April 6, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to

welcome to the galleries today twenty-two Grade XII students from Fitzgerald Academy in

their teachers, Allan Spencer and Carl Langdon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have visiting today from the Town of

Botwood, Mr. Melvin Torville, Deputy Mayor, and councillors Ed Evans, Scott Seviour, Barry

Jewer and Jerry Dean.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, it was with much sadness and regret that

we learned on Friday night of the death of Mr. Jerome Kieley of Holyrood. Mr. Kieley, who

was forty-nine years of age, died from injuries he received as a result of a fire and

explosion at the Come By Chance Oil Refinery. This unfortunate incident earlier claimed

the life of Mr. James Mercer of Bay Roberts.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on both sides of the House of

Assembly, I wish to express our sincere condolences to Jerome Kieley's wife Joan, his two

children Michelle and Kenneth, and to all members of the Kieley family.

This is indeed a most difficult time for the Kieley and Mercer

families, and our thoughts and prayers are with them in their time of great sorrow. I ask,

on behalf of all hon. members, that letters of condolence be forwarded to the Kieley and

Mercer families. Funeral services for Mr. Kieley will take place tomorrow, Tuesday

afternoon.

As is known, Mr. Rick Connors of Conception Bay was also injured as a

result of this fire and explosion. He was discharged from hospital and is reported to be

recuperating from his injuries.

An investigation by the Fire Commissioner into the cause of the fire is

still under way. Life Safety audits are also under way. These are been led by the Fire

Commissioner in cooperation with officials from Environment and Labour and Government

Services and Lands. It would not be appropriate to comment further on the accident and

what led to it until the Fire Commissioner's investigation is complete and he submits his

report.

Mr. Speaker, government will take all necessary steps to ensure that

when the refinery reopens it is a safe workplace.

Thank you.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his

statement, and say to the minister and to this House that I knew the Kieley family

personally and I visited with some members of the Kieley family last night. To say that it

is a very sad place for his wife Joan and the Kieley children, and the rest of the Kieley

family, would be - I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if I could really put it into words.

We would certainly agree with you, Minister, in forwarding our

condolences on to both the Kieley and the Mercer families. We are, on this side of the

House, still willing to wait on the report of the Fire Commissioner and all those others

who are investigating exactly what went wrong at the Come By Chance Refinery. Hopefully

that report won't be too long more in the making and will soon be forthcoming, and you

yourself, Sir, could probably make some kind of announcement in this House. But we

wholeheartedly agree with certainly sending the House's condolences to the Kieley and the

Mercer families.

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

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister and the Member for Conception

Bay South in asking Your Honour to send the condolences of the House to the Kieley and

Mercer families. It is a terrific loss of life, and loss to the families involved, and it

underscores the crucial importance of Occupational Health and Safety in all the industries

of our Province.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that no stone should be left unturned to

determine the cause of the accident and to ensure that the safety at the refinery is of

the very highest standard for the future.

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address the House to

clarify the purpose of the National Child Benefit program. I would also like to recognize

that in the House today are members of a number of advocacy organizations, The Provincial

Advisory Council on The Status of Women, The Early Childhood Education Association, and

The Community Services Council, to support this program as well.

On April 2, 1998, during a current affairs show entitled, `Community

Matters', incorrect statements were made regarding the National Child Benefit program. I

believe I must correct the public record for members of this House, for the people who

participated in the show, and for the public at large.

First and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, is the statement that some of

our Province's population are losing out with the implementation of the National Child

Benefit. I assure you and all present today, that there are no losers with this new

program. Social assistance families will not experience any reduction in total combined

income from provincial social assistance and the Canada Child Tax Benefit as a consequence

of introducing the National Child Benefit. Along with a number of budgetary measures,

including the additional programs and services introduced under the National Child Benefit

Provincial Reinvestment Plan, social assistance families actually benefit.

I think it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that social assistance

families will receive a 7 per cent increase over the next three years. Specific measures

will also be introduced under the social assistance program to significantly increase the

child care exemption, increase the earned income exemption, and extend the drug card

benefits for families leaving social assistance and moving to employment.

These measures, Mr. Speaker, together with other new programs and

services introduced under the National Child Benefit Reinvestment Plan will significantly

add to the support provided to low-income families with children.

Mr. Speaker, the National Child Benefit was never intended to increase

provincial social assistance rates. Instead, the National Child Benefit will work to

prevent and reduce child poverty by focusing on early intervention with needy children and

their families while supporting an attachment to the workforce. This will in the long term

help to break the cycle of poverty by providing much needed programs for children, youth

and families as well as helping to ensure that families are be better off as a result of

working. The National Child Benefit Provincial Reinvestment Fund allows the Province to

establish new programs and services which support this goal.

On March 26, 1998 the Department of Human Resources and Employment,

along with Health and Community Services, announced that $10.15 million annually, would be

reinvested in new programs and services for our Province's children and families.

To quote the 1998 Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker, this Province "will

reinvest every last penny in programs and services for low-income families" under the

National Child Benefit Reinvestment Plan.

This will greatly enhance our ability to meet the needs of families and

children in this Province, as well as begin a strategic shift in programming towards early

intervention. Research is mounting to support the benefits of early intervention services

such as child care, and this Province has been significantly hampered in the resources

that we have had available to dedicate to these programs.

The National Child Benefit has made it possible for Newfoundland and

Labrador to have $10.15 million annually to improve and expand licensed child care,

provide additional family resource centre project sites, develop a co-ordinated regional

youth service network and provide initiatives under the social assistance program to

assist families in making the transition to work. Mr. Speaker, these initiatives reflect

the findings of a number of recent public consultation processes with key social groups

and advocates.

All these additional or improved services will ensure that our children

will have a strong start in life. To say that this program causes people of the Province

to `lose out' is extremely short-sighted.

Mr. Speaker, the National Child Benefit will be introduced in July

1998. Between now and then, our department will make every effort to ensure that our

clients have accurate information on the NCB. A series of cheque inserts will be included

with social assistance cheques, a 1-800 information line will be established, and

brochures and print material will also be made available to our clients and to the public.

Mr. Speaker, today, however, the general information which needs to be

corrected and confirmed is as follows:

(1) No social assistance client will have less

combined income from social assistance and the Canada Child Tax Benefit following the July

implementation date.

(2) All social assistance clients will receive a 7 per cent rate

increase over three years beginning with a 2 per cent increase in May of this year.

(3) Children in low-income families, including social assistance families, will have access to

additional programs and services that support the goals of the National Child Benefit.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the long-term goal of the

National Child Benefit which is over time to have the Canada Child Tax Benefit Program

become the primary source of income support for children in this country. This will mean

that children in low-income families, regardless of where they reside in Canada, will have

a secure, uniform and dependable level of income support that does not fluctuate with

changes to family earnings and circumstances. The federal government, Mr. Speaker, has

announced additional commitments to the National Child Benefit totalling another $850

million beginning in July 1999. This brings the total federal commitment to $1.7 billion.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say that reinvesting our

money in children and families is something we should be doing both as a government and as

members of our community. I am very proud to be a part of this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, there are no losers when it comes to investing in children

and their families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to thank the minister for providing me

with a copy of her statement. Methinks the minister doth protest too much. We all remember

the National Child Benefit being announced to great hoopla as the government's response to

the needs of children in this country and the Province that are being neglected. There are

thousands of children in this Province going to school hungry and without proper

nutrition, and we have known that for years. Some are from low-income families, others are

from families trying to scrape by on social assistance. We know food banks are stretched

to the limit. This is not a Third World country, it is Canada. Our children are going to

school hungry.

The Patricia Canning report says 40,000 children live in poverty. The

National Child Benefit was supposed to address that. It was supposed to be for children.

The government reaped much political capital saying it was responding to children, but now

you are clawing the money back from children. Do not get me wrong, the resource programs

are great, the $10.15 million is greatly needed, and I do applaud the expenditure, but it

is wrong to help poor children on the backs of poorer children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Your cousins in Ottawa have for years been cutting

hundreds of millions of dollars from the transfers we need to run things here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. They have cut social assistance and funding. This NCB is just a

drop in the bucket compared to what they have taken away. They want to give the money to

children and get applause for that, and then take the money back and spend it again.

The minister made a few points. I know that there are supposed to be,

and there are, incentive programs for employment. That is wonderful. I had a call this

morning from a widow. Her son graduated from one of the post-secondary institutes. He owes

$15,000 in his student loan. He has worn out his shoes going from employment agency to

employment agency, and to various businesses, looking for a job. All he has is a student

loan, and he has contributed to a lot of dead trees with his resumes. This woman said, and

I will quote her: Please ask Julie Bettney to send out or publish a list of jobs that are

available.

She has also addressed the 7 per cent increase over three years, 2 per

cent per year. The only people to take advantage of the HST are people in high-income

brackets. The people who are getting the 2 per cent increase have been dinged with HST on

their fuel, on their light, and on their children's clothing. You tell me where the

savings are coming from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Children in low-income families, including social

assistance families, will have access to additional programs and

services that support the goals of the NCB.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, because the truth hurts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's statement about the Child Tax Benefit is really just

defending the indefensible. The minister knows that there are fifty-seven food banks in

this Province, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows that between 1989 and 1998, the welfare

rolls have gone from 44,000 individuals to 72,000 individuals. The minister knows that

inflation has eaten away the value of social assistance payments since the last increase

was granted, and that this 7 per cent over the next three years will not allow them to

catch up. The minister knows that the additional Child Tax Benefit that would be given to

social assistance recipients for their children, if they were allowed to keep it, would

allow them to feed their families, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows, from the report of Dr.

Patricia Canning, that in excess of 30,000 children go to school hungry in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, to take that money back from social assistance recipients,

from the mouths of children, and use it for other programs is an abomination. I do not

care, the minister can talk all she wants about the design of the program, but the reality

does not change as a result of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: The unfortunate reality for hungry children in this

Province is that they are not going to benefit from the Child Tax Credit; unless, for

example, Mr. Speaker, the built-in assumption of this program is that people on social

assistance are there because they do not want to work and we have to create incentives for

working people, and not go out and provide jobs for them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Agrifoods.

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

The sawmill industry is an area that has shown massive growth and

realization of efficiencies in the last few years. Their production levels have increased

from 40 million board feet per year to a point where they are expected to top 90 million

board feet this year. This represents the highest single production year for the sawmill

industry. The industry is expected to further grow in the future.

This past Saturday, I had the pleasure to address the Newfoundland and

Labrador Lumber Producers Association in Gander. In our address, we discussed the

importance of a sustainable forest. The NLLPA are fully aware of the importance to

maintain and enhance forest growth. Mr. Speaker, as we have outlined in our twenty-year

plan, insular Newfoundland is facing a wood supply deficit situation estimated for the

next fifteen to twenty years. We are working very hard to overcome this situation. Methods

such as maximization of the forest resource use through a fuller utilization of the trees;

exchanges between the sawmills and the pulp and paper mills which are going extremely

well; using the waste products to generate electricity; importation of wood supplies from

outside sources - both recycled paper and wood chips; and silviculture initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, while all of these initiatives are important, we must,

however, recognize the massive amount of silviculture work that has taken place. Only in

the last fifteen years has a real push been placed on silviculture in our Province. Over

$150 million has been invested by government and industry in an effort to replace what we

consume.

We have been successful in our efforts. Last year alone, over $16

million was spent in planting, pre-commercial thinning and land reclamation. As a result,

1997 saw over 16,480 hectares of forest land treated and over 7.5 million seedlings

planted. Over 23,000 person weeks of employment in silviculture-related activities were

created last year; 1998 also promises to be a good year for silviculture.

Silviculture is an effective tool for reforestation. We must, however,

realize that it cannot solve all the problems in the forest. Despite our best efforts for

reforestation, insect infestation continues to plague our Province's forests. This year

all indicators show that we will see over 24,000 hectares of forest either moderately or

severely defoliated by the Balsam Fir Sawfly alone. Over half of this area will be in

stands that have been treated with silviculture. This represents almost all the

silviculture work that was carried out last year.

Mr. Speaker, we must address this situation. We cannot spend large

amounts of public money and expect the industry to also contribute, if there is no net

gain in the wood supply. There is presently no biological alternative that will combat the

Balsam Fir Sawfly. We are, however, working with the Canadian Forest Service to develop

one. Government has three options for this year: We can use a spray called fenitrothion,

which is registered for use against the Balsam Fir Sawfly but may have potential

environmental effects. We can do nothing and let the infestation continue and ultimately

set back the correction of the wood supply deficit for many more years, or we can seek

approval to use Dylox. This is a milder alternative that has been used on agricultural

crops and closely-related sawflies in other jurisdictions. While it has not been approved

for use against the Balsam Fir Sawfly, we believe that it is a safe alternative that will

be effective in combatting the negative effects of this infestation. Any use of Dylox

would be proposed on a trial basis to evaluate its effectiveness against the Balsam Fir

Sawfly.

Mr. Speaker, we are still evaluating all environmental, social and

economic considerations but time is also running out for this year. Government will decide

in the very near future how it intends to address the problem.

Thank you.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I want to do today is something a little bit different

and that is, to thank the minister for a copy of his statement, because currently, I have

not had copies of statements from ministers for some reason.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to acknowledge the first part of the

statement which was the sawmill industry. The minister and I, know that there is some very

good potential in that and even in my own district, as of right now, we are looking at

enhancing the sawmill industry. I know that it has great potential for the entire

Province.

Secondly, the deficit of the wood supply is a known fact and we know

that that is a problem in this Province. As far as silviculture goes, Mr. Speaker, I said

it just a few days ago that, if there is one thing that the Premier and the Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal and so on, can talk about and can employ people in this

Province, there will not be any complaints from this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we

will take anybody who needs work and send them into the forest to plant and to thin trees.

It is something for an investment in the future and something that should be looked on as

favourable, Mr. Speaker.

As to the situation that faces us today, with the infestation, it is

something that has to be addressed. Of the three options the minister outlined, number

two, I certainly do not agree with, and that is, ignoring the problem. We cannot ignore

it, it is a reality and we must face up to that and do something about it. As far as

fenitrothion is concerned, Mr. Speaker, that is something that has a lot of concerns

environmentally, and the last one, the Dylox, I will be quite honest with the minister and

say that I do not know very much about this particular chemical, but of course, the

minister and his department have the resources to look into that.

All I will say is, Mr. Speaker, that it has to be addressed. Whichever

one they come up with, I hope we do the proper research and make the proper moves to make

sure that we handle the problem for the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, every year since I have been elected to

the House of Assembly, we receive, at some point during the year, tabled documents from a

variety of departments. Certainly one, which is the post-secondary indicators, gives us an

independent insight into what is happening with post-secondary education in the Province.

The last time that a document was tabled, was by the former Minister of Education, now the

Minister of Justice, in 1995.

It is my understanding that post-secondary indicators '96 is ready and

has been ready since the fall of 1997 and I would like to ask the minister today: when can

Members of this House expect that document to be tabled?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to have the question asked as well.

For the record, the document that the Leader of the Opposition refers

to, Postsecondary Indicators '95 , is not an annual. It is the first time ever in

the history of this Province that it has been produced - produced by the Department of

Education under the direction of my predecessor. As a matter of fact, the government in

Newfoundland and Labrador and the Department of Education are leaders in the country in

terms of putting forward information that accounts for the system and for the money spent

and how it is spent in the post-secondary system.

There was no expectation whatsoever that people should expect that

report to be done annually. However, the information is important. It is important to all

the stakeholders in education. It has been followed up on. We have a report about to be

released soon. I will gladly provide a statement in the House, a briefing opportunity for

the others, prior to the release of the document.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education, and the

officials who work in it, may be leaders in the country when it comes to producing

documents like that. It is just unfortunate the Minister of Education is not a leader in

the country when it comes to making documents public like this, I say to the minister.

Let me ask the minister this. It is a fact, from my understanding and

my sources, that the contents of this document, what is contained between the covers of

this document, was presented in late September-early October to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Council on Higher Learning. Why is it that that Council can receive this document

and the contents therein, but the members of this House are not able to receive this

document and the contents therein?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am delighted to see a consistent pattern with the members

opposite wanting to play politics with a very serious issue.

The Council on Higher Education in Newfoundland and Labrador has been

in existence for a number of years, and it is the key stakeholder with respect to Memorial

University, the College of the North Atlantic - it used to be five colleges before, now

one College of the North Atlantic - and occasionally they even have discussions with

representatives of the private training institutions in the Province, although they are

not officially members of the Council on Higher Education.

The Council on Higher Education was given a briefing last fall with

respect to some of the preliminary information that had been gathered through some

surveys. The group opposite, as usual, can try to suggest otherwise, and suggest they

might know something different. I will tell the facts as I know them. The Council on

Higher Education, because they are interested, unlike some people in this particular

Legislature, in making sure that the information is gathered from the institutions, from

the students themselves, and that accurate information is then made available to the

people of the Province so that they understand exactly what is happening in our

post-secondary training institutions.

That group was given a briefing in the fall with respect to the

information that was gathered, the types of things that might make up a report. Because I

can tell all members in the particular House, and anyone who is listening and interested

in the issue, that I was not given any briefing with respect to the issue myself until

after Christmas, when they looked at putting it into a draft form that they would then

consider sending to the printers to be published so that it could be released.

We are getting close to that, and would gladly provide for those who

are legitimately interested a full briefing from the officials, not from any politicians,

as to the information that was gathered, how it was gathered, who participated, what the

results are, what the additional information is, what is contained in the report. It will

then be released publicly, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me provide the minister with some

information that may be of use to him. I contacted the Department of Education

mid-September, the fall of 1997. I was told it would be ready and made public through the

minister's office by the end of September. I phoned the end of September. I was told it

would be made public by the end of October. I phoned the end of October, I was told it

would be made public by the end of November.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is, Minister, you know full well what is

in the document. It has been presented to the minister. It is not in draft form, and what

is happening is a rewrite. Let me ask the minister this. Can he confirm that part of that

program, that part of what is in `Indicators '96,' is that it demonstrates clearly a

couple of things? Let me ask him to confirm this first thing. Can he confirm that the rate

of student loan defaults is significantly higher in private training colleges as opposed

to the public college system. Can he confirm that is in the report, in Postsecondary

Indicators '96?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is in the report will be public when it is released in its

entirety, and at that point in time any and all of the questions will be answered.

Mr. Speaker, what I find disappointing from the Leader of the

Opposition is that he is willing to suggest... I don't really care what he suggests about

me, but the fact of the matter is that some people have worked very hard on this, some

dedicated officials and the students who participated in the questionnaires, the surveys,

and if he is suggesting - and this is his only interest, the politics of it - that the

officials in any department of the government would, at direction of a politician or

someone else, try to rewrite a document to present factual information that was gathered

and which is going to be presented publicly, to suggest that those long-serving, dedicated

officials would try in some way to rewrite information, to present it other than what it

actually showed and demonstrated in the surveys and information, I think, Mr. Speaker, he

has done a good job of insulting the people.

I don't mind him insulting me - that is a normal procedure - but the

document. There is no rewriting, there has been no rewriting, and the information will be

released in short order.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition and his

critic and so on, are truly interested, they should take advantage of the briefings that

will be offered. Then they will have the full information as to where it came from, the

fact that it is in the original form and it is available to the public.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: This is the minister whose approach to controversial

issues in his department is called: Move and deflect away the issue on somebody else.

I would like to ask him the question again. For the record, can he

confirm what is in that report, that the rate of student loan defaults is significantly

higher in the private college system as opposed to the public college system? That was the

question; can he confirm that, yes or no?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issues that are addressed in the report, and there are a full range

of them because it is the most comprehensive document available anywhere in this country

with respect to issues relating to post-secondary education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: It is the second one ever produced. Mr. Speaker, it

stands and speaks for the accountability. It presents the information exactly as it exists

in the post-secondary system. It is a new initiative of this government. For seventeen

years, Mr. Speaker, members opposite were in the government and would not think of

publishing a document that showed the people of the Province - the students, those who are

involved in operating the facilities at the post-secondary level - exactly what is

happening, Mr. Speaker.

He can ask all the questions he likes. Every single question, if he is

interested in the answer, will be obvious and evident when he receives the report which

will be tabled here in this House at the appropriate time. The offer stands to have a full

briefing with respect to it prior to its release in the House and publicly in the

Province.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the minister that we are

legitimately interested and whatever briefing comes along, whether it be six months from

now or eight months from now, whenever the minister gets off his collective derriere to

release the report that he already has, we are willing to have a look at it.

Let me ask the minister another question, if he cannot confirm the last

question that I asked. Can he confirm that his own department did a survey of people

within the post-secondary system, and that the survey concluded there was a very low level

of satisfaction from graduates from the private training institutions in the Province as

compared to graduates from equal programs in the public college system? Can he confirm

that his department's own survey has found that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will mention again that the offer for a full briefing on the issues

that are in that report stands, and we will do that in due course, because I hope that we

will get a clearer position from the Opposition as to where they really stand on the

issues. I do understand that a full briefing with respect to the Churchill Falls

development, for example, was made available, and he still cannot make up his mind whether

he is for or against that.

I hope, when they are given an opportunity for a full briefing on a

whole range of issues - because remember this, this is what is important to remember: this

whole notion of post-secondary indicators is an initiative of this government. This is not

something that was raised by the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The whole notion, the whole idea, Mr. Speaker, which I assume the

Opposition thinks is a great idea - not only good but probably a great idea - of actually

surveying students to find out what their satisfaction level is with the course and work

they did, to find out what is going on with student debt and student indebtedness, to

actually find out from the consumers in post-secondary education, it was an idea of this

government that we survey the students, find out what is happening, Mr. Speaker, and

report on it.

The report is due in a matter of a very few days. They are offered a

full opportunity to be briefed on how it was done, what it contains. Mr. Speaker, I

certainly hope they take advantage of that opportunity and we will move on from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how you could characterize

the Minister of Education. On every question he is either behaving like a spin top, going

round and round and round the issue, never answering a question; or, on other questions in

the House, he behaves like a yo-yo: up, down, in between, around the world, whatever

tricks, whatever sort of tactics he can take to avoid the question.

I will ask him another direct question: Can the minister confirm in the

Postsecondary Indicators '96 report that it clearly shows that graduates from private

training colleges earn significantly less than those who have taken equivalent programs in

the public college system? Can he confirm that is in the report for the people of the

Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I appreciate the questions because, as I have indicated, all of

these topics are topics of importance for all of us in understanding what is happening in

the post-secondary institutions and whether or not adjustments should be made in

programming, courses, planning and so on, from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, what I have said, in case the hon. member did not hear it

before, is that he can ask today all the questions he wants about what is in the report.

Those answers will be evident when the report is tabled in this House and given to the

public of the Province.

If he thinks that by asking five, six, seven or ten different questions

- Is this in the report, is that in the report, is something else in the report? - it is

clear, if he does not understand and suggests that he can characterize that we have been

going around and around, up and down, beating around the bush...

What I have said clearly is this: He can ask all the questions he wants

today about what is in the report. The report is not yet available to the public. When it

is available in this House and to the public, after a full opportunity for a briefing is

given, he will have the answers to every one of those questions. Not only will he have the

answers, Mr. Speaker, but his critic will have the answers; the NDP, who want to scuttle

part of the training system, will have the answers; the students will have the answers;

and all of us will be called to task and asked to answer whether or not there is a good

training opportunity, a good mix of training opportunities, available to post-secondary

students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say for the record that our critic has never

suggested the scuttling of private training colleges.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: What he has suggested, Mr. Speaker, is the scuttling

of a minister who is not enforcing the policies of this Province. That is what he is

suggesting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let's be clear what this critic, on behalf of this

Party, has suggested.

In view of the fact that you answered no questions today, Minister, I

would like to ask you one final one. Now that you have had at least six months to deal

with the draft report, it has been about six to eight months since you presented the

preliminary recommendations or the draft recommendations to the Council on Higher

Learning, can you tell us, Sir, when you will present or table the report for the people

of the Province and the Members of the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will gladly answer the question; but, with respect to the commentary,

they must be feeling a little bit defensive or something. I never ever suggested that the

Opposition critic suggested that part of our system should be done away with. I attributed

that to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Check Hansard. The Leader of the New

Democratic Party is shaking his head because he acknowledges that he heard it, because at

least he takes a stand and defends it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: He is against it and he tells the world.

Before I answer the question, if I may, the one thing that the

Opposition critic has done in this whole affair is totally disown and totally distance

himself from a potential candidate for the Conservatives in the next election - a Mr.

Fifield, I believe - who organized an affair with him and has now been absolutely disowned

by old `Coppertop' himself because he figures that is the best way to do it. They are over

there now, Mr. Speaker, and cannot decide all of a sudden if Mr. Fifield is a Conservative

or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden - he was a candidate in

the last election, going to be a candidate in the next election, and now all he can do is

make sure... I don't know the man. I don't know anything about it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to finish his answer quickly, please.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the issue is this: Because it has become blatantly

obvious that they want to play politics again, when we are in a position to do the full

briefing and we are available to answer the questions, we will make the report available

to the House and to the public.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

MR. E. BYRNE: You disgraced yourself. You should resign. You are

after going down low, and you will never come back up out of it. You are that low, you

will never come back out of it. You are low.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is John Woodrow doing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: What is your buddy doing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Give him a few new parks lately?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: A decision to compensate people infected with

Hepatitis C from tainted blood came after Quebec took the initiative and forced the issue.

The result was compensation to approximately 22,000 people and their families infected

between 1986 and 1990. However, another approximately 20,000 people infected outside that

five-year period have not received anything.

I ask the minister: Will she tell this House now if there is currently

reconsideration under way to provide compensation to those 20,000 people whose health and

even lives are at risk?

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

Services.

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

On such a very serious topic as this, I think it is important to give

some background and also to inform my colleague, that as Minister of Health for

Newfoundland I was one of the first ministers to pull together a meeting of all the other

ministers to discuss the Krever Enquiry Report and to get moving on the process.

I also would like to say that to date there has been a negotiated

amount of $1.1 billion, which is a combination of money from both the federal government

and the provinces, which is exclusive of all the other services that will be provided by

the provinces.

As probably he saw in the paper this weekend, we are beginning the

process with the federal government to begin the negotiated settlements with the courts to

include the people infected between the years 1986 to 1990.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Was there anything under way to reconsider outside

the 1986-1990 period? I am quite familiar with what is included, and I might say to the

minister it was not this Province which initiated it. The day it was raised, November 27,

I asked the minister in Question Period and she did not even put forth an apology from

this government at that time. It was Saskatchewan and Quebec that pushed the issue.

I say to the minister today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact that Premier Glen Clark is now

apparently unhappy with the failure to address the concerns of all people who have been

affected with Hepatitis C - and I say, Nova Scotia took a lead in compensating people

affected with HIV back in 1993 - I want to ask the minister: Will she ensure that this

Province does the appropriate thing and show leadership, to ensure that these very sick

people do not have to spend the rest of their lives fighting a very long, drawn out court

battle?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

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

Right now, the process is ongoing whereby those persons who were

infected between the years 1986 to 1990 have a negotiated court settlement. That is the

boundary of years which will be negotiated through the courts. There is no compensation

package, although there is a lot of concern and sympathy for those people who have been

infected with Hepatitis C. As the member opposite knows, there are many reasons for the

infection of Hepatitis C, one of which, of course, is the blood, but there are many. The

symptoms are a lot different from those of HIV. Some people go thirty years without any

symptoms. Others have symptoms identified very early on in the disease process.

So, Mr. Speaker, we, on behalf of the people of the country, with both

the federal minister, Allan Rock, and all the other Health Ministers, with Clay Serby, who

is the Chair of the Health Ministers from Saskatchewan, who generally takes the lead -

whichever province is chairing the meeting will take the lead; in this case it is

Saskatchewan - we will be continuing to work through the process with respect to a

negotiated court settlement.

At this point in time, as has been, I guess, answered in the House of

Commons for the last three weeks up there during their Question Period, that situation,

that position, has not changed to date. With respect to Premier Glen Clark, he certainly

did express his concern, as has been confirmed by his Minister of Health, if you were to

check some of the records. The position given on behalf of British Columbia, by that

minister is the position that was made at the negotiating process with all of the other

Ministers of Health from across the country. Mr. Speaker, that has not changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never checked it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have checked the records of every province, and

which ones that have been the leader, and there is no notice whatsoever that Newfoundland

has ever been a leader in pushing this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We have jumped on stream when other Provinces, an

agreement has been reached, and the evidence is there, I might say to the minister, for

that.

Now, I ask the minister: Is she concerned that the current $3.8 billion

class action suit for those infected outside that period, might in the long term, not only

cost this Province more money but also show a lack of compassion and a great disservice to

the people who have being infected by this particular virus?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, whenever anything goes to the courts

there is always the risk of a long, drawn-out process and that in fact is why, Mr.

Speaker, we, as Ministers of Health from across the country, with the federal government,

met to put forward a package that would go forward on behalf of those people infected

between the years 1986 to 1990 to actually prevent the very case to which he just

referred, so that it would not be drawn out through the courts, Mr. Speaker. And that is

why we are working together, and that is in the courts, to try to work out a negotiated

settlement, so people can get on with their lives and that they will not be tied up in the

courts for years.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just one question, Mr. Speaker. It is for the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General and it has to do with the very tragic incident which occurred

several days ago at Her Majesty's Penitentiary.

I understand that as a result of the death, there are preliminary

investigations being taken place by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. He is being

assisted by the members of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and I understand as well,

Minister, that officials in your department are also actively investigating. Could you

please give members of this House and the public at large, I guess, some indication as to

where we are in the investigation process?

I realize that it is a very sensitive and personal issue for the

family, but I am sure the minister will agree that there are public issues that also must

be addressed.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the hon. member is aware

that there is a police investigation going on and it would be totally inappropriate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: - for me to make any comments on the investigation

which would any way interfere with the investigation. But, in due course, when the time

comes and the investigation is done, all things that are necessary to be made public, will

be made public at that time. I would not want to have any political interference, either

by the Opposition or by this side of the house, into what is a very serious case. I can

assure the people of the Province that it is being dealt with in the appropriate fashion.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

Minister, in two recent court cases, two different judges have ruled

that due to the Legislation now on the books, Councillors who attend 51 per cent of their

meetings in a given year are entitled to full remuneration.

In these circumstances, the Legislation being queer, unequivocally must

be interpreted as expressed. The courts should not fill in gaps or impute the intent of

Legislation. Minister, that is a quote from the ruling of Provincial Court Judge, D.E.

Power, two weeks ago.

Have the Minister and his officials read these rulings and determined

what action they will take to comply with the decisions of these two judges of the court?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, The Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, with the help of The Minister of Justice, will be appealing that

recent decision.

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

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Minister, according to the ruling of the judges in

these cases the councillors involved are entitled to remuneration, one of $450 in one

case, and in the other case, $2,606.

Will the minister do the honourable thing and abide by the decision of

these two judges by ensuring the councillors are paid the money they should have been paid

in the first place without further delay? In other words, is the department going to pick

up the tab for the appeals, or are the municipalities going to pick it up?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: It seems like I am picking up the tab for a lot here

lately, Mr. Speaker. I am not in a position to advise this House exactly how much this

will amount to. I know that in some areas - and I am only guessing, we are trying to get

some figures put together now. I know, on the West Coast in particular, it would be a

sizeable chunk of change for me or the government to have to pick up for municipal

affairs.

As far as I know right now, the last thing I was told on Friday is that

we would be appealing. I think the hon. House would rather for me to appeal this decision,

I think most communities would rather for me to appeal, and then if we lose the appeal I

guess we are going to have to be faced with the question of who is going to make the

payments. For me to make that commitment to the hon. member in this House today, I cannot

do it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Some time

ago we saw a task force put together in this Province - Mr. David Vardy, I think, headed

up that particular task force - where we would look at bringing some kind of regularity to

our crab fishery. We would settle on a price long before the crab fishery would start, and

we would get away from the lock-outs, strikes and the confusion we have seen in the past.

Now that this is done, and now that the price is brought forward, I would like to ask the

minister when we can expect to see this particular fishery begin.

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

MR. EFFORD: Last week, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that the crab

fishery did not begin last week. He is talking about the prices and not the fishery, I

would assume. Minister, you are not listening, you are too quick to try to get a smart

answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, there is a double price

offered. It is 80 cents a pound for crab four inches and longer, and 50 cents a pound for

crab less than four inches. Looking at the problems this has caused, the speculated

problems that it has caused in the Gulf from fishermen in Quebec and New Brunswick who

have taken

part in high-grading at sea, I ask the minister what his thoughts are; and if

this is going to happen in this fishery in this Province now where we have two prices, a

20 per cent tolerance, and in most cases, you will see fishermen with a small quota and

will be allowed to have lots of time to high-grade at sea and thus cause dumping at sea.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to be smart, in that they

opened the fishery. The price for crab was settled last week, and as soon as the price of

crab was settled, fishermen were permitted to go fishing. They were permitted the next day

after the price was settled. So it was not being smart, it was last week!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: As far as the high-grading at sea goes, the science

community, DFO, and everybody involved in the fishery have concerns over the high-grading

of crab at sea. There is no doubt about that. It presents a problem. The market conditions

also present a problem. There is a certain size crab needed in the marketplace, and

unfortunately, even the largest crab we have in Newfoundland is somewhat smaller than the

Alaskan or the Atlantic crab, or the crab the Russians are supplying to the Japanese

market.

Yes, it is a problem. Education and further work with the individual

fishermen at sea to handle that species of fish, that snow crab, and get it over the side

of the boat without killing it, it can be done. It is only going to be done with the

proper training and the proper discussions with the individual fishermen. It is a

legitimate concern all of the industry has.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has ended.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, if I may?

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

Affairs on a point of privilege.

MR. A. REID: I have to apologize to the House. I suppose, in a way,

I spoke a mis-truth here. I was just advised no more than a couple of minutes ago by the

Department of Justice that we will not be appealing that decision. You asked me a question

and I said we would. John Moore happened to be in the audience and he took off out through

the door as soon as I made the comment. He just told me that we will not be appealing the

decision of the judge as it relates to - and we are going to look at the possibility of

having to pay some of those claims that you are talking about. Mr. Speaker, if that is

okay -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: It was only a couple of minutes ago that Justice gave

us the ruling on it, and I apologize.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Credit Union Act."

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

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Environment Act."

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act."

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting

Apprenticeship And Occupational Certification."

Petitions

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

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

I have a petition. To the hon. House of Assembly: We, the residents of

St. John's, wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly giving particular attention to the

department's of Health and Community Services, and Environment and Labour, regarding

emissions at the Grace Hospital from the stack. We request that the House of Assembly look

into burning cleaner fuel or upgrading emission standards at the stack. There is

considerable damage being done to cars, personal property, clothes on clotheslines, as

well as possible health risks due to emissions from the stack.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the questions that I have asked last

week on two occasions in the House regarding this particular issue and we are aware of the

answers from both the Minister of Environment and Labour, and the Minister of Health and

Community Services. We can only hope, Mr. Speaker, for the people who are living in that

area to put an end to the damage that is being done to their personal property and even

more importantly, to put an end to the fear of potential health hazards, health problems

in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the Minister of Health and Community

Services that they have started burning cleaner fuel at St. Clare's and that they are

looking at burning cleaner fuel at other hospitals. It is still unclear at this point, Mr.

Speaker, if they are going to start burning cleaner fuel at the Grace Hospital. It is also

unclear at this point what the future holds for that building and that property, what the

government intend to do with that property, if they are going to continue to operate it,

perhaps as a seniors' home, as offices, or what have you.

So, maybe, Mr. Speaker, if one of the ministers would be kind enough to

give a response to this petition today, they can give us some indication as to what the

future holds for that particular property, what government's intentions are for that

property. As well, they hope that they will start burning cleaner fuel there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to support the petition as put forward by my colleague, the

Member for St. John's South, with respect to the emissions from the Grace Hospital stack.

Mr. Speaker, this is a concern which has been expressed now for some while by a particular

neighbourhood and residents of the LeMarchant Road area, who obviously have been

experiencing difficulties with their personal property and their homes as it relates to

these emissions. It is an issue that was raised during Question Period one day last week,

and my colleague, the Member for St. John's South was certainly given the impression that

it was an issue that would be looked into by the environment department. Because we are

talking about people's personal property, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people who

have invested significant dollars into their homes; we are talking about individuals who

obviously take pride in where they live and when they have to get up morning after

morning, and because of the type of fuel which is being burned in this facility, they look

out their windows only to find that their verandas and their cars are covered with soot.

So, obviously, Mr. Speaker, the whole sight is unsightly, the situation also sparks

concerns with respect to health. Young children who are living and playing in the area

obviously have expressed from what I can understand, in speaking with my colleague,

concern to their parents and to adults in the area who feel that simply not enough

attention is being given by the hospital as it relates to these emissions.

Now, clearly, this is very local, a situation and an issue which deal

only with a very small

section of the city; nevertheless, it ought to be given the

attention which it rightfully deserves. It has been presented through questions here in

the House; we have a number of petitions which have been presented by my colleague, and

obviously, members opposite and in particular the Ministries of Environment and Labour,

and Health and Community Services, ought to pay particular attention to these concerns. It

is an issue which obviously requires attention; it is an issue which requires immediate

attention in terms of rectifying this problem. A neighbouring hospital has been able to

deal with the problem adequately and there is no reason, Mr. Speaker, why the Grace

Hospital cannot follow suit to ensure that the residents of this particular area live in a

safe and clean environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the

community of Calvert, pertaining to the Goulds by-pass road.

MR. J. BYRNE: What! (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I might add, and say to my colleague from Cape

St. Francis: no, it has not started yet. From the time I presented the first petition,

(inaudible) hardly had time to start it and finish it and spend the $10 million in that

time.

Once again, it is a petition in from another of the many communities

that have been circulating petitions. The petition is calling upon this provincial

government to move forward with the construction of the Goulds by-pass road because it is

being identified as a priority for development under the Canada-Newfoundland

Transportation Initiative and it goes on to say:

WHEREAS the construction of the Goulds by-pass road has not begun

despite repeated promises from government; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated that

construction of the Goulds by-pass road will not begin this year; and

WHEREAS significant opportunities for development in the region are

contingent on the completion of the Goulds by-pass road; and

WHEREAS the viability of our communities and businesses is dependent

upon adequate transportation infrastructure that allows our region access through the

opportunities and markets of the capital region; and

WHEREAS the growth of our communities is closely related to the

abilities of our citizens to commute to work within a reasonable time each day over

highways that are in good condition; and

WHEREAS the financial resources to begin the Goulds by-pass road had

been identified under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he gave me a letter, but not this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he has told me this year that it will be done

within the terms of the agreement by 2002, 2003 and he told us in a meeting with all the

mayors that it would be done, hopefully sooner rather than later. If it is going to take

three years to do it, I would assume he should start pretty soon; next year is 1999 and

that only leaves four construction seasons left and if it is going to take three years, he

has to start next year if it will be done by 2002.

He has indicated that the money is earmarked and set aside. What I am

indicating to him is, when tenders come out, even though he has not specified when tenders

come out, and they come in under, he should allocate those extra dollars if we are under

and in the tender calls this year over what was earmarked, he should apply to that.

Because it has been identified and $10 million has been earmarked for that by-pass road.

The minister indicated that the department this year, is looking at

trying to finish ongoing projects. Well, certainly, that is a noble effort to try to do

the

section of the Outer Ring Road from Portugal Cove Road into Kenmount Road, I certainly

agree with trying to do that, but it should not jeopardize - a small amount of money is

all that is needed this year; we are not talking about $10 million or $15 million out of

the money under the transportation initiative of, I believe it is $56 million this year,

$36 million being spent in Labrador, for a total of $92 million, and another $4 million

being spent federally out of the remaining $16 million. So, we are spending $96 million

federal money this year. The least you could find was $1 million, 1 per cent, to start on

the Goulds bypass road, to give some hope to the businesses that have spent, I would

assume, in the $1 million range now.

For instance, in the Bay Bulls area, a beautiful port there. It is laid

out with acres of land there, hopefully to establish an offshore base. It would cause,

certainly, an increase in employment in the area, an area that has been hit very hard by

the downturn in the fishery. Hopefully, this will only be the first step in what would

extend beyond Bay Bulls Big Pond into the Witless Bay Line.

As I drove out this morning, I took notice of the time when I left home

- traffic was not as congested today, but to get to Bay Bulls Big Pond it took me

fifty-three minutes, and I got to the Confederation Building in thirty-three minutes from

Bay Bulls Big Pond. That is to get into the City of St. John's, thirty-three minutes not

in the busiest time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You need a faster car.

MR. SULLIVAN: A faster car. I should, yes. Maybe if we get an

approved speedway there, I will take on the sandbagger from Humber East, and I will

demonstrate some driving skills under improved conditions. I have backed up more miles, I

would say, than he has gone forward.

Another interesting point, as my colleague from Cape St. Francis

mentioned, if you can drive through that area in twelve or fourteen minutes, and it takes

you forty or forty-five during peak traffic time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, to finish up?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Just to finish this point I was making.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: If it takes forty-five minutes to drive through an

area when you can normally drive it in twelve or fourteen minutes, can you imagine a half

hour less of polluting the environment by an automobile? Multiple that by the amount of

traffic that uses that highway and it makes a difference.

Look at the Outer Ring Road, as you drive from Portugal Cove Road out

to Kenmount Road; cars operating a half hour less. It is less costly for the people

operating the vehicles, less pollution in the environment, not to mention facilitating the

movement of business and so on, that is very positive for the companies that are trying to

do business in travelling around the city.

There are many positive points to finishing a highway there. It is much

more than a mode of transportation; it is a reduction of pollution and it facilitates the

economy and business of the area. One of the strongest aspects when operating a business

today is time saved is money saved.

With that, I will give my colleague an opportunity to say some words in

support of this petition.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition of my own here, but

before presenting it, I want to respond to the petition of my colleague from the historic

District of Ferryland, which is very interested in the completion of the Goulds bypass

road.

Mr. Speaker, I know there was a fair bit of controversy about that road

in the past, the building of it and what it might do to farmland. Well, the decision has

been made, the highway is determined to proceed, and it is time to get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a project that would provide a good bit of

employment in the short term, although road building is not a great employer of people. It

uses more equipment and materials that labour, Mr. Speaker, but that is not the important

thing. The important thing is that the road will provide a better service to the people in

the District of Ferryland, to have access to their homes and businesses, and also provide

for the businesses in that area to have a greater access to their clientele and their

clientele have access to them, then to be able to conduct their business in a more

economical and competitive way.

It is a road, Mr. Speaker, that is very necessary. Anybody who wants to

go from St. John's to Bay Bulls, for example, or beyond, has a difficult time because of

the nature of the transportation routes through there. The condition of the road is

abominable at times as well, Mr. Speaker, very narrow, winding and dangerous, I would

suggest, depending obviously on the road conditions. It is a road on which one would be

very nervous driving at night. There have been lots of accidents on that road, a lot of

people injured and killed on that road, pedestrians walking on the road. It is a very

narrow road. There is very little shoulder in many parts of it.

The Goulds bypass road is an important part of the arterial network for

the Metropolitan St. John's area, so to finish that posthaste would be very advantageous

to the citizens of not only the District of Ferryland, who would be direct beneficiaries,

but also anybody who wants and needs to have access to that part of the Province. It is an

area that, thanks in no small measure to the efforts of the member, is receiving a lot of

attention in the Province. There are a lot of things going on in that district that people

in the Province want to pay attention to.

A lot of mention has been made over the past year or so about the

archaeological activities in the Town of Ferryland itself, going back some 350 years or

382 years, I suppose. The member will probably correct me if I say 382 years, and say: No,

it's 383 years, but going back to the early days of Lord Baltimore, Mr. Calvert, the man

who gave the name Calvert to Caplin Cove.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay.

MR. HARRIS: Caplin Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, the very historic Town of Calvert that the member

has long connections with. It is a place people where people want to go because it

represents a very unique part of our Province. The Goulds bypass road will give access to

that part of the Province in a far greater, more advantageous way to motorists, to

tourists, to business people, to residents of that area, many of whom work in St. John's,

on a daily basis commuting back and forth to be able to make a living and yet live in

these communities. I support the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that the minister

do everything in his power to improve the speed at which that road is completed.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here on Sunday

shopping.

We, the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, being

retail workers, families of retail workers, and citizens, do hereby petition the hon.

House of Assembly to rescind the bill on the Shops' Closing Act that permits stores to

remain open for business on Sunday.

This amendment will cause extreme difficulty - and I think it is

starting to cause extreme difficulty now, little bits of problem with Easter Sunday - for

the retail workers and their families, and we see no benefit that will come from Sunday

shopping.

We sat here in this hon. House for a lot of hours, a lot of bell

ringing, in December. The prime cause of that was Sunday shopping. We had people in the

gallery, we had letters against Sunday shopping, e-mail, faxes against Sunday shopping,

and this government did not listen. Since then I have been given in excess of 12,000 names

from people against Sunday shopping.

When the petitions were brought in, the people asked me: Would you give

them to the Premier? I called the Premier because this House wasn't open. I called the

Premier's office and asked if he could take the petitions. He said: Bring them to the

House of Assembly. Isn't that ironic, being as how in December we tried to get them into

the House of Assembly and you invoked closure?

This bill is starting to cause problems already. We have had to go back

on Easter Sunday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Is it? You will find out where the problems are.

We had a church minister ask the Premier if he would make Easter Sunday

a holiday, and he has had to make Easter Sunday a holiday. It is all very well for us on

the May 24 weekend - isn't it funny how we move these Mondays to Sundays - we move the

holidays to Monday, like May 24 can be May 18 - why did we do it? So the people could have

a long weekend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, and they will get some long weekend now, won't

they!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

That is right. You go back to your seat if you want to sandbag me. Here

we are after having moved holidays, whether they fell on a Wednesday or Thursday or

Friday, moved them to Monday so that people could be off Sunday and Monday and then we

opened the stores on Sunday. How counter-productive is this government, at all!

I suppose I am the voice crying in the wilderness but I am not alone.

There are thousands and thousands of names on these petitions from all districts in this

Province; there are letters coming in to the paper; there are children doing projects on

it in school because their parents have to work on Sunday. We have a person here - no

choice but to work on Sunday and the government said that we would have a choice - but if

my employer comes and says to me, "Can you work on Sunday", and I say, "No,

I can't", I know that somebody else will fill the job and then that somebody will be

given my hours during the week. So where is the choice, Mr. Speaker, for these people who

have been legislated to work on Sundays? They say it is supposed to be a choice but there

is no choice.

Here is another worker, right here now - no choice but to work on

Sundays. As I said, we have these long weekends coming up - we have May 24 which is May 18

- some of us are fortunate.

If this government did it as a convenience, than I suggest that, if you

want to get a driver's licence, that office is open thirty-five hours a week, stores are

open seventy-two, plus the five hours on Sunday. If you want to get anything else from a

government agency, the offices are open thirty-five hours a week, so, come on, guys, if we

are going to start doing things for the convenience of the residents of Newfoundland, let

us make getting a driver's licence convenient, let us make getting other things from

government agencies convenient, let us open the whole works on Sunday. Why just get retail

workers back to work on Sunday?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support petition by my colleague, the Member for St. John's

West.

It is kind of ironic that he rammed through legislation here in the

fall, closure-invoked, he could not get it off the agenda fast enough - on opening stores

on Sunday and, before the ink is dry, they are out again now starting to retrace their

steps, starting to back up again, and we are going to have in this House now legislation

to close them on Easter Sunday - by the way, we support that, I say, to the sandbagger

from the West Coast, I support that. No, we want to keep them closed on Easter Sunday -

they are already open on Easter Sunday according to the legislation. I say that the Member

for Humber East supported the legislation in this House that opened stores on Easter

Sunday. The Member for Humber East stood up, he supported legislation in this House to

open stores on Easter Sunday.

MS S. OSBORNE: And 24 May.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. We did not support opening stores on

Easter Sunday. In fact, right now the Premier made his announcement, off the cuff, that on

Easter Sunday - he stood in the House here - he made a Ministerial Statement, I believe,

one day in the House - he landed down, he swooped down, he stepped out of the airplane for

a few minutes; he rushed in, with the helicopter waiting outside, rushed in, made his

Ministerial Statement, swooped out of here again and said, `We cannot have stores open on

Easter Sunday - we have to close them'. That is not what he did last fall. He rammed it

through, would not allow us to speak on it, invoked closure and prevented it. What happens

now? Maybe we should close them on Palm Sunday, maybe we should close them when New Year's

Day falls on Sunday, close them on any Sunday; they should be closed on Mother's Day that

falls on Sunday, Father's Day falls on Sunday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, you cannot have discrimination based on sex. If

you close on Mother's Day you should close on Father's Day. Otherwise, the associate

Minister of Finance is treating men and women differently in legislation and he should not

do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not silly. The Member for Conception Bay

East & Bell Island indicates that they should be closed on Mother's Day when last year

he voted to open them on Mother's Day. You supported legislation last year that said they

should open. He made a mistake, good. I think you should tell the Premier you made a

mistake and move an amendment - when it is introduced here move an amendment to have them

closed on Mother's Day and I will support that amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Good, and I might even move one for Palm Sunday. I

might even move one when All Souls Day falls on Sunday and All Saints Day and if St.

Patrick's Day falls on Sunday maybe. That is not getting silly. We are starting to see now

- the Premier rushes off and makes those big announcements and then after the fact -

without broadening the scope, I am saying, the pendulum will swing back and we will start

closing them on Sundays and see that the impact is not positive overall on Sundays. We

only spread the money out over seven days instead of six.

I am looking forward to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell

Island proposing an amendment, and I hope you will speak to your Minister of Finance on

this, that there are going to be amendments proposed and the Government House Leader, I am

sure, will be eager to know. If there are amendments going to be put forth on this, they

might be kind of lengthy, I say to the Minister of Finance. There is an amendment coming

forth, from a government member, to amend the Shops' Closing Act other than the one that

has been introduced. So we look forward to some debate on this issue. I know I would like

an opportunity to debate this issue in its entirety. I am sure my colleagues here would

want an opportunity to speak and to voice their concern with opening stores on Sunday. I

am sure we will have a very good couple of weeks of discussion on this issue. I am quite

sure we will. Yes, we might have that. We just might do that. We certainly did it before

and we are prepared to do it again. How many want to send their mothers and their family

members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: How many want to see mothers having to go to work on

Sunday, on Mother's Day, and leave their young kids at home? How many want to see that

happen? The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island does not and I do not want to

see it either. I am sure my colleagues do not want to see it and I am sure people on that

side do not want to see it. This is our chance to amend this now, to go a little bit

further, while we are doing it for Easter Sunday, which we support - go a little bit

further now and let us do a few other amendments. I am sure we will manage to prepare some

amendments and I am sure the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is going to

move one and we will add in a few others there that I think are very appropriate.

MR. WHELAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you are amending the Act. The Minister of

Finance tells me you are, the Government House Leader says you are amending the Act, and a

copy of the legislation I have here says you are amending the Act. A copy of the draft

legislation that I have here says you are amending it, and I would ask the Member for

Humber East to go look at the amendments. The legislation is going to be amending - it has

not been introduced yet, I say to the Member for Humber East. I am speaking on a petition

that does not support Sunday shopping and even shopping on Easter Sunday that you, as a

member of this legislation, stood and supported the right to shop on Easter Sunday. I say

that is wrong and we should change that. We should change it for Mother's Day and we

should change it for other areas, too, on Sundays. Then we will have it down to a

manageable number and you may as well say, close it on all Sundays. So let us deal with

that now and we will see - when we have the legislation we will deal with the amendments

in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Due to the failure of the Acting, Acting House Leader

to call Orders, I will go with another petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am recognized.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice, on a point of order.

MR. DECKER: I would remind my hon. friend that it is You, Mr.

Speaker, who calls Orders of the Day, not the House Leader.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might remind the Acting, Acting Government House Leader that you

usually rise to be recognized so that you can respond to that when it is called, I say to

the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a petition, so I ask him to get to it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to present a petition here dealing with a very

important matter to the people in my district. This one is signed by the residents of the

community of Aquaforte and I say to my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, I am

sure they are going to think he is from Ferryland district by the time he is finished

supporting my petitions on the Goulds by-pass road, because communities have been sending

them in, they are coming in fast and furious. Every time I go to my mail, there is another

one being mailed in - in fact, I received two or three today and this is actually the

second one that I have had an opportunity to present here today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. I presented one from Calvert and that is being

given to the Clerk of this House, who has it, signed by me. Here is another; I will give

the minister an opportunity to look at it, the original, it is not photocopied like we see

some, it is in pure, original, unadulterated form, unaltered in any way.

MR. J. BYRNE: Let me see; a different one altogether.

MR. SULLIVAN: A different one altogether. The residents of

Aquaforte, a few from Ferryland, one or two from Calvert but primarily the residents of

Aquaforte who are looking forward to having a Goulds by-pass road, business in Aquaforte -

AN HON. MEMBER: What are they (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You have not sent the right fellow up there yet or

the right woman.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is what they are all saying; they are not

going to vote Liberal anymore they said. We did get a few hundred thousand that were

(inaudible) up in Port Kirwan. It is going to be done this year, I say to the minister; we

had a nice bridge in Cape Broyle last year, I say to the minister, the year before, one in

Calvert, the year before that, one in Bay Bulls; a beautiful archaeological dig up in

Ferryland; a million-dollar facility went to the Colony of Avalon; East Coast Trail, we

will soon hear a big announcement, another million dollars announced. We have money flying

all over the place, prosperity up there, it is starting to turn things around from a

tourism point of view, and we are starting to see increase in thousands and thousands of

visitors per year coming to the District of Ferryland. That is one of the reasons we want

to have an infrastructure, a road network that is going to be positive that they can go

back - and one less thing at least I say to complain about, and when we try to get a

proper network, the minister could not even put up a sign right.

He thought a shamrock had four leaves and he would not even put them up

to the right height, and his department spent money on all these little decals they had to

go around and put on the sign. That minister of Works, Services and Transportation could

not even get the signs right, not to say getting the asphalt down right - he could not

even get the signs right. He did not even know how many leaves a shamrock has and he tried

to tell me, a four-leaf lucky shamrock. If he looked at the scientific name of it, tree,

tri from the Latin word meaning tree and the symbolic, historical significance from a

cultural, religious, the historical significance of the shamrock, the minister - totally

inappropriate, it took almost a year to get him to change his mind.

We are going to need some new signs, I would say, for the Goulds

by-pass road when it gets through; some big signs, with big, three-leaf shamrocks, Irish

loop zone to identify that particular unique part of our Province - all parts of the

Province are unique in their own ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister thought he was putting out a work of

art; how proud he was! I said, it will be down, it will be coming down. No, it will never

be coming down, he said; and then we had a call from Michael Enright and As It Happens and

other people from all over the place. The people in industry said: What an insult to have

that up! Get it down! And after tremendous pressure, he reluctantly agreed that the

shamrock has three leaves, not four.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) talking to Barbara Enright.

MR. SULLIVAN: Michael Enright.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Barbara Enright - Michael's wife.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is it?

Anyway, on a very serious note, this is important, very, very important

to people in the area. Not only is it positive for the people in the Southern Shore area,

beyond the Goulds area, it is important to the people in the Goulds area. Now, most people

in the Goulds area will be very positively affected by a Goulds by-pass road. It would

take tremendous traffic off the main road, reduce accidents there. There are some very

dangerous turns, there have been a lot of people killed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If the road to Ferryland is paved only with good

intentions, we want some black-top to go with those good intentions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just call on the minister

to put some money into this road this year and get a start on it and I am sure the money

will within the department.

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

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

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to support the

petition presented by the Member for Ferryland in trying to get the provincial government

to put some money into the Goulds by-pass this year.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland presented a petition for the

people of St. Shotts the other day, he presented a petition for the people in Trepassey,

another day; today he has presented a petition for the people in Calvert and now, Mr.

Speaker, another petition presented for the people of Aquaforte and Fermeuse and that

area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that say about the member for Ferryland?

that he is very persistent, that he is representing the people of his district very well

and that he has the interests of the constituents of the District of Ferryland at heart.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, St. Shotts is not in his district, yet he is

presenting petitions in this House of Assembly on behalf of the people of St. Shotts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Somebody has to do it, boy.

MR. J. BYRNE: Someone has to do it, Mr. Speaker. What a man! The

Member for Humber East said: That Member for Ferryland - What a man! I agree, Mr. Speaker.

What a man!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Humber East is saying that he is proud

of the Member for Ferryland - proud! I am just saying that, Mr. Speaker, because I have

the floor. I wanted to be In Hansard on what the Member for Humber East thinks of the

Member for Ferryland - proud of the man! Proud of the man! Now you can get a copy of that

and send it out to all of the constituents, I say to the Member for Ferryland.

With respect to the Southern Shore highway, Mr. Speaker, the Southern

Shore highway is in a deplorable condition, as I said in the House of Assembly before, Mr.

Speaker. It needs to be repaired, the Southern Shore highway in itself, not alone the

Goulds by-pass needing to be built. We have the communities and the municipalities on the

Southern Shore all supporting this. And all they are looking for this year is to get the

Goulds by-pass started.

Now, the Member for Ferryland said that there is going to $96 million

spent on highroads in this Province this year, and all they are looking for is probably $1

million, around 1 per cent, to get the Goulds by-pass started. When you look at the Goulds

by-pass in conjunction with the Outer Ring Road and the road network in and around St.

John's, one can see how important it is to get that road started.

Now, the other day in the House of Assembly, I mentioned the

environmental impact it is having on the air quality in and around St. John's and the

Southern Shore highway, with all the cars that are spending an extra thirty or forty

minutes on the Southern Shore highway in the mornings and evenings into and out of St.

John's. So that in itself makes it worth the effort to put the money into the Goulds

by-pass.

Also, it has been said here a number of times, Mr. Speaker, that

tourism on the Southern Shore highway - I would say most tourists come to St. John's, when

they visit the Island of Newfoundland and we encourage them; the Member for the Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi just reminded me, they go out to Cape St. Francis, my district. My

district is named after Cape St. Francis, by the way, and people coming to St. John's,

many of them go down the Marine Drive which is in a deplorable condition also. But a good

number of them, I would think, drive down the Southern Shore.

Now, a lot of people say, up the Southern Shore, Mr. Speaker, but it is

really down the Southern Shore. It is south you are travelling, not north. So it is down

the Southern Shore, correctly speaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go down to Labrador.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is incorrect also. We do go down to

Labrador, that is the terminology used in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We go

down to Labrador, but in actual fact, we are travelling north; we are going up to

Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we go down to Florida?

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we are getting off the topic here now.

There are a good number of tourists who do visit the Southern Shore.

They go up through Bay Bulls, Witless Bay, Tors Cove and Mobile, all the way up the

Southern Shore, up to Ferryland and what have you. We have to encourage these people to

get up there. If they go out there and they are going to get tied up in traffic, beating

up their cars and all this kind of stuff because the roads are in such poor condition, one

can understand why we need the Goulds bypass started, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I stand in my place supporting the petitions coming forward.

It is curious to see, and I think some of the members on the opposite side mentioned it,

the fact that the Member for Ferryland presented a couple of petitions today. They are

different petitions. We have different communities on the Southern Shore bringing the

petitions to the Member for Ferryland, asking him to present them on behalf of their

communities. They are frequently coming in. They do not all arrive at the same time; one

today, two tomorrow, half a dozen last week, whatever the case may be. Every time he goes

to his mailbox he is receiving petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker. I have lots to say on this.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, a few minutes to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to clue up. I

just say I support the petition presented on behalf of the Member for Ferryland.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition on behalf of a number of people of Your Honour's

district from the community of Hant's Harbour. Almost all of them are from Hant's Harbour,

a few from New Chelsea, and one here from Sibleys Cove in Your Honour's district.

They are petitioning the House to direct the government to establish a

universal comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador

to help end child hunger and give our children a better chance to learn and participate

fully in the benefits of education.

I know that the Speaker is delighted that these petitioners have a

voice here in the House of Assembly through this hon. member, because Your Honour is not

permitted to speak in the House of Assembly on matters involving politics, because of your

role. So I am delighted to be able to present them to the House on behalf of these

constituents.

They are painfully aware, sadly, that school children in this Province

have a great deal of difficulty learning when they are hungry. It has been definitively

reported by the government's own researcher, Dr. Patricia Canning, that child hunger and

poverty issues affect a significantly large number of children in this Province. In fact,

she says that over half the school children in the Province are at risk of low performance

in school as a result of poverty related issues.

That is a startling and shocking fact. We have the Child Tax Benefit,

the National Child Benefit, being introduced by Paul Martin and the Liberal government in

Ottawa in an effort to ensure that children benefit from a significant amount of money

from the federal coffers. Yet we have this government taking that money back from the

families and using it for programs for someone else.

We have a very serious child hunger problem. There are those on the

other side of the House who would say: We set aside $1 million for the school lunch

program. I know that, and that is going to help, but it is not going to address the

problem until we have a universal program, until each and every school in the Province has

a school lunch program or a hot meal program to ensure that these schoolchildren have a

chance to eat properly, be nutritionally advantaged, and be able to participate in

education.

What are we going to do? I saw a very good sign that was used in the

Ontario teachers' strike, and a very good message, I say to the Member for Port de Grave.

The sign said: You think education is expensive; try ignorance and see how expensive that

is.

Mr. Speaker, that is the situation that we are facing here in this

Province with respect to hunger. If it is expensive to ensure that the hungry children are

fed, how much more expensive is it to deal with the problems that are caused when those

children are not able to learn properly, when those people have an anger against society

because they grew up in conditions that didn't allow them to be properly fed? How much

misery will be caused, Mr. Speaker, because those children are miserable today? How much

will they miss out on in life because they don't have a chance to have a proper diet and a

proper way of feeding themselves?

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Human Resources and Employment said

that there are no losers on social assistance in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is so

absolutely, obviously false that it is not even funny. Every person on social assistance

in this Province, especially children, are losers, Mr. Speaker, because they cannot get

the proper diet, they cannot afford to be fed properly by their families, and all of us,

our entire society, are also losers because of it. So there are lots of losers to go

around because of this government's policy on social services, because of this

government's failure to recognize what the Committee on Children's Interests recognized,

that child hunger was the number one problem facing children in this Province. Hunger was

the number one problem facing children in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If we don't deal with that, Mr. Speaker, we can't

really have respect for any policies of this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, as I usually do when his petitions deal with children and

children's issues.

Mr. Speaker, we need from time to time to be reminded that children are

the important foundations of our society in this country and in this Province.

Today we listened to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment try

to explain, in the most conservative, right-wing, Preston Manning type address that we

have had in this House in a long time, the logic that they have adopted in the federal

system and in the provincial system that justifies taking money away from the very poorest

of families and giving that money to the families who are not quite so poor.

Then the minister stands in her place and says: I want to make a big

announcement. Nobody will get any less money than they are now getting. We know that. That

is not the question. The thing is that when all other families are going to be better off,

when they are going to be given money to provide school lunches for their children, when

they are going to be able to use that money to break down some of the barriers to a better

education, we have this minister standing and saying: We have good news for you; we are

not going to browbeat the poorest people in this Province any more than we have browbeaten

them in the past.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi has said on

many occasions - and I have said it many times here as well - we have a situation where,

as many writers have said, the poorest of children in this Province do not have equal

opportunities. What we expect the Minister of Human Resources and Employment to do is to

break down some of the barriers to these children getting a better education.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister today said that she is

going to take money from the Child Tax Credit. She is going to use that money to provide

programs for those people who are not quite so poor. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that the

Canning Report - and I keep a copy of the Canning Report here with me in the House almost

at all times. Mr. Speaker, we just remind the members that on page 11 it talks about

poverty and low income. Mr. Speaker, it says that 73 per cent of children in single family

homes in this Province live in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, we know that a great number of single parents are

dependant on social services. Not all of them, but there is a higher number of them

because of the way that mothers are left to care for children, and very often because of

the attitudes we have as males of this society that males very often abrogate their

responsibilities to their children.

It says here: It is well documented that there is a disproportionate

number of poor people with low levels of education. It says there is overwhelming evidence

that social economic status has been and continues to be the single best predictor of

educational achievement.

Mr. Speaker, the question I have to ask is: What was there in the

minister's statement today that would let some mother who is dependent on social services

have any hope that she will have a chance to give her children a better opportunity in

life than she herself had? Mr. Speaker, we know that poverty is cyclical. While we applaud

the fact that there was some extra money put into the Budget for the school food

foundation, we note as well that money does not always go to the school lunch program.

So, Mr. Speaker, we want to say that the poorest of children in this

Province have nothing to look forward to because of the Ministerial Statements made today.

The status quo continues. The poor will stay poor and the Child Tax Credit money that was

designated by Ottawa to be used to help the very poorest of people is now going to be

taken, and they are using that money, from the very poorest of families, to help out those

who are not quite so poor. When the minister said in her place today: I am so happy to

announce that there will be no reductions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the

poorest of poor families will still stay poor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we just want to continue on to remind

the minister, who is over there listening, that they have to do something about the very

poorest of families. What they are doing today, and the way that they are trying to

explain this, I wish they would come right up front and be honest and straightforward, say

it like it is. If you are going to take money from the poorest of families to subsidize

programs for the people who are not quite so poor, then be straightforward, don't

camouflage it.

I am not against incentive programs for people going back to work. I am

not against going and saying: Let's extend the drug card, let's give people an opportunity

to make a few extra dollars. I think that is wonderful. The question is, who should pay

for it? Should it be the big banks in Canada with their hundreds of millions of dollars in

profit? Should we ask the corporate community to do more for the poorest of families? Or

should we ask the people who are the working poor to be subsidized by the people who can

never get a job, who don't have any skills, and have families to look after?

To hear the minister today say that she is so proud that they are not

going to have any reductions from the very poorest of families - in fact, she was quite

boastful that they are going to get a 7 per cent increase. Whoop-ti-do!

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years?

MR. H. HODDER: A 7 per cent increase over a three-year period, and

they have not had any increases since 1989. They are going to increase the cost of

children's clothing. We have trouble with the heat, and all of these things, no help for

these people at all. In other words, what we are really doing is taking the extra taxes

they are paying and we are saying: We are going to give you back a little bit of your own

money and you are supposed to be very happy with that.

To hear the Member for Humber East say how happy he is to be robbing

food from the tables of the poorest people in this Province is disgusting indeed. He

thinks this program that the minister supposedly explained today is a wonderful program. I

cannot believe that hon. members on that side today were applauding that Ministerial

Statement. It has to be the most right-winged, Preston Manning type statement ever made in

this House in the last ten years that I have been here, hearing members over there today

applauding the kind of thing that would make Preston Manning look good, because obviously

that is a reform, Western Canadian - made in Western Canada - kind of program. It could

not have been made in Atlantic Canada because nobody who knows anything about Atlantic

Canada and the needs of young children in Atlantic Canada would ever, ever agree to that.

Yet, today we saw the members of that side thump their desks. They were so happy that the

Minister of Human Resources was going to rob money from the very poorest of families. They

thumped their desks and said: This is wonderful program. We are so happy, we are adopting

the Western Canadian reform package. We are going to bring it to Newfoundland, and that is

the kind of social policy we are going to keep introducing in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, first of all, Motion No. 3.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to

introduce a bill, "An Act to Amend The Urban and Rural Planning Act", carried.

(Bill No. 3)

On motion, Bill No. 3 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1: To move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the Raising of Supply to be granted

to Her Majesty, otherwise known as the Budget Speech.

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

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

I closed debate on Friday, and I am going to start again today, talking

about out-migration. One of the biggest problems facing our Province today is

out-migration.

There is no rural development plan to rescue areas of the Province that

are suffering from out-migration. We heard of stories just last week, on the radio and in

the paper, of towns near death because of out-migration. Yet, there is no rural

development plan put forward by this Province to curb that.

Mr. Speaker, this Province is breaking all of the records when it comes

to out-migration. The Province is predicting this year that there are going to be another

9,000 people leave. In the third quarter of 1997 over 3,100 people left this Province,

more than double any of the other quarters of the previous year.

Our people are leaving by the thousands each year, and many of those

leaving are the ones we have helped to educate. It is called the `brain drain', Mr.

Speaker. It is the people we have educated who are leaving the Province by the thousands

every year. The Economy 1998 document of the Province is estimating that thousands

more are going to leave this Province - in the vicinity of 9,000 - again this year.

Instead of a strategy to deal with that this year, we see a government ringing its hands,

finding someone else to blame, allowing these people to leave without a rural development

plan.

On the other side of the Atlantic we look at Ireland, who have

successfully addressed out-migration by taking a hard look at education, technology,

investment, and bolstering the traditional industries of that country. Yet, right here in

our own Province we can't even get government to support our own local industry, let alone

bolster new industry.

They talk about EDGE, and granting companies EDGE status, yet our own

local companies find it difficult to get the help they need from our government.

Government are after the big headlines: We have attracted another big company; we have

attracted more investment into the Province. What we already have here is being neglected

by government.

What do we do here? We slash education to the bone, making it

impossible for young people to go to school and for graduates to stay in their home

Province. We neglect our local industry. We allow the most educated young people to leave

this Province, allowing towns to die.

I will remind the House that it was the Tories who were successful in

laying the foundation for the offshore oil and gas industry when they signed the Atlantic

Accord in 1994, a major industry. Yet I will ask right now: What successful major

industries have the Liberal Administration signed, successfully closed, and brought to

this Province since that date? Nothing.

They have dismally failed at Voisey's Bay. They threatened to unplug

the Churchill power last year and have not yet done so. Now we see on the table

negotiations on the Lower Churchill, yet the federal government has not yet come to the

table to agree to supply a power corridor to the Island. Without a power corridor to the

Island, how can we expect to attract major industry and major employment to the Island? We

cannot, because we haven't even got the power on the Island right now to supply

electricity to the smelter in Argentia.

That is the stark reality here. We need that power corridor to the

Island. While the electricity from that power corridor may be expensive in the short term,

in the long term we know that electricity prices are stable, as we have seen with the

Upper Churchill deal, and in the long term it will supply very inexpensive power to supply

electricity for major industry to set up in this Province, to hire people, to create

employment, and to drive our economy.

What have we seen on Voisey's Bay? We have seen more rhetoric than

substance, really. We have seen Inco threaten to pull up stakes if they don't get their

own way by not putting a smelter here. We have seen no signs of a royalty regime from

Voisey's Bay that would keep profits here in this Province and allow us to continue to

drive our economy, and potentially create employment that would keep our young people

here.

The provincial and federal governments of Brian Tobin and Jean

Chrtien fell down on the job when it came to working out land claims to deal with the

Aboriginal people who have long-held claims on the land in Labrador that deal with both

the Voisey's Bay project and the Lower Churchill. We still haven't seen any land claims.

Last year we saw the charade, the show, the media hype, of announcing a deal to announce a

deal to try and negotiate a deal to negotiate land claims. That is what was announced.

MR. CANNING: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West on a point of order.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the hon. member

has had discussions with the Aboriginal peoples on the North Coast of Labrador. I would

like to know how much he knows about Voisey's Bay. I would like to know how much he knows

about the Lower Churchill and the Upper Churchill, and where he stands on the Churchill

Falls agreement we have negotiated and are continuing to negotiate with the Government of

Quebec. I would like to know when he has been advised by the Aboriginal peoples on the

North Coast that they are not satisfied with the rate of land claims, and how the land

claims are unfolding.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps he can tell the House, tell the whole people of

the Province, where all these issues are currently standing today.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member took advantage of the

opportunity to engage in the debate.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

There was no point of order, Mr. Speaker, you are right, and I can tell

the member where I stand. I stand right here in the House, which is where I will be

standing after the next election, which is more than I can say for that member, Mr.

Speaker.

The Tobin government, I will tell you, fell down on the job when it

came to putting in place an up-front royalty regime so that the companies that are in

Labrador would have to pay dividends to this Province. Mr. Speaker, we still do not know

what the royalty regime is on Voisey's Bay, and I would venture to guess that the

government does not know what the royalty regime is on the Voisey's Bay project, because

there is no royalty regime on the Voisey's Bay project.

We all want sound development of that huge resource to proceed. We all

want the Voisey's Bay development to proceed and employ Newfoundlanders and give our

economy a much needed boost; but, Mr. Speaker, we note that once again the provincial

government has excluded the Aboriginal people. Why, I ask, have they been excluded?

We move on from there to rural renewal, Mr. Speaker. I tell you, as the

mega-projects deliver headlines, what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

That is the question when we talk about rural renewal. We see it on the news night after

night: street lights are being turned off, houses are being boarded up. In Trepassey some

of the houses are being sold for $3,000, $4,000 and $5,000; roads are being swallowed by

potholes; people hungry for work and for a solid plan for the future are giving up hope

and leaving this Province for prospects elsewhere, for employment elsewhere. That is what

is happening in rural renewal. That is what the government is delivering on rural renewal,

Mr. Speaker.

We note that most of the economic zone reports are in, but we do not

see in the Budget anything to implement the recommendations, to put some of the economic

growth alternatives in those regions that have been dying from the groundfish moratorium

since 1992. So, Mr. Speaker, while the economic zone reports are in, the government has

done very little about it, very little. It is all on page 30 in the Budget. There it lists

seven of the projects submitted from around the Province. No doubt there are countless

others to go along with those to be submitted, but where is the action to put these

recommendations to work? Nowhere.

You read the next paragraph and then you go back and reread the entire

thing because you feel that you must have missed it. Surely, they would not leave it out.

Surely a Province starved of rural renewal opportunities would not omit this from the

Budget; but they did. They omitted that from the Budget. Where is the plan on rural

renewal, I ask? We have grave fears that the work of these boards will end up gathering

dust on the shelves of Cabinet ministers, next to all of the other reports that are

gathering dust, because they certainly do not use these reports.

We talk about post-TAGS, and we debated TAGS last Wednesday in the

Legislature, Mr. Speaker. The event this year that could turn things upside-down for our

Province is the pending ending of TAGS almost a year ahead of schedule. There is a lot of

rhetoric about demanding that Ottawa fulfil its responsibilities. We have not seen

anything delivered yet.

Let us think about that for a second, what happens post-TAGS. If all of

those people who were affected by the groundfish moratorium are withdrawn from the TAGS

program without another program to replace it, where do those people go? They either leave

the Province and add to the out-migration problem, or they resort to social benefits. Can

our Province afford for these people to resort to social benefits? The answer again is no.

We need the federal government to put in place a post-TAGS program.

They are the people who manage the groundfishery, they are the people who destroyed the

groundfishery by making promises to foreign countries of fish quotas in place of

purchasing wheat and grain and whatever else in this country. They are the people who have

to make up for those mistakes. They now have to pay the price.

We might argue they have paid it for the last four years, but again,

the people who are relying on TAGS benefits in this Province were given a five-year

guarantee by the federal government. Because of the federal government mismanaging that

program, they are cutting these people off a year early. Some of these people have

purchased vehicles, have made commitments to banks for repayment of loans based on five

years, and the government has broken that contract.

We have to send a strong message to the federal government in Ottawa

that we will not allow them to discontinue TAGS without another program to replace it.

This Province cannot afford it, and every one of us in this House agrees to that. We

agreed last Wednesday. The federal government are falling down on their responsibility

there, and we need more than just rhetoric, we need more than just pleas from the people

in this Province. We need action.

Let us think about the students for a moment. How we will get rural

renewal and provincial economic development if we continue to export our young people and

our graduates from this Province? Everyone knows that by letting our young people, our

graduates, leave the Province that we are amputating our future hopes when we export a

generation of educated people. Again, you look back at the example of Ireland. Right now

almost 50 per cent of the population of Ireland are thirty-five years old and younger.

That there tells me they have a strong economic future. I wonder what our stats are in

this Province? Because I would venture to guess that 50 per cent of our population are at

least forty-five years old and older, if not more.

It is sad to see an aging population and young people, educated

graduates, leaving this Province to develop a future elsewhere, either in this country or

south of the border, or even in Europe, and help their economy grow, when it should be

ours. This government has failed to provide these graduates with the hope to stay here,

with employment to stay here. We have to start dealing with these problems instead of just

creating headlines, rhetoric, because they are problems, and unless they are dealt with,

the economic future of this Province will be dismal.

It has been pointed out how impossible it is to survive on student

loans these days, or to start making a contribution to your society as a graduate when you

have a loan the size of a mortgage, because of your education.

What does government do? They continue to cut education to the bone.

They continue to cut at Memorial University, at public-funded colleges and shift the

reliance of people on to private colleges, because there is no room for them at the public

colleges and the public university. At the private colleges the student debt is even

higher, Mr. Speaker.

Surely, long-range planning demands that we address this problem. So

what do we do, Mr. Speaker? We look into this year's Budget to see the plan. Surely,

government has a plan. Surely, they have a plan to deal with this, Mr. Speaker. One would

think they have a plan to deal with this growing problem.

The document is on page 37 with long numerous attachments and

appendices. Surely, somewhere in all of that there is a strategy to help students with

their education and to allow these young people to cope with the debt once they graduate.

Surely, there is a strategy to do what Ireland did, Mr. Speaker, by using the

post-secondary sector and students as the engine for unprecedented economic revival.

Surely, government has a plan. You would think they have a plan.

But try as you might, Mr. Speaker, you will not find any such strategy

anywhere in this year's Budget - there is nothing - or in last year's so-called three-year

plan; one page printed on both sides last year and there was nothing there either. Instead

of more funding for students, we find the government actually reneging on its commitment

to provide stable funding for the University over a three-year period. There is a modest

two-year scholarship program, but the funding for that program is counterbalanced by a

reduction in Memorial's operating budget.

Shifting, Mr. Speaker, the reliance to operate Memorial's overhead on

students; high