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary were acting properly in their line of duty to assist the hotel

management and the hotel staff.

Judge Reid says, and this is a quotation: "There is no

evidence to indicate, nor is there any reason to believe that either the

security guards or the police acted improperly in handling this incident." Mr.

Speaker, the contents of the report are available to the public. I understood

copies were made available to the Table but if they aren't I shall have them

here shortly. Copies have also been provided to counsel for all of the

interested parties in this case, which includes Mr. Yetman's family, the police

and all others who had standing at the inquiry before Judge Reid.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The same as most

people in the Province, my knowledge of the tragic death of Ralph Yetman at

Brittany Inns two years ago is limited to what I learned through the news media.

I didn't attend the judicial inquiry hearings and I don't know what evidence was

before the judge, but, Mr. Speaker, I feel that most people in the Province will

have considerable difficulty accepting the judge's conclusion that there is no

reason to believe either the security guards or the police acted improperly in

handling the incident. The minister says the contents of the report are

available to the public and I call upon him to let people know how they can get

the report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may, by leave.

Anybody who wants a copy, please get in touch with my office

and we will be happy to provide him or her with one.

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

seeking leave of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say that a review of the inquiry results will be

required for a full statement here. I accept that Judge Reid indicates he didn't

have sufficient evidence to find any difficulties here. One would wonder whether

or not the same conclusion would have been reached if a police commission had

been in place and these complaints had been brought in a timely fashion to such

a commissioner. I think a lot of questions were certainly raised and if they

have been put to rest by this report, then I think we would all be satisfied

with it, but I think, because of the public concern at the time of this death, a

full scrutiny of the report, which the minister is going to make available, I

think, will be necessary to make a full comment on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Before going to Oral Questions, the Chair

would like to welcome a couple of groups to the galleries today. First of all,

we would like to extend a warm welcome to thirty Grade V students from Park

Avenue School, Mount Pearl, in the district of Waterford - Kenmount, accompanied

by their teacher, Lima Derouet, and chaperones, Sandra Newhook, and Janet

Shostak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, in the galleries is a group of Day

Break parents and directors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by asking

the Premier if government has reversed its decision to cut funding to the Day

Break Parent Child Centre?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can I ask the Premier: Will his government at least defer

significantly the April 1 deadline it gave in the Budget to allow itself, as a

government, the chance to realize what it has actually done with this particular

move in the Budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have received requests

from the board of directors to meet with them and I believe the meetings are set

for Monday or Tuesday of this week. The minister is doing a full assessment of

all of the information provided, a number of people have made representations,

all that will be taken into account, and we have agreed to meet with the board

as soon as that assessment is completed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't ask the Premier if they

were meeting with the board. I asked him would they defer significantly the

April 1 deadline that they set in the Budget. Perhaps he can answer that in his

answer to this question: Was a cost analysis prepared for the Cabinet before

they made the decision to cut off the funding in that program, and on what

basis, what criteria was used to make your decision?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, having

himself been, I believe, President of Treasury Board at one point, knows the

Cabinet process and the secrecy of the Cabinet process and he knows the

impropriety of asking me to reveal to the House the details of what Cabinet

considered and how they did it and what advice Cabinet has, so I have no

intention of doing that. I can only say to you, I am satisfied that Cabinet was

properly informed by the officials on the basis of the best information they had

available to them. If there was other - Mr. Speaker, babbling doesn't add to

proper information either. It is just babbling. Babbling is babbling and will

always be babbling and there has never been other than that from the hon.

member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet made the

decision and the board of directors have asked the Cabinet to consider further

information. The minister is doing a complete assessment; we will assess that,

we will meet with the board and, in due course, we will advise the board as to

exactly what, if any changes we propose. In the meantime, the Cabinet will not

order any changes until that is done.

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

MR. SIMMS: A good answer, Mr. Speaker. I find it

absolutely unbelievable that the government didn't do any assessment of this

particular decision. Is that what the Premier is saying to the House today? I

ask the question again: Will the government defer significantly its April 1

deadline? - which he has yet to answer. Twice, I have asked it. And, secondly, I

didn't ask him to disclose any secrets of Cabinet or details of Cabinet. I asked

him, Was there a cost analysis prepared for the Cabinet? That is all I ask. I

don't want the details. Was there a cost analysis? Could he answer those two

specific questions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question has been fully

and completely answered, and I stand by the answer I have given.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if the question has been

answered, I am not sure anybody in this House, or anybody listening to the

reports of the House, could ever pick the answer out.

Are you going to extend the deadline of April 1? I didn't

hear him answer that. Secondly - you did? Are you going to extend the deadline

of April 1? Can you say yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Ask the member now to listen carefully and

stop his other members from babbling and he will hear the answer I just gave,

and when he reads Hansard he will see that it has already been given before I am

saying it right now. The answer is that the government is doing an assessment of

all of the information being given. The minister has arranged for a meeting. We

will have a meeting, and after that meeting we will make our decision. In the

meantime, we will not - and I said this before - we will not alter the decision

that has already been made unless and until that meeting provides a reason to do

so.

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

MR. SIMMS: I don't know why the Premier can't answer yes

or no. It is a fairly straightforward question. Anyway, I gather from his answer

now that he is saying, 'Yes, we will defer this April 1 deadline.' I presume -

you are not saying that?

PREMIER WELLS: No.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I might as well move on to something

else because obviously we are not going to get a clear, straightforward answer

from this Premier.

Let me ask him this question: Yesterday, I understand, while

responding to other questions in the House, he said that Day Break was started

some twenty years ago, under some federal grant, and that the Province is now

stuck with paying the bill. I understand that is how he is being reported.

I want to ask him: Is he not aware that the amount paid to

Day Break through the Department of Social Services is actually cost-shared

50/50 with the Federal Government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I am totally aware of that, Mr.

Speaker, completely aware of it. I am also aware that a similar, pretty nearly

identical, facility in Corner Brook was started - three years ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two-and-a-half years ago.

PREMIER WELLS: Two-and-a-half years ago by the Federal

Government, 100 per cent federally funded. They are backing out as of the end of

March. They have cut the funding completely.

They decide where these units are going to be started in the

Province, and walk away and leave the Province with the responsibility to fund

it. Mr. Speaker, we can't run the Government of this Province on the basis of

the whims of different offices of the Federal Government.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I presume that his government

licensed this centre in Corner Brook, to begin with - the one that he talks

about - so if he felt so strongly about it then, why did he license it, if that

is the case?

In any event, let me ask him this: I understand, what he is

saying is that we cannot fund the Day Break program here in St. John's because

you would have to fund one elsewhere - in Corner Brook, or wherever else. Now

clearly, two Day Breaks in the Province would be much better than one. Would he

not agree that one Day Break in the Province would be much better than none? I

mean, what does he expect us to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Does he expect everything in this Province to

be reduced to the lowest common denominator? Is that what his philosophy is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, but somebody, then, has

to decide which one - St. John's or Corner Brook - and on what basis is that

somebody going to decide?

MS. VERGE: That's not fair!

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, it is not fair, but it is real. If the

taxpayers of this Province had pots of money, we could have a Day Break Centre

in every community in the Province. We don't have the pots of money. If we had

even a reasonable amount of money, we could have Day Break Centres in strategic

areas around the Province. But you have to bear in mind that we are asking all

of the taxpayers of this Province to pay 12 per cent on virtually everything

they buy in order to fund the activities of government. Now, government can't be

selective about where it provides this. Government can't decide that it is going

to cut Province-wide programs to which everybody is contributing but maintain

programs for a specific area. You have to try and avoid that.

Nobody is quarrelling with the merit of the Day Break

program. I am not for one minute challenging the merit of the Day Break program.

But there are a lot of good things that we'd like to do for the people of this

Province if we had the financial resources to do them.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure

the Premier must be aware by now that there was quite a flurry of activity

around the Confederation Building, the elevator areas yesterday, when

substantial amounts of new furniture were brought into this building. Loaded

very quickly aboard elevators and taken to some of the upper floors of the

building. I'm wondering if the Premier can inform the House and the people of

the Province how much furniture came into the building, how much it cost, and

what it's going to be used for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I tabled in the House last

fall, I believe, all of the bids, the proposals and the cost with respect to the

renovations and the furniture. I will get that information and table it again.

There's certainly no more that I know of. The information has already been

tabled.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what you tabled.

PREMIER WELLS: This is what I tabled last fall. It was

tabled on November 12, 1992, the information is there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, there's no more.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm recognizing the hon. the Opposition

House Leader for a question, a supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me

ask the Premier this: can the Premier explain to the House and to the people

why, as we sit here now, there is a substantial amount of new furniture stored

on the sixth floor of this building, locked in three rooms, a minimum of

fifty-four new chairs in two of the rooms, and other chairs, chesterfields, or

love-seats, or whatever, locked in a third room? I'm wondering if the Premier

can explain to this House what that furniture is going to be used for and what

it cost the taxpayers of this Province, when we just heard this Premier saying

that he's not willing to let the Day Break centre continue? We have pensioners

who are living on about $12,000 a year, the social services budget cut to the

bone. Explain that for the people of the Province, I ask the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question

under advisement and determine what furniture if any is stored. The mere fact

that the member said it doesn't prove conclusively to me that it exists. I will

check and see what the situation is. If anything, so far as I know, the cost of

the furniture that was - the information I've tabled - is in fact less. I'll

check that too and find out.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me assure the Premier that the

furniture I referred to is on the sixth floor of this building. I have seen it

myself. All except what's locked in one room. There are three rooms. Fifty-four

new chairs, plush chairs, in two of the rooms. I don't know what's in the third.

I want to ask the Premier: where did this furniture come from? Where was the

furniture supplied from? Let me ask him that. Does he know who supplied the

furniture?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I've told the hon. member that I will take

the matter under advisement and will provide the House with the information. I

don't have it. There's no new furniture so far as I know. The only thing that I

know is the information that I tabled here on November 12 of last year, and to

the best of my knowledge there is no additional furniture whatsoever. I will

check and make sure.

It doesn't matter how many times the hon. member asks the

question, that's the answer, today.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: That's the answer that the Premier would

like for us to accept, Mr. Speaker. All I can tell the Premier is that furniture

was brought into this building yesterday. It was stored there as of Question

Period starting today. I want to know where it came from, how much it cost, what

it's going to be used for, who supplied it, why was it now bought and brought to

this Confederation Building at the very time that we're expecting so many people

in this Province to suffer pain, I ask the Premier? The other thing I want to

finish, the final supplementary to the Premier: will he agree immediately to

have those rooms unlocked on the sixth floor so that members of the press and I

can see everything that's up there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'll do a lot more than that.

I'll unlock a lot more for the members of the press to have a look at, that the

former government did. We'll disclose the full details of it, so they can see

the whole story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I've told -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, we'll get the history too, we'll get

the whole story. We're not just going to look at a little narrow bit. We're

going to get the whole story, and people will have the whole story, Mr. Speaker.

Including all the furniture the government bought and gave to the former premier

for a pittance, all of it, all of that will be disclosed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked, I can only

say to the members of the House that there has been no new furniture ordered for

any floor that I am associated with, that I know of, other than the furnishings

that were reported here on November 12th. To the best of my knowledge, not

another stick of new furniture has been ordered. Now most of those renovations

were underway when we took office; we tried to stop this for example, we tried

to stop this $24 million venture, we tried to stop this but it was gone too far,

because it was gone too far and we could not stop it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the walls were being torn out up through

the building and the renovations were underway, and I have no doubt that the

government of the day had some advice that this was needed in engineering terms,

and so they went ahead with it, and we went ahead and the renovations continued.

All of it was done as a result of their design, we did not do the design on it,

all of the design was in place and most of the contracts let before ever we took

office, Mr. Speaker. Much of the work was underway and it was simply continued

and that is how it got to be done.

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

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

The devil made Clyde do it again, Mr. Speaker. He made him

get the door knobs and the wall paper - this is not four years ago, Mr. Speaker,

let me remind the Premier that this was yesterday, and that new furniture at a

cost of thousands of dollars to the taxpayers of this Province could have been

cancelled, I do not care what the Premier says, it could have been cancelled.

Will he make a commitment now, I say to the Premier, that those doors will be

opened, immediately, so that we can see what is in there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I tell the member again,

there were no new furnishings that were not tabled in this House. Now any that

was done will not be acquired. If it was done, somebody else has ordered it and

the government did not authorize it. I did not do it, so if there was any

delivered other than what was committed and tabled in this House, we have a

right to send it back I assume, and there will be no problem with it.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The million dollars you spent on your office over the last

year or so would have kept Day Break opened for the next twenty years, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

We had our Budget presented one day last week and we see the

complete devastation of the hog industry in our Province, it will be wiped out

completely. Completely opposite to the recommendations of the $800,000 report

that the minister had commissioned to get a Liberal candidate for the district

of St. George's.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know, before the minister made his

decision on wiping out the hog industry in this Province, did he have any

studies done and did he know what the ripple effect would be when he wiped out

the hog industry on the rest of the agriculture industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, from

the time the Hulan report on Agri-Foods was delivered to the government there

have been people who have been studying the hog industry in Newfoundland, Farm

Products and the chicken industry for the past year-and-a-half, and the action

taken by the government did not necessarily fly in the face of the

recommendation that Dr. Hulan made. The hon. member needs to read Dr. Hulan's

recommendation.

Dr. Hulan recommended that we cancel immediately price

support to the hog industry. Mr. Speaker, he also recommended that having done

that for one year, if it did not work, he indicated the hog industry itself

would understand if we could not continue to support the industry. But, Mr.

Speaker, let me tell the hon. member, yes, we did have studies done and of the

studies that were done, the results show that it was in the better interest of

the Province, there is no scenario that the hog industry can survive in

Newfoundland without massive government support forever. There is no model,

there is no scenario, there in no set of circumstances under which the hog

industry could survive without the kind of subsidies provided by the Government

of Newfoundland, and the decision was that it was best to deal with it now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is

certainly not the scenario that anything will survive under this government,

nothing that I hear. Daycare is another example of what will not survive.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister know what effect government's

decision regarding the hog industry will have on the dairy industry and the

chicken industry? Has he heard today that the only feed company in this Province

is on the verge of shutting its doors because of the decision the minister made

with respect to the hog industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: We were aware, obviously, that when the hog

industry shut down, there would be less grains needed then to be imported into

the Province. We were aware that may well have a negative effect on the grain

industry. I understand that the spokesman for the grain industry today, the

major distributor of grains and livestock feeds in the Province, is indicating

that he will be looking at it and considering a cutback in the number of people

employed in that industry. Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful, as we deal with the

other livestock industries in this Province, that other sectors will expand to

the point where maybe they will use as much livestock foods and grains as is

being used now by the hog industry. So, Mr. Speaker, it may be a short-term

problem with regard to the grain industry.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the other sectors - the dairy industry was

producing some 90-95 per cent of our fresh fluid milk. Now, I don't see much

expansion in that. I don't see much expansion in anything in this Province while

this government lasts, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister - if there is expansion, there might be

some expansion in the chicken industry, we have some extra quotas. Will the

minister say today, in this House of Assembly, that he will assist the whole hog

industry, the fourteen hog farmers? Will he assist them in transferring from the

hog industry to the chicken industry, so they can take that quota that we have

already approved for this Province? Will he commit today to helping the hog

farmers get into that industry, get that quota, so that they will not lose their

houses, their land, their barns and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of

debt that they have in place on their farms right now. Will the minister give us

that commitment today, that he will get the hog farmers into another

agricultural business?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's

preamble,

he talked about seeing nothing expanding in this Province. The one thing, Mr.

Speaker, we were certain would never expand and did not expand, was the cucumber

industry in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: There was never any basis for expecting a

cucumber production would ever expand in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that

was the minister who was responsible; he was the minister at the time who, by

and large, was responsible for Sprung and the $23 million dollars of public

money that went down the drain when it had to be shut down - ignoring, Mr.

Speaker, the advice of all of his advisors, public servants and everybody else.

With regard to answering his question, Mr. Speaker, it seems

like a natural thing that if fifteen or sixteen hog producers go out of

business, they are farmers, they have made a commitment to farming. If, indeed,

there is quota - and there is quota available to the Province for broilers over

the next two or three years, it would seem natural to me that the people

responsible for allocating that quota would look to allocating quota. But the

hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, that the broiler industry in this Province is

regulated by a board under enabling legislation and I cannot dictate nor could

he, Mr. Speaker, to the chicken industry, who gets what quota. I can certainly

use my good office, I can certainly talk to the board representing the chicken

producers and make sure they are aware of the dilemma and make sure they are

aware of our desire to see that the people in the hog industry are taking

advantage of any possibility to stay in the farming business.

So, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that I can use my office I

will, but I cannot make a commitment and he well knows I cannot make it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a final

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, one

simple question to the minister. He said he has been studying this hog industry

since the report was tabled, this useless report that he paid $800,000 for, Mr.

Speaker. Will the minister say flat-out what package he has in place today for

the hog farmers who are going out of business, to help them save their land,

their barns, their homes and a lifetime of work that they put into that

business. What is the package you have in place today, after a year-and-a-half

of study?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the government presented the hog

industry and the producers with a proposal designed to help them (inaudible) the

industry, that would have seen all the hogs in the barns thrown out, that would

have seen transportation to an abattoir on the Mainland funded, that would see

their debts to the Newfoundland Farm Loan Board and Newfoundland Farm Products

considered for forgiveness, and other considerations.

I might tell the hon. member and tell the House this, that

the hog industry have taken the package, or the proposal we have offered, and

are looking at it. I know they are intending to come back and make

representation to me, as minister, and I have said to the industry, on behalf of

government and myself, that we will consider anything that they come back with.

We want to be fair to the industry, Mr. Speaker. We will be

fair, and we will consider whatever they want to talk about to me, at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Social Services.

Looking through the Budget, the social assistance budget last

year was $160 million. The revised, Mr. Speaker - the actual amount spent for

social assistance - was $180 million. This year, the minister has budgeted

approximately $175 million for social assistance. That would work out to

approximately 2,000 fewer people on social assistance this year than last year.

Let me ask the minister: Where are the 2,000 people going to

find jobs when the Budget basically states that there will be 4,000 fewer jobs

in the Province next year versus last year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the member knows, of course,

that the social assistance budget is determined and driven by need and, in fact,

if people qualify they are given assistance. It is very difficult to budget in

any year, particularly this year, when the caseloads are now approaching some

31,000 cases.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the Budget figure is concerned, I

would have to check it out. I assume he is right when he says that we have 2,000

less people -

MR. TOBIN: That is what it works out to.

MR. GULLAGE: - if you do the calculations through, but I

will take that figure under advisement and check it out and see whether it is,

in fact, correct.

My knowledge of the Budget and the way my figures were put

together was that we are budgeting based on our estimate of the way we are going

to finish up this fiscal year at the end of March, with an assumption of the

caseloads being very similar for next year.

As we already know, the caseloads as predicted, and the

Budget as predicted and as presented last year, has been exceeded this year

because of our increase in caseloads. We may very well have a similar situation

in the next fiscal year, I don't know; but the Budget is determined, really, on

the figures as we see them at the end of March for the next fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unbelievable what

is taking place. You have the Premier admitting today that they did not do a

thorough study on Day Break. They are going to have to have a further

investigation to see whether or not anything will change. Now, you have the

Minister of Social Services saying they haven't factored in the number of

people, whether lesser or greater, on social assistance. Obviously, they just

pulled numbers from the air to try to balance a Budget that will never be

passed.

Is it not a fact, I ask the minister, that the number of

people on social assistance will increase, not decline, and if we lose another

4,000 jobs, more people will end up on social assistance than are on social

assistance now? Let me ask the minister: Is that not the real truth?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: There are a lot of factors that have to be

taken into consideration when we prepare a Budget figure. As I said, we look at

the actual figures as we project them to the revised figures really, to the end

of the fiscal year, the end of March. We also, this year, took into

consideration the fact that we have investigators who will be cutting down on

fraud and abuse of the system. We have been successful already, as I have said

before, in two areas of the Province, in uncovering, so far, to date, over

$800,000 in the Corner Brook area, with one investigator. These are - I have

seen the list of cases - outright fraud really, money that is taken away from

people who should legitimately be receiving the money.

We project that we will save millions of dollars this year as

a result of uncovering fraud in the system. So that is reflected, as well, in

our estimates of the amount of money we might spend on social assistance in this

particular category in the next fiscal year.

As it is impossible to determine, of course, the caseloads,

we don't know whether those figures, the actual figures that were used in the

Budget, will be the figures at the end of the forthcoming fiscal year, any more

than we could determine this particular year what the figures would be based on

the caseloads that we predicted when the year started.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the minister feels that fraud

is that rampant within the Department of Social Services - I doubt that it is as

rampant as he is saying it is, but probably when he brought the investigator in

last fall, he should have kept him in here instead of sending him back at the

time.

Let me say to the minister, he knows full well that this

Budget is a sham. Instead of saving $5 million on social assistance next year,

he will spend at least $10 million more. Is the minister now prepared to tell

the truth, that the cost of social assistance next year will be at least, at the

very least, $200 million, not the $175 million that he pulled out of the air for

this Budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we did not take

the investigator away from the Corner Brook region. That investigator is still

working, and as I said, last year uncovered in excess of $800,000 in one

calendar year. Mr. Speaker, the Budget figures as they are shown are accurate.

That is our estimate of the amount of dollars that we will spend in the

forthcoming fiscal year. I am only repeating myself for the third time when I

say that it is impossible to know what are caseloads are going to be throughout

the next fiscal year. We can only establish Budget figures based on our

experience. They may be in excess, but to predict that it will be $200 million,

$150 million, or $100 million would be just pure guesswork at this time, Mr.

Speaker, and I wouldn't want to do that.

I have to put Budget figures that are based on the past,

based on our history, based on the caseloads as we see them right now and as we

have just experienced throughout this fiscal year. To ask me to guess what the

Budget might be at the end of the next fiscal year is just pure nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

Section 13 of the Auditor

General Act, whenever the Auditor General makes a report to the House of

Assembly, I am obliged to table that report. I hereby table a special report of

the Auditor General.

Notices of Motion

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

Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move that the following members comprise the three Standing Committees

on the Estimates. Obviously, I have consulted with my hon. friend, the gentleman

from Grand Bank, and my hon. friend, the gentleman from St. John's East, in

this.

The Government Services Committee will be chaired by the hon.

the Member for Pleasantville; the Vice-Chair will be the hon. the Member for

Harbour Main. The members will be the hon. the Members for Carbonear; Fogo;

Harbour Grace; LaPoile; and Kilbride. The heads of expenditure to be referred to

the Government Services Committee are from the heads in the Estimates as tabled

in the House by my friend, the Minister of Finance, last week. The heads for:

Finance; Works, Services and Transportation; Employment and Labour Relations;

Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation; and the Public Service Commission. These are the same heads that

were referred to that Committee last year.

The Social Service Committee will be chaired by my friend,

the Member for St. John's North, with the Member for Humber East as Vice-Chair.

The members will be the Members for Baie Verte - White Bay; Eagle River;

Ferryland; Humber West; and St. John's East. The heads of expenditure to be

referred to that Committee will be: Social Services; Education; Health;

Environment and Lands; and Justice.

The Resource Committee will be chaired by the gentleman from

Trinity North, with the Member for Humber Valley as the Vice-Chair. The Members

for Fortune - Hermitage; Green Bay; Port de Grave; St. John's South; and Menihek

will be the members of the Committee. The heads to be referred are: Fisheries;

Forestry and Agriculture; Mines and Energy; Tourism and Culture; Industry, Trade

and Technology - again, in each case, the heads referred last year.

I should say, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to Your Honour and to

the members, there are nineteen heads in the Estimates as tabled. As has been

the practice in the past, three will be debated in the full House. They will be

the Consolidated Fund, the Executive Council, and the Legislature votes. The

other sixteen will be referred through to the committees as has been our

practice, I understand, for the past two years. I give notice I will move that

motion tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I asked the Premier to

table -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On what basis -

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a

point of order.

The hon. the Member for Humber East on a point of order.

MS. VERGE: On Monday, in Question Period, I asked the

Premier to table the list of so-called third-party organizations the government

is cutting by $3.6 million. He said he would have the Minister of Finance or the

President of Treasury Board do that. Yesterday, when I asked the Minister of

Finance, he said he doesn't have a list. I am under Answers to Questions For

which Notice has been Given. Since the Premier did take notice of that question

on Monday, I call upon him to make good on his word and table the list.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To that point of

order, which is not really a point of order - but I would like to point out that

her explanation is correct, in the sense that she asked me a question. I

indicated I did not have a list. In the interim, I have asked that such a list

be prepared, and it will be prepared.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: As soon as it can be.

MS. VERGE: After the election.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize to my colleagues. I forgot to mention to them

that I had a petition to present.

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today to present a petition

on behalf of some parishioners of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception

Church in the town of Grand Falls - Windsor who are getting involved in the

fight to preserve denominational education from their particular perspective.

I have had occasion, also, to have communication with

representatives of a group which has been formed to head up that particular

fight from that area. In fact I will be in the area next week to talk and meet

with them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reading the prayer of

the petition. If the hon. Member for Windsor - Buchans would like to relax and

sit back I will tell him about the fight in just a moment. The prayer of the

petition, Mr. Speaker; to members of the House of Assembly. We the undersigned

are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province.

We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them, in the same way we

support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support

co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared service

schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other

people in our Province taken away and we ask you not to tamper with the rights

we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

It is pretty similar to petitions that have been presented in

the House over the last few days and I suspect there are many more to come from

certain areas of the Province, many areas of the Province. This particular one,

as I say, contains about 600 names that were gathered out there at the church in

one particular week.

Mr. Speaker, I guess there is not much I can add to what has

been said in recent days in the presentation of similar petitions. Basically

these petitioners, as they told me through their representatives, I say to the

Member for Windsor - Buchans, are quite concerned about the recommendations of

the Royal Commission on Education which in their view, and in their

interpretation, would affect the denominational rights that their particular

denomination enjoys now under the Constitution. It is not unlike the concerns

that both the Member for Windsor - Buchans, I, and the Member for Exploits heard

while addressing another public function in our own area a few weeks ago. There

were certainly lots of concerns there and there were reasons for those people to

have concerns. It is also fair to say that these people have told me they still

have the same concerns, notwithstanding the flowery statement by the Premier, I

guess it was, in the last couple of weeks or so with respect to this issue of

denominational education. Somehow or other he tried to give the impression

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: I am telling hon. members what these

parishioners have said to me, their concern and their perception, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I understand the Premier presented a similar

petition himself yesterday so I would like to have the right to present the

petition on behalf of the people in this House which I am elected to do, Mr.

Speaker, and not be interrupted by the nattering nabob from Windsor - Buchans.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has asked for order and when the Chair asks for

order it expects to get it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a typical ploy of the Member for Windsor - Buchans -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: - because he knows we only have five minutes

to present a petition. He figures, I suppose, he can talk me out of it and that

is probably what he is up to.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to say these people,

because I have spoken to their representatives, are still unsure and uncertain

of government's intention with regard to denominational education rights. Now

all I can tell him is what these people are telling me, and what they say. What

they are saying is that the statements made in the past by the Premier and by

others on that side of the House in particular are not clear enough for these

particular people. They still have their suspicions, because if you read the

statements and if you hear the statements, it talks about where we have no

intentions, the government says, we do not intend, or we have no plans. The

Member for Exploits said we have no plans, so for all of these reasons, because

of the ambiguity of the statements made by the government, these people are

still concerned. That is why they are presenting these petitions and they have

every right to do so, Mr. Speaker, as you would be aware, and as I am sure we

would encourage them to do, and as the Member for Bay of Islands - I think the

Premier is representing now - as the Member for Bay of Islands would know

because he presented a similar petition in the House just a couple of days ago.

Why would they be presenting these petitions, or asking that these petitions be

presented, if they did not believe or did not have concerns about what the

government intends to do?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: I was afraid of that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you

very much.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of my colleague, the Leader of the

Opposition, in support of the petition from people from his constituency.

The churches have played a very important role in education

in this Province. They have financed it, to a great extent, out of monies from

the church and not out of public money. The role and input has been recognized

since 1949 in Terms of Union, and since that the progression that has followed.

This government has not, and I have repeated it and said it

on many occasions before, given any definitive statement as to what they will do

with regard to denominational education. They have played around with it

publicly. The minister went on record in November and stated, and it is a very

definitive statement, he would like for my grandchildren to know that when their

grandfather was minister, there was a denominational system of education and

eventually there was no system, and no segregation based on religion. That was

in November.

The Premier, just in the House this week with his petition,

said that he is not going to debate whether you will or whether you will not, he

said, seek to amend the constitution at this particular time. That is what he

indicated - at this particular time.

It is not his plan or his objective or his intention - no, it

is not, I suppose, for the interim; but we do not know what the plans are for

the future. I think people have a right to know the government's intention.

There should be no secret agendas playing with the lives and education of youth

in the Province. I think they have to come clean with that. We have seen enough

cutbacks and attacks on our education system.

No doubt efficiencies can be achieved, and I am sure in the

future hopefully will be achieved through changes within the existing system.

There is room for improvement within the system, and it is time that some focus

should be made to improve these and not to take away from parents the prior

right to have a say in the type of education they should have for their

children. They have that right, and it is recognized in the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, in

Article 26.

I support my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, in his

petition, and once again call upon the government to make a definitive statement

and come clean with the people as to what their real intention is.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, at some time in the future I

would like a few moments to elaborate on how the system in this Province has

evolved over the years. We had a non-denominational system in education in the

colony from about 1836 to about 1843 - that era. Beginning in the 1870's the

various denominations acquired rights in education, and in 1949 some of these

rights were entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, Term 17.

Since then, major changes have occurred in

interdenominational co-operation and I am pleased to support what the

government, and the Minister of Education and the Premier, announced last week -

that we are now on the verge of some major changes in interdenominational

sharing and co-operation.

Some twenty years ago the Anglicans, the United Church, the

Salvation Army and the Presbyterians came together and formed a unified,

integrated system.

On Fogo Island we have one of the best examples of

co-operation in the Province - Plum Point, Bay de Verde - all over the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to tell the hon. member that his time is up. It would

not normally be up, but it is Wednesday and his time is up.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Private Members' Day and Wednesday,

we go to the appropriate resolution, but before calling on the member to

introduce and debate his resolution, I would like to welcome to the House today

a council representation from the Council of Centreville, Wareham, Trinity, in

the historic district of Bonavista North. The council is represented by the

Deputy Mayor, Mr. Ackerman and Councillors Brown, Noble, Yetman, Hunt and

Waterman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am not sure which resolution it is -

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution states:

WHEREAS the attainment of higher education is fundamental to

the future prosperity of our Province:

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador take the necessary steps to provide adequate funding to Memorial

University to ensure that tuition fees are not increased during the 1993-'94

fiscal year.

I think this brings us back to the entire problem of

providing adequate education funding, to ensure that our children and the

children of the future will be adequately prepared to seek work in a very

demanding marketplace. While this government has put in print where they expect

education to be and set forth their objectives, they have done nothing to follow

along that course that they have established as it pertains to post-secondary

education at Memorial University.

They have very nobly published in their Strategic Economic

Plan that education is the key to economic development. They have acknowledged

that studies have shown conclusively, that the skills and the qualifications and

innovation and adaptability of individuals are critical determinants of economic

performance and the success of enterprises; and, it is acknowledged that the

public in their strategic plan, perceives education to be the single most

important element in facilitating a change in attitude, and we know that a

change in attitude in this Province would certainly be a welcome thing.

People want to see, and the Strategic Economic Plan

recognizes efficiencies in the system and nobody doubts that we want to see

efficiencies, but they also want to see that education, a system, addresses most

urgent needs, improved facilities and equipment, laboratories, libraries,

computers, books and other learning materials, and it is very important that the

finances be in place so the University can provide these to students at the most

effective cost, and part of their plan is to develop a dynamic post-secondary

education system, which is capable of meeting the education and training needs

of all citizens, and I emphasize 'all citizens', which can identify and address

areas of weakness in our human resource requirements and which can respond

quickly to change in requirements to the workplace and to the economy.

Mr. Speaker, this government is in the process of making

university a university for the elite. They are quickly changing the cost

requirements and so on and the financing and operating grants, so that

university will only be able to be reached by children of very wealthy parents.

And quickly, certainly I guess we could probably call it the turtle syndrome,

with what is happening now with education, the responding in a very slow manner

and in cases not responding at all. In fact we have regressed in certain areas

of post-secondary education in this Province.

While they espouse to move forward and spend more funding on

education in this Province, they had used that in their propaganda material in

1989, they indicated in their campaign manual to get elected, that our future

economic success depends more on the improvements we make in our education

program than on any other single factor, and they went on to give some specific

examples: My government, in the Throne Speech of '89, will expand post-secondary

facilities to allow more students in rural areas to participate in the

development of their careers without being penalized by the higher costs of

accommodations and transportation. That was not as finances permit, that was a

commitment in 1989 after being elected, to expand the opportunities for

post-secondary education in Corner Brook in Grenfell College, and in central

Newfoundland and other specific areas.

Now, the students have to travel all over this Province

incurring great costs to get to Memorial University and to live in St. John's

where the cost of living is higher than in certain areas of the Province. Not

only the transportation of getting back and forth but living away from home and

the extra accommodation costs are very negative factors in the pursuit of a

higher education by these students.

In a specific promise in 1989: that the curriculum of the Sir

Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook will be expanded to include third and

fourth year courses as quickly as they can reasonably be added and an orderly

expansion of facilities will permit. Grenfell can, in due course, become a

degree granting university. This was a specific promise four years ago. We have

not even touched the surface, they have just ignored the plight of students in

western Newfoundland and the opportunity for them to be able to attain an

education without incurring greater cost than people here on the east coast of

the Province. They indicated as soon as finances permit - this one did make

references to finances - is expand and have a similar facility to Grenfell in

central Newfoundland. And another commitment as it affects students, a revised

student loan program that will accommodate the needs of students in the advance

years of their education. This government has accomplished very little in terms

of financing and enabling Memorial University to operate and provide education

at a reasonable cost.

I would just like to touch on, just briefly, the importance

really of education to the future job market. Statistics Canada reports that 50

per cent of the jobs will require a post-secondary education and that number

will increase immensely into the 21st Century. When we should be putting more

emphasis on education and enabling people to prepare for the job market of the

future, we are sowing the seeds for an expanded Social Service Department. The

seeds are being sown today and will reap very detrimental and negative results

in the future, if something is not done now. Education is something that starts,

grows and develops, is a part of a total development and it must start now. We

cannot hope to solve our problems down the road, if the steps are not taken

today.

Just to look briefly at the operation grants to Memorial

University; in 1992-93 there was $121 million budgeted in operating grants to

Memorial, and with cutbacks brought in by this administration it was reduced in

the last fiscal year, in the revised figures, to $118 million. Now they are

advocating only $118 million this year with cuts being indicated in the Budget -

they will have to bear their fair share. It is expected that almost $6 million

will be sliced from that $118 million down to $112 million, having to operate

with $6 million less. With increasing operating costs in the University of

another $4 million, they are faced with between a $10-$11 million deficit that

they are going to have to meet.

On capital expenditure, in the university, it has been

reduced from $6.5 million last year to $1 million this year. That is a drastic

drop of $5.5 million alone being included in capital expenditure. To top that

off, equipment and furnishings is reduced by another $1 million. Still the

government says they have no control over the University, they decide their

budgets and indicate what tuition costs will be. Well that is equivalent to

having an automobile and having a tire missing. In other words the whole cannot

function without its part. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts, each one

must be working to be able to achieve a desired result. This government has

handicapped, it has immobilized the machine, Memorial University, to be able to

deliver in an efficient manner to our students the opportunity to get a proper

education at a reasonable cost.

The former Minister of Education - I would just like to touch

on this for one minute - in the House on November 8, 1989, said; I think we can

reduce the financial barrier or remove to some degree, by decentralizing post

secondary education opportunities throughout the Province. He said: and we are

going to do that. We are going to provide quality post-secondary education

programs throughout the Province, we are going to do it right. He said; we will

provide better programs and expand the programs in several parts of this

Province.

I'm sure his intentions were well-intentioned there. However,

we haven't been able to realize their expectations, or maybe it was only a

hollow commitment back in 1989, an election campaign to get elected and going to

promise things that they had no intention of delivering. I certainly hope that's

not the case. Our post-secondary institutions now are being forced to exclude

people at a time when it is crucial that people get a post-secondary education.

It's paramount to the future of this Province and to any prosperity that we can

hope to accomplish.

The current Minister of Education, back in 1987, was very

concerned with students at the time. The Member for the Straits of Belle Isle is

unhappy that the income of some students' parents is considered when they're

applying for student aid. He feels it is generally the middle class that gets

hit hardest. He said: the wealthy can afford to do without aid and those with

less money will qualify for loans anyway. It's unfair, since it's the middle

class which contributes most in the form of taxes.

The current minister went on to say that he spoke with

numerous people in his district - twenty-four people he mentions here have

approached him on the issue - and out of that six were unable to attend

post-secondary education because of a lack of funds. He feels sure there are

more people with the problem and it's a very serious one. He said he'd like to

issue a challenge to the students at post-secondary institutions. They should

try and improve the situation through such methods as petitions and should be a

nation-wide concern. People should really get up and revolt and demand the

opportunities for a better education.

I'd like to just point out a few figures here pertaining to

what this government has done to the budgets at Memorial University. Under

capital expenditure, for example, in 1988 there was $5.8 million provided for

capital expenditure at Memorial. That amount has shrank. That was at the peak

amount. It's been downhill since then. We've had only, this year, $1 million in

the capital program. To look at tuition fees at Memorial University: during the

last four years tuition fees at Memorial University have increased over 46 per

cent. So it's hovering near almost a 50 per cent increase in the last four

years. During the four previous years the highest increase of any one year was

7.4 per cent, and from as low as 4.9 per cent. In the past two years alone we

have seen a 10.1 per cent increase the previous year, and the year before that a

15 per cent increase.

We've had an astronomical movement upward in the cost of

students entering University, at a time when students can least afford it. At a

time when student unemployment is in the mid-thirties. When job opportunities

and so on to raise funds for their education is at the most crucial time

probably almost in the history of this Province. When parents' incomes have not

increased and the unemployment rate in this Province overall has reached

astronomical levels, they are faced with the burden of having to try to fend for

themselves, resulting in a movement toward making Memorial University a smaller

institution and an institution for the elite, people who can afford to pay.

I think that's grossly unfair. If we look at Memorial

University overall and we take a look at what this government has done in

tuition and allowances they've given to people attending MUN over the past

number of years, in 1991-1992 there was $20,750,000 provided to students in the

form of tuition and allowances. This government last year budgeted $21,850,000

for tuition and allowances but students only received $18.9 million. Three

million slashed from the budget in tuition and allowance for the students. What

this government has done, it has made university a budgetary concern, not a

concern for quality, improved education and improved opportunities. It has made

it a budgetary matter.

This year they are proposing a $20 million expenditure. They

were out by $3 million last year. In fact, they're budgeting $2 million less

than they budgeted last year after slashing $3 million from last year's amount

that they provided the students. What are the reasons why students got less last

year? Because this government invented ways to take money out of the pockets of

students. They did not apply inflation to the provincial portion under the

Canada Student Loan Program. They applied it to the federal portion that was

coming out of federal funds. They changed last year for the first time in this

Province the Canada Pension Plan disability that students were receiving whose

parents were unable to work or were deceased, people who are least likely to be

able to pay the burden for education. They brought that in last year for the

first time and put that into student income which meant student income is

deducted almost directly from their assessed needs at the university,

whereas if

it were in parental income and below the minimum levels it would not have

effected the amount of money they could obtain. This affected the amount of loan

the students could obtain.

These students want the opportunity to be able to assess a

loan system, any type of money to be able to continue their education, but that

avenue has been taken away by this government. They have looked at ways to try

to save money on the backs of students and I think it is grossly unfair when you

look at where we must go as a Province, and if we are going to rise our

educational levels. Students do not have the financial resources to be able to

fund their own education. With a student unemployment rate of about 35 per cent

it is inconceivable that students can generate their own income to put

themselves through post-secondary institutions and through Memorial University,

in particular, as we are discussing today.

The job market itself, today, with our high unemployment

rate, with people unemployed and with the moratorium in the fishery, the

opportunity to get summer jobs has been diminished somewhat and that will not

improve over the next year or during the course of the moratorium. We have to

look at this Province which has one of the lowest levels of post-secondary

institutional education attendance in Canada and we should be putting more

emphasis upon trying to get people inside the doors of post-secondary

institutions and not looking at financial obstacles to achieve that.

Even the former minister acknowledges that it is important

that students in this Province - and he stated that back in 1989, the former

minister said that students in this Province should have to pay less in tuition

fees than in the rest of this country. That is one of the defences that was used

by the current minister in questions I asked last fall. I feel students in this

Province should have to pay less than the rest of the country. We are farther

behind the rest of the country. We have to have more incentives to get into

these institutions and not dis-incentives and so on that are going to limit the

enrollment. Raising the requirements is a budgetary measure completely. It is

not a matter of trying to establish improved standards and quality of education.

It was mentioned in this House that with an under seventy

average only one in ten students go on and get degrees, so it is not going to

affect the number of graduates coming from Memorial. That is not very factual at

all. One of the reasons why people go to Memorial today with less than a seventy

average is because the other institutions have long waiting lists, two or three

years. A lot of people use that as a step and rather than stay out of school

they increase their educational levels and go to university for a year. A year

at university is better than a year at home and then they move on to other

specific careers and so on. They get accepted into Cabot and the various other

post-secondary institutions they prefer and where admission is possible.

Mr. Speaker, I think this government has to realize the

difficult plight that students have today and while finances are limited an

investment in education is an investment in the future of the Province. It gives

us a chance to move out of the level we are in and try to increase the standards

of people right across this Province. We have some severe problems in rural

Newfoundland today and opportunities for people to attend these higher

educational institutions and be competitive in the job market today are severely

hampered by the policies of this government. This government preached some very

positive things back in 1989, things they would have done, wonders and so on

here in this Province, but the problem is they just have not followed through

and put any into effect.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few

words about the resolution introduced by the Member for Ferryland. Perhaps,

however, we should put the resolution in context.

Mr. Speaker, these are very challenging times for not just

this Province but for the country, and indeed for all countries throughout the

world. We are in, as the hon. member said, an increasingly global, competitive

marketplace, where the value of resource-based industries is decreasing.

I read an

article the other day that talked about the

decrease in the value of fishing, lumbering - all of these industries vital to

the future of this Province and this Country. They are still going to be

important in the future, but the value of these industries has decreased

dramatically.

We are moving into an era, Mr. Speaker, with emphasis on

secondary manufacturing, on improved services, on what people call

information-based industries. A whole new world we are moving into, not only in

this Province but in the country.

Now in this Province we have attempted to address that

problem partially by putting before the people a Strategic Economic Plan, and I

wish the hon. Member for Ferryland had read from that plan, because that plan is

not just a study, as the Premier keeps saying, it is a plan of action.

Perhaps other provinces in this country - and I have talked

to former Ministers of Education who said that they need in their province the

kind of plan that we put forth for this Province. In fact, perhaps for the

country as a whole we need some kind of strategic plan for the future that

carves out for Canadians and for people in various parts of that country, a

niche where they can contribute and they can achieve prosperity in this

international, global, competitive marketplace.

We have put forth such a plan and, as the hon. Member for

Ferryland suggested, education is identified as a key. It is vital to the future

of that plan and the future of this Province.

Education is as essential today as physical infrastructure

was fifty years ago - roads, the railway, buildings - the physical things.

Education is as vital to our prosperity today as these were fifty years ago.

The empires of the future - and this is not a clich - the

empires of the future will be empires of the mind. There is no doubt about that.

You read materials from China, from Japan, from Germany, and you realize that

those countries that are going to prosper in the future are the countries that

focus on knowledge and information and research and development, and all the new

kinds of industries - not denying, of course, that all of the traditional

industries still have to be maintained and reformed and improved - fishing,

lumbering, mining - but we must move into the new era. As the Member for

Ferryland said, education is the best investment that society can make.

Now I do not want to argue about education only in terms of

that it is only an economic good. Education is a social good. Education helps

people develop as persons, as human beings, morally as well as in terms of their

economic prospects; but here in this debate we are focusing on education as an

economic good - not as a social good. It is vital that we provide quality

education.

I think the Member for Harbour Main - last year I was

speaking and I said: If you think that education is expensive, try ignorance. I

do not like the word 'ignorance'. I would prefer 'undereducation'. If you think

education is expensive, try undereducation. This is what this government

believes. This is what this government has believed from day one, and our

Budgets have illustrated that.

This government has spent increasing amounts of money on

education. Now I do not have all the data here, but I did take a quick look at

the Budgets. The member can say all he wishes about cuts, but we put more and

more money into education and we put it into education, into helping those whose

needs are greatest. That's what this government believes in, equality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Providing help for those who need it most.

Fairness and balance. Justice. We've put more money into education and we've

tried to do it in a way that's fair to everybody. One hundred and seventeen

million dollars. The Member for Ferryland quoted $112 million, but I see a

figure here, operations, $117 million. That's a lot of money that we're giving

to the University this year for operations.

We've reduced a bit from last year. The University has fewer

dollars than last year for certain types of operation. We've reduced the

capital. The Member for Ferryland should have been here to realize that we've

put a lot of new money into the extension to the administration building, to the

Animal Care Centre, to new projects on the campus. We haven't as yet fulfilled

our commitment to building campuses elsewhere and extending additional

first-year programs elsewhere in the Province. But, Mr. Speaker, we will. Give

us time, we will.

The people of the Province understand that these are

difficult times. We can't do everything in one four-year term. But I would put

what this government has done for education in the past four years up against

what the former government did in ten or fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: We've only begun. Mr. Speaker, the present

Minister of Education has a vision of the future and this government will

implement that vision to provide even better education in the future than we

have in the past.

I wish the Member for Ferryland would read Maclean's magazine

of a couple of years ago when he talks about how the grants from this Province

compare with other provinces. You know, in 1990-1991 - and I couldn't get the

figures for 1991-1992 but I think they're similar - the operation grants to the

Memorial University of Newfoundland for a full-time equivalent student was $500

more than it was in Quebec, $2,300 per student more than in Nova Scotia.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) not true!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, Maclean's magazine said that

this government was putting more per full-time student into Memorial than any

province in Canada. I would say that is the same today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: I'm not saying it's too much. It's not

enough. I'd be the first to admit it's not enough. We need more. Because in

Newfoundland we don't have all the money from foundations that they have in

other provinces. We don't have the high fees, thank God, that they have in other

provinces. But as for grants to university this government, this Province, puts

more into grants to university than any province in Canada. We've got to

continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Fees. I don't know what fees comprise in this

Province at the present time. Maybe the Minister of Education when he speaks

will say that perhaps 15 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education comes

from fees in this Province. In some other provinces it's 20 per cent. In the

Province of Alberta they're aiming at 25 per cent. Now I wouldn't disagree with

that. I don't think we should increase dramatically the proportion of funding

that Memorial has, the proportion that comes from fees. We've got to continue to

provide high-level grants, Mr. Speaker. But in this Province the government has

provided to Memorial University higher amounts per full-time student than any

other province in Canada and we should aim to keep that figure at the highest

level.

I don't think Dr. May in this period of fiscal restraint is

going to double fees as someone suggested in the Opposition recently. By the

way, I have a list of increases in fees that go back to 1968-1969. I won't go

back. I won't give all the figures, but in one year, when the hon. member's

Party was in power, the increase was 20 per cent. In 1980-1981 it was 10 per

cent. In 1981-1982, fees went up 10 per cent. In 1982-1983 - and I don't want to

say too much because maybe the hon. member - well, I guess he wasn't the minster

at that point in time. I won't blame it on him, the hon. Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes. It went up 12 per cent in 1982-1983. It went up 5 to 7 per cent, and

in the last two or three years it's gone up 10 to 15 per cent.

I don't expect that the Board of Regents and the president

will double the fees this year. They will increase them slightly, I would

expect. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to tell the University what to do, we do

have this principle of academic freedom, but I believe - and I am surprised to

hear the hon. the Member for Ferryland criticize the University. We have one of

the best universities in this country. We have some of the best students. I have

taught at other universities and I say, some of our students are among the best

in this country. We have programs, a broad array of programs at Memorial,

quality programs. Mr. Speaker, with limited resources, with not enough

resources, this University has done well, in my view.

We have small classes. Last year, in the Maclean's study, it

was demonstrated we have among the smallest classes in the country for a

university of this size in the early years. Mr. Speaker, I don't expect the

University, The Board of Regents and the President will nail the students, will

knock the students. I expect that they will deal with this period of fiscal

restraint by restricting growth in areas which do not impact directly on the

student. They will keep the level of increase of student fees at the lowest

possible, they will cut out things which don't impact negatively on the

classroom.

Dr. May is an outstanding public servant. He has worked in

public positions with the Federal Government, where he has had to exercise

fiscal restraint, and I have every confidence that he and the Board and their

staff and their colleagues will exercise their judgements so they don't impact

negatively on the students. Last year, for example, they brought in a

supplementary program for students to give students who need help, more help.

They are cognizant of the needs of Newfoundland students.

By the way, I think the member might be wrong when he says

that we have the lowest percentage at university in Canada. In the University, I

would say, our percentage of people, as a percentage of the age group in

university is as high as many other provinces in Canada. In post-secondary it

might be lower, but in in respect of our University, we have a large number of

people going on to university. I am proud to say that is right. And I am proud

to say that the first year programs in Grand Falls, Marystown, Corner Brook and

Labrador and more in the future, these are helping more and more people go on to

university.

Mr. Speaker, I know why we have fewer dollars now for

education. We are going through a difficult financial period, but also, Mr.

Speaker, the Federal Government - and I have a tremendous amount of respect for

the Premier, who does say at times that we should not attack the Federal

Government. But I would ask the Federal Government - I would say to the member

opposite, call 'Kim', call her now and ask her to put education and student aid

high on her list of priorities.

I talked to the Federal Leader of the Liberal Party three

weeks ago: I talked to Mr. Chretien and I asked him, What does that party

believe about education and student aid and the future? And he made his position

clear. And the party are going to lay out a vision for post-secondary education

- cancel the helicopter program, cancel the billions of dollars that are going

to be spent on helicopters and put it into the most important thing in this

country: if we are going to have prosperity we have to have quality education

for all Canadians. You can't quarantine ignorance. Don't privatize the student

aid program, don't add an administrative fee.

So, call 'Kim'- call 'Kim' on behalf of the students of this

Province, and make sure that she does not do what the Federal Government is

planning to do, cut student aid. They haven't increased student aid since 1984.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things I am proud of, and one

of these days, I am going to write in a

chapter of the book I am writing, some

of the things that we have done in the last four years. But I am very proud of

what we did in student aid, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: The hon. the Member for Ferryland wasn't

here, he doesn't know what happened. Go back and find out what we did our first

and our second year here. And we have other plans, we couldn't do it all this

past year. Scholarships - what did we do? What did we do in scholarships,

student aid? - a tremendous amount, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to have been

associated with this government when it did that.

Now, getting back to what I was saying about the Federal

Government, I would call on all members of this House to support students when

they approach the Federal Government to improve student aid. The Federal

Government have cut equalization payments and they have cut established program

financing, and when they cut, you know who really gets hurt, provinces like this

one. Even in Ontario, they are hurt. I don't know if someone in the House can

confirm it, but I have heard that even in the Province of Ontario -perhaps the

Member for St. John's East can confirm this - they have cut student aid

tremendously in the past year.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have abolished grants.

DR. WARREN: Abolished grants to students - I just can't

believe this. Of course, Mr. Rae keeps talking about the federal cuts. Can you

imagine the impact of federal cuts on this Province - equalization cuts,

established program funding cuts, student loan cuts, and we are going to have

more cuts in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge members opposite to call their cousins in

Ottawa and ensure that they improve the student aid program. The real problem -

I suppose we want to keep student fees low. I read an

article recently,

actually, some time ago, which argued against that. I read an

article that said

those who can pay fees, should pay high fees, because the medical doctor who

graduates from university, often coming from a fairly well-to-do family, should

pay higher amounts, should pay higher fees, because the return to them is

tremendous. In fact, this

article said - and I am not arguing this - this

article said that the post-secondary system benefits the wealthy, because the

children of the wealthy go on to university, and they are the ones who take most

of the benefits, most of them - not in Newfoundland. Thank God for Memorial,

thank God for the Faculty of Education, because the Faculty of Education is the

outport university in this Province. I would never have gotten into university -

I wanted to do law and still may do it; we have a law school over here - but I

couldn't go to do law. So I got a grant and I went into Memorial. I would never

have gotten into Memorial without the grant to student teachers. Thank God for

all of these grants that let rural Newfoundlanders get into university.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is something to that argument,

that we should have higher fees for those who can pay, but the second part of

that is, more student aid, more student loans for those who can't pay, for those

who have every right to go to university and those who will perhaps benefit more

from university than many of the other students. Perhaps we should have a whole

new student aid program so that people will pay back over their lifetime, give

them their lifetime, give them their time when they start earning to pay back -

a whole new program. Do not privatize the student aid program. Please, call

'Kim' - call 'Kim' today, I encourage the hon. the Member for Ferryland, and ask

her not to do what the Federal Government are promising to do. Please, improve

the student aid program so that we can keep our fees down. But, more important,

I think, we can provide additional funds for those Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who want to go on to post-secondary education and can't afford it.

This government is committed, Mr. Speaker, to that group of people. We want to

ensure fairness and balance, we want to ensure a quality of opportunity for all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, irrespective of where they live, irrespective

of how much money their parents have or the wealth of their community. That is

what we want to ensure, Mr. Speaker, and I tell you, this government has begun

to do that and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am hopeful that any increase in

the fees at Memorial will be at a minimum, that the University will find other

ways to live in these very difficult times. Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard Dr.

May say recently that he expected larger cuts this year, because he knows what

is going on all across Canada. He knows how universities' budgets are being

downsized all across Canada. I though I heard him say something about having

expected larger increases. Now, I think he is sympathetic to students and I

think he and the Board of Regents will find other ways to deal with this and not

increase student fees dramatically. To increase, I expect they will, they said

they are going to increase in a modest way, and I tell you that this government

will continue to fight for education and will continue to fight for

post-secondary education, so that we can provide fairness and justice for all of

our people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the last four years, especially, since

1989, after five, now, provincial Budgets, and after the establishment of an

Economic Recovery Commission in the Province, the establishment of ENL, the

Strategic Economic - the tabling of the change and challenge of Strategic

Economic Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador and so on over the past number of

months, listening to the hon. member who just spoke, when he talked about "call

'Kim'", there will probably be a lot of members who might have to call 'Kim'

after another few months.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn't call 'Kim' yet, but in the past

number of years, the latest of which was in April of 1992, I did write the

former minister, Mr. de Cotret, complaining about the Canada Student Loan

Program. And I will, regardless of who the new leader is on the federal scene -

whether it is Progressive Conservative, whether it is a Liberal, he or she,

either one, or NDP or whatever - I will continue to lobby for changes to this

particular program. It is archaic, it is outdated. Whatever you care to mention

with regard to history, it is it. It is absolutely no good, period.

My question to hon. members opposite is: It is alright to

say, call this one and call that one, and we are going to do this and we are

going to do that. The hon. member mentioned the Strategic Economic Plan. There

is no mention whatsoever, in the Strategic Economic Plan, about student loans -

not a word. There is reference to post-secondary education in a general term,

reference to post-secondary education with regard to different studies and

different classes, but absolutely nothing pertaining to the student loan

program; but, in this so-called policy manual of 1989, four years ago, on the

very last two pages, there is lots of reference to youth in the Province, lots

of reference to student loans, and lots of reference to post-secondary

institutions.

I will quote one: 'A revised student loan program that will

accommodate the needs of students in the advanced years of their education.' It

is just one. This is going to be a very valuable tool over the next few months,

I know, in my district, when I start campaigning.

I don't have much to answer for in the last four years. I had

a lot in the previous four, in the 1989 election, because I was speaking on

behalf of government. This time, I can speak on what this administration has

done and, to me, the administration opposite, where it pertains to student

loans, has done absolutely nothing.

Now, the guilt trip is not only on members opposite. What I

say to members opposite I say to the people in Ottawa. Mr. Mulroney and his

cohorts did absolutely nothing for the student loan program in this Province, as

well. So you are in the same boat and the same league, albeit a month ago, I

suppose - you probably wouldn't mind being associated now - but a month ago,

before Mr. Mulroney went, you probably wouldn't. But they have done absolutely

nothing for the student loan program. Notwithstanding my letter to de Cotret, in

April of 1992, and my response from him, to this date there has been absolutely

nothing done.

Mr. Speaker, if we are not going to help our students in the

Province, we don't have much left. If we are not going to help education in the

sense of our post-secondary - where do they go? They can't all leave. Because as

the Premier said the other day, a lot of them are coming back now - to what?

Parents can't keep them like they used to because they are out of work. Most

parents in the Province are either out of work, on UI or on social services.

They can't help the students going to university today as they used to. They

have absolutely nothing to fall back on.

A student today, and a lot of families today, have double

income, have the father working and the mother working, and a lot of the

students when they apply for a student loan are right on the periphery, right on

the borderline, borderline cases, and they can't get that particular student

loan. What happens? They just can't go. I have had students right up until last

fall semester, right up to exam day, with absolutely nothing back from Student

Loan because of the appeal process. When they did come back, they couldn't get

it. What do they do?

If I am not mistaken now, a lot of students have been told

that if their student loans are not approved over the next number of days before

classes end two weeks from today, if it is not paid, they will lose the credits

for that semester. Now, that, to me, is diabolically wrong. No way should a

student in this Province or in this country have to go to university - it is bad

enough as it is, hard enough as it is, to try to get an education and to just

step inside doors of an university, let alone try to study, under the stress and

strangulation of not knowing whether you are going to have the money to pay the

bills.

All any member has to do in this Legislature is to come with

me some evening over to Dominion - when you go over to pick up something for

supper and you look at the students going around Dominion with their baskets.

What is in them? - a couple of cans of Pepsi and a couple of packs of biscuits,

that's all. They can't afford anything else. They can't afford to cook. They

can't afford steaks and they can't afford fish or whatever they should be

eating, as students here in this Province. They have left their homes in

Labrador, they have left their homes in other parts of the Province, and have

come to this city to try to get an education, under very trying and difficult

circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, today, the talk of raising tuition fees could

never come at a worse time - the highest unemployment rate in the Province, the

worst time for social assistance in the Province, people out of jobs, out of

work, the parents can't help, the students just can't get the student loans.

What do they do? Where do they go?

Yes, there are some people in the Province and some members

in the House who have no problem affording to send their children to university

or anywhere else - to medical school, to practice to be a lawyer, or anything

else. The majority of the people in the Province, no question, can't afford

education today. I am not blaming any particular individual, or any particular

government, but my question to members opposite is this: How come, in the last

four years, the Provincial Government and the Federal Government did absolutely

nothing about the student loan program? Now, if there is something done, let me

know and I will take that for what it is worth, and so on.

As far as I am concerned, it is like the fishery now. The

fish is gone. We are at a point now where it is almost too late - unless

something is done overnight - to do something now for our students who are going

into post-secondary institutions in September. I am telling you, we have three

problems: the problem with overcrowding, the problem with not enough courses

being offered - the proper courses - and the problem with obtaining a student

loan.

Mr. Speaker, in the Corner Brook area on the west coast of

the Province I would be remiss if I did not speak and talk a little bit about

the Grenfell College. Another platform in the so-called policy of 1989

pertaining to universities in the Province was the expansion of the Grenfell

College in Corner Brook to be a degree granting institution with third and

fourth courses at least. This has not been done. There has not been an effort

made to have this expansion done in Corner Brook and that is costly, very costly

in a few ways, a couple of which I will mention. The fact that St. John's

Memorial University is overcrowded anyway, and the fact that people from the

west coast of Labrador, the northern peninsula, and so on have to come to St.

John's anyway after their second year in Corner Brook if they are going to

further their courses, or else leave the Province and go to a mainland

university and so on, it is becoming harder and harder every day to send them.

They cannot accommodate them in here for courses, they cannot

accommodate them for residences. There were suppose to be 650-odd students in

the Grenfell College in Corner Brook but today I think there is 1179 in the

Corner Brook campus. It is a watered-down system. I do not care what Dr. May

says, I do not care what the professors say in Corner Brook, it is a

watered-down system, and for this reason when a student goes to university they

do not all have their minds made up as to what they are going to do so they will

probably take general courses. My advice to students all the time, including my

own, is to take courses so that when they do make up their mind they will be

able to do whatever they want to do. Take mainly the science and math courses,

at least in the first year or two, and then if you want to switch to something

you at least have the basis for making that start on a particular career.

In Corner Brook last fall it was terrible. Last fall when the

second year students registered in Corner Brook they registered in alphabetical

order. What do they do when it comes three or four o'clock in the evening on the

last day of registration and you are down in the Ws, for instance? What do you

get? There is absolutely, nothing left. The second hour of the first day of

registration for first year students, gone, seventy-five left over out of one

class and there is absolutely no way to accommodate them. This leads to a

watered-down system. The students are taking courses they do not want to take,

but the other side of it is this, and it is sad, because parents are struggling

to try to get enough money to help the student go to university and they are

taking courses that are of no benefit to them and in seventy-five per cent of

the cases parents do not know the difference.

Because the student is in university, because he is taking

psychology, history, geography, or whatever it is, they figure it is a wonderful

thing. My daughter or my son is going to university, they are taking their five

courses, big deal. If you let the students alone, especially when they get out

of high school for the first year or two, no matter what they are offered in

that university they are going to take and that is what is happening. I saw it

last year in Corner Brook and the year before in Corner Brook. The parent is

getting shortchanged and the student is getting shortchanged through no fault of

their own, ending up, as far as I am concerned, with a watered-down system.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk lately about the

federal government and what they are going to do to the Student Loan Program. In

fact one of the headlines was: Student loans up for grabs. Ottawa solicits bids

from financial institutions to take it over. Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, had better be

careful. When you start handing student loans over to financial institutions in

this country, especially under some of the proposals they have asked for, to me

the red flag is up, because, I think 5.2 per cent of the student loans in Canada

today are delinquent - 5.2 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: It is higher?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well it could be, but they say they have

averaged a 5.2 per cent in outstanding loans - slightly more than twice the

average consumer loan write-off. So it says here 5.2 per cent. I do not know,

but that is the average. It could be 30 per cent now, that is right.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I say to the feds, and I will be saying

more about this over the next few months because of a leadership convention and

so on, I think the time is right for members opposite to get something, and to

get requests in to leadership candidates and get them put on the record.

The hon. member said that he was talking to his federal

leader last week. More power to him. Get him to put on the record what they are

going to do for students and student loans. I will be doing it as a member of

this caucus, with the people responsible federally and also with regard to our

own caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, as far as I am

concerned, should be very cautious on what they are doing with the student loan

program. The major banks in this country are going to grab it. They are going to

make proposals. They are going to grab it, no problem, because once they get the

student in their grasp, it is like the finance companies in this Province, once

they get them in the 23, 24, and 25 per cent, now get me out. You are on the

hook, and they will get you.

I was reading an

article in The Globe and Mail last week

about a woman from Toronto, one of the reporters, on her student loan program,

once she got into it how easy it was to go on and get the student loans, but

when the day of reckoning came on the paybacks it was a different tune. The

collection agencies hounded her day and night, and the financial institutions in

this country are going to have no sympathy - absolutely none - for anybody who

comes out of university today.

Today where do they go when they come out of university? They

sit back and wait and hope and pray that they will get something to do. That is

all. They can put in all the resumes they like today in this country and there

is absolutely no chance for something to do.

In this

article it says that $7.6 billion has been loaned out

to students over the history of the program. Four to five billion will be loaned

out over the next five years. It is going to be a five year contract. That is

what they are proposing. Now a five year contract at a 5 per cent risk premium,

and the financial institutions have already said that this 5 per cent risk

premium is too low and in several cases the proposals may be designed less to

win a contract than to avoid getting labelled as anti-student. So they are going

to take it; they are going to grab it, but God help the students after, as far

as I am concerned, because they can dictate, regardless. You are talking about

charging levels of one or two above prime - 1.2 above prime.

Now one of the people who have been against this so far has

been a member of the Canadian Federation of Students, and some of their concerns

- and I will just quote one - if a single bank has control over the program,

will it start making judgement calls on who is eligible for loans, and on what

it considers marketable types of degrees, and on who are good risks?

It will be just the same as you or I going to the bank and

looking for a loan. If we want $50,000 show me and give me $100,000 worth of

collateral and you can have your fifty.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the poor will suffer more.

MR. WOODFORD: And the poor will suffer more.

So I say to members opposite, and I say to the federal

government, now is the time to contact the federal government and make sure of

whatever they are planning - because it may be too late in a month or two

months; we may have to change complete legislation - and express your concerns

pertaining to the Student Loan Program, because to me it is wrong, and any

further increase in tuition fees in this Province, especially today, the way the

economy is in the Province and in the country as a whole, as far as I am

concerned, is going to be detrimental to post-secondary students in this

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to speak in this

debate on the resolution presented by the Member for Ferryland. I was looking at

the 'whereas.' "WHEREAS the attainment of higher education is fundamental to the

future prosperity of our Province." I read it very carefully because for the

first time in a long time the hon. member got something right. The hon. member

brings all kinds of information to this House of Assembly and when you check

into it you see that he's not always right on the nail. I say that with some

proof.

In his speech today he referred to an argument he had with me

last fall about changes to student aid, where this government started to ask the

Student Loans division to consider income from Canada Pension, disability

income, as income. The hon. member got up and said: this is the only province in

all of Canada to make that change this year. He was right. We were the only

province in Canada to make that change this year. What the hon. member did not

say was that every other province in this great nation of ours has been doing it

for the past ten years. So that hon. member is great at bringing half-truths

into this House.

He got up, I believe it was yesterday, and he said: the

student aid portion, the grant portion provided by the Province, has not been

raised in this Province for ten years. No increase in the grant for ten years.

He's absolutely right. There was a period between 1980 and 1990 when there was

no increase. What he did not say though was that in the year 1990, when my

colleague for St. John's North was minister, student aid, the grant portion

provided by the poor Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, rose from $1,000 per

semester for a single person to $1,120 per person per semester. For married

couples or for single parents it was raised from $1,250 to $1,600 per semester.

So the hon. member was right when he said it hadn't been raised in ten years but

he failed to tell the second part of the statement where it was raised in 1990.

Now the hon. member is at it again. He says we have the

lowest rate of students in Canada involved in post-secondary. Thirty-five per

cent of the students who did Grade XII last year, the year before, and the year

before that again, are attending universities. Thirty per cent in Newfoundland,

5 per cent in other universities across the country. The second-highest rate of

participation in the whole nation. The second-highest rate and a close second to

PEI. PEI has a slightly higher number than we do.

So I am totally surprised when I read this 'whereas' and see

that the hon. member got something right. "WHEREAS the attainment of higher

education is fundamental to the future prosperity of our Province." He's right.

He's totally in agreement with the very issues that this administration fought

the last election on. We picked three areas: education, health and development.

We said: these are the areas that we are going to emphasize. If anyone were to

look at our Budgets down through the years and to see where we have placed our

emphasis it can be seen that we have placed our emphasis on education, on health

and on development.

We are putting this year almost 25 per cent of our Budget

into education. Very few of the provinces across the nation - I believe some -

spend more of their overall budget on education than we do. So education, there

is no doubt whatsoever when the hon. member says it is important, it is

"fundamental to the future prosperity of our Province," I have to agree with

him. He is saying that, Mr. Speaker, when you recognize that we have somewhere

in the vicinity of 40 per cent of our people who are functionally illiterate, we

are probably going to miss one of the best opportunities we have had in the last

400 years to tackle the problem of illiteracy in this Province. Part of this cod

moratorium was to provide an educational program for our people, in excess of

$300 million has been set aside to deal with the illiteracy problem. Mr.

Speaker, up until now, there has been less money spent on illiteracy by federal

government programs this year, than there has been in either of the last three

years. So, we are missing a golden opportunity and there are various reasons but

I could tell hon. members of this House, that the fault does not lie with this

Province. The fault lies somewhere else and someday someone is going to get up

and say where it is.

Even so, when we talk about the chance we have now to provide

some education, we discover that 70 per cent of the people who are involved in

the fishery are illiterate. Seventy per cent, Mr. Speaker, need some level of

adult basic education. You hear all kinds of arguments as to why they should not

do it and the most common argument that you hear people say is: why should I go

and take a year or two and get some education, there is no job, what is the

point? What is the point? I hear my constituents say that and I hear people say

it. For anyone to say that, shows a lack of understanding of what education is

because I can tell people, Mr. Speaker, that if any company is about to start a

branch somewhere in Newfoundland, they will be encouraged to do that a lot more

if they know we have an educated citizenry who can go and take

part in the work

of that company. Any small businessman in this Province who wants to expand his

business and take

part in the restructured economy of the year 2000 will be able

to do it much better if he has a potential workforce which is educated. So, when

people say what is the use, I say to them they should stop and think because any

chances we have to survive in the restructured economy of the 21st Century, any

chance that we have will be tied to education.

Now, the Opposition's approach, the Opposition, recognizing

that the attainment of a higher education is fundamental to the future

prosperity of the Province, their approach, Mr. Speaker, is tunnel vision. Here

is the big statement, education is so important, 70 per cent of the people

involved in the fishery need some sort of adult basic education, 40 odd per cent

of our people are illiterate, functionally illiterate, you can go on and on. We

have the worst of almost everything as far as educational attainment in this

country. What is the Opposition's approach? Give the university more money so

they will not have to increase tuition fees. Now, Mr. Speaker, did you ever see

a more narrow-minded answer to an exceptionally difficult problem? What a

narrow-minded approach. Take more money, give it to Memorial University and that

is going to solve this problem.

The attainment of higher education is fundamental to the

future of our Province, Mr. Speaker. I will tell hon. members to look at the big

picture, education at Memorial University, yes, is a fundamental part of

education for our people but it is not the only part of education for our

people, Mr. Speaker. What about our secondary system, from K to 12, in which we

are just embarking on reforms, the like of which have never been seen before in

the history of this Province? No, the hon. members opposite are not concerned

about that. Their approach is: give Memorial University more money, ignore the

secondary system in this Province. What about distance education? In the Budget

this year, despite the hardship, we recognized what is happening to declining

enrollment in this Province. In the year 1983, Mr. Speaker, there were 148,000

students enrolled in our day school system from K to 12, in 1983 there were

148,000, today there are 121,000, by the year 2000 there will be less than

100,000 students. Now how are we going to cope with that? One of the ways, but

not the only one, is to develop technology, distance education, so that we can

make education available to people who live in Croque and who live in St.

Julien's and who live in Red Bay.

Last fall, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of visiting a

community called St. Lunaire in my district, and I sat in a class with four

students who were doing advanced math. The teacher was in Carmanville, she was

using the most advanced technology available today. The signal from her computer

was patched into the Health Science Centre here in St. John's, from there it

went to Croque, Cook's Harbour, Conche and St. Lunaire. I sat for one hour in

that class and I witnessed teaching, Mr. Speaker, which was better than those

four students could have had in any big school in our Province today. It was

tops, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition says the attainment of higher education is

fundamental. What is their solution? Give Memorial University more money. What

about distance education, what about all the other parts of education, Mr.

Speaker, what about the apprenticeship program? We are engaged right now in an

apprenticeship program where we are training our people for other than just

purely an academic education? What about continuing education? The hon. member

opposite talks as if all we have to do is give Memorial University a few more

dollars and whamo, everybody becomes educated just like that, but, Mr. Speaker,

that is a narrow-minded, too-focused approach for us to even talk about, we have

to look at the whole picture within the education gambit, we cannot confine

ourselves to just one little part of that.

Now, I am sure members opposite and members on this side of

the House, myself included, could put forward a good argument for free tuition

for all of our people involved in Memorial University, involved or engaged in

the college system, we could put forward a reasonable argument for free tuition

for everybody. As a matter of fact, under a previous administration you did have

free tuition in this Province, and when you consider - what is the cost to go to

university, about $10,000.?

AN HON. MEMBER: At least, yes.

MR. DECKER: About $10,000. Well, the people of the

Province are paying 82 per cent of that cost right now. You could logically say

if a person who lives up in St. Anthony is paying $8,200 towards someone's

education, then his or her son or daughter should be entitled to the whole thing

for nothing else. That argument could be put forward, but I believe the proper

way to do it, Mr. Speaker, is not to make it totally free - free education

available. There is no doubt that society as a whole benefits from an educated

population, there is no doubt about that but there is also no doubt that the

person who receives the education also benefits from it, more so than society as

a whole. He or she benefits from it to tie in with this motion today, for future

prosperity.

An educated person is more likely to get a job than a person

who is illiterate, that can pretty well be substantiated, but in addition to his

ability to get a job, we also have to recognize the place of education for its

own sake, Mr. Speaker, education for its own sake. All too often we become so

pragmatic with getting out and getting jobs, these things are important, but we

cannot sweep the concept of an education for its own sake under the bed either,

we have to look at that, so maybe, free tuition should be available to every

person in the Province. I do not think that would be the proper way because we

have to recognize that education belongs, it is a benefit to society as a whole

but it is also a benefit to the individual. The Opposition says, the way we can

solve this problem is to give more money to Memorial University.

Now, Mr. Speaker, supposing we were to accept this motion

today, supposing we were to give Memorial more money so that they could freeze

tuition. We do not have the authority to say to Memorial: freeze your tuition or

lower your tuition. We do not have the authority to say to Memorial: cap your

enrollment or not to cap your enrollment. Sure we can encourage them but we do

not have the right. Surely goodness, hon. members are aware of the concept of

academic freedom, they are aware of the rights of universities to be masters of

their own houses. Supposing we were to listen to what the hon. Opposition is

talking about today, and interfered with our university to the extent that we

would say: Dr. May, here are fifty people here, they are good young Liberals,

worked on Dr. Warren's campaign, worked on Dr. Gibbons' campaign, on Dr.

Kitchen's campaign. Now, Dr. May, we would like for you to give those guys a

Master of Science Degree. That's a good degree, a good degree. The hon. members

opposite rightly so would be criticizing us for interfering in the working of

the University and we would not deserve to be governing today. We don't have

that kind of leeway nor are we going to go along with it.

The Opposition says: "WHEREAS the attainment of higher

education is fundamental to the future prosperity of our Province," give

Memorial more money. I suppose we could. What's the Budget this year? The total

Budget this year is almost $3.5 billion. You include current account, capital

account. I suppose if we were to follow the logic put forward by the Opposition

we could take all that $3.5 billion and we could march down Elizabeth Avenue and

pass it all in to Dr. May. Say: now, sir, we're totally committed to education.

We know how important it is going to be in the 21st century. Here's $3.5

billion. Every cent we have, you can have it all.

Now we're going to need a road to get down to MUN with that

money. We're going to need some roads in the Province to bring people from St.

Anthony so they can attend the University. We're going to need a road so people

come from Burgeo to attend the University. So we immediately have to deduct a

little bit from that $3.5 billion so that we can clear the snow off the roads

and b