April 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 14

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings the Chair would like

to welcome today, on behalf of all members, twenty-two students from McDonald

Drive Junior High. These students are known as the McDonald Voyageurs travelling

to Quebec City during May. The students also plan to act as Youth Ambassadors

for the Cabot 500 celebrations. These students are from grades VII, VIII and IX

and are made up of a core of french and french immersion students.

As well, we would also like to welcome fifty students from

St. Michael's High School, Bell Island, their teachers James Cansell and Ron

Bennett, and David Stinson and Tina Ford.

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, after four and a half years as

a Cabinet minister to be able to stand in this House this morning and announce

$70 million in capital works infrastructure, it is a great day for this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. A. REID: Not $3 million, not $4 million, but $70

million, Mr. Speaker. I will take it a step further before I begin and say that

it is the largest single year capital works program that this Province has had

since Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

announce today the approval of ninety-nine projects under the 1997-1998

municipal capital works program. These water and sewer, paving, road building

and recreation projects represent expenditures of $25 million on the part of the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be a further expenditure on

the part of municipalities, and this is estimated to be in the vicinity - their

own money - of $12 million.

Along with my colleague the hon. Fred Mifflin, Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans, it is also my great pleasure to have announced last

evening the approval of ninety-four projects under the extended

Canada-Newfoundland municipal infrastructure program.

This government is pleased to participate with the Federal

Government in the extended infrastructure agreement. Since it was signed in

1994, it has made and it is continuing to make significant economic and social

impacts on the communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Although, Mr.

Speaker, altogether some 193 projects have now been approved under the capital

works and infrastructure program. They represent, as I said, in the year 1997

approximately $70 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: The two programs combined are expected to

create 24,000 person weeks of employment, 24,000 and that translates into, at

twenty weeks per person, that translates into 1200 twenty week jobs,

substantial.

Another meaningful factor is the fact this work will be

spread over the whole Province, Mr. Speaker. These projects will serve to

stimulate and accelerate economic activity and contribute in a very positive way

to governments plan with respect to the revitalization of our Province

particularly in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: A total of 132 communities are sharing in

these two programs. In total some 104 water and sewage projects are approved, as

well as fifty-seven paving reconstruction projects as indicated. Other projects

also include funding for recreational and other multipurpose type facilities.

For residents of our community this funding means that they

will be able to have cleaner drinking water, the roads that are being

constructed, upgraded and paved will improve our transportation links. Together

with new and improved recreation facilities, they will help us in our efforts to

enhance the tourism potential of our Province.

This $70 million of infrastructure funding will address the

most pressing needs and it is being distributed fairly and equally throughout

the Province. These projects will only serve to accelerate economic recovery

through the creation of jobs, but they will also provide us with a more positive

outlook for our future. The infrastructure and capital works program are also

about people, putting people to work and helping people to help themselves.

Since, the signing of the original infrastructure agreement

in 1994 an amount of $147 million has been invested in our Province and it has

created some 2400 construction jobs and 500 permanent jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the projects that are being approved today

represent a significant investment in municipal infrastructure and they also

represent an investment in the future of our Province. It is indeed a most

significant announcement and I am confident that it will be well received by

many of the municipalities which are sharing in either of the two programs.

Last year, I made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, to the

Construction Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the municipalities

that our capital works program and infrastructure program would be announced

before the end of April. I did not tell that to the Premier, by the way. I am

glad I am able to deliver on this commitment. As far as can be determined, this

is the earliest date ever for the approval of municipal infrastructure in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: The early announcement of the programs means

that tendering can take place immediately and construction can start on the

projects as soon as the frost is out of the ground. Mr. Speaker, I will finish

by saying it is imperative that these projects be started and completed in the

fiscal year of 1997-1998, which means they have to be finished by March 31 of

next year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

hear, hear!

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

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

We on this side this morning, know this is welcome news for

municipalities in this Province. We point out to the minister that 35.7 per cent

of the funding he announced is really provincial funding and the rest of it is

either federal or municipal, but we will take it any way it comes. Therefore,

Mr. Speaker, we say to the minister, it appears there is another event we are

about to hear about. He is trying to play the role of John the Baptist this

morning, but the real John will be on television on Sunday and will tell us

about the real purpose of this particular announcement at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have not seen, or I have not

seen, at least, the listing of the projects by communities, but I understand

they will be tabled or made available later in the day. We recognize that there

are many communities that are most anxious; my colleagues on this side and, I am

sure, the minister's colleagues on the other side, are making representations on

behalf of the individual municipalities.

There is a real challenge out there to keep our

infrastructure in place and continue to keep our communities in a stable manner

so that we can get ready for the growth that is expected to take place in this

Province in the years to come, and we do not further contribute to the

demoralization of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I also say to the minister: Yes, this is early;

it is April. As the minister knows, he and I have argued for early announcements

for many, many years. We welcome this, but we cannot have an election every

year; because if we had an election every year we would get an announcement

every year. However, I want to say to the minister that the real effort here in

his department is going to be getting these approvals done through his division.

One of the greatest obstacles when the money gets approved in

principle, like we are doing here today, we have to now get the plans drawn up,

get all of the engineering done, and then make sure that we can deliver it on

time so we are not out in the autumn, in October, putting down pavement and that

kind of thing. Get the work done in the engineering division as quickly as

possible so we can have some work this summer, because that is when we have the

most productivity and we get the biggest bang for our buck, you might say, if we

can get the work done at that time.

I commend the minister. It is good news, and we just hope

that we can be assured after we see the list that it is fair and equitably

distributed.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the 132 communities who will participate in

this program welcome some relief from the desperate straits that they have been

put in as a result of this government's policies, and the expenditure of $70

million is a considerable amount of money. But I think the minister is trying to

do his best to exaggerate the significance of it. I thought for a moment he was

going to give us the number of person minutes of work involved to make the

numbers as large as he possibly could. But if he thinks there are 1,200 people

going to get their stamps out of this he had better have another look at the UI

regulations that his buddies in Ottawa have changed in the last year or so,

because I do not think there are going to be that many people able to get their

stamps on the amount of person weeks of work that the minister has announced

today.

I think we have to remember, too, as the government changes

its approach in its budgeting and finance, when capital works and current

expenditures are all rolled into one and we no longer make a distinction, that

when we take away money from one sector, such as social services and income

support on the one hand, hospitals, education on the other, and put it into

capital works, there is a trade-off here - that some people are losing as a

result of a government's shift of expenditures to the largest since

Confederation, for example, in capital works. But, at the same time, Mr.

Speaker, many people are suffering because of the changes in social programs,

the burden that is being passed on to each individual person who needs help from

government. These are sobering thoughts, Mr. Speaker, on a Friday morning, free

for all, prior to an expected federal election call but I think that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: - on the whole it is good news for those

communities. Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier and the acting

Minister of Mines and Energy. I ask the Premier: Which individual or company is

conducting the study for government into the feasibility of locating a copper

smelter and refinery here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: I have to check with the former Minister

of Mines and Energy. I have to continue to rely upon the great expertise and

knowledge of the former Minister of Mines and Energy, who no doubt will bring

that tremendous talent to another forum.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: And may I say, Mr. Speaker, just in case

the rumours are true, and I have no idea whether they are or not, but in the

event they are, I know that every single member of this House on both sides

wants to thank the Member for St. John's West for his tremendous service all

these years to this Legislature and to the government and people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now into Question Period and the Question Period is a

definite period of time. I ask hon. members to consider that.

The hon. the Premier. Could he please get to his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, for those who did not rise in

applause there will be other occasions when he takes his seat in the other

place.

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Leader of the Opposition is

that the analysis is being conducted by a company called Hatch Associates, which

is one of the largest consulting organizations in the mining industry, I think,

very well recognized as a solid firm, and we are awaiting the result of the

analysis. We hope to have it within a few weeks. We will examine it and we will

make the conclusions public.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I certainly

appreciate knowing. We have been trying to find out for the past week or two, I

say to the Premier. He has finally felt the pressure enough to tell us.

Northstar Explorations also commissioned a study done by the

highly respected David Gladwin and Associates. They indicated that a copper

smelter process established here could be economically viable, and that many

smaller smelters are operating around the world and making a profit. I ask the

Premier, will he be taking seriously this favourable assessment when he decides

whether or not to give away the jobs of processing our copper here to some other

province or country?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the

Opposition wants to represent properly what has been said thus far. What has

been said thus far by the study he has just referred to is that while there is

not sufficient copper in the current plan being put forward by VBN to warrant a

copper smelter and refinery, that there is sufficient there to warrant interest

and further investigation, and that is exactly what the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador is doing.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There isn't a

copper smelter in the world, basically hardly one in the world, that gets all

its copper from the one source. He is well aware that that study showed that at

least 65 per cent, under the current projections by Inco, of the copper would be

provided right here in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Subparagraph 31(5)(c)(6) of the Mineral Act states a company

must do part or all of its processing in this Province if the Cabinet orders it

to. Has Inco told the Province that it would not be economically feasible to do

primary production of Voisey's Bay copper in this Province, and the company

therefore believes it is not bound by this subparagraph of the act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. The company has not said

it isn't bound by the act, or bound by the direction of the Province. I think

what is important here, and this has been said before so there is nothing new in

it, is that the company has said that it is quite prepared to make 100 per cent

of the copper that flows from Voisey Bay available to anybody who wants to do

copper production in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition has

just said in his opening remarks, his premise he established in asking the

question, that it may be necessary if you are going to have a copper smelter in

Newfoundland to find additional copper concentrate somewhere else in the world

to ship in here to have enough together with Voisey Bay to make this viable.

That is the very question we are investigating. I don't think

the Leader of the Opposition is going to suggest that the government should

order a copper smelter be built if there isn't sufficient copper in the Voisey's

Bay mine or in other sources in the Province for it to be viable, even if it

means that we cross-subsidize a copper smelter operation and, as a result,

eliminate profits to the point where there are no revenues for the Province. I

don't think the Leader of the Opposition is saying that. I hope he is not.

That is why we have asked one of the most reputable

consulting firms in this area to conduct an independent assessment of the

situation so we can do an analysis. But I can tell the Leader of the Opposition

we made very clear to Inco a long time ago and Inco, to be fair to Inco, made

very clear to us, that as far as they are concerned all of the copper

concentrate, if it can be pooled with concentrate elsewhere from the Province,

or elsewhere, from somewhere else in the world, if somebody wants to come in and

build a copper smelter refinery complex in this Province, any private sector

investor, anybody - in the Province, outside the Province - all of that resource

is available and can be used in this Province.

So if the Leader of the Opposition - and I say this to him

seriously - knows of somebody who wants to build a copper smelter refinery

complex, who can access additional resources sufficient either in the Province

or outside the Province, I tell him, `My door is wide open'.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very much aware; I have also met with senior officials

of Voisey's Bay nickel who put forth certain reasons why it would be difficult

to process copper here, and the reasons they gave, and I will certainly get to

that shortly, Premier.

Subsection 31.(7) of the Mineral Act states that a company

must demonstrate that it would not be economically feasible to do part or all of

its processing here in our Province.

Has Inco attempted to demonstrate this to government in any

way? And, if so, how has it done so?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

has just referred, in his opening remarks, and again this is the kind of

question... I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you have an obligation to do

some basic research prior to coming and putting questions on the floor, and to

represent the information that is available to you in an accurate fashion rather

than to put questions which are designed to create the impression that some

individual or some corporation, even before we assess what has been said, are

fundamentally dishonest or misleading people.

You just quoted a study by Mr. Chislett, I believe, and you

have indicated that the study in question, in your opening first question -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: That is right, the study that was done.

That study makes clear that there is not a sufficient basis yet, based on what

is available from Voisey's Bay, to do a copper smelter. The study goes on to say

that if other sources could be found it is intriguing enough that it should be

investigated. That is exactly what the government is doing. We are investigating

it independent of the Leader of the Opposition and independent of Inco. We have

hired our own outside consultant to tell us what they think can be accomplished

here, and what it would take to build a copper smelter and refinery, and whether

or not it is viable.

We are going to have that study in a few weeks, and I just

said we are going to make the results of the study public. Now I don't know what

more we could say to the Leader of the Opposition.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are delighted with the study. We pressed for this last

fall and the Premier laughed at us. In fact, he told us he was even talking with

a Chilean company and the possibility of copper, he indicated, a copper smelter.

It is a reality now; what we called for is starting to happen and I am pleased

to see that, I say to the Premier.

I ask him: Is the government's consultant, Hatch Associates,

that is conducting the review of the copper smelter, being given access to

documents provided by Inco, or anything that would indicate Inco's views on

whether it is feasible?

I ask the Premier - the study is being commissioned by this

government, and you get sometimes what you look for in studies - what value will

Inco submission be given relative to the report of this consultant?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you know the company will

have access to all of the information that is necessary to do a proper analysis,

and all of the information that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

available. I would have to have the deputy minister and several of the senior

officials here to answer in detail the exact parameters of all of the

information that is available. So I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition

that I will get back to him.

The fact of the matter is that the Voisey's Bay project, as

is now constituted, is going to produce somewhere between 55,000 and 65,000 tons

of copper annually. Most copper smelters around the world require in excess of

about 150,000 tonnes annually. Now, can we take the copper from Voisey's Bay and

couple that with other copper deposits if some were on stream and working in the

Province or from around the world and have a production facility here in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the question. And the proper way

to get an answer is not with political rhetoric on either side of the House, but

to ask a respected consulting company, one of the most respected in this

industry and recognized as such, to do an independent analysis.

So, it is not political games we are playing, but rather a

proper analysis of the issue so that independent of all the politicians, both

sides of the debate, independent of the company, we get the best information

available. That is what we are going to do. Then, after we receive the report,

we are going to make the results of the report public. And I can assure the

Leader of the Opposition that if there is anybody who can viably put forward a

proposal for a copper smelter in this Province, number one, we will secure

access to all of the copper from Voisey's Bay, and number two, my door is open,

and if he has one or two or three names to suggest, I would like to hear them

now.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the number of smelters operating in the world

today that get sixty-five per cent from their very immediate source is very,

very few - most obtain from another source.

Secondly, I am surprised that Voisey's Bay Nickel and Inco

has not told him because they have told me, in a meeting with two senior

officials, reasons why it would not be feasible. I am surprised the Premier does

not know.

I ask the Premier now, is he aware that the copper at

Voisey's Bay is of an unusual type compared to copper found in most parts of

this world, because it is a nickel contaminated copper concentrate, unlike most

other copper discoveries in the world, and this would fetch - and I say to the

Premier it is very important - this would fetch far less per tonne on the world

market than the normal copper that is mined in the world.

Is the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to tell him now. I ask the

Premier -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) stop trying to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We are fighting to get it here. I ask the

Premier this question: Is he also aware that a tailor-made local copper smelter

that is designed to smelt nickel contaminated copper concentrate could actually

derive more value from that copper resource that could be achieved by selling

this copper elsewhere in the world where other copper smelters can only process

up to fifteen per cent of nickel contaminated and you would have to sell it to

probably six or seven other smelters? Now, I ask the Premier to respond to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador to listen carefully to the Leader of the Opposition.

Because I am going to tell the Leader of the Opposition something: It is

incredible, in fact it is breathtaking, to hear the Leader of the Opposition

stand in his place in the House and ask: Why do we not have a copper smelter and

refinery complex in Newfoundland and Labrador, and why do we not have it right

now and why are we not building it and carrying on with it? And then, a few

minutes later to stand and tell us the news, for the first time, according to

the Leader of the Opposition, heard on the floor of this House that there is a

nickel contaminant - surprise, surprise - in the nickel mine at Voisey's Bay and

the copper concentrate that is being pulled out.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy - and I

challenge the Leader of the Opposition to go back and check Hansard; even Ryan

Cleary of The Evening Telegram remembers it - has repeatedly said in the

House that this copper concentrate has a nickel contaminant in it. It makes it

more difficult to refine and smelt as a consequence, and that is one of the

reasons based on that analysis a copper smelter at 65,000 tonnes is now not

viable.

For the Leader of the Opposition, months later, to stand up

and reveal all of this as new news to the House is frightening because everybody

else but the Leader of the Opposition already knew it. It has been in the

newspaper.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the same reaction the Premier gave last December when

we brought up about a copper smelter, the same reaction. Most copper smelters in

the world today are based on a volcanic massive sulphide base and do not process

nickel contaminated copper concentrate, I say to the Premier.

Now, the Premier might try to push it off, I have spoken with

numerous people in the industry, I have spoken with the president -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke with the president of the company that is doing

business and the reason given to me was that it would cause a problem in the

conventional smelting process, but it would not by having a smelter.

I ask the Premier now, will he at least, Mr. Speaker, pursue

and ensure compliance with this Act to insure that we get a maximization of jobs

here in the Province? And do not try to con us and sell us out with another

deal.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me see if I have this

right. Who is doing the analysis? We have answered. Will it be made public? We

have answered. Does the Premier know why Inco has not chosen to go ahead? We

told him several months ago; he just repeated it again today, that, there is a

problem,

a) with the volume and

b) with the nickel contamination in the copper

concentrate. I am glad he has now gone off and had a briefing, because this is

something that the Minister of Mines and Energy said to him months ago in this

place, in the public House of the people. I am glad it has finally echoed off

one of the walls and landed between your ears, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition.

Now, I will go further, because this, Mr. Speaker, at some

point, has to arrive at a responsible kind of debate. There is a proper analysis

being done by an independent and reputable firm - I think you are aware of who

the firm is, I would hope you are. I would ask now, if you have even one name, I

hope you would stand in your place in the House right now, right now in the

House, based on all of this fire and brimstone and fury and anger and

frustration, and give us even one name, either in the House or outside the

House, of somebody who is dying to get in the door and build a copper/smelter

refinery. Because, if you can give us one name, we will roll out the red carpet.

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

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

I think the red carpet was already rolled out this morning

when the announcement started on infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, with an election

around the corner.

My question this morning is for the Minister of Development

and Rural Renewal.

After some fourteen months now - I think that is the date,

February 23 to today - some fourteen months now since the new Department of

Development and Rural Renewal was established. And, of course, the minister now

has boards in place and so on and has some very good people on those boards,

good volunteers who have done some good work in the last few months. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I guess the first question to the minister now, after this time has

elapsed, and of course, after we have seen before the Economic Recovery

Commission, which I assume meant to recover the economy, and we know what

happened there. So we are looking for rural renewal now and we ask the minister:

Through her programs, is she satisfied to date with the work and when are we

going to see the actual jobs that come from her programs in rural renewal?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member

for the question and I also want to acknowledge his commendation that he has

given to the volunteers involved in this process, because they have indeed been

working very hard over the last number of months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: You are right, the process has been going on

for some time but it is important, I think, that they take the time they feel is

necessary to put in place a responsible Strategic Economic Plan for each of the

twenty economic zones.

I can report to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have, in fact, seen

three of the Strategic Economic Plans from zones, I think they are six, seven

and eight, very comprehensive plans. These plans have come together because we

have very responsible volunteers on the boards who represent businesses,

municipalities, rural development associations, educational institutions and

other interest groups. They have all come together, these stakeholders, to

identify what are their strengths and their weaknesses, and in doing that they

have been able to come together with a plan that they think is viable for the

zones they represent.

We have seen three of these plans; we hope to have them all

in place by the end of June, I think the date is right now, Mr. Speaker. But

again, I leave that to the boards because it is the people who are making these

decisions, Mr. Speaker, not the government, and that is the whole point behind

this process. We are letting the people in the Province determine what they

think will work for them, but we are there to support them every step of the

way; and that is what my staff is doing and that is why we are reaching out into

all twenty economic zones, Mr. Speaker, to make sure we have representations out

there to work with the volunteers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

I would continue to commend these volunteers. I have seen

some of the plans, I say to the minister, and there are some good ideas and some

good plans. I have no problem with any of that, Mr. Speaker, but we all know you

can have a plan, you can have a team, but the bottom line is that you have to

have an execution of the plan or it is a failure. What we are going to need, Mr.

Speaker - and I have talked to people on these boards and so on; they are just

wondering and they do not feel the commitment - of course, I will not name the

people on the boards - that it has to be followed up by government commitment.

Rural Newfoundland today, Mr. Speaker, today, even over the

last few weeks we have seen despair, and they need to see a long-term commitment

to the plan. So is the commitment there from government to back up the plans

that these good people will put in place? Because if we do not see the real

jobs, Mr. Speaker, then Rural Renewal means about as much as the Economic

Recovery Commission.

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where the hon. member

is coming from. Clearly, we are as concerned as anyone about rural Newfoundland.

I think, if you look at what we have been doing in putting all the support that

we have behind this new process, which involves all of these stakeholders - but

clearly, one of the things that I said at the very beginning is that just

because we have a plan and process taking place does not mean that there will

not be economic development taking place. Under the Strategic Regional

Diversification Agreement, in fact, Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars have been

spent in rural Newfoundland on projects that have been submitted by rural

development associations, tourism associations and other organizations. So,

clearly, I have sent the message out that there is money for these types of

projects. The money has been spent. We have some very good proposals taking

place.

If you look at the Arctic char industry up on the Northern

Peninsula, in Daniel's Harbour, that is going very well, and there is going to

be another infusion of $2 million, more jobs, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, clearly,

there are a lot of opportunities out there that we have recognized. If you look

on the Northern Peninsula again, the Viking Tourism Association, another million

dollars that has gone up there to develop that association. If you look anywhere

in this Province, there are good proposals. Look at Bonavista, Mr. Speaker,

again where millions of dollars have gone in for the tourism industry. There are

a lot of things happening in this Province, and even though we need to wait

until we have really good comprehensive plans, there are things happening. We do

not want to go and do something that is irresponsible. Taking the scarce

resources we have and using them in a really responsible manner is exactly what

we are doing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the minister

is optimistic and hopeful. We are all optimistic and hopeful, to an extent, but

when we go back to our districts, to the rural Newfoundland districts of the

people in this House, we see firsthand what the situation is today.

Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister - I think

it is very, very important: something that is actually working very well and has

been working, is the telecentres in these communities. Now, Mr. Speaker, the

minister is also making statements lately. But there are people in those

communities around the Province that have those telecentres, who say very

simply: Minister - and I say to you here today, if you have something that is

working, why change it? Because it is working and has helped a lot people. I can

give examples in this House, not from people who work in those telecentres, but

from people who have come to me and I have directed them to those telecentres.

They should remain, as a matter of fact, there should be more of them in the

Province. They work, they are still working and I support those telecentres.

Restructuring and reorganizing means changing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: You cannot shut those down. Can the minister

respond to that, please?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Again, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's

question. It is a question that I responded to in the House a couple of weeks

ago, because there were a lot of issues being raised or concerns being raised

around the possible demise of the telecentres. There was never any intention to

do away with the types of services that the telecentres are providing, and you

are right, we can point to any number of examples where they have been

responsible for industry spin-offs in the high tech industry in rural

Newfoundland. What we have to look at, though, is with the scarce economic

resources we have, right now there are only five telecentres in the Province. We

have a responsibility to make sure that more people have access to this type of

service.

What we are doing - and I think the Leader of the Opposition

mentioned in a release that he is looking to the end of June, which we have

given as the deadline for when we will have the restructuring done, and that is

the date that we have set. That is a target date, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that

we provide the best service possible to all areas of rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, not just the five centres where they presently exist. Yes, we

recognize the valuable service that is there and the people who are providing

that service. It is a service that we want to see continue, Mr. Speaker, but

again, we have to be realistic and look at the scarce resources we have and make

sure that we do it in partnership with the Federal Government. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister told the House that the

recent approval for TAC in the northern shrimp fishery provided special

allocations of 3,000 tons for the fish plant in St. Anthony. I wonder if the

minister would inform the House if there has been other special allocations and

if there is, where will they be located?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday in the

House, I did not say it was for the fish plant in St. Anthony, I said it was for

the people of St. Anthony. There is quite a difference between the community of

St. Anthony and the fish plant.

Where are they (inaudible) special allocation for the Island

portion of Newfoundland? That was the only special allocation, except for the

inshore quotas for the inshore fishermen, for all boats under sixty-five feet in

the 3K, or in other words, north of Cape Freels, and in the Gulf.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister, it is

my understanding that the existing fish processing facility at St. Anthony was

transferred from FPI to a new ownership for the price of $1. Part of the

condition for this particular sale, I understand, is that this particular plant

would not process shrimp. I ask the minister if this agreement has now been

changed, or is there another facility in that particular area going to be

granted a licence to process shrimp?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the deal that was negotiated, or

the contract that was signed between the FPI company and the owners or the

operators of the plant in St. Anthony, the Chianti group, is a deal that was put

between those two companies. I do not have any knowledge of that being changed.

I do understand from discussions with FPI that they gave them a plant for $1. I

mean, that is clear, that is public knowledge, that was the agreement, and two

species of fish that were not to be processed were crab and shrimp.

I would think it is possible that discussions are going on

between the two companies. I am not aware, or do not have any knowledge of this,

but I would suspect with the recent announcement. If there are any changes made

to the contract, not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, when the Northern shrimp allocation was announced

by Minister Mifflin on Wednesday, he directed an allocation to a certain plant.

I ask the minister: Could he also, or did he also, have the authority to direct

a quota towards the plant in Port Union that has been closed down since 1992 and

the whole area devastated because of the cod moratorium?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the

hon. member is not researching his questions. Somebody is writing them for him

and he is just reading them off, because I have told him on three occasions.

Again, in answer to his first question, there has been no assignment to any

plant in Newfoundland and Labrador. The announcement that was made with the

shrimp allocations on Tuesday of this week was towards the principle of

adjacency. There has been no quota off Bonavista, Trinity, or Conception Bay.

The adjacency principle was the main rule in which the allocation, the TAC, was

announced.

Now, this is the beginning. We have been at this for years.

We have been saying for years that shrimp caught off Newfoundland should be

harvested and processed in Newfoundland. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,

for the first time in the history of Newfoundland, has fought against all odds

of the power of the lobbyists of the companies that have held these licences,

now gave an opportunity to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is only the

beginning. Wait until until next year and the following years and give us time

to develop. If you gave us 35,000 or 40,000 tons, what are we going to do with

it? Where is the processing? Where is the harvesting capability? where are the

markets? Let us take time. We have a great opportunity for our future, a new

industry that is going to bring a great deal of wealth to the people of this

Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: - hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the minister to finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the hon. the Minister of Education. We

have heard repeatedly that the minister will not intervene. He has said publicly

on many occasions that he has washed his hands of the many situations which

exist in our Province and the many great concerns which exist for parents. Last

night, I attended a meeting in the community of Southern Harbour and I met with

concerned parents who formed the school council -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the member that he has time for one quick

question. If he could get to his question, please.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the

minister. At that meeting it was clear that the parents have concern about cost

and expenditure of a new school, as opposed to the refurbishing and upgrading of

an existing school, and they have concerns with respect to air quality as a

result of emissions from the Come by Chance refinery with respect to the

possible location of a new school construction. Under those very serious

circumstances, why will the Minister of Education not intervene, and what will

it take? What will it take for him to intervene in these very serious

circumstances which exist regarding the very serious concerns of parents in our

Province today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard this type of question asked several times by the

hon. member who is the education critic for the Opposition, and I must say that

I continue to be a bit surprised by the approach being taken in the questioning.

Last fall as we were debating the new Schools Act and the new

Education Act I was, and I think all members on this side actually were, very

impressed with the very thorough examination of the legislation done by the

education critic. As a matter of fact, a number of the changes that we

entertained in the Legislature came from the member opposite. In fact, he did a

detailed review of it clause-by-clause.

One of the fundamental features - and this is the direct

answer to the question - of the new Schools Act that was passed just before

Christmas and proclaimed on January 3, 1997 - so it has now been in effect some

three-and-a-half, almost four, months - and which was supported at the end of

the debate with some amendments proposed by the Opposition, was that in fact

these kinds of decisions would be left in the hands of the ten school boards.

That was one of the features that was debated in this House at length. The

member opposite was up speaking to that particular point. He was, at the end of

the day, encouraging members opposite to support the new piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The new piece of legislation said the local

boards should make these decisions and, for the life of me, I don't understand

now why the same member who supported the new legislation that is only

three-and-a-half months old, to let these decisions be made by the school

boards, now that they are making the decisions, is coming back saying: What is

the minister going to do about it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to quickly conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the legislation was clearly

designed to make sure, at the pleading of the board members and the members

opposite, that these kinds of decisions be made by the people closest to the

action, with the greatest amount of information, which is the ten school boards,

and there is no role in the legislation or otherwise for the Ministry of

Education. It is there in the legislation. It was supported by members opposite

just three-and-a-half months ago, and I am at a loss as to why now they are

asking what I am going to do about it.

We are going to let the legislation run its course. We are

going to let the boards make their decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: And we are going to support them in their

decisions at this very difficult time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition on behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders who are petitioning

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

They are concerned about the affects of poverty and hunger on schoolchildren in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This may be of great interest to the students who are in the

galleries today. Because what has resulted from a series of studies and

understandings and information that has been gathered is that the problem of

hunger amongst schoolchildren in Newfoundland and Labrador has been identified

as a serious one, and as a cause of educational -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now I don't know if members opposite think

this is very funny, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that hungry children are funny at

all. In fact, I think it is a very serious problem that we have in this

Province, and if the members opposite in the government didn't think that

matters going on in the House of Assembly were as humorous as they think they

are, perhaps they would attend to the issue of child poverty and hunger of

children in schools. I know it is Friday morning and maybe it is hard for

members to be attentive on Friday morning, but this is a serious matter. These

petitioners I'm sure would be shocked, if they were in the gallery today, at the

fact that people in this House weren't listening to their petition.

We know that there is a school lunch program that has been

promoted by volunteers and it is supported in a modest way by this government,

but it is a program that is not going to meet the need, because it is absolutely

impossible for communities to come up with volunteer and charitable efforts to

deal with so serious a problem. When it has been identified that 40,000 children

in this Province are dependent upon social assistance; when it has been

identified that there are significant numbers of individuals who attend school

without having had breakfast or lunch; when it has been identified that the

consequences for those children, not only in their health but in their ability

to learn, is serious and long-lasting; when these facts have been put before

government and put before the people of this Province, the response of the

government must be one of dealing with this problem in the manner suggested. One

element of combatting child poverty and child hunger is to institute a

universal, comprehensive school lunch program.

The petitioners ask that the House of Assembly direct the

government to establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every

school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our

children a better chance.

This is one of a series of petitions that are coming before

this House on this issue. It is an issue that will not go away until these

hungry children are fed. As long as there are hungry children, these petitions

will keep coming and I will keep presenting them. I'm asking government,

government members opposite, and others in the House to support this petition

and to try to find in their hearts, in their compassion, in their understanding

of the people's problems in this Province, a way of combatting the problem and

using some of the funds that we are saving by educational restructuring to

promote, institute and establish this particular program. Because it will

provide some measure of prevention of problems in later years for these

children. It will offer them an opportunity to learn and to overcome the

economic obstacles they face in their family.

That is something we can talk about. We can talk about what

we do after the problems are created. We are talking here on almost every day

about health care and the cost of the health care institutions that are trying

to solve the problems of disease once they have started. They do not very often

talk about how we prevent them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have just thirty seconds, Mr.

Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. TULK: Yes, give him leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: We constantly talk about the problems and the

crisis in health care after the problems have been created. We do not often talk

about solving those problems before they start by prevention in health care, by

prevention of child hunger, by prevention of nutrition, and the school lunch

program is one way where we can help people now and save our economy and our

children for the future.

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

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

I rise again today to support the petition put forward by my

colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Mr. Speaker, the prayer of

the petition is well known to the House and I can only just refer members to the

Budget Speech a few weeks ago. On page 18, the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board was reading and he said: Mr. Speaker, for too long we have contributed to

a cycle of dependency. For too long, we have seen people who want to work get

caught in the welfare trap. It is time for bold measures.

What we want to say to the House this morning is that one of

the boldest measures you can ever take in terms of trying to combat the

dependency cycle is to make sure that those people who have needs in this

Province and the children of those families are well-fed. Mr. Speaker, when we

read words like that, they should mean that the government is going to take

action, and certainly, when we know that the government espouses one philosophy

- but then when it comes to looking after children, we do not do much about it.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot rely on the volunteer sections

exclusively although they have done commendable work in many schools. We cannot

rely exclusively on the corporate community, either, although in some cases some

of the corporations in this Province are contributing enormous sums of money to

help combat the issues of child poverty.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we need `bold measures', that is what the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said in his Budget Speech, and we want

these bold measures to include addressing the issue of child poverty. Certainly,

if we are going to progress as a country and as a nation, we must remember that

we have to invest in our youngest children and if we are going to break the

cycle of dependency, we have to start with the very youngest of our population.

We have to make sure that we have aggressive intervention programs in preschool.

You know, the research shows that the optimum time for

intervention in a child's life in terms of correcting things that are wrong in

that child's lifestyle and sometimes that child's learning habits, is between

the ages of eighteen months and thirty-six months. That has been well

researched. I mean, Dr. J. L. Sullivan of the university has put forward in her

writings the optimum time for intervention; and in this Province we have done

very little by way of intervention in young children's lives.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about hungry children, we talk

about hungry children before they ever get to school and then, when they get to

school, we immediately stigmatize them because poor children know they are poor.

You cannot disguise that. You can pretend that a child who is hungry is like

everybody else and that is the pretension of people who probably should know

better but do not. But young children know from the time they enter school that

they are often not like others, and they know when they look around and they do

not have a lunch - and I have seen teenagers walk the corridors in the school

system and they would never ever say that they did not have a lunch. They would

never say that they did not have any money because it was too embarrassing.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are saying to the government: We need

`bold measures', we need to break the cycle and we need to do it now, because we

know the direct relationship between nutrition and learning potential. It is not

new. And we commend the government when it makes initiatives such as were made a

few weeks ago by the corporate community, but we need more of it and we need the

government to take on its share of the responsibility. Because, Mr. Speaker, the

children of those people who are living in poverty make up a higher proportion

of the drop-outs, a higher proportion of those who do not reach their learning

potential, a higher proportion of those in special needs classes. So Mr.

Speaker, being poor is a lifelong sentence. Being poor is something that you are

born with in many cases, and in some cases, if we do not do more about breaking

that cycle, these people will die, still in the same position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we ask the

government to live up to what the Minster of Finance said in his Budget Speech.

They talked about bold measures. We say, let us get bold, let us get aggressive,

let us handle the issue of child poverty as soon as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls -

Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a member of the House of Assembly for the district of

Grand Falls - Buchans, I rise today to present to this hon. House a petition

from my constituents, the people of Badger, opposing profound changes to their

school system slated for September, 1997.

I have before me approximately 350 names on this petition

which represents almost one-third of the population of Badger. This petition,

Mr. Speaker, reflects the people's struggle by way of public meetings, protest

marches and even a court injunction to raise public awareness to their plight to

keep their children in their community school.

Mr. Speaker, the formal petition prayer leads like this: `We,

the concerned citizens of Badger, wish to maintain the status quo, that is, to

keep our school Avoca Collegiate for instructing and educating our children from

Kindergarten to Grade IX. We oppose busing our children in Grade VII to IX over

the highway to Grand Falls-Windsor while we have a perfectly good system in our

own community. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray'.

Mr. Speaker, a week ago today, I was asked by the people of

Badger to attend a public meeting to listen to their concerns regarding the

decision made by School District No. 5, on April 15. That decision was to retain

a Kindergarten to Grade VI school in Badger and bus Grade VII to IX to Grand

Falls - Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, parent after parent pleaded for a reversal of

that decision on the grounds that they believed they were unfairly assessed by

the school board. Repeatedly throughout the meeting, I reiterated government's

position, and that is, not to second guess the school board, but only to ensure

that the guiding principles for designation of school and educational

restructuring have been followed by the school board.

Mr. Speaker, I then meet with the board executive last Sunday

to review the criteria used in making this determination. There are 123 students

from K to IX, which qualifies Avoca Collegiate for a minimum core program with

seven teachers. However, the minimum core program would not provide a music

program, library services, guidance counselling services or allow any

opportunity for advance placement courses. In view of these facts, the school

board made a judgement call that the Grade VII to IX students would be better

served by a broader range education program in Grand Falls -Windsor.

I want to make it perfectly clear at this time that I am not

in any way trying to undermine the board's decision, as I have the greatest

respect for the group of eighteen volunteers, many of whom I know personally,

who have carried out this very difficult task. However, I believe we are at a

crossroads. The parents are satisfied with their existing Grade VII to Grade IX

program, which lacks a music program. Library services are carried out by parent

volunteers and their junior high students do not have to get on a school bus at

7:30 in the morning in what is known as one of the coldest communities within

the Island portion of our Province, to begin an eight-hour day - not an

eight-hour day, but a ten-hour day, I must correct.

The parents have asked the school board to review their

decision once more in their May 12 board meeting. Mr. Speaker, my only hope is

that by raising public attention to this serious and very critical issue the

best decision will be made for the most important reason, to provide the best

future for the children of Badger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to rise today in support of the petition just

presented by the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans. Mr. Speaker, I know the

predicament that a lot of members find themselves in all around this Province,

because I have it in my own district, especially, Mr. Speaker, in rural parts of

this Province where a school is more than a school, it is more than a building.

I know that you could argue that a school is supposed to be for the education of

students and that is it, but that is not the reality. Schools in this Province,

in rural Newfoundland, have served as the heart of the community. They have been

there for concerts, they have been there for Christmas concerts and things like

that. It means a lot more than a building.

Mr. Speaker, I attended a public meeting also in Badger and

listened to the parents. First of all, I met with a committee of parents who put

together a presentation that was superb. They sat down one by one and, Mr.

Speaker, for two hours I listened to these people give their individual

situations, especially as it referred to disabled children - their children, by

the way, specific individual examples of their children and how they would be

affected by this particular change. Mr. Speaker, if you were to hear that

firsthand, I say to the minister, we always should take into account - I know we

have to as people who run this Province and make these decisions - how it

affects the person down the line. Yes, we have to make tough decisions on

economics and fiscal matters and so on, but there is also a human factor to all

of this. As I listened to those parents, one by one, Mr. Speaker, as they went

through their presentations, one could understand more and more how much this

school, in this community, meant to those people, not just for education, per

se, the books and the teacher in the classroom but education overall of the

person who lives in that community and what that building means to those people.

Mr. Speaker, the member also referred to Badger as being one

of the coldest communities in the Province. They begin their day and it does not

end until ten hours later. Ten hours for a child to get up and start his day and

end up - before he ends up back home again. Now, Mr. Speaker, a very serious

concern has to be raised about this particular example and right around this

Province. The last thing we want to see, as educators in this Province, is a

drop-out rate increase. It is very tough for parents to encourage their kids to

go to school on a normal basis, if the school was around the corner and they

could walk over a paved road, but when you add all these elements, my fear is

that the increase in dropouts could rise over the next couple of years as we see

these things unfold.

Mr. Speaker, these people in Badger - and after I have been

listening to their cases - put forward a very good justification for their

school being there. For one, Mr. Speaker, they have done some downsizing and

they have made some tough decisions, as the member knows, over the last few

years. They feel they have tightened their belts and have contributed to

restructuring in their town. They have changed their school system there and

co-operated in order to do that but, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line here is that

these people are finally saying - and they said it at the meeting that I

attended - they had one question for the minister; they asked: `Can you tell me

that education for my child - which was the root of the whole cause of this

reform when we started reform in this Province - will education be better for my

Johnny or whoever, my Mary, after education reform?' The sad part about it is

that the answer will be no. Was that not the reason for education reform, to

improve education? Was that not bottom line, Mr. Speaker? If anybody can

honestly stand up, including the minister, and say, `Yes, your Johnny or your

Mary will have a better educational system when this is all done.'

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the education process is in

chaos, it is a mess, and these people in Badger are an example of the people in

this Province who are speaking out and saying: Judge us on the merits of our

school and the situation in which we find ourselves. That is what they are

asking, to be treated decently, and that is nothing less than they should expect

from this government.

If the intent of education reform was to have a better

education system, that is what it should end up to be. If it is not going to be,

that is not what they voted on.

The confusion of who voted for what is incredible when you

talk to people. The people who voted no do not like it; the people who voted yes

do not like it. So they started to ask themselves: What did we vote for? We

voted for a better education, and right now it is a mess and it is in chaos.

There are a couple of points I would like to make. First of

all, the people of Badger have done their belt-tightening. They have co-operated

amongst their communities, and have done a very good job of it, and they put

forward a very, very strong case on merit of why they should be able to keep

their school of K to IX.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, my time is up, but I would just

like to conclude by saying that the bottom line to education reform is a better

education. The people of Badger and Avoca Collegiate have put forward a very,

very strong case and should be reconsidered.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the presentation of the petition and the

comments in support by the member opposite. As with the Member for Grand Falls -

Buchans and also the member opposite who met with the parents from Badger, we,

as well, met with the parents from Badger at a meeting some ten days or two

weeks ago.

Again, I think the best thing that we can do in this

Legislature is probably to provide to the school board and to the parents a copy

of the Hansard debate of this petition presentation this morning, because there

is nobody in this Legislature - the member presenting the petition, the hon.

members opposite supporting it, or myself as the minister - can make or change

the decision with respect to the school arrangements for September of 1997 in

Badger.

For the record, because the member opposite made some

comments about the future of the town and the building, the school is not

closing in Badger. The proposition of the board is to bus the students from

Grade VII and above to Grand Falls - Windsor. In the opinion of the board, and

they have told the parents of Badger, they think the students will have a better

education twenty-five minutes down the road in Grand Falls - Windsor than they

can offer them in Badger.

The parents have some disagreement with that. They are having

the meetings where they should be held, between the parents and the school

board. The school board has reviewed the issue. They have considered it twice.

They have met with the parents. The final decision is in the hands of the school

boards.

I appreciate bringing some public attention to the issue here

today, but again, I think we would all be best served by understanding that the

member opposite cannot make the decision legislatively or legally. The member

presenting the petition cannot make the decision. I cannot make the decision.

The board has made a decision. I think all of us would be best served by passing

along the comments to the board and to the parents to let them know that some

attention was brought to the issue. We will pass it back to the board so that

they can listen to the comments made by the member presenting the petition on

behalf of her constituents in Badger, and the member opposite, who also attended

a meeting and knows something more, firsthand, about the circumstance in that

community.

I can have some sympathy with the petitioners, but again

understand, as we said earlier in answer to a question in Question Period, it is

not a matter of debate for the House of Assembly because it is not something

over which this Legislature has decision-making authority.

I appreciate the comments and would suggest that maybe we

send the commentary back to the school board and to the parents to let them know

that some public attention was brought to the matter.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I will continue from my Budget Speech yesterday and say to

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that it is certainly good news

today to see a $70 million capital works program, but I guess the proof is

always in the pudding when you look at the details that are fleshed out.

When I look at the City of St. John's and the area that is in

the most need, which is the district I represent, in terms of raw sewage running

in the ditches there, very little infrastructure in the ground, and what the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has approved this morning is

nothing but a farce. It is unbelievable what the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs have approved under the municipal infrastructure program for

the City of St. John's, particularly, Mr. Speaker, in the area and the district

that I represent, and I would like to go through it for the record.

One hundred and seventy-one thousand seven hundred dollars

approval given to equipment purchases related to municipal assessment agencies.

So the infrastructure program now is going to purchase equipment in the City of

St. John's while there is raw sewage running in the ditches of the City of St.

John's. Half a million dollars to set up a compatible computerized accounting

system. With $670,000 a significant amount of work could be done in areas of the

City that are in most need, but the minister didn't approve it at all.

My understanding was that infrastructure and the

infrastructure works program was supposed to go to three areas: water and sewer

upgrade, recreational complexes and/or road development. That was my

understanding of what infrastructure money was supposed to go for. But that is

fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

sings out: You're in a Tory district, that's why you got no money. Why doesn't

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, if he had any backbone at all, stand

in his seat and say it for the record?

MR. EFFORD: I said it (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Why don't you stand up right now and say it

for the record?

MR. EFFORD: I said it (inaudible)!

MR. E. BYRNE: Stand in your seat and say it for the

record. Why don't you try that? Because all they could get from that minister on

any project - and when you get Hansard it is: Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible). I

will give him the opportunity. I will sit down. I will give him leave to get in

his seat and say exactly what he just said there now, for the record.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible). They got nobody representing

them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no doubt the people in Kilbride

know who they have representing them, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, there is no question about that.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right? Would you like to table some

of them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No it doesn't. But, actually, if the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wants to get in his seat and stand and say

what he just said for the record I will give him leave, but I doubt that will

happen anyway, Mr. Speaker. There is more backbone in a jellyfish.

I ended off yesterday talking about the out-migration and

what it means to the Province. I would like to turn the attention to what is

happening with schools in the Province. There is nobody who would disagree that

declining enrolments are causing government to reconsider, causing government to

look at education budgets as they now exist, and causing government to have a

serious look at what schools in what areas are viable and what ones aren't.

Nobody will disagree that where schools are not viable, where enrolments and

numbers are such that a school can't maintain viability, or can't maintain being

viable, that it should remain open for the sake of being open.

A process that has taken place over the last number of

months, and it culminated in the Budget with $70 million being taken out of the

education budget, and we have seen serious concerns articulated and raised by

parents, community groups, across the Province. My colleague for St. John's East

raised a good point in question period a number of days ago. He put a simple

question to government that there are a number of instances where people in

groups and communities and schools have fallen through the cracks, where

viability is not an issue. Where school viability, or schools in a certain area

like Bishop O'Neill in Brigus, is a viable school. In Badger and in other

places. The Member for Grand Falls - Buchans presented a petition today in

support of the people in her area.

What the Member for St. John's East requested of government

is that just maybe government should look at appointing an ombudsman for a

period of time to look at where people have fallen through the cracks, to

reconsider decisions that have been made by school boards, because things are

being done in a very fast way. Sometimes people do fall through the cracks,

sometimes decisions need to be revisited. It was, I believe, a good suggestion

and one government should take seriously.

Because in an effort when communities - and community boards

and volunteers are making decisions on timetables that have been imposed upon

them. Time is not something that they have a lot of. But there are examples. A

number of them have been pointed out in the House from members on both sides of

the House where decisions should be looked at and revisited. I commend the

Member for St. John's East on making the suggestion and I would implore

government to take serious the suggestion and implement it.

Mr. Speaker, another area of concern I think that should be

raised deals with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The amount of the energy

crunch that the Province is looking at right now and the number of private

proposals that have come before government to be looked at as, I guess,

unprecedented. There are, from my knowledge anyway, some eighteen to nineteen

proposals before government right now that are working their way through the

Environmental Assessment Act. All of which include from wind power to damming

rivers, lakes and streams in the Province, Humber River, Southwest River and

other rivers. The question that must be asked is, why are we proceeding with

private development of rivers?

I agree that privatization is something that, if there are

businesses in operation today that government is competing with and putting the

market or putting businesses that are operating in the market in an unfair

position as the result of government's activity then we should look at it

because privatization is about putting services into the market or as many

services into the market to bring down the price so that at the end of the day

consumers will win. That is my understanding of privatization but when it comes

to rivers, lakes and streams in the Province, Mr. Speaker, when we say that we

are going to privatize aspects of Newfoundland Hydro or privatize and let

private developers do it, we are in fact not ensuring that at the end of the day

there will be lower prices for electricity and for consumers. What we are in

fact doing, Mr. Speaker, is handing out regulated monopolies to individuals,

groups and/or companies. You can only dam a river once and once it is dammed it

is dammed for life. Heavy capital investment but huge return over the lifetime,

Mr. Speaker, unprecedented, huge return.

If you want to have an example of it look at Bay d'Espoir

generation project, $150 million was invested by the government of the day,

thirty-three years ago. The Opposition of the day, Mr. Speaker, shouted loud

that it was too much money. Five years ago the Bay d'Espoir generation project

paid off in full. As a result of that project government last year - and other

projects that hydro developed, not just that one but all of them that they

developed - last year government took, directly, $52 million from hydro right

into the provincial budget. From that single corporation - there was more

corporate income tax collected from that single corporation than all other

corporations in the Province combined. Why were we, as a government, or why was

the government able to do that? Simply because governments over the years

empowered hydro to go ahead and do what they had to do. Develop the hydro

electricity resources of this Province for the people of the Province so that at

the end of the day, with its cheaper rate of return, there would be a

substantial profit made available to all of us, not just to some of us, not to

one or two of us but to all of us.

In the last five years, Mr. Speaker, we have seen greater and

greater sums of money taken out of hydro and put directly into the budget. That

does not include at all, Mr. Speaker, the number of jobs that were created. The

number of jobs that people at hydro employs and all of the spin-off activity and

businesses that depend upon that corporation. That is just direct money and this

is the corporation that we tried to sell two years ago. Last year $52 million

was taken out of the budget, more than any other corporation combined.

What we seem to be pursuing and government seems to be

pursuing is another agenda. I listened to the Minister of Environment and Labour

some time ago on a talk show, and a question was asked to him, `What is the

Province's energy policy? Do you have one?' He said: No, the Province and

government does not have an energy policy as such but what we do have - he

articulated - is an Environmental Assessment Act. Anybody who wishes to put a

proposal forward to government, he said, we will take that proposal and we will

throw it at the environmental assessment act he said, just pitch it over to it

and if it gets through in the other end then fair enough, cabinet will have to

make a decision.

Now, that is not governance, that is just simple

administration, there is no foresight in that. If government were prudent and

government were acting in the best interest in terms of development of hydro

electricity. Now there are other projects like wind power, thermal, etc., those

are projects that I do not have a big problem with in terms of private sector

development, but in terms of our own resources, hydro resources, water ways,

lakes, streams, rivers, if government were prudent and acting in the best

interest of the people they would empower hydro to go ahead and develop our

resources for the people of the Province at a much greater rate of return than

at the end of the day, maybe ten years from now hydro will be in the position to

contribute $100 to $150 million per year as it's debt to equity ratio becomes

greater.

Lowering the debt, more equity, our ability to take money

from that crown corporation and put directly into the budget and put directly

into projects, that is the type of policy that we should be pursuing. I do not

believe for a minute that we should be pursuing the development of the Humber

River by private interest, the development of any river, lake or stream in this

Province by private interest. Now, star lake is an example, Abitibi has put a

proposal forward, it is not a bad proposal. I do not have significant trouble

with it, what I do have trouble with with star lake is that, we as a Province

are not developing it, Hydro is self-sufficient, it is in a position to develop

it. It can develop it at at least the same cost and produces a cheaper rate of

return.

If a corporate citizen like Abitibi which is an important

corporate citizen, which is a good corporate citizen and has demonstrated that

over its lifetime in this Province, needs help to ensure availability at peak

periods of time, then we should be able to do it for them, but I do not think

the reverse should be true. I do not think private corporations should be

developing our lakes and our streams and selling it back to us at a much higher

cost then we could develop it ourselves and produce it for ourselves. I do not

think that that makes any sense Mr. Speaker, whatsoever, and there are like I

said eighteen to twenty projects before cabinet now.

The minister released a statement yesterday or a couple of

days ago it came across my desk in terms of more information required for I

think nine projects, more information or study required dealing with the

environmental assessment act. But what we are really lacking, I think, is a

comprehensive sound energy policy that is foresightful, that has the people of

the Province first and foremost and centre in that policy and that takes the

long term view of hydro development for the best interest for the people of the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, it must be said also when we talk about the

budget and I want to compliment the government in an area here this morning

dealing with the Human Resource and Employment Minister who made the

announcement two days ago, I believe, with respect to student employment. I

stood in the House, I complimented her then and I will compliment government

today because I think it is a sign of where government sees part of its priority

where it has made available double the amount of money for students this summer

and in the past four to five summers. Where government has made available double

the money, as I said, for students this summer then they have in the past and I

think that is an honourable choice, represents a priority of government and a

commitment where I think they said they were going to do something, they have

done something and they are going to continue to do it. I complement the

Minister of Human Resource and Employment on that and I think the more that we

can do that, the more that that program SWASP and other programs like it model

on a voucher system, where the rest of Canada have looked the benefits of it. On

the one hand make available to students employment, provide cash vouchers on the

other hand so that tuition can be paid, which at the end of the day should bring

down debt load.

With that Mr. Speaker, I know there are other colleagues in

the House who would like to have a few words and the member for Baie Verte is

about to stand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I won't be too long, Mr. Speaker, I just

want to react to a couple of comments that my hon. friend from Kilbride made

with regards to St. John's and some multi-district money.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Kilbride mentioned how upset

he was that we were putting $171,000 from the St. John's district into

assessment computer upgrading. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not in the St. John's

district. If the hon. member had looked at the top of the sheet, he would have

found out that that page includes all multi-districts in the Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. A. REID: I will accept the (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just to make it clear for the record that,

if the minister had been in the House he would have realized and understood that

I did not say that that amount of money was going -no, he was out when I spoke -

that, that amount of money was going just specifically to St. John's. I referred

directly to half-a-million dollars going towards computer upgrade for all

municipalities, so I just wanted to make that point clear. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. member

used the opportunity for clarification. The hon. -

MR. A. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

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

Provincial Affairs, on a point of order.

MR. A. REID: On a point of order, would you ask the hon.

member to withdraw the comment that I was not in the House. I was sitting here

from the time the man stood to the time he sat down. He misunderstood or he

thought I was out of the House. I was here. He referred to the fact that I was

out of the House; he should not be referring that any member in this hon. House

is out of the House. Would you ask him to retract that please?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I apologize to the minister. I did not see

him there and I understand that I should not refer to a member who was not

sitting and I apologize for that and withdraw the comment.

MR. SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary and unacceptable for

hon. members to refer to any other hon. member as being present or not being

present. The point has been duly raised by the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs and the hon. Member for Kilbride has withdrawn the comment

and apologized.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Assessment Division of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is now at arm's length from the department. It

is moved out of the department and has become a sort of an independent agency

and will continue to be an independent agency for at least the next three years

and at which time hopefully, Mr. Speaker, it will become a self-sufficient

agency that will be at arm's length to government and maybe, maybe at the end of

the day may even be privatized.

I don't know, at this point in time but, in order to

accomplish that feat, that remarkable feat of finally getting something done in

the assessment division after thirty years of fighting continuously with the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs by people like the hon. Member

for Waterford Valley, we finally succeeded in doing that and that $171,000 will

provide that

section of my department or once my department with the necessary

tools, computer tools to upgrade their system to the point where they are

promising me now that they may even be able to, after next year, do assessments

on a yearly basis, and I think all hon. members of the House of Assembly can

understand the problems we have had with the assessment division over the years,

would say that it is a good thing that we did put that money in.

The $500,000 under Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

municipal computerization is basically a lump sum amount that we are going to

use to help rural Newfoundland communities who are in desperate financial shape,

set up a decent operable computer system in their towns. So that money could be

spread among as many as 150 communities. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you realize

because you have a lot of smaller communities as well, and I appreciate where

the hon. Member for Kilbride is coming from; he is living in the big

metropolitan area of St. John's and does not really have the same feelings for

small, rural communities around the Province and the problems that they have.

We know, Mr. Speaker, and you know, representing a rural

area, that we have small communities in this Province, who are still keeping

their books, doing their books and their accounting on scribblers and I am not

exaggerating. Actually, keeping the books and the financial affairs of the town

on a piece of paper. There are numerous communities out there that do not have

an adequate computer system and in the Budget Speech, Mr. Dicks, the hon. the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said: that we were going out this year

and introduce some new technology to some of these smaller communities so that

the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and themselves could own and

operate more adequately and more modernly I suppose, the day to day operations.

The $2 million that you see in there for the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation is $2 million of a $5 million fund that both

my hon. friend from Mount Pearl, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation and I, had announced earlier this year that we were going out to

try to convince some of the communities in the Province by upgrading roads and

making deals with communities, we may be able to ask some of the communities in

the Province to take over some of the responsibilities of road maintenance and

snow clearing, and if some of the communities could do that themselves, then

that $5 million - $2 million from me in here and $3 million from my hon.

colleague - would be an enticement for some of these communities to take over

some of these roads. I think in municipalities there is a total of 750

kilometres, and this money would go to encourage some of those communities.

Now, here is an opportunity for some of the MHAs. If they are

in a situation where they have a town and there is a kilometre or two in the

area that their town council could probably snow-clear in the winter and

maintain, it is a way of getting a few dollars for that, or if not a few dollars

we may have to go out and resurface the road and upgrade it and then pass it

over to the community. It is basically an enticement to communities to take more

responsibility for some of the government owned and operated roads in their

areas.

I will continue, Mr. Speaker, and say to you quite honestly

and categorically - and I do appreciate where the hon. Member for Kilbride is

coming from - this is the third year in a row now that there has not been any

request from the City of St. John's for the upgrading of the Kilbride - Goulds

area. I say emphatically that this amount that is shown today under

infrastructure and capital works is exactly - and I repeat, exactly - to the

dollar, what the City of St. John's requested.

This is not the fault of this hon. House. If the City of St.

John's does not ask the government for funding for Kilbride or the Goulds, or

for any area of the city, it is not the responsibility of this minister or this

House to say to St. John's: Here is extra money and we want you to put this into

a certain area or a certain project in the city.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: I never said it never happened. I can't

remember doing it. Maybe you can jar my memory, but I can't remember doing it. I

say to the hon. member, yes it is done in certain places in the Province, in

certain communities, but St. John's, being the largest city and having the

engineering staff and having the capability to borrow and pay its own way, I

have never - categorically never - ever said to St. John's: We will give you

this money and this money has to go to a certain area. I cannot do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: No, the Province does not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) city officials (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: No, city officials are misleading you. If

the City of St. John's asks -

AN HON. MEMBER: I have the same problem with City Hall

that you have.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would hon. members like me to instruct that the microphone be

turned on so this can be recorded?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Go ahead, Art.

MR. A. REID: If the City of St. John's applies for

capital works for infrastructure to the Province, there is never a question of

where they want to put that money. If the City of St. John's is looking for $2

million for road work, the share that the Province will contribute will be their

share and there is no mention that this money has to be spent here or here or

here.

MR. E. BYRNE: Could I ask a question?

MR. A. REID: Let me finish.

For example, we announced today that the department's share

of a $1 million project for Higgins Line, Allandale Road transmission lane, you

see that there is $500,000. This is the first time in the history of

Newfoundland that the Province is actually paying a portion of the share of

water and sewage for the City of St. John's.

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly.

MR. A. REID: Because up until now the City of St. John's

always had to finance the total 100 per cent cost. When that request was made to

us, we told them that we would provide them with $500,000. If the City of St.

John's wants to come back to me, as the minister, and say: No, we don't want to

do Higgins Line this year, and we want to take that $500,000 and put another

$500,000 with it and do the Goulds, that is entirely up to themselves.

MR. E. BYRNE: And you would approve it?

MR. A. REID: And I will approve it.

I have never turned St. John's down in regard to where they

want to spend their money. If the City of St. John's - John Murphy being the

Mayor - and the council decide that they want to take their capital works money

and put it, I don't care -

AN HON. MEMBER: Kenmount Road.

MR. A. REID: Kenmount Road - it is entirely up to the

City of St. John's. It has nothing to do with me.

MR. E. BYRNE: Can I ask you a question? So, no matter

what the City - I want to be clear on this, because this is an important issue

for members in the City who are in areas where there was infrastructure, and who

are representing, I might add to the minister, very rural parts of Newfoundland

that happen to be within the jurisdiction and boundary of the City of St.

John's. When they send in a priority list to you as minister, you don't question

that priority list? No matter what other interventions or expressions or lobbies

that may be made on you, if the City of St. John's, through the Mayor, Deputy

Mayor, and all the councillors, send in to you a priority list for

infrastructure, you will automatically approve that list, within reason, is what

their priority, then you check it off as their priority and it is up to them is

what you are telling me.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, just as an example to confirm

what the hon. member is saying. If you look at St. John's paving and/or road

construction, there is $167,000 in there for capital works. That is the

Province's share. The title to that is the department's share of $667,000 in

street rehabilitation. We don't even name the streets. The City of St. John's

doesn't have to name the streets. The City of St. John's, the City Engineer,

called my department and said: All we can afford this year in paving and road

construction is $667,000. We said: Very good. We will give you our share of

that, which is $167,000. Where you spend that is entirely up to yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) same for every municipality

(inaudible)?

MR. A. REID: No, not the same for every municipality,

because the majority of municipalities out there have to finance their total

amounts through NMFC.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) identifying (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: In most cases. I will give you an example

where it couldn't happen. If in Bonavista, for example, that final clean up of

that lagoon, if they came in to me in Bonavista and said: No, we want to take

that money and spend it somewhere else, I would say no.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) identified (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes. Okay? If they come back to me and they

say: We don't want to do Aunt Martha's Road but we want to do Uncle George's,

that is up to them. If it is road paving and reconstruction, chances are one

road is just as bad as the other one, so it is entirely up to the council.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the way it used to be.

MR. A. REID: No, not the way it used to be. But you have

to remember - I announced this morning that there would be $12 million - I'm

levering $12 million. It is more like $15 million. That is basically what is

happening here this year, that the larger communities - and I will say to the

hon. member that most of this money went to the larger communities. It went to

the larger communities because the larger communities could put a fairer share

in themselves.

The City of St. John's, for example, has no problems in

looking after its share of the $667,000 in capital. Bonavista did so well as

they did this year because Bonavista, thanks to your mayor and the new council,

took that town three years ago that was on the verge of bankruptcy, turned that

town around like you wouldn't believe, and on top of that refinanced and had

over $600,000 saving in refinancing. They came in to me and said: Mr. Reid, we

have this money and we can spend it this year. Will you give us some capital

works? So you got a pile of money. The hon. Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture isn't here, I hope. You got a pile of money. You did as well as -

well, I will tell this much, you got more than the Premier got in his district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: You didn't get as much as I got but you got

as much as the Premier. You certainly never got as much as he got. So I want to

explain to my hon. colleague for Kilbride: Look, it's St. John's. This

government can't interfere with the day-to-day operations of the City of St.

John's. You can't do it. They have engineering staff down there, they have

capable people who know financing and so on. If the City of St. John's does not

ask me for money for Kilbride or some other part of the riding, I can't give it

to them. If they don't ask me, I can't give it to them.

Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion in regard to the

rankings and the percentages that the government pays in comparison to the towns

and so on. I would like to just inform hon. members that there are some mistakes

in this, mistakes as far as how some of the projects are going to be financed.

They are not necessarily mistakes; it is just that it is harder to explain the

method that my accounting people and the people in Finance sometimes try to use

on me. It is something that if any member of the House has problems with in

regard to trying to figure out how much the town pays compared to the

government, and that sort of thing, it is better to come to me personally and

ask me about that and I can give you the correct details on it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a few comments now on my own,

as the Member for Carbonear. I was happy last night to be able to go to

Carbonear and stand in front of 150 people and announce a new civic centre for

my town. It is not really a civic centre; it is a regional centre.

had set aside $1 million for an Arts & Culture Centre at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes, I am acting House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: You are back now, are you? I can sit down.

In 1989, when I got elected, the federal government had set

aside $1 million for a $3 million Arts & Culture Centre for Carbonear. Now, I

cringe when I say `Arts & Culture Centre', because as I am sure most of us in

this hon. House understand and realize, the Arts & Culture Centres have been

costing this Province sizeable amounts of money over the years.

I listen to my friends across the way sometimes talk about

health care and education and so on, and I think eventually we will clean up

some of that waste of money, for want of a better word, and maybe we can start

directing some money back into the primary areas of social services and health

and so on.

The government has taken upon themselves this year to try to

dispose of the Arts & Culture Centres in the Province. I was never one who

agreed with an Arts & Culture Centre per se in the area of Carbonear. Of course,

I fought three elections on the fact that I could not come out, quite honestly,

and take $1 million of not only federal money but provincial money, our

contribution towards that, and I fought an election against people like Dr.

Aidan Drover, who is a good friend of my colleagues across the way, and Dougie

Moores, and a number of big Progressive Conservative people who fought me tooth

and nail every day, every step of the way, since 1989 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes - and being successful enough, I

suppose, to have them against me, knowing that the other 95 per cent of the

riding was for me. As long as they stay against me, I guess I might have a

chance of getting elected.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes.

When you are practising medicine in Carbonear, and you are

the most popular doctor out there, and you are putting them through on a daily

basis as fast as you can get them in and get them out, and you are making

$200,000 a year - I am not referring to anyone in particular - to offer them a

job in this House at $52,000 or $53,000 a year, that is not what you would call

a good salary.

I am certainly sure my hon. friend - I will not call him

honourable because he is not sitting in the House, but - Mr. Moores is not going

to give up a lucrative law practice, and I think Mr. Ottenheimer knows exactly

what I am talking about here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes - to come in here and possibly sit in

Opposition. But I suppose if he came in here and got elected I am assuming, Mr.

Ottenheimer, that he would be the leader. At least that is what he says in

Conception Bay North. That is what he tells everyone, that if he did run he

would have to take over the leadership and ultimately become the Premier. So I

guess it is going to be quite some time before our friend from Harbour Grace

gets elected to the House of Assembly.

I was privileged last night to be able to announce in my

district a smaller building, a regional building, because I believe that the

Conception Bay North area of the Province is probably the most cooperative area

of all the Province. Maybe Central Newfoundland works pretty closely with each

other, but I think that whole Bay Roberts, Carbonear area - Salmon Cove and

Harbour Grace - we need a place... We do not have a place in that whole area,

which services 50,000 people, we haven't got one auditorium. We can't host a

concert, we can't even host Revue '97 or Revue '96. So we announced that little

bit of money under infrastructure last night in Carbonear and there were quite

the rave reviews.

I mentioned my two hon. friends earlier in the (inaudible). I

had them there last night at my press conference. Those two hon. people, I asked

them to come to the press conference. One of them showed up and the other one

didn't. I could understand why the first one didn't show up, but the second one

showed up. In fact, I bought him a beer. When he was sipping on the beer he

looked at me and he said: Surprisingly enough, Art, this Liberal beer tastes the

same as PC beer. I think that is about as far as he could go in giving me a

compliment for bringing $2.4 million to his community. But without that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. A. REID: Dr. Drover. But without -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill Rowe's buddy?

MR. A. REID: Bill Rowe's buddy, yes. Putting that aside,

the fact that he made that comment was enough for a few people to hear it

around, and a few of those hard-working, honest, poor, Liberal individuals who

vote Liberal most of the time - I always say that, Mr. Speaker, especially when

I meet people - and I'm not a teetotaller. I like a bottle of beer. I'm not a

teetotaller. I don't over-indulge but I'm not a teetotaller. It is a funny thing

about that, Mr. Speaker - I don't know if it is like that out your way or not,

but it seems that if you drink scotch there is a 95 per cent chance that you are

a Tory.

MR. TULK: Absolutely dead-on! Same thing in Bonavista

North.

MR. A. REID: Same thing in Bonavista North?

MR. TULK: They drink one bottle of scotch every year,

Art.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: If you drink scotch - well see, you aren't a

Tory, Harvey. You were never a Tory. You were always a Liberal, so (inaudible).

But if you drink scotch you are a Tory. For years I've been saying it, because

I'm a rum man. I started off drinking screech and I went to Captain Morgan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Art, he's a misled Liberal.

MR. A. REID: He is a misled Liberal. So the point of it

is, I suppose, the fact that I got a compliment, the fact that the Liberal beer

I bought for my Tory friend in Carbonear, he at least admitted it tasted as good

as the PC's. That was a backhanded compliment coming from someone like Aidan

Drover. Then on the other hand, Aidan Drover is a good man, he is contributing a

lot to the community out there. I have no problems with working with people like

that. He is a rural doctor and he is doing a good job.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, even though he is an arch-enemy I

suppose of mine politically, my wife and my daughter go to him all the time. He

is their doctor. Now, I can't lower myself to go to a PC doctor, but who knows,

one of these days I might bring myself, might have to.

I'm going to finish up now. I'm going to say that some

members around here - not only on that side of the House but on this side of the

House - are disappointed today because they didn't get what they thought they

should get. Let me say to the members of the House that I try to be fair, and I

have been. Your Leader in the Opposition submitted a list to me, he has walked

out this morning quite happy with (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You wrote the book on fairness and

balance.

MR. A. REID: That is right. The Member for Bonavista is

quite happy. The members for St. John's, well, they have no other choice but to

be happy because the City of St. John's asked and it got exactly what it asked

for it got. The member for Mount Pearl asked for $900,000. They got exactly what

they asked for.

The only problem I have to deal with is my hon. friend for

Baie Verte. My hon. colleague and friend for Baie Verte knows that several times

last year he had problems. He came to me, we sat down and talked about it, and

at the end of the day he was happy. I wrote your letter to Nippers Harbour the

other day, you know you got that. You know that I'm there and my office door is

open. I've always been accessible to you, and please, use my office. If I still

have a sizeable amount of money that I can help some of your small communities -

I'm not only saying that to you, the Member for Baie Verte, I'm saying it to

everybody.

MR. TULK: Did the Minister for Municipal and Provincial

Affairs write the manual for fairness and balance for the former Premier?

MR. DECKER: He coined the phrase,` you wrote the manual'.

That's what I understand.

MR. A. REID: Well fairness and balance, yes but you can

use fairness and balance to your own advantage sometimes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Art, fairness and balance is a good

principle but you can't go to the fair with it.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed. I have to

say this, I don't know if the Opposition House Leader can tell me or not but I

think my critic has had some medical problems again has he?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, he is in hospital.

MR. A. REID: He's in the hospital.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he home or in hospital?

MR. A. REID: And he is going to come back on Monday and

stand up and praise the health care system for the wonderful job they did on

him. I said he is going to stand in the House on Monday and praise the Minister

of Health and praise the health care system for treating him so well as he has

been treated in the hospital for the last week.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we offer our best

to my critic, Mr. Byrne. Would the gentleman pass on our best to him? I hope he

is back in the House and healthy. I do look forward to him coming back because I

have not had a decent scrum since he left. I know he is going to fulfil his

duties as the Opposition critic and I guess his number one priority would be to

see that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs gets on TV at least

twice or three times next week.

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister, I can hear him say now, when he

gets halfway through his question, `that's enough about that.'

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend the whip now

would let me leave, I have to go to my office because I have a call. I am going

to sit down and I say to you quite honestly, if you have any problems with any

of the work that anyone in the House has been given today, set up an appointment

to come and see me and I will see you and go through the list with you. If you

are looking for more money, which I don't have a lot of, I will try to

accommodate each and everyone of you as well as I possibly can.

I will finish and say that I have been here now - this is the

fifth capital works budget and I can honestly say - and I am going to brag here

- other than the fact of a comment that was made today about fairness in the

municipal infrastructure and capital works program, I think that if the

Opposition and the government went back through the last five times that it was

done, you would find that they could not find any discrepancies in regard to

Progressive Conservatives being treated worse than Liberals. Everyone in this

House, as far as I am concerned, are representing districts and whether you're a

PC, a Liberal or an NDP, you all have hard jobs. You are not getting paid enough

money for what you are doing and I think that all of us, at the end of the day,

are equal. You are certainly equal in my eyes and I offer you my best in regards

to making your announcements in the next couple of days and I hope that I can

continue on serving the public, as well as my own district, for at least another

year, couple years or whatever the Premier sees fit for me to do. Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to rise today, even more so now - since the

list came out today - than before. I was going to speak on debate anyway but,

Mr. Speaker, the minister answered the question I was going to ask before I even

started my debate. It is, is there some flexibility there or is there some

manoeuvring possibly and so on because I will be certainly looking for a meeting

with the minister to discuss the situation in my district?

So having said that, Mr. Speaker, and making note of it

before the minister leaves the House today, I will be requesting a meeting to

talk about my district. Mr. Speaker, I will be honest with you and since we are

being frank and honest today, I will say this, today when the brown envelope was

delivered to my desk and I took out the list of infrastructure money for my

district, when I took out the sheet I have in front of me now, I said there must

be another one. So I looked through the envelope and I was, not dismayed, I was

shocked. I got very little, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

And the minister is right he knows I have been over many

times to speak with him and his deputies and talking about my districts and the

water and sewer problem and the unpaved roads in the communities and so on. Of

course, the House of Assembly here knows full well too, my conversations with

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and so on.

In rural Newfoundland I have thirty-three communities in my

district, I take some nine hours to just drive around each community. I tell you

what a different world to be in here in this House of Assembly with a suit on

and then to go back to your district, what I call the real world because Mr.

Speaker, when I go back there I am stopped constantly and the minister knows, he

mentioned here in the House today what a difference it is to be in rural

Newfoundland and at this particular time and usually like the minister said we

sit down, we talk, we worked some things and he says he does not bring up the

politics, but I still got some doubts about that. Then again although in the

opposition side of my district provincially, we are on the governments side

federally which is a joint project of the infrastructure. It is federal also and

we have a government side member federally who is representing us I assume when

it comes to such announcements as the infrastructure program. I was so

disappointed to see that list today for thirty-three communities, I do not have

the numbers in front of me, but I think it is close to twenty that are not

completing water and sewer out of thirty-three. Then you see roads not paves,

never mind resurfacing, never paved. One hundred and twelve kilometres, the

evidence was in this House in the last few days.

Mr. Speaker, I have some problem when I look at this entire

list and see over $300,000 for ice plants in the stadiums and with all due

respect to the minister for a civic centre anywhere. Yes Mr. Speaker, it is nice

to go out to your district and announce those things, yes it helps the

community, but do you wonder where the priorities are and I am really

disappointed in this list here today. I did not expect to get all waters and

sewers completed or all pavement done, I never expect that, no member does, but

the word used by the minister over and over was the fairness word. Well, Mr.

Speaker, this was not fair, this list was not fair. I will be asking for a

meeting with the minister as soon as possible, immediately if possible to go

through that list again and give him a chance to have a second look at it. See

if he is flexible somewhere and to help out at least another one or two more

communities because it is just not fair.

So, as I look down through the list and see what's on the

list, the word fairness disappears, because when you see over $300,000 for ice

plants and then you see civic centres announced and computer systems and so on.

Yes, they are all great, all needed, but when you look at a family that has

sewer running in their back yard and cannot turn on the water and get a decent

drink of water, well then you wonder if the priorities are wrong. That has been

by argument all this year so far.

It has not been how money is spent and how much money we have

and so on, because I know we are strapped, we will be talking about that for the

next twenty years, fifty years probably. It is never the point of how much money

we have to spend, we all know that we have been told the story over and over and

over about how strapped we are. It is always a problem on priority Mr. Speaker,

priority, treating every Newfoundlander fairly and equally. It has never been a

question of how much money. For the person in Nain or for the person on the

Labrador coast or right on down through rural Newfoundland, through anybody's

district, Mr. Speaker, it is never how much money we have to spend, it is what

your priorities are and you cannot convince me that an ice plant for a stadium

is more important than a man being able to turn on his tap and have a drink of

water or not see sewer flowing in his back yard. You cannot convince me of that

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem.

It has always been the problem for years I guess, but

especially over the last several months, as I see money spent. I have a real

problem with that, maybe no other members in the House got a problem, I do not

know if it is on this side or the other side. I used an example yesterday, I am

on record as saying so I will use it again, it is only an example it is not the

core of it, the Rick Hansen contribution, I have a problem with that. I really

do have a problem with that and Rick Hansen - I stated in this House yesterday,

I personally contributed to that when he was going across the world and so on, I

support him, he is a hero for Canada. I have all due respect, but there are

wheelchair people in this Province who could use the money. There are people in

this Province who could use a bit of calcium on their dirt roads in the summer

so they can walk up the street. There are people in this Province who watch the

sewer run out their back garden, who would like for it to be fixed. It has never

been a question to me of how much money, this government, previous governments,

the next government will complain that we are strapped for money. We are all

going to do the same, but the one thing that this government is sadly lacking is

where they put their priorities.

Where they put their priorities is in the middle of a fiasco

in the last few weeks, that is the only thing you can call it around the

Province with spending; is that in the middle of all these crises, schools

closing down and I will give the example that I gave yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I

will give it to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal and she knows, but

I just want to give this specific example because it drives home the point.

In one community, and I would not name the community because

it would be unfair to the rest of them but in one community, on Monday I had a

call that the roads were impassable; they could not get up they were blocking

off the roads. On Tuesday I had a call from the same community that people were

told that they could not get into the hospital they had to go on a waiting list

and there were some pretty bad situations there. So, they did not have a road,

they could not get into the hospital and on Wednesday, the same community, Mr.

Speaker, gets a call back, they had word that their school is closing. In three

days, they could not get into a hospital, could not travel over the road, their

school was closing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you tell me when a community is affected

like that, why a priority cannot be made to do something, at least show some

confidence in them that where they are living we believe them, rural

Newfoundland, that we know you are living there, you pay taxes as well as

anybody else pays taxes so you should have the decency, that is what it is

called, Mr. Speaker, it is called common decency, to be able to have proper

water and sewer and a decent road over which to drive. I even had some

communities in my district, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation before she leaves, who said I would not even want

pavement, I would just settle for an upgraded road. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, our

school is lost, we cannot get into the hospital, we don't want pavement either

but just upgrade our roads, just so that we are not shaken to pieces when we

drive to and from services elsewhere.

It is really, Mr. Speaker, a time to sit back and review and

to act on something because I know - the Speaker himself comes from a rural

district and many people in this House who have rural districts know exactly

what I am talking about. It is okay for us to stand in this House of Assembly

when it is open for three hours a day during the week but when we leave here,

Mr. Speaker, and go out to my district like I am about to do in an hour or so,

when I go back to those communities, Mr. Speaker, I go back to the real world

and forget the game that is played in here, a lot of the time, with politics,

and when a lady looks at you and says: You know, my child is not going on that

bus, and as a matter of fact she is a retired teacher, the lady whom I used as

an example the other day.

A retired teacher you know, wants her child to have the best

education and so on but she said: I am telling you, I am at a point now where

this road, if something is not done with it, and I described it as a road that

you would not use for moose hunting, she said: if something is not done about

this, I am going to teach my child at home, he is not going on a bus ride like

you just experienced and which I told you yesterday, that I took the bus ride

myself, Mr. Speaker, and that, was a hard thing for that parent to say and it is

a hard thing for a politician to stand up and say I support kids being out of

school, because I don't. I do not support children being out of school. I do not

support using children in protests to keep them out of school, to a point and,

Mr. Speaker, we just came to the point. The school closed, the hospital was full

and they did not have a decent road over which to ride.

In one particular community they said they would not even ask

for pave