May 7,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 21

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I wish to issue a statement

today for clarification purposes only regarding teacher layoffs in the Province.

The Teachers' Collective Agreement, Mr. Speaker, requires all school boards to

issue layoff notices to teachers by today's date, May 7. Usually school boards

have completed all the necessary assignment and reassignment of teachers for the

next school year by this date. Therefore layoff notices ordinarily are issued

only to those teachers actually losing their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the situation this year is somewhat different

because of the reorganization of the school districts and the unusually high

number of school closings. As a result, Mr. Speaker, government and the

Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association requested that the

Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association extend the layoff date beyond

May 7 for this year only, to give school boards the extra time to complete the

reassignment process and avoid any unnecessary aggravation and stress to

teachers and their families. However, Mr. Speaker, the NLTA chose not to comply

with that request. As a consequence, school districts have resorted to issuing

layoff notices to more teachers than necessary in order to guarantee that they

can meet the requirements of the collective agreement. Over the next few weeks,

Mr. Speaker, boards will complete the reassignment process and in doing so will

recall most of the teachers who have been issued layoff notices yesterday and

today.

Mr. Speaker, I have been assured by the school districts that

every effort will be made to reassign teachers and to reduce the number that

will actually lose their jobs. Let me state emphatically that the number of

teachers being removed from the system this year will not exceed the 468 as

previously announced by government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, less actual layoffs

will occur due to the number of retirements which currently exceed 200 as of

today's date. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This ministerial statement again reflects the instability and

the total chaos which we have in our education system in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is not education reform, it is

education deform that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador over the past several

months and past couple of years. We have not only this problem with teachers and

dismissals, we have lawsuits being commenced throughout the Province. We have

closures of schools. We have community against community and sadly, there is

nobody who will listen and even more sadly, that includes the Minister of

Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again the Minister of Education is trying to down load

the blame, but this time to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association

and the blame really belongs with him and his government for it's failure to

provide leadership and direction in this whole school reform process.

Why are we here, now on May 7th in the year 1997, after a

reform process that went through this House and went to the House of Parliament

many, many months ago, still trying to decide how many teachers we have and

where they are. The blame really rest with the minister and this government, Mr.

Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

I want to ask the minister, why she has demanded that

student/parents, one of the most disadvantaged groups in the Province, must

access the maximum of student loans available of about $4400 per semester before

these, mostly poverty stricken student/parents are able to access social

assistant benefits and only then will they be able to access social assistant

benefits in cases of extreme circumstances.

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

Employment.

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

I understand this is the issue for debate this afternoon, but

I certainly have no problem answering the question.

As I have met with the students on a number of occasions and

explained to them this process was a part of the program review. It is an

initiative that identifies ways that we were able to achieve savings in the

department, as well the students will be required to borrow the same amount of

money as other students going through university. They will not receive any less

money while attending university during the semester.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Madame minister, in the budget statement

read by the Minister of Finance on March 20th, it said "For too long we have

seen people who want to work, get caught in the welfare trap, it is time for

bold measures."

Student parents are asking for a fair and equal opportunity

and to give them a fair and equal opportunity you cannot treat them the same as

others, they need special treatment, they have special circumstances.

So, madame minister, when can we expect you to include in

those bold measures that you talked about, a redress of the disincentives that

have been placed in the pathway of these student/parents as they try to increase

their educational levels so they can better themselves and in particular provide

a better family support for their children?

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

Human Resources.

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

In addition to having access to student aid, many of these

students will have access to the skills, loans and grants component under the

labour market agreement that we signed March 24. In addition to that, because of

the special circumstances arising that were brought forward by the students, we

have been working with Memorial University and probably, today as we speak, a

proposal will be finalized for these students which will allow them some

flexibility. It will allow them a part-time work and study program under the

SWASP program; in addition to that it will offer them a full-time summer SWASP

program similar to that that will be offered under the community services

council, and in addition to that, there is a pilot project that is called an

internship program which will allow many of these very same students to obtain

double, Mr. Speaker, the amount of tuition that any other student in the

Province will be able to achieve.

I also would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that while we

understand that it is always difficult for students, single students either

without dependants or with dependants attending school, that in addition to the

394 students who are on social assistance going to MUN and other public

institutions, we have 427 students who are single parents and are married

students with dependants who are borrowing full maximum student loans, Mr.

Speaker, and they are proceeding through their educational course as best they

can. So I think in fairness, there are as many, in fact there are more who are

going to university and other public institutions and are borrowing the full,

maximum capacity without the other assistance that we are providing through

social assistance living allowances and other top-ups.

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

supplementary.

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

If I read into what the minister has said, in essence what it

says is that, these students will be able to get a job at MUN, working let us

say at MUN for their tuition and that kind of thing. I am reading into that,

approximately let us say, $1,000 is possible per semester. That still means

Madam Minister, that these students will now go into debt, instead of going into

debt of about $2,500 per semester, they will actually go into debt about $1,500

per semester more than they would before this program was changed, as you have

just stated now. Is that approximately correct? Instead of having, say, $15,000

- $20,000 in debts they will now have $30,000 or $35,000 upon graduation?

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

Employment.

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

What it means is that students who are receiving social

assistance will borrow exactly the same as students who are not on social

assistance will borrow, but these students on social assistance will also

receive the top-up and living allowances that they will require. As we have

pointed out to them, they will not be receiving less. They will still receive

the same amount of money each semester that they are currently receiving, and

their debt load will be the same as that of all the other single students and

married students with dependants who are going through university without any

social assistance at all, who are borrowing their student loans. That is what it

means, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

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

In essence, what the minister is saying is that these

students who have very special circumstances are being treated just the same as

any other student. I do not hear of programs that are particularly and

specifically targeted towards this group of student parents. The programs you

announced seem to me to be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to

his question.

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

- seem to be consistent with all other students.

I ask the minister: In the gallery today there are a group of

parents who are called Student Parents for a Better Tomorrow. In view of the

program changes you have made in March, and the modifications you are making

now, which is the same as everybody else at the university, when will you be

able to tell them and their families that they can expect to have a better

tomorrow?

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

Employment.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have met with the

Students for a Better Tomorrow at their request. We have explained this

initiative to them. We are still meeting with them. They have been working with

us on this new initiative that is being delivered by Memorial University to

provide some flexibility to accommodate many of their needs with respect to

their part-time work that they are looking for, with respect to having an option

to double their tuition voucher; and yes, Mr. Speaker, they will have the same

opportunities as other students who are single and with dependants or without

dependants, but they will also have access to social assistance to assist them

to top it up.

Let me finish again by saying that in addition to - and we

recognize that going to school as a single parent is not easy; going to school

if you are married with dependants is not easy. We recognize this and we support

them and compliment them on their initiative. But I think it is also important

to note, Mr. Speaker, of the students who are attending Memorial, while 394 of

them are single parents or married students with dependants, 427 are single

students with dependants, and they are borrowing their maximum capacity and

pursuing their education. We are working with the University. We have recognized

their initiative with them, and we support them in that initiative.

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

House Leader.

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

Finally, I would like to ask the minister - and the minister

is quite aware that she is comparing here two different sets of circumstances

altogether.

Madam Minister, most single parents are mothers, and

approximately 80 per cent of single parents live in poverty. Of course, three

out of four of the children of single parents - the children, themselves, live

in poverty as well. Madam Minister, the Women's Policy Office of your government

advocates for the rights of women -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I have to remind the hon. member that he is on a

supplementary and no

preambles are permitted.

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister, does she not see a

conflict between the policies of her government and her department towards

women, and the stated philosophy of the Women's Policy Office, which is to be a

strong advocate for equal opportunity, and equal opportunity does not always

mean equal funding?

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

Employment.

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

This policy applies to both men and women. Again, it is an

initiative that we brought forward, keeping in mind a number of other

initiatives. As I pointed out, under the labour market development agreement, in

addition to the initiatives in our department, under the Department of Education

there is also the skills, loans and grants component, which offers a loan

remission for students who complete their study in a set period of time, whether

it is in four or five years. It will almost reduce the borrowings - for example,

an average student borrowing $35,000 would have to pay back $22,000. That is

part of that loans remission program.

So, Mr. Speaker, we were aware of this type of initiative. We

did incorporate all the other programs that we are offering through both the

Departments of Education, and Human Resources and Employment, and recognizing

that these students will not receive less money as they are going through the

programs. That was part of the decision. That was part of the reason why we

moved forward with this decision.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of

Environment and Labour. Mr. Minister, the people of Argentia and the surrounding

towns are nervous about the commitment of the U.S., Canadian and provincial

governments to clean up the contaminants left at the former U.S. naval site.

Everyone agrees that clean-up money committed to date is inadequate and the

three governments continue to spar among themselves over who will pay the

various costs associated with the clean-up in the short term and in the long

term. What can the minister say today to reassure the people of the area that

regardless of who ends up footing the bill the contaminants will be cleaned up,

the site will be restored to pre-contamination levels and the people's health

and safety will not be further jeopardized?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his

question.

I would like to say to him that there is a high level of

confidence on the part of the people of Argentia and of the Province that that

site is going to be cleared up and cleaned up to acceptable environmental

standards in Canada. We are not going to accept anything less. The money that

has been allocated by the Federal Government and is committed, will be spent

there. The work plan has been approved for this year and for the next couple of

years. We are looking at trying to make sure that that gets sped up and done as

quickly as possible. The standards under which the clean-up will continue are

Canadian Environmental Standards. They are the highest standards on the planet

and we are going to ensure that it is cleaned up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Minister, Voisey's Bay nickel is manoeuvring for first

rights to all lands that butt on the Argentia Harbour. The company may well

purchase rights for much of the area formerly occupied by the U.S. naval base,

that is heavily contaminated. Can the minister assure us that all sites sold to

Voisey's Bay Nickel will be cleaned up prior to the sale? If not, then will

Voisey's Bay Nickel, in acquiring rights to these sites, also assume some degree

of responsibility for ensuring the sites are cleaned up before they are put to a

new use?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, that site that he is talking

about went through five years of environmental assessment study before we

started to clean it up. Five years, the Federal Government paid for five years

of studies to evaluate the site, to evaluate the problems, identify the

problems, identify the technologies used to clean it up. Now they are getting

ready to clean it up and have started the clean-up. And I can assure him with

respect to that site and any other lands near that site, we will ensure that the

land is remediated to its appropriate standards, so that if any other business

activity is going to occur, it will occur with proper environmental guidelines

put in place ahead of time. We want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that when the new

industry starts out there it is done properly with proper environmental

standards. Right now, it is going through the most comprehensive environmental

assessment that you could find anywhere, again, on the planet, Mr. Speaker - the

new Argentia development that is going to occur. So, yes, we are going to ensure

that everything is done appropriately, as best we can, working with the Federal

Government in partnership.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Minister, from information given to me, Building 4, which

contained a power plant and the bomb shelter, has been vandalized. A contract

was let for $54,000 to clean up the PCBs in the building. Four hundred drums of

contaminated material are stored in bunkers 55 and 56. The contract was

terminated after six weeks, which left thousands of litres of untreated material

in Building Four. The material remaining is readily accessible to the ocean and

this building is to be torn down. Will the minister tell the House why the

contract was terminated and what measures are taken to secure the contaminated

material at Building Four?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the federal Department of

Public Works, which is responsible for the site, along with the Federal

Government, is responsible for that material. I will check it out to see whether

or not there is a problem, or if a problem has occurred, and I will get back to

the hon. member. This is the first I have heard of it. They are undertaking the

clean-up. I think $17 million is the work plan. We have been working with the

member for the region to ensure that the work plan continues. I will check out

the situation that he is mentioning.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Minister, I understand that Rogers Enterprises recently

got a contract for the demolition of six buildings at the site, some of which

are quite contaminated. Can the minister tell us who were the bidders for that

work, what were the various bid prices, and the basis on which a winning bid was

chosen?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to get the

information. It is a federal process. The Federal Government is cleaning up the

site and we have a committee member who sits with them, and so on, but the

Federal Government is responsible, the federal Department of Public Works is

responsible. We will check it out and see whatever details we can get to ensure

that everything is done appropriately.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment and concerns the policy of the department to force social assistance

recipients to borrow the maximum student loan in order to attend post-secondary

education.

Will the minister acknowledge that the whole purpose of this

policy is to save the government $2 million from the Human Resources and

Employment budget, and to force that money, instead of being spent by the

government, to be put on the backs of these students in the form of student

loans and individual debt? That is the whole purpose behind this policy, to

off-load this expense onto the individual social assistance recipients in the

form of debt?

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

Employment.

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

As I have mentioned in a previous question, government did a

program review on all the programs and services offered to the citizens of the

Province. One of the decisions we made was to make this change in how we

allocate monies for social assistance students who are returning to school to

pursue post-secondary education.

What government is asking of these students is really the

same as what we are asking of all students, and that is that they would have to

borrow. But in addition to borrowing, we will be providing the necessary money

for housing and other supplements, child care. In addition, they will have

access to monies under the labour market development agreement, they have access

to money under a new pilot project initiative that I just announced here a few

minutes ago, where students will have access to a part-time SWASP, an internship

program, and an opportunity to double their tuition voucher.

I have been very honest from the very beginning that part of

this decision was definitely related to finances - we have told that from day

one with the students - and part of it was to put this program in line with

other students who are borrowing to achieve an education. We have been very

honest from the very beginning. There is no big sort of deal to the question as

it relates to: Is this a secret? It is no secret. We have been very honest with

them right from day one that this was partially to keep it in line with other

programs, and partially to meet our financial requirements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize

that the child poverty rate for children of single parents is over 75 per cent,

and that these poor people are being asked to borrow money and pay interest on

it over many years, on their clothing, their children's food, on their child

care, to be able to attend post-secondary education? Does she not realize that

her policy is an absolute deterrent to poor people on social assistance to

obtain an education?

It is a deterrent for those who are there now, they will

leave, and it is a deterrent to prevent people who are on social assistance now

to go to post-secondary education. Will she not acknowledge that her policy is

going to deter students or people on social assistance from getting a proper

education?

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

Employment.

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

I think some of the issues you have raised answer some of the

programs that we have in place to assist students. We do provide funding for

child care. We have just worked with Memorial University for the special

$300,000 pilot project to address some of the concerns that you have raised, and

we believe that by working with the students, by addressing these needs, by

acknowledging that these students will not have to pay any more than any other

student coming out of a program, that they will not receive any less money as

they are going through their program, that we are treating all of these students

fairly.

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

Vidi, a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why does this minister insist that poor people in this

Province borrow their way out of poverty? Will she not reverse this policy and

recognize that facing the prospect of the kind of debt that she expects them to

endure, prospective students and students on social assistance will not be able

to continue their education? Will she not change this policy now?

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

Employment.

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

I think it is worth mentioning again that in addition to the

students who are attending university and other public institutions - Memorial

in particular - we have about 394 students. We also have about 427 who are

single parents, who are not receiving social assistance.

Mr. Speaker, this decision will not be reversed. We believe

we have put other supports in place. We have a loans remission program that if

students are meeting their requirements in four or five semesters they can

access the loans remission program. We have a child care component. We have an

ability for them to get up to double their tuition voucher while working in

either a part-time or a full-time SWASP program, and we believe we are providing

supports to assist people to go through and further their education.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today

is to the Premier.

Premier, back some fifteen months ago Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians went to the polls and voted for a better tomorrow. You, Premier,

promised them hope and opportunity. I ask the Premier: What real words of hope,

or assurances, can he provide today to the tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders

unable to provide a decent living for their families?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to give an

answer to a specific question. I have to confess, I was talking for a moment

with the Minister of Finance. If it was a specific question I would be glad to

try and answer it. I just heard a general -

MR. J. BYRNE: Not paying attention, I suppose.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Jack, I can only tell you that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - I would welcome the question being

re-asked.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Premier, I will

repeat the question.

Back some fifteen months ago, Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians went to the polls to vote for a better tomorrow. You, Premier,

promised them hope and opportunity. I ask the Premier: What real words of hope,

and assurances, can he provide to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today who are

out there struggling to try to earn a decent living for their families?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is

that we cannot tell people who are struggling today that their struggles will

all be over by 5:00 p.m. today, or by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow or the day after, and

the member knows that. The fact is, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

has been going through one of the most extraordinarily difficult times in our

history, going back to the collapse in particular of the fishery in 1992.

MR. E. BYRNE: And the federal cutbacks (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if members want to have

election rhetoric exchanged on the floor of the House we can do that.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult time for

the people of our Province, there is no doubt about it, but I submit to the

member opposite if he is asking the question, asking for a genuine answer, that

there has never been - notwithstanding the size of the problems today, and they

are large and difficult for government to deal with - a time of greater

opportunity, if we do the right things today, for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the offshore oil and gas sector will move from

zero per cent of Canada's light crude supply to some 35 per cent or 40 per cent

over the next twenty-four months. That is a sector that is seeing, for the first

time in five years, two exploratory wells this year, seeing a seismic program

which is the largest that has ever been conducted in the east coast offshore,

seeing within a few days the christening of the GBS which is going out to begin

the first production of oil by the end of this year, 1997. Mr. Speaker, the

Province is seeing the beginning of a multi-hundred-million-dollar construction

project on the Trans-Labrador Highway and thousands of jobs associated with that

construction project.

Mr. Speaker, the Province is going through an environmental

review process both at Argentia and in Labrador for the start up of a mining

project that will create thousands of jobs for Newfoundlanders both in Labrador

and on the Island portion of the Province. Mr. Speaker, this Province is seeing

the IT sector taking off in a very substantial way and indeed, next year,

Newfoundland and Labrador will be the host for Soft World 98, giving the IT

sector of Newfoundland and Labrador a chance to show their wares.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is much

frustration and real suffering today in Newfoundland and Labrador, but there is

equally no question that if we put our minds on building this economy, there is

a far brighter day for Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, the latest statistics indicate in excess of 17,000

Newfoundlanders have recently left this Province. Most of those Premier, have

been our best educated and our brightest, many of them from my own District of

Bonavista South. I ask the Premier: What does he or his government plan to do

about this haemorrhaging of young people from rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it must be clear to anybody

who is listening that he is not up today asking specific questions, the member

is up giving political commercials and I suppose we, on this side of the House

are as capable as members on that side of engaging in political commercials.

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is challenged in a

very substantial way today to deal with the circumstances that are now in front

of us. Those are difficult but, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador also has

an incredible opportunity.

Now if the Opposition wants to make constructive suggestions

and work with members on this side of the House to realize our potential, we are

quite happy to do that, but if all the Opposition wants to do is to stand and

make statements in the hope that somehow they will resonate in the middle of a

federal election campaign, that is predictable and not worthy of a serious

response.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, yesterday hundreds of angry and frustrated laid-off

Newfoundlanders marched through our federal fisheries minister's office in

Bonavista to vent their frustration of being unable to find employment. 2,500

people were out to a meeting on the West Coast last night Premier, venting their

frustrations with anger on the erosion of our health care. These are just the

latest numbers, Mr. Premier, just the latest incidents and many more about to

happen.

Premier, isn't the real reason that you have not stood up and

fought for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is because you were the

federal minister who was part of the plan to reduce transfer payments to this

Province, to reduce UI payments, to cut a full year off the TAGS program, the

very plan that is now cutting the guts out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I was suggesting and of

course the member opposite did not disappoint me, this is not about asking

questions concerned about the future of Newfoundland or Labrador, this is about

election commercials from the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to standing up and fighting for

Newfoundland and Labrador, we on this side of the House have no lessons to take

from members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election campaign, and I

challenge the media to go back and look at the files, the current leader of the

Conservative Party of Canada, Jean Charest came to St. John's to tell the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador that the Liberal policy of dealing with foreign

overfishing on the high seas would never be followed up because it could not be

done, came to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the reason a

Conservative government presided over the collapse of cod stocks, a Conservative

Minister of Fisheries waved the white flag, was that it could not be done. Well,

Mr. Speaker, we took on the problem of overfishing and we put an end to it and I

tell this member we will take on this Party in this election and we will see

positive results in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my final question to the

Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a final

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: My final question to the Premier.

The Premier just stated that he put an end to foreign

overfishing. I would like to ask the Premier if he would inform the House today

as to the number of boats that are actively fishing on the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks, today. Tell the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have not checked today

before I came in to see how many boats are out there today, but what I can tell

him is there are a lot less boats, the minister is telling me sixteen boats and

every boat that is out there as an observer aboard the boat and they are fishing

according to their quotas.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something else, for years

when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador said that the foreign fleets were

destroying our fish, at a time when our own fishermen were tied up, this party

opposite said nothing can be done, you cannot go into the high seas, you cannot

put an end to it -

MR. TULK: That is what they said, you said it.

PREMIER TOBIN: - and Mr. Speaker, when conservative

fisheries ministers in Ottawa said, my hands are tied, there is nothing I can

do, the trained seals opposite, flapped their flippers on their desk and sat

their and did nothing. It was the Liberal government that stood up and put an

end to this foolishness on the high seas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period had ended.

Order, please!

Petitions

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

MR. MERCER: It is my pleasure today to present a petition

on behalf of some 1150 petitioners from the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde,

representing the communities from Islington to Bay de Verde.

The prayer of the petition reads as follows: To the hon.

House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled:

WHEREAS the provincial government, through its appointed

Avalon West School Board has made a decision that negatively impacts the quality

of education for many students in our district; and

WHEREAS an option to improve the quality of education for

said students could be imposed for relatively equal implementation cost; and

WHEREAS we have no avenue to appeal to the trustees regarding

this unjust decision;

THEREFORE

be it resolved that this decision be reviewed by

the Minister of Education and discussed with the board trustees and the

stakeholder; that is the concerned citizens and elective representatives.

Mr. Speaker, as I said this petition is signed by some 1152

petitioners and at the very outset I would like to make it very clear that this

is not a petition protesting school closure, it is not a petition specifically

stating that certain schools should be kept open, at all. As a matter of fact,

the petitioners quite clearly recognize that in this age of declining student

enrolment, there is a need of school restructuring, that there is a need for

some school closures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MERCER: As a matter of fact, within the area to which

these petitioners are from, two elementary schools, one at Old Perlican and one

at Hants Harbour, have been closed. The petitioners understand the rationale for

these closures and frankly they support it because they believe it is in the

long-term best interest of the education of these children.

The petition is not about school designation. It is not about

whether is should be an interdenominational or a uni-denominational school, that

is not the issue. The petition is very clear, Mr. Speaker. The petition speaks

to obtaining for the children, within the area of the petitioners, providing

them with the best possible education that can be afforded to them. That is what

the petition is speaking to. It is speaking to the petitioners ability to

converse with their school board officials, to be able to sit down to explore

options, to point out that the options that they have are at least as cost

effective and better from an educational point of view then some other options

which have been considered. It is about people obtaining a partnership with

their school boards, being able to sit down, discuss their various options and

at the end of the day, being able to go out and advocate for the decisions which

are being made. That is what the petition is all about.

Unfortunately, the petitioners inform me that their attempts

to arrange meetings with the school board, the Avalon West School Board, have

been unsuccessful. They have tried on several occasions, they have been allowed

to meet with officials of the school board, but they have not been allowed and

permitted to have a meeting with the school board itself.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners have asked me to ask

this hon. House to use whatever devices that might be available to it to promote

a meeting between the petitioners and the Avalon West School Board. At that

meeting, they would hope to be able to put forward their options and to be able

to resolve the issues which now confront them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the points raised by the hon. member opposite,

really in an effort to somewhat soften what the intent of this petition is, he

has not in my view, voiced the concerns of the petitioners.

What the petitioners are saying - and it is a matter of

reading the prayer of this petition: We have no avenue to appeal to the trustees

re: this unjust decision. What that means is that their hands are tied. The

people in this area, the 1,150 petitioners in the District of Trinity - Bay de

Verde, have no recourse. That is what this petition is about, and that is why,

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition suggested in this House approximately two weeks ago

that the government give serious consideration to the appointment of an

independent education ombudsman, an individual who could listen as an

independent and impartial person.

The prayer of the petition also states that the decision be

reviewed by the Minister of Education and discussed with board trustees and the

stakeholders. The petitioners in this district, 1,150 of them, are asking this

gentleman over here, the Minister of Education, who is ultimately responsible

for education reform in this Province, to intervene, become involved, and

listen. That is what this petition is all about.

The hon. member opposite can skate around it all he likes,

but this petition is clear in what it reads and what it says. Mr. Speaker, these

people want answers, these people want involvement. That is all they are asking

for and that is essentially what the people in this district seek in this

petition.

I received yesterday faxed documentation from individuals

whose, I'm sure, names are listed in this petition, who used statements similar

to the following: that the Avalon West school board trustees were misinformed on

busing and renovation costs. An independent assessment is strongly recommended.

It states on page number one, the petitioners, the people of these communities,

demand answers, seek the truth. Informed decisions cannot be based on

misinformation. That is what is being stated in this petition, that is the

thrust of what is behind this petition, and that is essentially what the people

of these communities are asking for.

I've spoken with a number of communities throughout

Brownsdale, the Bay de Verde area, and they have told me directly what their

concerns are. They are asking for one man to get involved. The man sits directly

opposite from us, he is the Minister of Education. Get involved. Assist the

parents of this area and try to intervene and try to prevent the board from

making, in the minds of most people who have signed this petition, an

inappropriate decision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just take a

couple of minutes to make a few comments with respect to the prayer of the

petition.

I just want to point out that in the

preamble to the actual

resolution that is presented in this petition, that the minister actually review

the decision and discuss with the board and trustees, there are a couple of

points that I would like to clarify.

One is a reference to the fact that this is an appointed

board. Again, this Legislature and this government debated a year ago -

actually, last June and July when we were looking at putting these ten new

boards in place - whether or not we would have an election at that time, which

would cost the people of the Province $1.8 million, or whether we would appoint

people who were already experienced school board members and who had, in most

cases, gone through previous elections for school boards in the past. The

decision was made to have the elections this year in concert with the

municipalities as always, and to appoint people who had past experiences in the

interim, and that is what has been done. We decided not to have an election at

that particular point. There will be an election in September of 1997.

Also, there is a reference to the idea that the hon. member

just mentioned that there is no appeal process. Regardless of how many appeal

processes, boards, panels, ombudsmen, whatever you might call it, that you set

up, at the end of the day somebody makes the final decision. No matter what

system you put in place, whether it is one appeal, two appeals, ten appeals, at

the end there is a final decision. In this process, and here is the point I

would like to make because the member opposite makes such a big deal of it, the

final decision rests with the school board.

Just last December in this Legislature the member opposite,

who just spoke so eloquently about the idea of appeals and hands being tied,

supported the piece of legislation that put these decisions in the hands of the

school boards. He did not introduce, Mr. Speaker, an amendment. He introduced

twenty-six amendments. He did not introduce an amendment that said there should

be an appeal to the decisions of the boards, there should be someone else to

look at it and so on. No such issue, Mr. Speaker, was raised by the members

opposite. It is now convenient to do so, Mr. Speaker. It is not a point that we

are going to entertain.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, can

dance around all he wants but when he talks about the Member for St. John's East

supporting what this minister has done and what this government has done with

respect to school boards in the Province, he knows full well it is wrong. That

member asked two weeks ago for that minister to appoint an educational

ombudsman, it is not done. He should at least acknowledge -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. E. BYRNE: - he should at least acknowledge what the

member did, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order, I ask the hon. member to

take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad the

hon. member raised his point of order because he acknowledged just exactly what

I was saying, that during the debate last December when there was a proper

opportunity to put amendments to this legislation, no such mention was ever made

by the member opposite, who is the education critic. We entertained and listened

to twenty-six different amendments from the hon. member, not one of them, Mr.

Speaker, mentioned that there should be somebody put in place to actually give a

second opinion or review or judge the decisions of the boards. The legislation

clearly stated, Mr. Speaker, that these were board based decisions and the

members opposite supported that in this Legislature at the time.

Mr. Speaker, we will, as requested by the petitioners, pass

along the concerns to the school board. We will make the views known but it is

and everybody should understand, there is no role for me as the minister or for

anybody in this Legislature, to make the decision instead of and in the place of

the school board. We will pass along the concerns to the school board itself,

Mr. Speaker, and I have stated publicly, the only time any school board should

expect the Minister of Education to intervene is if they are making decisions

that actually contravene and violate some provision of the legislation,

otherwise, Mr. Speaker, there is no basis. No proper basis for the Minister of

Education to be second guessing or trying to suggest to school boards, who are

mandated to do so, which educationally based decisions they should make in their

ten jurisdictions in the Province.

So I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the petition being presented. I

encourage again the member presenting it and yourself, Mr. Speaker, to pass

along a copy of Hansard and the remarks made to the school board. We will

forward the commentary to the school board for their consideration and I would

hope as always, that they will be able to convince the people in the area that

they are making the decisions in the best educational interest of the students

that they are appointed at this point to serve and will be elected to serve in

September of 1997. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are petitioning the House of Assembly in

parliament assembled as follows:

WHEREAS poverty and its effects are serious problems for so

many in this Province that things are getting worse, that now more than

one-third of Newfoundland and Labrador children live in families on social

assistance; and

WHEREAS child poverty and child hunger are a sad reality

which hurts children today in their chances for the future, in education and in

life and that hungry children cannot learn; and

WHEREAS a universal school lunch program would provide a

stigma-free way of ensuring every school child a good nutritional meal every

day; and

WHEREAS school reform in the Province will result in very

significant savings in education costs, thereby making funds available to

improve the quality of education and the quality of children's lives;

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct

the government to establish a universal, comprehensive school lunch program for

every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end the child hunger and to

give our children the better chance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is one of a series of petitions that

have been presented in the House. The issue of child poverty has been, I

understand, discovered by the federal Liberals recently. The Province is

contributing a small amount of money to a school lunch program based on a

volunteer model. The situation however in this Province is far beyond the

capabilities of a volunteer effort to address. The situation in this Province

is, as the petitioners state, getting worse. In 1989, according to the Canadian

Council on Welfare, approximately 18 per cent of children in Newfoundland live

below the statistical poverty line. That figure was raised in 1995 to 26 per

cent. An increase of over 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker, in a mere six years and that

is the (inaudible) for 1995, the latest year for which statistics are available.

Now this just happens to coincide with the six years of the commencement of the

Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, it just happens to coincide with that but the

fact of the matter is that the child poverty situation in this Province is

getting indeed worse.

The situation for children of single parents, Mr. Speaker, is

far worse. The worst statistics in the country, Mr. Speaker, are for this

Province at 77 per cent of the children of single-parent families, families of

single mothers live below the poverty line. We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about a

group of people who do not have the means to provide adequately for their

children. Some of them, Mr. Speaker, are in the gallery today; some of them are

the people whom the Minister of Human Resources and Employment are forcing to go

and borrow money to go and feed their children, borrow money and pay interest on

that money to feed their children who are now living below the poverty line. To

borrow money for child care, to borrow money for clothing, to borrow money for

the very essence of life for these children who are living in poverty today.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the government's plan for these people. If they want to

get out of poverty, if they want to go to university, you have to borrow your

way out of poverty because the government is not going to borrow money, the

government wants to reduce its deficit and throw the deficit on the backs of

poor people who cannot afford the prospects of going into debt because the

prospects of employment are not there at the end of the day.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is one small program that would

address some of the needs of school children in our Province. The sad reality,

you know, we use statistics to talk about the extent of a problem but it is

really a human problem, Mr. Speaker, a hungry child going to school, unable to

pay attention to what is going on because the pangs of hunger are more important

than the thirst for knowledge, Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to a school child

trying to pay attention, trying to get the most out of a school education it

cannot happen when the child is a hungry child.

Now the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture spoke

compassionately the other day about this circumstance but based on his own

experience in his previous role as Minister of Social Services, he knows and I

think all hon. members know that there is a real difference to be made to hungry

children in school performance when you provide them with a decent meal and an

opportunity to have a full belly and to participate in education. The minister

knows, other ministers know over there, the people in the back bench know over

there that this is the case and I ask for the support of hon. members for this

petition so that a universal, comprehensive School Lunch Program can be

implemented in the Province especially in the areas where it is most needed,

areas which will not be addressed and can never be addressed by a volunteer

program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise today in the few minutes we have before the beginning

of the Private Members Motion for this afternoon, to comment on the petition

that has been raised by my colleague from Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi and has been

raised by him on a number of occasions and almost the same number of occasions I

have stood in my place and supported it.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago in this House, on the same

petition, the former Minister of Social Services told the story of how he went

to a school in St. John's and how he monitored several children and after they

had been given a good lunch in that school under the School Lunch Program, he

went back to that school six or seven months later and he told of the tremendous

change that had occurred in these young people.

The teachers told him that these young people were far more

attentive; they told him that they wanted to be in school, they looked happy,

there were smiles on their faces and, Mr. Speaker, when that former minister

made that commentary here in the House, I was one of those who applauded him

vigorously because we wanted, for some time, to have some indication from the

government side, that the pleas of the children of this Province were not

failing on deaf ears. Mr. Speaker, we were happy to know that at least one

minister on that side has the experience, has seen and witnessed in the school

system the kinds of things that are going on, the kinds of problems that we have

in the school system, the real faces associated with child poverty.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say today that child poverty has a

host of problems associated with it. What we are saying to the government time

after time after time is that we must do more. We cannot improve the educational

levels of this Province if we are going to say to children that because you were

born into poverty you are going to be in poverty all throughout the school

system. If we don't change the way we are going, these children will grow up to

be teenagers in poverty and they will stay in poverty all of their lives. We

must break the cycle.

Mr. Speaker, when you have poor parents, parents who live in

poverty, you can be assured of one thing; their children also, in all

probability, are living in poverty as well.

We have spoken here many times about the relationship between

achievement in school - it is well researched - so we are not saying anything to

anybody today that has not been said 100 times before. While we on this side of

the House raise those issues, we are hoping by doing it over and over and over

again that the members on the government side of the House will start to listen

and be prepared to adopt the real, bold measures that the Minister of Finance

talked about when he gave his Budget Speech on March 20, because a bold measure

would be to say that we are going to eradicate child poverty.

Mr. Speaker, in 1986 in this country we said that by 1996 we

would have eliminated child poverty in Canada. Sadly to say, in 1996 there were

more children in poverty in this country than there were in 1986. In spite of

what efforts that might have been thought about, they obviously did not work.

The Minister of Finance federally, in the federal Budget,

again spoke about the measures that his government was going to take to try to

address child poverty. Just a few days ago the Liberal government, trying to

again, I guess, make sure they were on the right side of issues, further

announced more money to try to combat child poverty.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot just tinker with this problem. We

cannot do it just before an election, on a budget a week before the election. We

have to have a consistent, long-term policy. While what the government is doing

federally and provincially are steps in the right direction, the monies given to

the School Lunch Program a few months ago by the then Minister of Social

Services, now the Minister of Human Resources and Development, these are

positive steps; however, they are just drops in the bucket. They won't solve the

problem.

We know that in this Province 40,000 children are saying to

the minister, `We need help.' We know from research that that help will help

these children have a better tomorrow, have a better today, and have a better

future, because they will have a better education and have the skills that are

necessary to propel them and put them forward into a lifestyle they will be

proud of and will do them justice commensurate with their levels of ability.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition somewhat

enthusiastically.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday and we will move on to

Orders of the Day. I believe it is Motion 4 and stands in the name of the hon.

Member for Waterford Valley.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise today to put forward a petition, the prayer of which

is quite straightforward.

AN HON. MEMBER: A petition?

MR. H. HODDER: I am sorry, not a petition, a Private

Member's motion, the prayer of which is quite self-explanatory.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Well, I can tell the members that the

petition I was just talking to is directly related to the issue that is on the

Private Member's motion today, because this particular Private Member's motion

deals with primarily people who are at risk in our society. It deals with the

people who are fundamentally marginalized by government action, and we are

talking here today about the people who are on social services, who want to get

off social services. They want to get away from dependency, to be independent.

They want to have lives that are fulfilling, lives that are commensurate with

their strengths and their ability to be able to complete a post-secondary

education, and they have placed in front of them many barriers. Some of them

were born in homes that did not have the means to send them off to university or

to any other post-secondary school.

So, Mr. Speaker, this particular private member's motion

today is asking the government to try to do their best, to be bold and be

aggressive, to try to get those people who are on social assistance out of the

dependency model into an independency model. Mr. Speaker, before this present

Budget, the people on social assistance who wanted to go to post-secondary were

able to get their social assistance and they could still then qualify for

student aid. So, most of those people who got their social assistance could have

gotten that by staying at home. They could have stayed at home and said: We will

not do anything at all. But, no, they said: We want to take charge of our lives;

and they said: We will take student loans for the extra money. We have to pay

tuition, we have to pay for our books, we have to pay to get to and from the

University, we need some special clothing. We will borrow from student aid to do

that.

So, they had a choice: they could stay at home and get their

social assistance and live their lives on the dependency model, or we could say

to them: We are going to give you whatever we can give you to get you into a new

life, a life that is fulfilling. So, we said to them: Yes, if you want to go to

the University and you are student-parents, we will keep supporting you, and you

will be required to borrow the amount of money for the extras that you want, the

actual cost of going to University. But the Budget was brought down in March,

and we were told today that because of budgetary measures we are going to say to

the very poorest of the people in this Province, the very poorest of the people

who go to university, we are going to take away that window of opportunity that

you have.

Now, Mr. Speaker, anybody in this House who believes that is

a sensible measure should really examine their conscience - not alone their

government policy, they should examine their conscience, because that says to me

that everything I stand for, in terms of trying to provide for equal opportunity

for everybody to get a post-secondary education, I see this as counter

productive. It is negative, it is absolutely the wrong way to go.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the government today in this

private member's resolution, we had better listen to what is being said by some

of those student-parents. They tell me, they are so discouraged that they will

now have to ask themselves: Is it worthwhile? Before this particular restraint

measure, they were borrowing $20,000 to $25,000 in total upon their graduation.

Now, they will have to borrow maybe $30,000.

Let us look at a practical example, let us talk about a

mother of three children. And that mother is in the gallery right now listening

to this particular debate. She is a mother of three children, and she has gone

through a change of circumstances brought about by divorce. She was

middle-class, she never, ever through the day would come when she would be on

social assistance, but because of her change of family circumstance, that is

where she finds herself. She has three young children and she is asking herself:

What can I do? She has a choice: she can stay in her home here in this area and

she can say: I am victimized; I am a poor victim of circumstance. But no, Mr.

Speaker, she does not do that. She asks: What can I do? And she decides that she

is going to go to university. And she is prepared, as a mother of three

children, to say: I am going to borrow for my tuition, I am going to borrow for

my books, I am going borrow to get myself to and from the University and I am

going to do all those other things, but would you, as a society, keep supporting

me for those four years, I am going to be a Memorial University? I know, at the

end of that day, I am going to have to pay back $25,000 or $30,000 in tuition,

but would you please take me along here, come with me, walk the walk with me?

All she is asking for is a bit of help. She is saying to us:

I want your support for four years, so you do not have to support me for the

next twenty-five or thirty years.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this motion is about today. It is

about asking the government to help those people who need help. It is saying to

the government: Look at the faces of reality. Go and see those people, have

compassion, have understanding, reach out a helping hand. The limit of our

outreach should be going to those people on social assistance, who want to

change their lives, who want to do better, who want to be independent. That is

what we are talking about here today.

All of these comments that we make here, you know, all of

them have real people. They have real faces, there are real children, there are

real mothers. We said here in Question Period today that 80 per cent of those

people who are involved in this kind of program of social assistance and wanting

to be going to the University, maybe 80 per cent to 90 per cent, are females. We

know the sad story of single parents and what it means in terms of poverty.

I want again to say to hon. members, if we can, in any way

possible, we should be looking out there and saying to everybody in this

Province who wants to get ahead: Let us give a helping hand, let us reach out.

But in particular, if you have people who have the ability - and also, of

course, it is an investment. Just imagine the investment in the particular

instance I mentioned just now. We can help this single mother for three or four

years and then she can be off the dependency model for the rest of her working

life. And that is positive. What a return on that investment! This woman will

probably work for the next twenty-five or thirty years. I do not know how long

she would be in the workforce, but certainly, it is a very positive investment.

That kind of investment is but one example of all of the others that we have

represented by this particular private member's motion here today.

The second part of the private member's motion talks about

making university more easily accessible to all students in the second

`Therefore

be it resolved'. It says: "Therefore

be it resolved this Honourable

House urge the Provincial Government to undertake greater efforts to make

post-secondary education more accessible to all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians."

We hear every day that the enrolments at Memorial are going

down. They going down for a couple of reasons, one of which, of course, is the

declining enrolment in the school system. But it is not only that - it is

because we have elitism coming into the school system, or into the university

and post-secondary institutions now. You have to have money. You have to be

prepared to do one of two things. You have to be prepared to enter into a lot of

long-term debt, or you have to be born into a family circumstance which means

that you do not have the need to have any debt whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the largest single impediment to

meeting the demands of our society today is the restrictive access in our

Province to post-secondary education. Many of the business leaders are now

saying: We have to reduce those barriers, and, of course, we have to reduce them

for everybody. Even moreso should we reduce them for people who are not able to

pay their own way to university. We have to have an overall comprehensive policy

that is more like some of the other countries of the world, whereby we are

saying the way out of our situation in this country, the way out of persistent

unemployment, the way out of having a 40 per cent illiteracy rate, is through

the educational system.

We have to do that by a multi-faceted approach, some of which

my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, talked about a few

minutes ago, about child poverty and the school lunch program. That is part of

it. In fact, we have to look on post-secondary in the future as simply an

extension to the secondary school system.

When I was a student in school in the 1950s, most people

dropped out at Grade IX. Most people were gone by that time. In fact, I was a

student in Grade I or Kindergarten, one of eight children. By the time I was in

Grade IX in my little small school, I was the only student, and that is a sad

commentary. What happened to the other eight? Well, the other eight were

drop-outs and, Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very sad reflection. That is the

road we are going on today if we continue with the attitudes we have towards

post-secondary education. You are only going to be able to attend school if you

have a tremendous drive or if your families are well-situated. Mr. Speaker, so

today we have to look on post-secondary as a minimum.

When I was leaving school in 1960, Grade XI was considered to

be an achievable objective, something that not everybody did, obviously, but

some people who were aggressive enough or whose parents pushed them enough - in

my case, my parents pushed me enough - got to Grade XI. But nowadays we have to

change that. We have to look on post-secondary as almost a minimum standard that

we need for our society. We have to stop this attitude of saying we are going to

have free access to the high school system. Then we are going to say, when you

get beyond that, it is going to start costing you big dollars - it is going to

cost you a fortunate to go beyond that. We have to say, as the leaders in our

society are saying today, we have to make post-secondary a fundamental right of

every Newfoundlander and every Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, we know that we cannot do it all. I will just go

back to when I was in university, back to the 1960s. I am one of the ones here

who will tell you, I know what it is like to go to university as a parent. I

know what it is like to be a married student going to university and to have

family to support. It is not easy. I did years of that. So I have some idea of

what that is like. But I will also tell you that in 1967 and 1968 when I was

finishing up university, I did not pay any tuition. If there was one step that

was maybe a half-century ahead of its time or at least a quarter of a century

ahead of its time, it was that policy of Premier Joseph Smallwood and the

Liberal Government. It was a step in the right direction, and the sooner we can

get back to more of that approach to access to post-secondary, the better will

be society.

Mr. Speaker, all I am saying today is, let us go back to

examining our values. Let us go back to the times when we, in this Province, had

objectives that said that post-secondary would be more easily accessible,

because many of us in this Legislature today, those who are of my age, we

probably would not have been here if it had not been for the opportunities given

to us by our political leaders of that day. If we were able to avail - I was

able to avail of free tuition for two years. Not only that, I got a salary of

$100 a month when I went to university. How regressive we have become!

Therefore, we have to examine -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. H. HODDER: - our approach because, certainly - I want

to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker,

there are models out there for us to follow and we should be looking for

alternatives. We have to stop trying to balance our budgets on the backs of the

university students, the post-secondary students and particularly upon the backs

of those people who are most at risk in our society, namely those people who

depend on the Public Treasury for their support and for the maintenance of their

families.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Employment.

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

I would like to start by saying, if this Province, if this

government had access to the money, we would like to provide free tuition for

everybody. But I think it was quite clear to all of us that we had some very

difficult choices to make, and we have been very honest and up front about those

choices right from day one when we met with students. We believe, as we have

said time and time again, that these students, like any other student, has

access to many programs that will help offset the costs and difficulties that

single parents have when they go back to school, when they make that very

difficult choice.

I would like to commend single parents for going back to

school, and even married parents for going back to school, to try to further

their education - but clearly, single parents, because we do know it is a

sacrifice. That is why we have tried to meet those needs by providing the

programs and services that we have available in our Province.

I mentioned earlier about the provincial Loans Remission

Program. We all know that if a student is able to complete university education

in four or five years, an average student will borrow $35,000. If that program

is completed within four or five years, the student will have to pay back

$22,000 because of the Loans Remission Program. This certainly is of benefit to

students who are undertaking student loans.

Under other initiatives, such as the labour market

development agreement, we have access for students who have an attachment to the

workforce, who have done work over the last number of years, within the last

thirty-six months, or have had a child within the last sixty months, to have

access to some of the programs that are available under the new labour market

development agreement.

With the new $4.5 million SWASP program this year, $2.5

million of that provided by the Province, matched by $2 million federal money,

we have access to a record number of jobs this summer. In particular, we are

hoping that 3,100 students will find employment and this will help offset some

of the costs that we know students are facing.

With the National Child Benefit next year - and we have made

this, as well, very clear - we will be working towards putting more money into

prevention, namely, children's programs and services to assist students and

other low-income families who are acquiring, or who need, services, to have

those services from the National Child Benefit monies. These programs will focus

on prevention and early intervention, whether they be assisting with child-care

initiatives or with nutrition programs. Again, while these programs are not

developed, certainly the direction we are heading towards is prevention and

early intervention.

Students who are on social assistance and who are going to

Memorial or other post-secondary schools will not realize a lower funding level

while attending school. Certainly they will have a higher debt load when they

complete, just like other students. I think it is important just to paint a

picture of a low-income student who may be a single parent and compare that

student with a student on social assistance, and how they have access to various

programs and services.

If you look at, for example, the 200 students in Memorial

who, we have been able to find from statistics, are single parents or married

students with dependants and they are not receiving social assistance. They have

no choice but to borrow maximum student assistance, and they will live on that

student assistance. What we are asking is that single-parent students who are

receiving social assistance, in addition to borrowing student aid, still have

access to other monies and services through either child-care initiatives or

other programs and services, as we have mentioned. We believe that by asking the

single-parent students who are on social assistance to, I guess, operate in the

same manner as single-parent students who are not on social assistance is a fair

request to make. We also believe that our new initiative of $300,000 that we

have given to MUN to assist particularly single parents who have special needs,

will begin to address some of the problems and issues that they have raised over

the last number of weeks since we have made this announcement.

Again this is, I guess, a menu of options for students. One

would be an option for a full-time summer Student Work and Services Program

where students would work the regular number of weeks, eight weeks, and they

would receive a $1,400 tuition voucher in addition to their weekly stipend.

Another new component is the ability of a part-time SWASP

program, which was an initiative that was of some concern because, again, not

every student can work on a full-time component even if it is for only eight

weeks. So this initiative is also available where the student will still receive

a tuition voucher for the part-time study.

The third component of this new initiative is a

double-tuition voucher system whereby a student can receive up to $2,800 in a

tuition voucher and we believe, again, these are some ways that will help

address the concerns that have been raised.

We recognize that when a student decides to go to university,

there may not be any particular guarantee of work or employment at the end of

their course of study, but we still believe, as do most people, that with a

higher education you have a better opportunity of moving off social assistance

and going into the workforce. What we have asked students who are on social

assistance, is that you borrow, we will pay the amount of money that you have

been receiving in the past so that you are not receiving less money as you are

going through, but you will have to pay back more money when you complete your

study, as do the other single-parent students who are not receiving social

assistance and who are attending post-secondary school.

We also believe that with the same amount of money that

students are receiving that they will still be able to continue to work towards

their post-secondary education and that they will continue in the same way that

they have. Because we are providing programs, and we are providing the

opportunity for child-care initiative and trying to make some of the necessary

changes to address some of their needs. Mr. Speaker, I guess I will conclude my

remarks by saying that we have asked students on social assistance to borrow in

the same manner as other single-parent students have to borrow and, whether they

are receiving social assistance or not, many students going to university these

days are single-parent students and they are borrowing the maximum social

assistance without any assistance at all from social assistance or the

government in that particular manner.

We have met with students and we been honest with them from

the very beginning about this initiative, about why we have completed this

initiative and that we would work with them in ways to explore options we can,

to address their needs. That was one of the reasons why we worked with MUN on

this $300,000 pilot project, to assist in some of their special needs. We do

support higher education, we do support students going back, and I understand,

in the federal budget, there has been some re-allocation of the payment

schedule

so loans can be paid back over a longer period of time. Again, I think this will

also assist students in their attempt to achieve a higher level of education. I

would also say that under the Student Loans Remission Program, that students who

are able, particularly single parents who are able to attend on a full-time

basis,if they are able to complete their studies in four or five years, will

have access to a significant loan reduction program as was initiated and

explained by the Department of Education.

The Budget decision, as announced, is not intended to be

reversed. We have met and we have been very up front on that decision from the

very beginning. We will assist in whatever way we can; we will continue to meet

to address the specific needs and we look forward to working through this

initiative with the students particularly through this $300,000 initiative and

through any other programs and services that we do have available under the

social assistance programs and hopefully, in a more, I guess, comprehensive

manner when we start accessing the funds under the National Child Benefit, which

we hope will also help the students who are attending university in other

post-secondary education, who do not have access to social assistance. We hope

to be able to provide them many of the services, particularly child-care

programs and other supports that may become available under that new program.

I would like to finish by saying, if we were in a position,

Mr. Speaker, we would be only too happy to provide free tuition for everyone,

but we had to make some very difficult choices, and in this particular Budget,

under my department in particular, when we looked at the money that we are

paying to child welfare programs, when we are looking at the money we are paying

to income support, I guess we traded off choices and one of the choices was to

begin this initiative as opposed to rolling back basic social assistance rates

and we believe this is a workable initiative in that these students are being

treated in the same manner as other single-parent students who have to borrow,

they have access to other programs and services that could help them address

their needs.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak on this motion today, presented by

the Member of Waterford Valley, the Opposition House Leader, concerning the

budgetary measures taken by this government, which has the effect of forcing

people on social assistance, primarily women, to borrow the full extent of the

maximum student loan available before having access to social assistance

benefits.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just heard the minister speak and I heard

the ministers response to questions in Question Period in an attempt to try and

soften the blow that she and her government has placed on people in the

situation of being social assistance recipients because they have no jobs, they

have no income, they have dependents and they do not have the ability to earn an

income to support themselves and their children.

Now, that, Mr. Speaker, is the situation that forced these

people on social assistance in the first place and what this minister and her

government fails to realize is that there is a terrific disincentive of going to

university or other post secondary institutions for people who have to borrow

vast amounts of money. That presents a different level of access to post

secondary education for people based on the ability to pay.

Now, I have no real doubt that my children, my two girls who

are both under three years of age, when the time comes will have an opportunity

to go to university or to post secondary education and that will be because, I

hope, that my financial circumstances and that of my family will permit me and

my wife to assist them to go to post secondary education because if we cannot

the prospect of borrowing the kind of money that students have to borrow today

and will likely have to borrow in the future will be terrifically daunting and

will be an absolute deterrent to so many people to taking on a post secondary

education.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterford Valley referred to his

university days and the fact that he was the beneficiary of free tuition for two

year, I believe I was the beneficiary of free tuition for one year, I was also

the beneficiary of happening to live in St. John's, living at home, to walk back

and forth to university, did not have any dependents, I had very little money,

but I came away from university also, with very little debt.

The job prospects now seem to be worst then they were five,

ten, fifteen years ago and students now, even students who do not have the

additional burden of dependents, of children to raise, find the prospect of

going to university and borrowing money to a large extent a serious, serious

problem.

Yesterday, we had a seminar, a round table discussion with

the federal leader of the New Democratic Party and there were four students

involved in this discussion, one of whom talked about the fact that she, many

times, had considered quitting university because the debts that she was

incurring and continuing to incur were representing a serious psychological

barrier for her to complete her education because she had no, not only no

assurance, she did not really have much hope of getting a job, a meaningful job

when she finished. If that is the case for ordinary, intelligent young people

who do not have additional concerns and problems, then surely that is a far more

serious deterrent for students who have children and particularly, single women

with children. I know that the Student/Parents For a Better Tomorrow want to be

inclusive, they want to include the men, but lets face it, Mr. Speaker, we are

talking here primarily about women who end up with the burden of raising

children alone far too often. When their financial circumstances force them on

social assistance, the very real prospect is that they may be there for a very

long time. Those students, those individuals, who have the courage, ambition,

desire, and willingness to go and attend post-secondary education to try and

build a better life for themselves and their children are now being threatened

with a very serious deterrent to continuing.

It is no good to try and gild the lily or pretend that the

blow is softened by various programs here and there. The reality is that the

individuals who we are talking about - and the minister has met them, and I've

met them, and other members have met them, and perhaps we will meet them in the

future - are very seriously affected by the policies of this government. They

are frightened by the policies of this government, by what affect it will have

on them and their families. They are clearly going to be deterred from

continuing, in many cases. Not only that, the ones who aren't there now who are

now on social assistance, who are looking for an opportunity to better their

lot, they will not pursue the course of action because of the terrifically

daunting prospect of serious debt.

When you are asking someone who is living from hand to mouth,

living below the poverty line on social assistance, to go into debt of $20,000,

$30,000 or $40,000, someone who is getting by, if that, from cheque to cheque,

then that is not something they can face as a realistic prospect, as a realistic

way for them to get from the stage of being on social assistance to be

self-supporting.

Constantly government has to be reminded of the disincentives

that exist for individuals on social assistance to go from that state of

dependency on the public resources to self-sufficiency, that taking that step is

a very difficult one, that there are barriers in the way, that there are

disincentives there. Whether it be claw backs from government, whether it be

taking back the drug card, whether it be the need for child care and the total

absence of adequate child care in this Province. All of these barriers represent

a sentence, in many cases, to a lifetime of social assistance for people. We

have to find a way to ensure that those who can make the transition, who can

take this step, are able to do so and to be successful.

The minister just talked about some of the programs. She

talked about the remission program for student loans. That isn't one that

readily fits with the circumstances of many single parents or many student

parents, because the time it takes for them to complete a university education,

for example, may well be in many cases longer than the conditions of that

program permit.

It is well known that mature students, for example, don't do

a full course load. Whether they are parents or whether they have dependents or

whether they don't, mature students do a course load of approximately 3.5

courses per year. Single parents or student parents are often, when they are the

sole support or care giver for dependent children, only able to do three courses

per semester. That will stretch out their attendance at university or school

perhaps a little longer than many students, but it will also put them outside

the remission program. So it isn't a viable solution to the crippling debt load

that they are going to be facing.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you think it is fair, and

whether hon. members think it is fair, for a person on social assistance, living

below the poverty line, to be required to borrow money to feed the child, and

then pay interest on the money that you are using to feed your child for maybe

ten years or fifteen years. Pay interest on the money that you are using for

child care. Pay interest on the money that you are using to feed your child, for

maybe ten or fifteen years, pay interest on the money you are using for child

care, pay interest on the money you are using for clothing for that child for so

many years.

The whole purpose of student loans is to pay for the cost of

the education, not to pay for the cost of raising your family or supporting your

family while you are doing this. And you cannot compare other people in the same

situation who may well be students and parents at the same time but do not come

from the same route to that student status, from social assistance to being a

student.

There are probably many people, school teachers for example -

and I know the Member for Waterford Valley was one of them - who, having been a

school teacher, having had a child, went back to university for more education,

for further education. They are in a totally different circumstance than someone

who is on social assistance, a totally different circumstance than someone who

has taught for three or four years and has a teaching job to go back to, goes to

university, along with a spouse perhaps, and has dependent children. They borrow

student loans. They have no problem because they know they are going back to

that teaching job and they are going to be able to pay off those loans, and they

are going to be able to live comfortably for the foreseeable future.

That is not the situation of someone on social assistance,

who is on the outside of the job market looking in, who does not have a prospect

of a steady job to comfort them in terms of going to university and taking on a

serious debt. So it is not fair to compare students who are coming from the

social assistance circumstance to other students who are parents who may well be

borrowing student loans. It is not reasonable.

I remember in my own neighbourhood, as a child, we had a

neighbour who was the head of a family, a woman whose husband had died, I

believe - in any event, he was not present in the family - and there were four

or five children, all of them quite young. That woman spent several years

pleading, cajoling, lobbying, fighting, with social services to allow her to go

to university and continue to receive social assistance. She fought for years -

several years in fact - and finally they said: Yes, you can go to university and

we will continue to provide you with social assistance.

That woman became a social worker, a registered social

worker, worked for the Department of Social Services afterwards for many years,

supported her family, paid her taxes, was a contributing member of society and

was a very good social worker. That is the kind of example of what can happen,

when the alternative for her would be to spend the rest of her life and her

children's lives on social assistance. But she had to fight back in those days,

fifteen or twenty years ago, to be allowed to do that.

You can go to university if you want now, as long as you are

prepared to take on $4,400 of debt per semester, $8,800 a year if you go two

semesters. If you go for four years, that is a lot of money. You are looking at

$40,000 for four years. If it takes you five years, and in many cases it does,

you are looking at nearly $50,000. That is not something that a person on social

assistance can contemplate, it is not something they are prepared to take on,

and it is not something that can be taken on by someone who may be in an older

category.

One of the people who has come to see me, and some other

members, has three children who are quite young. This woman has already been in

the workforce for many years, was forced into social assistance, is now trying

to better her life, cannot finish her degree without going another $30,000 into

debt, and cannot face the prospect of having a mortgage-like debt for the

remaining years of her working life. That would be a deterrent. She won't be

able to do it. That is a tragedy, and I don't think that the minister recognizes

what a deterrent to the completion of an education her policy is causing to

these individuals. Saving $2 million to the taxpayers, she thinks. Passing that

$2 million on to the students, let them have the debt. We will download the

deficit now. The federal government is downloading to the Province and the

Province is now downloading to the students. We will pass the debt along to the

students. People on social assistance will take responsibility for the debt

instead of the government. That is what seems to be happening here, Mr. Speaker,

but I don't think it is going to work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have thirty seconds to continue, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has been denied leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, this is a very sensitive issue to

speak to. It is very easy for people who don't have to make policy to speak to

this particular issue and to advance a strong position in favour of the

resolution. It is very easy to do, Mr. Speaker, when one is not in the position

of having to develop the policy that establishes this particular procedure. All

very easy, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell hon. members that I am quite certain that all

of the sensitivity, all of the caring, all of the compassion is not on that

particular side of the House. Mr. Speaker, this is, as I said, a very difficult

proposition. As a matter of fact, the resolution itself addresses the

complication, the complexity. It addresses it in the two resolves. After stating

a number of `WHEREAS' the resolve says, "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED THAT this

Honourable House urge the provincial government to restore its post-secondary

funding arrangements for students with dependents to those that were in place

immediately prior to the 1997 Budget." Now, Mr. Speaker, if one were looking at

all of the `WHEREAS' one would think the resolution would end there. The

resolution would end at that point. "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED THAT this

Honourable House urge the provincial government to restore its post-secondary

funding arrangements for students with dependents to those that were in place

immediately prior to the 1997 Budget."

I believe hon. gentlemen who designed this resolution

realized that to stop there was creating an unequal situation, the very reason

the policy was made. That it was not establishing a level playing field, that it

was not addressing equal opportunity in education or equal access to education,

otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the resolution would have stopped there but realizing

that in doing that, as badly needed as the finances to assist those people, we

realize that there are other students in similar circumstances, Mr. Speaker, who

are finding it very, very difficult. To address that completes the resolution,

"AND BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT this Honourable House urge the provincial

government to undertake greater efforts to make post-secondary education more

accessible to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians".

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a wee bit short I suppose of

advocating free education. Mr. Speaker, this is a party, this is a government

that believes in free education. We tried it. The party which I represent tried

free education, as the hon. House Leader addressed so eloquently but we found

that it was too big a proposition for this little Province to deal with. We

found out that we could not handle it. We could not carry on with free education

but that is the answer and it is a policy to which I personally subscribe but I

believe it is the wrong time. We are in the wrong economic climate to be

advocating free education or certainly to execute any form of free education.

Mr. Speaker, so the resolution itself recognizes the

complexity and the sensitivity of the problem here. The resolution itself

demonstrates why the government was forced to do what it did, and as I

indicated, that the government changed its policy with respect to single

students with dependents on social services, to the current policy for what it

believed were all the right reasons. It may be wrong, it could be that we are

wrong but the government did it sincerely for all the right reasons. What were

the right reasons? Two categories, Mr. Speaker, two categories: 1). It was an

attempt to establish a level playing field for other single students with

dependents or married couples with dependents who were not on social services,

who too, find it very difficult to go to university or go to any post-secondary

institution.

To hear hon. members talk, you would not know, but some of

these students were filthy rich, and, Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have some

rich people going to university there is no question about that, but I can tell

hon. members that there are some students, in all categories, single students,

who are making a great sacrifice to go to university today. They are

middle-income people, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members know them, middle-income

people who just fall over the line of not being able to access student loans,

having to pay and their students having to get into debt or their parents having

to get into debt, Mr. Speaker, we all wish that none of our students had to

incur any debt to go to university but, we have to consider the fiscal ability

of the Province and I am sure these students would attempt to understand that

the fiscal ability of the Province -

Now, are hon. gentlemen opposite saying that this is our

policy, that when we get in government that we will reinstate this policy, are

they saying that? Are they saying that they are going to bring in free education

because, the last resolution is really not firm in what it says, Mr. Speaker, it

is not really clear as to what they want; they are just saying: "THAT this

Honourable House urge the provincial government to undertake greater efforts to

make post-secondary education more accessible to all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians."

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is, I suppose, a harmless resolution

because it really does not say very much and I do not want to trivialize the

importance of this particular resolution, but hon. members know that I have

spoken to many Private Members Resolutions and tried to guide and direct if you

will, and educate members as to what kind of resolution they should submit - or

not what kind, I wouldn't be so presumptuous - but to talk about its wording, a

wording of a resolution and, Mr. Speaker, a resolution should be clear in what

it wants, clear in terms of its results, in terms of its actions; `urge' is

hardly very clear.

So I will urge my government to do all of those things but -

AN HON. MEMBER: You will?

MR. LUSH: And I will. - but, Mr. Speaker, what the

resolution is asking, the resolution is asking the government to change a policy

that was annunciated in the Budget, and as I have said there were two reasons

for it. 1), was to equalize, to make consistent the funding that is available to

all students and that is what the resolution asks, that was the last part of it,

for all students, and that is what we attempted to do, Mr. Speaker, rather than

trying to create an unequal group as opposed to an equal group, the government,

in its wisdom, tried to equalize. As I said, it may be wrong but, Mr. Speaker, I

believe that there are students present in that group who are going to

capitalize on the programs that are available to them and that they are going to

educate themselves like all Newfoundlanders have in the past and they are going

to become productive citizens of this Province. I am sure they will respond to

the challenge. There are others.

The second reason, Mr. Speaker - I know the hon. member is

waiting for it - why the government accepted this policy, the second reason why

it changed its policy, was for fiscal reasons. Of course for fiscal reasons. An

educational policy can't ignore the fiscal ability of the Province. Health can't

ignore the fiscal ability of the Province, forestry policies can't ignore the

fiscal ability of the Province. No policy in government can ignore the fiscal

ability of its people to pay.

One doesn't need to be ashamed of that. Every policy of

government, every initiative we take, is based upon the fiscal ability of the

Province to do it. To do otherwise is irresponsible. I heard somebody say, I

think it was the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, I think he said that if we

were to carry out this program it would cost the government $2 million. Or to

put it another way, by eliminating the program we save $2 million. That makes

sense, doesn't it? We save $2 million.

I ask hon. members, if they were on this side of the House

today, where would they find that $2 million? Where would they find it? Would

they close more hospital beds, would they reduce salaries to doctors? Because I

think they have taken the position we should increase the salaries to doctors.

Would they increase taxes? What would they do to find that? Because you have to

find it. It can't go like cherries and pull it off a tree. We have to find it.

You have to find it. Then, where would they find the money for the last part of

the resolution? Where would they find the money for that? To treat all students

equally, is what we are saying, and this is why this government has accepted the

approach that it is accepting, so that we can treat all students equally.

That is a hard objective, that is a hard goal, that is a hard

aim to accomplish, to try and treat everybody equally. It is a hard thing to do.

But the government in its wisdom figured the way to do it was to try and get

everybody to access student loans rather than being sponsored by the public's

dollars, by the taxpayers of this Province. We thought that would be the most

equitable way to go. That would be the most reasonable way to ensure equal

opportunity of education and access to education. It has been pointed out very

eloquently by the minister that these students will not have less money. They

will not have less money, it is just that they will have to go and access

student loans like all other students in this Province.

I believe the people of this Province will believe that that

is a fair and just approach. I believe they will. Certainly as opposed to doing

the things I mentioned we would have to do to find that extra $2 million.

Increase their taxes. Ask the public of this Province whether they are prepared

to do that, to have their taxes increased, or doctors to have their salaries

reduced.

The hon. gentleman mentioned, again the hon. Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, it was a different procedure altogether for married

couples like teachers and people on social assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all trying to minimize the problem

of people on social assistance. I am not trying to minimize it at all. I know it

is a very difficult problem. I went to university as a married person. I taught

for three or four years, and if anybody thinks that I had enough money to pay

when I came back to university, they are dreaming. I never in my lifetime had

the money to go to university when I decided to go. I was married. I had to pay

off debts that I had accumulated my first four years when I was there. I went

back and borrowed again.

When I entered, as a member of this House, like some hon.

members here, I owed a student loan. When I ran for my first time I was still

paying off a student loan. As a matter of fact I got a nasty letter at one point

from the university, because back in those days we didn't borrow from the banks;

we had some kind of a plan established that was called a bursary and I borrowed

from it. I assumed that they would never come after me for the money until I was

finished. I got a couple of letters, and I said I wasn't finished yet; I only

have a Bachelor of Education degree and I am going on for a Bachelor of Arts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LUSH: If I could just finish that thought, Mr.

Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. LUSH: I just want to finish.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got the nasty letter.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) my last letter, when I had finished

my Masters degree. Now I wanted to say I was going on for a Doctorate but I was

here as a member of the House.

I got this nasty letter and I figured: Who in their right

mind would send out a letter like that to a graduate, a young Newfoundlander who

worked so hard to get where he was, and send him out this nasty letter. They

were going to refer it to the Credit Bureau or something, so I thought I would

speak to the Minister of Education, who is now deceased. I called him aside. I

didn't ask him a question in the House. I called him aside, behind the curtain,

to find out that he had received the same letter.

Mr. Speaker, none of us Newfoundlanders are in a position of

wealth. University is a sacrifice and a commitment for us all. I believe that

this government is going to remain committed to equal educational opportunity

and equal access.

We believe that the time is going to come when the economy of

this Province is going to turn around and we are going to be able to help all of

the students in this Province toward a more affordable education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am not going to belabour the issue too much. I will take a

few minutes to speak to the Private Member's resolution, and in particular to

some comments the Minister of Human Resources and Employment mentioned, and the

Member for Bonavista South.

This member knows full well, as a former Minister of Social

Services, that nobody in this Chamber, no single member, no matter what side of

the House you sit on, has a corner on compassion. The member has put forward an

argument that government did this for two reasons. One was to create a level

playing field between students who find themselves in similar circumstances,

single or married parents; and, two, on our ability as a province to pay. I

would like to deal with two of those, because I don't think the argument holds

any water whatsoever.

First of all, if you are talking about 300 - 400 students who

are at university, who are not on social services, a fundamental question must

be asked: If they are in similar circumstances, why aren't they?

Government has not tabled, and the minister through her

department has not tabled, any information that would explain that reason. Is it

because married couples, one may be working, while we have two children?

Certainly many situations exist at Memorial like that. Is it because they have

other resources available to them, where they did not have to go to social

services because they had no other choice but to go to social services?

Certainly there are situations that exist like that.

The minister has not said at all that there are

300-and-some-odd students at Memorial, single parents, the majority of which are

single moms, who are on social services and there are another fifteen or twenty

or another 200 that should be that are not, she has not offered that, she has

not because what we are talking about and there are good reasons why she has

not, I say to the member from Terra Nova, very sound reasons because if she did

table that information then clearly we would know that the argument she is

making is without merit.

The reality is that if we take the member for Terra Novas

argument and we talk about access and equal access, then we should not have

taken that portion away. If we are going to treat every student equally in terms

of the student loan program, then every student should have the ability, in

terms of tuition, the same amount provided, the same amount provided for living

away from home allowances, the same amount provided depending on the course of

study for books, the same amount provided for transportation to and from, but I

am not so sure that the hon. member is saying and if he is please clear it up

for me, I am not so sure that the hon. member is saying and the minister is

saying, that we should in this day and age tell single parents to borrow money

to pay for child care, students in particular, to borrow money to pay for

children's clothing, which this government increased by fifteen per cent, they

talk about where we would find the money, I will get to that argument because I

have some concrete suggestions for all the members.

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that what this initiative has

done, it has put up a road block, it has offered a deterrent to education. There

are those who are in the gallery today, I say to the member, that you should sit

down and speak with because if your argument was true, then every person who was

in that gallery today would be able to afford to go to university from here for

the next five or six or seven years, but the reality sir, is quite different and

I would suggest that you take the time to meet with some of these students and

hear their stories and let them tell you what this initiative by your government

will do.

I have heard lots of wonderful stories about my colleague

when he was in university and when this gentlemen was in university and about

what was available and how they had to borrow and all that sort of stuff. It

pales by comparison to what students had to borrow in the last fifteen years and

I am one of them, I was one of them and still am.

I left Memorial and I am glad I left when I did and I

finished when I did. I would not want to be a student today. I left Memorial in

1988 with a $27,000 student loan, $410 a month, nine and a half years, four

years left I have. So, I understand fully. If I had to do the exact same program

today in the exact same time, I would have had to borrow $44,000.

The Minister of Human Resources and Employment stood up today

and said, but we have other programs that will assist, let me go through them:

the Loans Remission Program, I will leave for last because that is important.

Labour Market Development Agreement that is available to everybody, whether you

are a single parent or you are not a single parent, the trick is you have to

meet the criteria, that is the trick. Meeting the criteria, now that is a

different set of rules and regulations. Student Work and Services Program,

available to every student, irrespective of what their background situation is.

Child Benefit Programs, next year we are going to be introducing Child Benefit

Programs that focuses on prevention. Who would disagree? Nobody. How does it

help the 355 people a day or so that are in the position? It does not.

Single parents on social assistance, equal treatment for

those who are not. If I have ever seen a blatant attempt and an argument that

does not hold water in pitting one class of people at Memorial at another class

of people, I am shocked that you would even mention it, shocked, but here is the

real kicker, that government saved $2 million under - we will use the members

argument, under financial ability to pay, $2 million and then the minister says,

we are working with Memorial University, now get this, we are working with

Memorial, she made an announcement today about a program that she did not

provide any details to the House, that is going to put $300,000, that is going

to be available to all those people. They just saved $2 million on those

individuals' backs, and now they are going to turn around and offer $300,000 on

the other hand in a new program, if they qualify.

This must be the new Liberal way. They have done it on the

Canada Health and Social Transfer act, which is the root of the problem where we

are today. In the last three years over $160 million has been taken out in

transfers to this Province by the federal government for health, education, and

social services. That is the problem. Alexa McDonough, the national NDP Leader,

said, and I will quote her because it was a good argument: The minister's

argument today is like saying that they stole your purse and offered you bus

fair back home.

That is what it amounts to, and that is all that it amounts

to. I say to all hon. members, if we would like to find $2 million I would like

to offer you some constructive solutions. If we are talking about revenue

generation and we are in a revenue crunch - and there is no doubt, I say to the

hon. member, that we are. All of us, irrespective of what side of the House we

sit on, must understand that reality. But it is a question of will on one side,

and it is a question of government priority on another side.

I would like to talk about the Harmonized Sales Tax. At the

end of four years, government will have to come up with $110 million in extra

and needed revenue as a result of the Harmonized Sales Tax. What did that do to

single parents, and all parents? First time tax on children's clothes, no matter

what their age, 15 per cent. What did that do to student aid? Was student aid

upped proportionately to help or assist? No. Was social services upped

proportionately to help or assist or reflect that reality? No, it was not. Want

to talk about mismanagement? We can go on and on, but I'm not going to do it,

I'm not going to delve into that today.

The only point I would like to leave today is this. If we are

talking, members, about equality, then we have to recognize fundamentally that

this decision that has been made has affected a particular group of people that

is in a particular set of circumstances that are unique. You cannot compare, as

hard as it is for other single parents, or other married parents at University

who are not on social assistance, you cannot compare those who are on them.

Because they are unique and separate circumstances unto themselves. It is a moot

argument, and what we would refer to, in courses that I did at University, as

the introduction of a red herring into a debate that has nothing to do with the

debate in the first place. That is what it is.

I think we have to recognize today that if we really want to

acknowledge and provide equal treatment in this particular set of circumstances

this private member's resolution describes, then we have to come to it with some

honesty and some recognition that there is a group of people who have been

affected differently than all other people who may be around or in similar

circumstances. Just because you are a student and a single parent doesn't mean

you are like a student who is not a single parent. Just because you are a

student on social services attending Memorial University doesn't mean you are

like a student who is married, or like two students who are married with two

children. It does not mean that at all.

What we have done, in effect, is we have made a policy that

does not deter the cycle of dependency but increases it, and ensures it will

continue. Unless we recognize that I doubt any resolution will be made to this

particular problem based upon the particular set of circumstances that have been

put forward.

I will sit down by saying that I support the hon. member's

private member's resolution. I wish those who are affected well. Keep up the

pressure, because it can work. There is nothing wrong with sitting at the table

and working with government and offering other concrete solutions. If government

wants to know from you where it can save $2 million elsewhere, ask them for

fifteen days to twenty days to provide it for them. That is what you should ask.

Ask them for fifteen days or twenty days to go through their Estimates to look

at other government programs where they may be able to find $50,000 there,

$150,000 here, $200,000 there. Is government willing to open up that process to

that group? That is for government to answer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in

debate today on this resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Waterford

Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) last night?

MR. RAMSAY: Partially yes, I was involved with the

organizers.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that is put forward, I would

suppose is based on a premise that the decision government has taken to bring

the educational funding of students who receive social assistance in line with

those students who don't, first and foremost. Not that they would be penalized

in any other way but that they would receive, first and foremost and take into

account the full student loan prior to receipt of any other funding.

I know I have dealt with a number of people, some of them

relatives of mine, some of them constituents and some both, who had attended

university and college of various programs under the previous student assistants

program. Some of them were successful, some of them were not successful. Some

found it too difficult to bear the burden of education and raising a family and

the difficulty associated with trying to accomplish the task while, I suppose,

not only being in an economic situation, where they were in receipt of social

assistance but also being in a situation where the difficulties of family and

other things made it too difficult to continue. Others were successful. One, who

I know in my own family had a difficult time. She is now a qualified nurse and

is working full time supporting her children and has since gotten married but at

the very least was successful. So there are two examples, Mr. Speaker, of a

situation under the previous regulations where the social assistance was the

first order of payment and the student loan was secondary where someone received

the funding. A success story and one that was not as successful.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are to look at some of the arguments

that come forward as to why we should not maintain the policy as we have brought

forward in the budget. One of the key arguments that is made is that to allow a

person who is in receipt of social assistance benefits to take on the debt

burden, that is a maximum debt burden as opposed to a limited or a smaller debt

burden under the previous system, is somehow or other going to be more of a

burden. Of course it will be more of a burden but will, in some cases, prevent

them from continuing on and finalizing their education.

Now I think the difficulties that people face involved in

education I think occur regardless of where the money comes from. The debt

burden of course is something that is significant and the debt burden is

something that following the graduation of the student, would have to be taken

on. Now the question then is, once two people graduate, one who is a social

assistance recipient prior to graduating and one who is not, does the person who

has been receiving social assistance carry a heavy burden from that point

forward? Now maybe they do because of their background, because of the fact that

they have had a more difficult time leading up to that point but there are still

the eligibilities in place for the remission program for student assistance

under the student loans program. All of the programs from employment assistance

that are available to all graduates are available equally to both, the student

who is in receipt of social assistance and the student who is not.

I only have to look I suppose into my own family background

and speak about my wife. When I first met my wife she was a single parent

raising two children and she was in receipt of a social assistance supplement at

that time. I don't know if other members here in this House have that experience

to live with, but I experienced that. I experienced dealing with her involvement

in post-secondary education, and her eventual starting of a business which was

successful. It was from the single-parent side of things that I saw ingenuity, I

saw the ability to deal with very little money in raising a family. As the hon.

the Member for Kilbride,