May 22,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we get to the routine proceedings for the day I want

to welcome to the galleries on behalf of all members, a number of groups

including twelve ABE students from Skills for Success, 50 Parade Street, St.

John's, along with their instructor, Donna Adams. As well, we have twenty-five

students from St. George's High School in the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde

and twenty-five students from Whitbourne High School in the District of Harbour

Main - Whitbourne, along with their instructors, Jeff Seymour and Jean Elliott.

In the gallery, as well, we have Mayor Cliff Moores, Mayor of Anchor Point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to -

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. the minister requesting leave to

address the House? Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you. I would like to bring to the

attention of members of the House a matter concerning - do I have leave to

continue?

MR. SPEAKER: I had not called Statements by Ministers, so

I was just wondering if the hon. the minister is making a statement. This is a

statement? Okay, fine.

Statements by Ministers

MS BETTNEY: I was ahead of myself - sorry.

I would like to bring to the attention of members of the

House a matter concerning constituents in my district. We have been notified

from one of the schools in the city of Mount Pearl, the Mount Pearl Senior High

School, of a great achievement that has been attained by members of the Mount

Pearl Senior High School Show Choir. These young people from the city of Mount

Pearl have been fortunate in being able to attend an international show choir

festival which was recently held on a cruise ship, of all places. We heard over

the weekend that the Mount Pearl Senior High Show Choir were successful in

winning a gold medal with a superior rating performance in this festival. They

were competing against six other countries in this international festival, and I

think it is a very high achievement for these young people. It speaks well of

our education system and the music system that exists within the school but it

is certainly a very high tribute to their skills and to the dedication and the

excellence that they bring to this. I would simply ask, on behalf of the House,

that we relay congratulations to the Mount Pearl Show Choir, to their director

and their school principal on this achievement and the excellence that they have

shown on behalf of our city and the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to join with the Member for the District of Mount

Pearl to again endorse, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House,

her comments and her congratulations to the students at Mount Pearl Senior High

School and Mount Pearl Junior High School, who, of course, formed one team for

what is called the Mount Pearl Show Choir. They have been, as the member has

said, in the sunny South, and we all know that they have performed very well

over a number of years. It just goes to show the great talent we have in

Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, of course, the talent in the city

of Mount Pearl. So, I want to again join with the minister, offer

congratulations and to wish these students well in all their future endeavours.

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the

minister - the Member for Mount Pearl, and the Member for Waterford Valley, in

congratulating the Mount Pearl Show Choir on their achievement. It is an

achievement not only for Mount Pearl but for all of Newfoundland and Labrador to

have this recognition on the international level. It indeed shows what talent we

have and what ability we have here in this Province and it is certainly nice to

see that kind of talent recognized on the international stage.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Social Services.

Does the minister know the impact of cutting 6 per cent in

funding from transportation assistance, the effect that it will have on social

assistance clients, particularly those who need transportation for health

reasons?

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

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

We are well aware of the impact that any cuts have on social

assistance. We were faced with a number of choices in the Budget from rollbacks

to eliminating and reducing services in particular areas. We are aware of some

of the hardships it will cause, but it was all a matter of choice and I think,

in the overall Budget, we are very pleased that we were able to do the types of

services that we are providing with as few cuts as possible.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I heard the minister correctly when he presented the

Budget on May 16, he stated a modest increase in social services.

I ask the minister: Will she confirm that her department sent

a memorandum to all district managers on May 16, on Budget Day, telling them

that the budget for household furniture for recipients of social assistance has

been cut approximately in half, and only in an `emergency' situation will a

client get a new stove to cook on or a mattress to sleep on?

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

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

Yes, I am aware of the memo that was sent around to all the

districts to notify our people. We try to communicate as soon as possible on any

issues related to the Budget or any other matters affecting the constituents

that we serve. There is a significant amount of money still in the Budget and

while we are aware that it may not meet all the needs, most people do, in fact,

have furniture and beds. We are trying to counsel people that when we do provide

this furniture, they have to make it last for a period of time.

Some people, in fact, come for a new bed every year, but some

people make it last for seven, eight, or nine years. So we are trying to

implement some counselling and do the best we can with the services we provide.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Will the minister confirm that her

department's May 16 memorandum told regional managers that government is going

to be reducing and even suspending funding for social assistance recipients in

its rigorous efforts to claw back income tax refunds?

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

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

As has been previously addressed in the House, the issue on

social assistance clawing back - as the hon. member referred to - income tax is

not a new policy. It is something that we have been doing over a period of time.

There are a number of provisions available to people who are receiving income

tax. Newfoundland has one of the more generous policies across the country by

already allocating $100 per family for those who receive income tax rebates.

This is more generous than most provinces, and for those people who have spent

the money, there is an overpayment provision in place.

It is something that we are very much aware of, and it is a

policy we are trying to be more consistent in applying. It is not a new policy

and we will continue to implement that policy.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The memorandum indicates that emphasis is going to be on

suspensions and reductions rather than overpayment recovery. I ask the minister:

Would she confirm that her department has discontinued funding immediately,

effective immediately under regulation aid for special education needs in cases

of illness, or in cases where the age of the children has, until now, warranted

additional income for the support and the proper maintenance of the family?

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

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

When any person comes to social assistance to receive

benefits, they sign a contract which allows those people to give the department

the opportunity to look into the monies they are receiving and other benefits.

It is based on this that we are retracting the money that they are not receiving

through the proper means.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are

also to the Minister of Social Services.

In the Budget allocations, under the subhead entitled Child

Welfare, item 3.1.01, in comparison to the 1995-'96 allocations there is a cut

of $491,800 in the total amounts to be paid on behalf of children who are in the

care of the Director of Child Welfare, or who reside in foster homes, group

homes, or other living arrangements. What possible rationale can the minister

offer to support these cuts to the most vulnerable children in our society?

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

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

Well, as my hon. colleague knows from the previous session of

the Houses, part of this money would be allocated to the Presentation House,

which is now closed. Another portion of it is allocated to the Humber Valley

Co-op, which is currently closed. Another portion of that funding is allocated

to a particular organization which we have not had the opportunity to contact,

and out of fairness to that organization we would prefer to follow the proper

channels, identify the issues, and deal with the people affected before we

discuss it in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

a supplementary.

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

In the memorandum to the district managers, the minister

states the allocation of these programs has been made with the understanding

that under no circumstances are they to be exceeded and, of course, by

implication if they are exceeded then there will be cutbacks.

Does the minister recognize that she was just recently

advertising for new foster homes? And does it mean that children who have needs

may potentially be deliberately left in family situations where they are at

risk, and this would be done in order to keep the departmental budget on track?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I again will refer to the previous

session when similar questions were asked concerning the care of children. The

reason we are consistently looking for foster homes is to address the need that

we have for adolescent children, which is a need that was not previously met in

our discussions and continues to be one of concern for all of us.

We will always try to place children in their natural family

environments whenever possible. We will always try to reunite natural families

whenever possible, and we will continue to do that in the interim by providing

foster families who are able to provide the resources needed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: My question today, Sir, is for the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The minister is well aware of water and

sewer needs in my particular District of Conception Bay South and I don't really

need to spend a lot of time on this particular issue. He certainly is, or should

be, well-versed in this.

I would like to ask the minister today: Some time ago your

department held discussions as it relates to public and private partnerships and

funding for water and sewer systems, especially as it relates to Conception Bay

South. Water and sewer delivery is a key issue of concern in my district. I

would like to ask the minister how things are progressing on this issue, and

what discussions if any are taking place at this particular time?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think most of us in the House

at least realize that in the Budget Speech by the hon. Mr. Dicks there was

reference made on a number of occasions to the possibility of pursuing the idea

of public-private partnerships.

About, I guess, three weeks ago the town of Conception Bay

South made a proposal to my department as it relates to the completion of the

water and sewerage in the town of Conception Bay South. After that there was

another presentation made to my department and to other Cabinet ministers, other

departments, as it related to that project. We have as of today received an

official notification that we will have to address, I guess, as soon as possible

if we are to proceed with this project, or if we are not to proceed. We need to

address it as soon as possible. Other than that, other than the fact that it is

a public-private partnership idea where the private sector will be funding up

front this particular project - that is what is being suggested to the

government - but with some attachments or with some conditions like guarantees

from the provincial government.

The hon. Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has discussed

this with me on two separate occasions. As you know and as we all know he was

into a pretty extensive budgetary process in the past couple of weeks, as we all

were. We didn't have time to address the question but he assured me yesterday

that as quickly as he can possibly get to this, he will get to it. I am sure

that sooner or later, within the next couple of weeks, we will be able to make

an announcement on whether or not we, as a government, think that this is a

feasible project.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would I be right then in

assuming, Mr. Minister, that within the next couple of weeks there should be a

written submission going forward to the Town of Conception Bay South and maybe

even forward to this House?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

member being a new member in the House, I think some of his colleagues who are a

little older realize that if there is going to be anything done in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody older, a little wiser.

MR. A. REID: - little older in regards to experience.

They realize that if there is a decision made on your particular district you

will know yourself, first of all. When we make the decision on whether or not

this project is feasible in regards to financing and what it would mean to the

Province, yes, we will definitely have to let CBS know almost immediately and at

that particular point in time I will be at least telling you and my other

colleague who has been arm twisting me for the past three weeks, as well as

yourself, to get this project done. I will make the House aware of the decision

when it is made.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Mr. Minister, the Budget presented on May 16 cut municipal

operating grants by another 10 per cent and fire protection grants to St. John's

and Corner Brook by 20 per cent. Corner Brook and the St. John's Regional Fire

Departments have seen reductions in staff in recent years; 90-93 per cent of the

St. John's Regional Fire Department's budget is expended on salaries. The

regional fire department is being cut by approximately $425,000; much of this

cut will have to be taken out of salaries. Has the minister or his officials

done a study on the impact of the indirect lay-offs or job losses not mentioned

in the Budget?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook and St. John's are

the only two cities, towns, villages in Newfoundland where the Province provides

funding for fire protection. In the case of St. John's we provide $2 million a

year as a direct grant to the city, $2,500,000 as of Thursday past.

With the process we went through in regards to trying to save

money to accommodate the Budget shortfall but at the same time trying to

maintain programs in other departments, I felt it necessary - and my colleagues

in Cabinet concurred with me - to reduce the amount to Corner Brook and to St.

John's at least for this year. I am not sure what will happen next year. I am

hoping that at the end of the day maybe in two or three year's time we may be

able to reinstate it, I doubt it but I am hoping that it can happen. I cannot

apologize to St. John's and Corner Brook for doing this; both St. John's and

Corner Brook are capable of recovering that lost revenue a lot easier than some

of the smaller rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we did. We did not do

any studies to see what the impact would have on job losses. It is a question

that I will have to deal with on an individual basis with the Mayor of St.

John's and Corner Brook. I have already met the Mayor of St. John's yesterday.

We discussed it. I am meeting with the Mayor of Corner Brook tomorrow afternoon

and at that particular point in time, I guess, he will inform me of what this

means as it relates to layoffs.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Minister, the St. John's Regional Fire Department was

downloaded to the municipalities a few years ago with no planning basically or

very little support. Before the Budget and in recent years, fire stations in St.

John's and Corner Brook have closed. Staffing in the St. John's Regional Fire

Department has been reduced by 27 per cent in the past ten years with an

expanded area to protect. Isn't the minister fearful that fire protection for

the public is being reduced in these areas and in fact, safety of the

fire-fighters is in question with an ever declining fire-fighting staff?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, it almost sounds like he is

trying to lay a guilt trip on me or something here today. Boy I am telling you,

you are going to have some job.

I take amusement out of the fact that he did suggest that

there has been continued reductions for the past ten years in the St. John's

Regional Fire Department. What year was it we downloaded as you said, the

regional fire department from government to the City of St. John's?

The other point I will make to you is that for years the City

of St. John's was lobbying every year, and the members from St. John's, previous

members from St. John's, were lobbying to have the fire department passed on to

the City of St. John's. They were asking for it. They were saying for years that

the government shouldn't be into it. After a period of time the government - not

this government, the previous government - decided to pass the responsibility of

the fire department for the northeast Avalon over to the City of St. John's.

The City of Mount Pearl opened its arms and said: We will be

a part of this. Just last year, after I suppose a thousand tries by a previous

minister, the present Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, a little

fellow from Carbonear, comes in and gets Mount Pearl and St. John's to sit at

the same table, and on the end of it actually put their hands out and shook

hands and said: This is a great idea. This northeast Avalon regional fire

service is a great idea and we are going to work together to make it work in

this particular area. Mr. Speaker, it is working.

Now, the down sizing part, or the down sizing question, is

not a question that I can address. I will have to address the down sizing of

every department I suppose in the Province if I had to address the one in St.

John's. St. John's is quite capable of finding the dollars they need to put back

in, the $500,000 that was taken from them. St. John's is quite capable of

finding that $500,000, so if they find the $500,000 I'm assuming there won't be

any down sizing.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

minister, it is because of the down loading that there is a down sizing in

staff. I would also say that if St. John's and Mount Pearl requested the fire

fighting service they also requested the funding to go with it.

Anyway, my third question. The grants under the cost-shared

program for fire fighting equipment and upgrading of old equipment has been

wiped out altogether this year. Last year it was $250,000. This small amount of

money is mostly utilized by the volunteer fire departments across the Province.

Doesn't this minister see that this cut as (

a) a threat to the safety of the

smaller towns, (

b) a slap in the face to, and a threat to, the safety of the

volunteer fire fighters themselves? I would just ask the minister would he

consider to reinstate that $250,000 for rural Newfoundland?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. Not only

rural Newfoundland. Out of that $250,000 we had last year and the $1 million

previous to that some of that went to St. John's, Corner Brook, Mount Pearl,

Clarenville, Carbonear, Gander, St. Anthony, a number of other places.

I say to the hon. member - and I've been asking this question

for some years - why should we as a government, why should the rest of this

Province, be subsidizing two fire departments, one in Corner Brook and one in

St. John's, when we are not subsidizing any other fire department in the

Province. That is the first question.

The other question you asked me was: Do I feel bad about it?

Yes, I feel terrible about it. To be quite honest about it, I do. I fought and I

argued for more money to be put in the budget for fire departments in this

Province, but it came down to a choice of social services, health, education,

and I had no other choice. But with that said, I've already notified all

communities - a letter went out today to all the communities - expressing a

concern. If communities have concern about fire fighting they have the option to

come in to me and I do have some money in a budget - notice I said "a budget" -

that will assist municipalities with fire fighting problems or capabilities. I

can't say how much I have because that hasn't been determined yet, but if it is

a case where a town council or a fire department can prove to me that they need

a piece of equipment then I will certainly look at that, and probably supply the

necessary funding for them to purchase that equipment.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is

for the Minister of Education. School bus service which has been provided to the

students of Shea Heights area for more than twenty-five years has now been

discontinued. The reason being given is that the St. John's Metrobus service

services this area. However, a school bus will travel directly through the

community of Shea Heights on its way to Blackhead to pick up two or three

students in Blackhead. Will the minister investigate these exceptional

circumstances and intervene to permit the twenty-five or thirty students in the

Shea Heights community to be given bus service as well as the community of

Blackhead?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If there are exceptional circumstances as indicated we will

certainly look into it.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: The minister will acknowledge that the

Metrobus fare of approximately $2 a day, roughly $10 a week, quickly adds up and

can be extremely burdensome on a family that is already trying to live on a very

tight budget. I see very little cost to the Province to allowing the bus that is

passing through the community of Shea Heights to stop and pick up these

twenty-five or thirty students. I ask the minister: Will he, on a compassionate

basis, allow these students in Shea Heights to avoid paying substantial costs in

bus fare, and save the money to take the school bus?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue with respect to school busing within the boundaries

of the City of St. John's is being applied to give uniform, consistent

application throughout the city. It is being announced now as a budget measure.

In fact, it is a measure that should have been introduced some three or four

years ago in these areas where there was a school bus service provided within

the city where incorporated, because every other area in the city limits of St.

John's where there is an adequate Metrobus service to accommodate the students,

that is what they have been using for years. School busing in the City of St.

John's has been the exception, and now we are trying to make sure that it is the

standard throughout the city. If there is an exception, as the hon. member

points out, we will certainly look into it.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: The Metrobus, Sir, that passes through the

community of Shea Heights stops on Water Street. These students will have to

take a transfer. The students in Shea Heights surely cannot be expected to walk

to and from school, especially in inclement weather. Won't the minister

recognize that these students will now face added pressures in getting the

education that they need? Since when is it more fair to abide by strict

guidelines than to make simple, compassionate exceptions? I think that the plan

for a better tomorrow is leaving these students behind. Why is it so difficult

to intervene and let these students get the school bus as it passes down their

street?

I ask the minister to please take this into consideration.

Let these students keep the school Metrobus fares in their pocket and perhaps

use it on some much needed lunch fare.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I will repeat the answer. The intention is to provide a

consistent level of service for everybody within the boundaries of the City of

St. John's where there is an adequate Metrobus service provided to accommodate

the students' needs, and if there is an exception, as the hon. member seems to

indicate, we will certainly look into it. If it requires some additional or

extraordinary attention, we have been providing that in circumstances in the

city now. There are special transportation initiatives for students in the city

with special needs that are continuing, and if there is a special case for

anyone in the Blackhead, Shea Heights area we will certainly look at it. The

preliminary information that we have had to date is that there is no such

special case. They will not be disadvantaged any more so than any other student

in the City of St. John's who has been using the Metrobus service for the past

twenty-five or thirty years, except in a few areas like Shea Heights, Brophy

Place, and a few others that are now going to be treated exactly the same as the

rest of the city.

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.

The federal fisheries minister announced on Wednesday past -

that is a week ago - that the total allowable catch for the 1996 caplin fishery

for Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence areas will be 40,000 tons, down

somewhat from last year's quota. The federal minister also got rid of the fifty

count provision which was in place last year and which required the closure of

the caplin fishery in areas where the fish are so tiny that there are more than

fifty in a kilo. In other words, there is nothing to prevent the catching of

tiny caplin this year. Does our own fisheries minister agree with the harvesting

of small caplin to protect our caplin markets? And is he at all concerned about

the impact that harvesting caplin might have on recovering cod stocks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the first part of your question, am I in

agreement with the minister?... Yes, I am. Am I concerned about the impact that

catching caplin will have on recovering cod stocks? I am concerned about

recovering cod stocks and about fishermen earning a living in this Province, but

I am more concerned about five million seals eating 640,000 ton of caplin a

year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the

minister is moving to protect markets rather than moving in a direction that

will allow our cod stocks to replenish and go back to sustain our rural

Newfoundland communities as has been in the past. Two wrongs, I say to the

minister, do not make a right.

It is ironic that the federal minister will permit the

harvesting of tiny immature caplin which our cod depend on for food, but will

then turn around and reject a limited food fishery in Newfoundland which would

take only about 2000 tons of cod, barely the amount of a cod by-catch. The

Newfoundland Government was strangely, blatantly silent last year in the face of

discrimination.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a supplementary and I

ask him to get to his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister: Is it true that all

that is about to change? I ask the minister: Is he about to make a pilgrimage to

Ottawa to convince the federal minister to open our food fishery for this coming

summer?

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

MR. EFFORD: The answer to the last part of the question

is, no, I am not going to Ottawa, nor am I going to phone Ottawa to try to

convince the federal minister to open a food fishery in this Province until we

are satisfied that the cod stocks are there in sufficient numbers to allow,

first, a commercial fishery and then a recreational fishery. We are more

concerned about the commercial fishery in this Province.

As to the tiny caplin the hon. member is talking about, if he

would take time to read the scientific research that was done, he would find it

said that there are sufficient numbers of caplin to allow a caplin fishery which

will have no impact on the food chain for cod. Also if he would take time to

read further down through the scientific research that was done, he would find

that the size of the caplin has nothing to do with the quantity nor the numbers

of caplin in the ocean - it has to do with the age of caplin. He should also be

reminded that when caplin reach the age of four to six years, it dies anyway.

Now, I would rather see the Newfoundlander be allowed to

catch a few caplin just to earn enough money to get through these desperate

times, than see the caplin perish and die. Scientific research has given us

enough information to know it is not going to have any impact on the food for

cod.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

final supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I cannot believe what I am hearing. This

is not the same member, the champion of the people, who stood in this House

years ago and said we should stop believing in scientists and believe in the

fishermen, believe in the real scientists. Here he stands today in protection

and defence of those very same people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and no

preambles are

required. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister if he will believe the

real scientists, the fishermen who are out there today, and not rely on the

people who are educated from a couple of books?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, having performed in the role

of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and recognizing a far better minister when

I see one, in the Member for Port de Grave, I want to stand and reassure the

member opposite, who I know is genuinely - I can tell by the tone of his voice -

genuinely concerned about the future of the stock. He ought to be aware, as the

minister has just pointed out, that the previous federal Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans last year on the fifty count rule, asked the science branch of the

department to do an analysis of the age and size of caplin to find out whether

the continuation of the fifty count rule, which was only put in, in the first

place, at the request of industry, was necessary. That analysis was conducted

and completed in time for the incoming federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,

Mr. Mifflin, and it is on the basis of that analysis that we now have a caplin

quota this year.

Now, with respect to the member's attempts to try to make a

campaign cause out of the food fishery, I think, the member and his party did a

very good job making that an issue in the last election and the results are

here, of course, for all members of the House to see.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we continue with the routine proceedings, I would like

to welcome to the gallery, fourteen students from St. Kevin's High School in the

Goulds, and Bishops College in St. John's; also thirteen students from Cobourg,

Ontario, along with their instructors, Barbara O'Keefe and Roberta Fuller.

As well, we have in the gallery the Mayor of Twillingate, Mr.

Harry Cooper. I would like to welcome him on behalf of all members, and we have

a former Member of the House of Assembly, for the District of Placentia, Mr.

Nick Careen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition signed by 760 residents of

the District of Ferryland, and to petition the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to approve funding for replacement of a bridge and the construction of

a new bridge for the upcoming season.

I understand the Premier is now giving an apology.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition concerns an area in my

district that is of major concern, and I will read the prayer of the petition

further, that: We, the undersigned, believe that the bridge called Long Run

Bridge, is totally sub-standard, should have been replaced years ago and is a

hazard to the motoring public. It is located in Cape Broyle on Route 10, the

main highway servicing the Southern Shore of Ferryland district and was

constructed in the early 1950s. It is approximately 125 feet long and is only 20

feet wide from rail to rail on a main highway leading into my district.

The approaches to the bridge -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will read the prayer first, I say to the

minister. The approaches to the bridge are inclined and curved, with trees and

embankments preventing a clear view of the bridge. And I will just illustrate,

Mr. Speaker: The bridge is only twenty feet wide and sometimes with snow

clearing, snow piles up inside on the bridge, making it not passable when two

cars meet; there is a turn on both sides, it is at the bottom of an incline in

both areas, and there have been numerous accidents in the past in this area. It

is considered unsafe. I know, the local people and people in the department are

cognizant of the fact that it is a hazard, it is a danger to the motoring public

and something, Mr. Speaker, needs to be done about it.

I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

take a very serious look and I am sure her departmental officials will conclude

that it is in major need of repair and replacement. So, Mr. Speaker, this area,

is a danger; there have been numerous accidents in this area in the past. It is,

I am sure, a priority in my district in road construction and that has been

confirmed by the department on their priority list. They have been several years

requesting work to be done in this specific area. People in the entire district

have signed this petition, 760 people, and there have been numerous other calls

and requests to have something done with this part of the highway. I now refer

again to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I ask the

minister to take a serious look at the particular petition I am presenting.

It is a bridge that is twenty feet wide, when the standard

width of a main highway, I think, is twenty-two, and it is almost impossible to

meet vehicles there on the main part of the highway. It is recognized, I know,

as a priority by her departmental officials, it has been on a list for a number

of years, but no money has yet been allocated. There have been numerous

accidents in that particular area, it is at the bottom of a hill on one side, a

steep hill with a turn leading into the bridge; the opposite side has a sharp

turn, you cannot see oncoming traffic from either direction. It is a danger, a

concern; it is prioritized as a need in the area.

I request the minister to take a look at this specific area

and I am sure her departmental officials will confirm exactly what is here in

this particular petition. So I ask the minister if she would consult with her

officials in the department and look at repairs to bridges that are presenting a

hazard. They are not luxuries. It is a hazard to the motoring public. The number

of people moving into this area has been increasing by three-fold in the past

number of years. With new opportunities in tourism in the area and an

archaeological dig in Ferryland, there are thousands of people coming to that

area on an ongoing basis, and the bridge is a very major concern. I ask the

minister if she could address that in an appropriate manner, Mr. Speaker. Thank

you.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today in

support of the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for the District

of Ferryland. I have had many discussions with him concerning this particular

area and I would ask the minister to make sure that her officials, at the

earliest opportunity, go up and have a look at this bridge. It is certainly in

need of widening. As my colleague has said, there have been numerous accidents

in this area, and I would implore her and her officials to go up there and to

allocate the necessary funding to see that these repairs are done.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a second petition in what I hope to

be a long line of petitions on this particular issue of the food fishery. I will

read the petition prayer again.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador known as the Fightin' Nfld'ers: We, the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador, do hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to support our petition to do one of the following: (

a) Open a Food and

Recreational fishery to all Newfoundland families; or (

b) Close the Food and

Recreational fishery to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, this is one of many

petitions I plan to present to this House on the food fishery. It is that time

of year again when the people in this Province consider it is about the right

time to make a decision if they can go out to jig a fish this summer to eat.

In the line of questions today to the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture and then to the Premier, they talked about scientists and

scientific research and so on. Of course, we all abide by the information we can

get from scientists. But it is really funny that the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture would stand and talk about the scientific research coming out of

Ottawa when years ago he stood and talked about how we listened to the

scientists for too long and that is why we have such big mistakes in the fishery

of today. So when we should listen to the scientists and when we should not,

that is the question.

Now, the question comes down to the food fishery: Is it

really to do with conservation of fish stocks or is it to do with perception and

image? My guess is that it has nothing to do with conservation of fish stocks

whatsoever, that the 1,500 tons estimated, 2,000 tons, some say, according to

DFO officials it is just a guesstimate of 1,500 to 2,000 tons that were caught

in the experimental food fishery of the past. Fifteen hundred tons to 2,000

tons, Mr. Speaker - seals eat twice that amount in one day. That is enough for a

feed of fish cakes, my hon. colleague, the Member for Ferryland says. That is

about the size of it, too, Mr. Speaker.

The real question here is not conservation, it is about a

perception, it is about an image. That is what it is about, this food fishery,

no more than that. The now-Premier, who was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

at the time, and who made this decision, used excuses from the last experimental

fishery. He said: First of all, they are getting small fish. What I decided to

do, instead of talking to the scientists out of Ottawa, was to take a little

trip around my own district and ask fishermen what they thought.

First, they asked me: What fool is out there catching his

fall fish in August month? And with all due respect to the Premier, if he talked

to the fishermen, I am sure they said the same things to him. It is not in

August that you go get your fish for the fall. It is in September and October

that you get your fall fish; that is the best time for catching fish in the

bays, when you are talking about using hand line and jiggers, and it is better

fish - October, usually.

On the second point, of course, the argument was: Well, look

at all the people who are coming in without fish, or coming in with small fish.

The Premier knows again that if he talks to the fishermen - because I went out

with fishermen and I got my ten fish. But I also saw next to me -

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I'm very serious about this. Mr. Speaker, I

can tell the Premier that the food fishery wasn't the only issue in my election.

I can tell him that I didn't do surveys to see who supported it. I do not know

if it is 10 per cent of the Province supports it or 20 per cent. All I know is

that the fishermen I have talked to believe they should be able to go out and

jig a fish to eat if there are fish in the bays.

The second part of the argument the Premier used, as the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, was: They are getting small fish, and some

people are not getting any. He was right. Because the doctor who was in the boat

next to me came over to us and said: Boys, where do you anchor off? In other

words, in practical terms, fishermen will tell us, the politicians in this

House, you can go out for a month of Sundays in a boat, and go jigging fish, and

if you don't hit the berth lands off that coast you will never get a fish. I say

that to the Premier, in all due respect. In all due respect, a fisherman will

tell the Premier, and he knows it, that you can go out and scoot around in the

best kind of equipment, the best kind of a boat, for a month of Sundays, but if

you don't know the berth rights off Petty Harbour, and the hummocks off Fleur de

Lys, then you don't get the bloody fish, and that is what happened. There were

too many people going out in this Province who did not know where they were

going, and what I am saying to the Premier is that was an unfair assessment of

the monitoring of that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: If the Premier is asking me that question, I

will say the criteria we can settle with the consultation of people in the

industry. The criteria should include consultation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, if he

does decide - which is the right thing to do - to open up a food fishery for

this Province, which I believe in my heart and soul is the right thing to do,

then he should consult fishermen, not Ottawa and bureaucrats and DFO. Go talk to

some fishermen who think about the right way that we can go about a food

fishery. Let's not close it down for the wrong reason, which was scientific

research. We are talking about offshore masses; that is why the moratorium is

on, not for in-bay stocks, when you could go down off Round Harbour, off your

wharf there, and catch a fish, and now you are not allowed to do it. When a man

goes with nine fish in his boat... 1,500 tons, seals eat that in a day. One

dragger catches that in half a day. It has nothing to do with conservation, this

decision on the food fishery; it has to do with perception and image.

The people of this Province who want to go out and jig a fish

to eat with a hand line are the last people who should be told they are not

allowed to fish. There is a sentinel fishery, there are all kinds of monitoring

going on with the fishery right now, and I applaud any government for doing that

- we need to do that, and do it better - and what a great way to monitor the

fishery in this Province. What a great way to monitor the fishery; open a food

fishery, have people who catch fish say where they caught them, how big they

were, and do a report. At the same time, I will throw this to the Premier, a

suggestion - they are always asking: What would the Opposition suggest?, well,

here is the suggestion - open the food fishery; let them catch their small

amounts of fish that they were catching, and also have them, as part of the

criteria, do a monitoring process so that every fisherman or every person who

catches a fish will report back to DFO and give them information, so we will

kill two birds with one stone, I say to the Premier. We will let the people go

out and catch fish to eat, which won't hurt fish stocks - I am convinced - and,

at the same time, ask everybody who catches to do a monitoring process, to

report so we know there are fish in that bay, in that part of the Province, and

so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good idea.

MR. SHELLEY: This idea, by the way, is not my idea. I

would like to say it was, but it came from sitting around with a bunch of

fishermen saying: I would like to jig a fish. I will tell them what I catch in

the bay, how big the fish are, and we can help the federal government do a good

monitoring process in this particular issue.

I don't believe for one minute, and if I did, Mr. Speaker, I

wouldn't be standing in this House, unless I can be proven wrong by `scientific

research', if I can be proven wrong that the small amount of fish that were

being caught did not hurt the conservation of the massive stocks off the

offshore. We are talking about in-bay stocks. I have asked DFO officials, I have

asked the Premier's former fisheries department and so on: Can you give me the

scientific research that shows the difference in in-bay stocks and offshore

stocks? Can you give me the scientific research on coastal Newfoundland and off

Quebec and off Nova Scotia and so forth?

By the way, Mr. Speaker, this petition in particular talks

about the discrimination that they believe is still there, when you can go to

Prince Edward Island on a holiday and jig ten fish and you cannot jig one here

in Newfoundland, and I believe we should be allowed to do that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in

response to the petition, because I have been, on many occasions, in another

Chamber wanting the opportunity to come and respond to the proposition being put

forward by the member opposite.

Now, the member ended his comments on this petition by

suggesting that there are still many people, including those who signed the

petition, who believe - and he chose his words very carefully, believe - they

have been discriminated against. The reason many people believe that there has

been discrimination is that the member - albeit, of course, inadvertently; he

wouldn't do it deliberately - has contributed to that belief that they have been

discriminated against, and other members, and sometimes on several sides of the

House have contributed to that belief that there has been discrimination, so

let's deal with the first issue, this notion of discrimination, and deal with it

factually, because in this Chamber - I would ask members to listen for a moment

- in this Chamber all of us will, on occasion, find ourselves tempted, in the

middle of very difficult circumstances, at a time when unemployment is high, at

a time when 40,000 people have qualified for TAGS in this Province, at a time

when 27,000 people are on the TAGS program, at a time when - depending on whose

numbers you believe, Stats Canada or the revision by the Executive Council -

thousands more have lost their jobs, it is always easy and very often tempting

to stand and portray matters in such a way as to illicit applause and approval

by suggesting that people, who are displaced, that they have been discriminated

against.

I say to the member that he has a responsibility to examine

all the facts. This member has said in the past, on many occasions, that

Newfoundland is the only Province where a food fishery is not available and the

member knows, he knows as I stand here looking at him, that that is false. He

knows that is false and on each and every occasion when that statement has been

made, he has known it to be false. The fact of the matter is, that ever since

the food fishery in area 4RS, that is the gulf coast of the West Coast of

Newfoundland - 4S being the North Shore of Quebec, an area that the Member for

Labrador knows very well - ever since area 4RS has been closed - 4R the West

Coast of Newfoundland, 4S the North Shore of Quebec has also been closed for

that entire time frame and why is that? Because the 4RS gulf cod stock is one

stock, it is not two stocks. It is one stock and you cannot close a food fishery

on the West Coast of Newfoundland and not close the food fishery on the North

Shore of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, the facts will show that all the time that we have

had a closure of the food fishery on the coast of Newfoundland we have equally

had a closed food fishery along the coast of Quebec. Now if the member wants to

have a parliamentary debate about parliamentary niceties I am laying the plain

facts on the table.

Second point, Mr. Speaker, the reality is the member has

tried to make this an issue for the last several years. He has tried to make

this a cause. The fact of the matter is I believe that the majority of people in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and a solid majority want governments,

whether they are federal or provincial, if they are going to err in their

management of fisheries resources to err on the side of caution. What possibly

would get into our minds, after 500 years of history, for the first time in 500

years to not be able to engage in a commercial fishery, to have spent the last

seven years on TAG programs, NCARP programs, to see the first signs of recovery

and those have to be the brooding stocks to rebuild our fishery to have the

member up saying that every last living, breathing person in Newfoundland and

Labrador, whether they have ever seen a salt cod in their lives, have ever been

on the water, have the right now to go out and catch a fish. Is that what the

member is saying? He wants to take the cod out of the hands, take the future

away from the fishermen of the Baie Verte Peninsula? He wants every person who

lives in urban Newfoundland, who works in Confederation Building, to steal the

future from the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Is that what he wants? Well that is not

what we want on this side of the House. We will stand with conservation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all he said that I put

forth falsehoods. I (inaudible) even used that; the Speaker can look that up.

Mr. Speaker, he still has not answered the question. He asked

for the time to stand in the House to confirm his position, he twice so far put

forth falsehoods that I have said. I would like to ask the minister still to

answer the questions that I asked during my five minutes. Well you have been

rambling on for so long that you have not answered it. Inshore/offshore stocks,

1,500 tons in conservation and so on. You have not answered it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that we are on a petition not Question

Period. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today to

support the petition as put forward by my colleague from Baie Verte and I don't

think he was deceiving anybody. In fact, I think it is a perfect situation where

the Premier has been away too long. He has become a city slicker, Mr. Speaker,

and not in tune with what is happening out there in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. When you talk about the food fishery and you look at some of the rules

and regulations that DFO have implemented, it shows they are not talking about

conservation, but it is the silliness that is involved.

I would like to ask the Premier, what conservation is there

in catching out of a herring net a cod fish which is dead and then having to

throw it away? Where is the conservation there, I ask the Premier? This is the

kind of thing that is happening in our fishery today. We are not allowed to go

out and jig a cod fish, we are not allowed to go and take a cod fish out of a

net, bring it ashore, and then use it for food. We have to throw it away. The

Premier said the decisions are made on the side of conservation. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that is certainly not conservation to me.

Mr. Speaker, it has always been our heritage, I suppose, as

Newfoundlanders, to be able to go out and jig a cod for food, and I firmly

believe when you listen to the real scientists who are out there today, the

fishermen of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, if you listen to the fishermen,

you will find there is still an ample supply of cod out there today, so that we

can still have a cod food fishery, which takes less than the normal by-catch of

other species of fish around this coast.

It seems totally unfair when we go and take our own native

Newfoundlanders to court, charge them, take their boats and take their engines,

while we allow other people to go out and fish, which I think, and the fishermen

in most cases think, is the same stock of fish that we have swimming in our bays

around the Island portion of this Province. It is certainly evident today who is

making the decisions on the other side of the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to interrupt the hon. member. It being 3:00 o'clock,

we have to proceed to Orders of the Day.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With that I will clue up because I am sure there will be lots

of other petitions presented on this same topic and we will have lots of chances

to respond.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Private Members' Day, the

resolution on the Order Paper is from the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Before standing yesterday to present this private members'

resolution dealing with the cutbacks at the university, I gave it some

considerable though over the weekend. Opposition, as everybody knows, stands at

any point in time and tries to hold government accountable in terms of decisions

they have made. A year-and-a-half ago, or about two years ago, when another

Budget came down, I stood in this House on a private members' resolution dealing

with post-secondary cutbacks, particularly, to the elimination of the grant

portion for students, and particularly, the impact it would have on the increase

of the debt load on individuals trying to attain a post-secondary education,

especially those people who, not coming from wealthy backgrounds or wealthy

situations and who had no other choice but to apply for student aid and to

remain on student aid for the lifetime of their program. I though about that

over the weekend and again looked at what has taken place with the university

over the past seven years, the number of cutbacks they have had to endure, and

government, in facing its own fiscal crisis, has had to come to terms with, to

deal with and try to spread, I suppose, as much as possible, the pain and

suffering, or the elimination of government money to as many government

departments and agencies as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that stands out in my mind today

in looking at where the university's budgetary allocation was in 1989, and where

it is today, after the Minister of Finance gave his Budget Speech last Thursday,

is, we have come to a situation, and the university has come to a situation,

where the actual course offerings, the number of degree programs that we are in

a position as a society and as a Province to offer, is becoming jeopardized.

Yes, we can look at a 10 per cent increase in tuition fees,

and while I do not agree with that for one minute, students will have to bear

the costs because of the Budget Speech of this government. But what is

unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, what is truly unacceptable, is that, people today at

university who are in their second, third and fourth years of three, four or

five-year programs, may find themselves not able to graduate upon their own

route or upon the way they wish to within the allotted time, but may be forced

to wait two, three and possibly four semesters to find the courses they need.

Now, this is not rubbish or gibberish made up by myself as a

member of the House. I have talked to university officials and I have always

talked to university officials since I have been a member of this House. I

monitor what is happening at university; I have in excess of 600 students in my

district who attend Memorial University, who attend other post-secondary

education institutions, and therefore, it is important for me, as member, to be

as up to scratch as I can on that situation. But what we are looking at, what

the university is looking at over the next three years, is the reduction of $8

million on its current allocation for this year.

The university, over the last year, and over the past six

months, made significant strides, I say to the minister, towards cost-cutting

measures that would not affect the health and safety of the people at the

university, that would not affect in a great or dramatic or catastrophic way,

the amount of course offerings available to students, but they have cleaned up

their own house. The minister, in Question Period yesterday talked about: the

university can trim some fat administratively, a nickel and dime here and there.

Memorial University, Mr. Speaker, has trimmed its fat. It has trimmed it since

1989 - there is nothing left to trim.

What the university will be forced to trim over the next

three years, will be degree-granting programs, will be the number of course

offerings. We will look at, Mr. Speaker, and we will see the university making

decisions on: Will we offer these five credit programs this semester so that 500

or 600 or 700 people may graduate or, will we wait until the following semester

to offer it? And it may well be that the only choice they will have at their

means, is to put that off, because if they don't, it may mean the elimination of

entire departments. And if hon. members in this House think that this hon.

member is joking when he talks about that, I urge them to pick up the telephone

and phone administration officials, talk to Dr. Arthur May, President of the

University, go over and sit down with him as I have done and let him lay out

before each and every one of you individually, what the situation is. Mr.

Speaker, that is why I put forward this private members' resolution today, to

talk about that.

Let us investigate a little bit further what has happened

since 1989. Since 1989, tuition costs for students in this Province have gone up

140 per cent - 140 per cent. That is an incredible and dramatic increase. Has

student aid or grants - there are no grants, but has student aid accumulated

accordingly to offset the high cost in terms of tuition costs that have happened

since 1989? No, it has not, but what has happened? The amount of money available

to students has increased in terms of debt load but what we called a grant

portion which many of us, including myself went through. I went through

university on student aid, I have right now about twenty - I think it is down to

about $14,000 or $15,000 but it was a $26,000 student loan, and a portion of

that was grant, but that was eliminated two years ago in the name of budgetary

measures, and we swallowed it.

Students swallowed it, absorbed it, moved on, and what was

the impact of that decision alone - that somebody today, if they did a four or

five-year degree program at Memorial, would not come out owing $24,000 or

$25,000, but would come out owing $44,000 to $50,000 for the same program, as a

result of that minor decision that the Minister of Education at the time talked

about.

What will happen over the next three years as Memorial's

budget is continually reduced for the next three years? The Minister of

Education stood up yesterday and eloquently attempted to say: Well, it is still

going to be the lowest tuition cost in all of Canada, and for that we should be

thankful. As a private member in this House, Mr. Speaker, I am always leery

about being compared to the rest of Canada. He neglected to say that we have the

highest unemployment rate in all of Canada; he neglected to say that we have the

highest number of people per capita on social assistance in the rest of Canada.

If we stand a chance at all of pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and out of

the situation that we are in today, it is not going to be because we eliminate

and downgrade the amount of money available to Memorial University of

Newfoundland. Because that is not an investment in the future. That is putting a

burden on the backs of the people we will depend on ten to twenty years from now

that they will not be able to shoulder.

What else will happen as a result of the budgetary cutbacks

announced by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board? Maybe as a result of

less course offerings we are going to see many students not going to Memorial

but opting out to go to universities in other parts of Atlantic Canada. There is

a great majority, Grand Falls and west of Grand Falls, who do that right now,

who opt to go to Acadia, Mount St. Vincent's, Dalhousie, St. Mary's. These are

the places where students from Newfoundland and Labrador are going, and are

going to go in greater numbers if we do not take a serious look at what we have

done and what the impact of it will be.

What we will save money on today may cost us dearly in the

future. When I see the budgetary cutbacks announced, I understand fully that

government find themselves in a situation, but I am convinced that we can find

the $8 million within the Budget that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

just released to ensure that the levels of funding we should be guaranteeing to

Memorial can remain at that level, until enrolments at the University and

post-secondary level reach such a level that we do not need the level of funding

there right now.

I would like to talk about declining enrolments because they

are very important, and to put in perspective what declining enrolments will

mean to Memorial University, and certainly, other post-secondary institutions -

but this private member's resolution dealing with Memorial - what it will mean

next year and the year after. Declining enrolments this year, next year and the

year after at Memorial will have very little impact because the enrolments will

not decline significantly. Therefore, the amount of revenue required by the

University to sustain the number of courses and degree programs should remain

constant. But the Provincial Government, beginning four years from now, or after

the third year announced by the minister, will begin to see enrolments at

University decline significantly, and it doesn't take a mathematical genius to

figure it out.

This year, the number of graduating students from all over

Newfoundland and Labrador will be 9,000. Four years from now, or five years from

now, the number of students graduating from Newfoundland and Labrador will be

5,000, down about 40 per cent. Now, as that smaller number filters through our

post-secondary systems, the costs associated with ensuring that they have a

there, the very premise that Memorial was founded upon, that it will not cost

this Province nearly as much as it is costing right now. We are going to see and

begin to see an accrued savings as a result of declining enrolments, four years

down the road.

I will just clue up my opening remarks by saying that I am

looking forward to hearing other private members and other hon. members stand in

their places and debate this motion, and to put forward what they believe and

what they see, and to offer any new information or research that I have

overlooked or do not have at my disposal, that would call into question remarks

that I have made in this House, and the remarks associated with this Private

Member's resolution, but I will say this: I would be very surprised if any hon.

member in this House has taken the time, or will take the time, to go meet with

the university administration and officials there, who are completely open to

meeting with any member in this House, and see first-hand the choices that are

on the table of the administration of Memorial University, and what the dire

consequences of those will be, and I am sure that not an honourable member in

this House could disagree that the academic integrity of our institution,

Memorial University, is what is in question because of the budgetary cutbacks.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great privilege and

honour to speak to this resolution. I listened to the presentation of the hon.

member, listened with great care, and have no doubt about the sincerity of his

remarks; however, I cannot help but observe over the past little while the kinds

of resolutions that hon. members have introduced, and invariably they relate to

government policy, a program, a policy that government has accepted, and the

Opposition expect members to turn themselves inside out to do a turn about face

to support their particular resolution.

The credibility of this resolution can only be measured by

looking at other resolutions advanced by members of the Opposition. Wednesday, a

rather important day for Private Member's resolutions, one would expect that all

of the resolutions would not be in reaction to something that the government is

doing. One would expect that some of the resolutions would give us some idea of

where the hon. members are going, what their policy is, and I have seen precious

few of these kinds of resolutions.

Now, the matter that we are dealing with is a rather

important issue, education. Nobody doubts the value of education. Nobody doubts

the kind of effort that this Province, or any province, or any country, should

put into education. We all believe in maximizing our educational effort. We all

believe in maximizing the full development of all our young people so that they

can be better equipped to meet the challenges of a changing world. I don't think

anybody would disagree with that. Nobody would disagree with the goal. I guess

where we disagree is with the process of how we reach that goal.

We are living in a real world, a world with fiscal problems,

and this Province more than any other. The question that we are wrestling with

is how we attain our goals, more specifically how we provide services of an A1

standard in comparison with our ability to pay. Now, the hon. gentleman seems to

assume as well that education equals dollars, or maybe turn the equation around,

that dollars equal education. In other words, the more dollars you spend, the

better will be your education. Of course, that is not true. There is a minimum

value, there is a minimum amount of money we must spend - there is no question

about that - to equip our educational institutions, and dollars we should spend

on salaries, programs, the whole bit. I don't think any of us have arrived at

what that dollar value should be, so we have to take it in the context of the

Province's fiscal position. Now, I have not heard members opposite tell this

government how they should establish their priorities. I have heard hon. members

opposite reject any cuts in social services. I have heard hon. members opposite

object to any cuts in health care. Today they are objecting to cuts in

education. Now where are the cuts going to be? Facing the tremendous fiscal

restraints that we are now facing, what choices does this government have? Hon.

members are saying don't touch education, don't touch health, don't touch social

services. These are the items of big expenditure in this Province. If we don't

touch these what else is left to the government? What else is left? Now I tell

hon. gentlemen or hon. members opposite that we have a problem and we are all

part of the problem and I could also tell them that we all have to be a part of

the solution. If we are to solve this problem, if we are to deal with this

economic fiscal problem that we face the solution here in this House amongst all

the members.

We cannot afford, Mr. Speaker, to squander our present. We

cannot afford to destroy the present because if we do there will be no future

for anybody in this Province and this is what this government is trying to do,

under difficult circumstances, to ensure a future for our people. If we don't

deal with the fiscal problems that face us now, I can tell hon. members there

will be no future. So we have, in a responsible manner, to force all of our

departments to look at themselves, to fine tune what it is we are doing so that

we can offer our people the best that we can in services in accordance with our

ability to pay. That is the problem. That is what we have to address and, Mr.

Speaker, it certainly is not untrue for education any more than it is for any

service industry or any public service that a government is responsible for. So

I say to hon. members opposite, we do have to be responsible in this matter. We

do have to exercise some degree of responsibility in establishing priorities

where the government sees fit to reduce expenditures and to cut expenditures so

that our people will suffer the least.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I suppose if we could do it, the ideal

thing would be to have free tuition. I suppose that would be the ideal thing if

we were moving far enough left on the scale. We did that at one time in this

Province. That is probably part of the problem that we are experiencing today.

No question, that has to be the aim of every government. It must remain the aim

of every government to ensure that our students are getting a world class

education and to get a world class education we must provide world class

institutions and I believe that is the commitment of this government. That is

the commitment of this government to the people of this Province to provide a

world class education to our students. It does not mean that we have to offer

the broad spectrum of education to every subject and every field that is

available. This is a problem that has been faced, not only by this government,

by governments right throughout the Western Hemisphere, right throughout the

world to look and see what type of education our students will need in terms of

the money that we have and cut the cloth accordingly.

The hon. member mentioned that maybe some of our students are

going to have to look at universities elsewhere. Now that has been the case ever

since I can remember. There is that element of choice because we don't offer all

of the programs that can be offered, nor will we in the future be able to offer

all of the programs available, all of the educational programs that students

would want to pursue. We have always had a large number of students going to

universities on the mainland, from Vancouver or Victoria to Halifax. We have

already had that. I have had friends who have attended many universities right

throughout Canada, there is nothing wrong with that. That is why we live in

Canada, but I tell you what, Mr. Speaker, they will not be going there because

tuition is cheaper. They will not be doing that. They will be going there

because that is their choice; because they think the university will offer a

better program. That is why they will be going there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: What world are you living in? Programs are

cut, courses are not offered, so what choice do students have? No choice.

MR. LUSH: The hon. gentleman sounds like a fatalist. That

is not correct, not correct to say, that all of the programs will be dropped. We

believe in the creativity and the innovativeness of the people at Memorial to be

able to do what has to be done and still offer our people a quality education

within the fiscal restraints that we have imposed upon them, within the monies

that are available to them. We believe in their creativity. We believe in the

innovativeness of these people at Memorial.

Our people have to accept the challenges that we face as a

result of the fiscal and economic malaise in which we live. Just recently, I

think, if hon. members will recall, they saw a program on Here and Now

which highlighted Gambo, my own district. The people there were without a

swimming pool. The swimming pool had deteriorated over the last several years.

What did they do? Did they just lie back and wait for money from government?

They knew they could not get it so they decided to take care of it locally. They

took care of it locally, and with the contribution from the people and the

volunteer work they were just baffled by it. Today not only are they going to

develop their swimming pool, but they are also going to have an outdoor skating

rink behind it. If they had to wait for that money from government they would be

waiting a long time. They knew it so they decided that they themselves would

take the thing in hand and went about providing a service, a vital service for

the young people and the adults of that area. That is the kind of innovativeness

I am talking about. That is the kind of creativity that our people are going to

come up with to face the economic challenges that we face.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a time for the fainthearted, it is not

a time to sit back and bemoan the financial problems in which we find ourselves.

It is time to accept challenges. It is a time for people to come forward and get

together and solve those problems for the benefit of the people of this

Province. That is what we are expecting. That is the kind of reaction we are

expecting from our people.

Now, the Opposition seem to be like a rudderless ship blown

around by every wind and wave. As I said today it is education they are

complaining about, tomorrow it will be social services, and the next day it will

be works and services. I tell the hon. members they are going to have to develop

some kind of focus. They are going to have to develop some kind of perspective

so that the people will know what they stand for. We know what they are against.

It is not sufficient to know what you are against; we have to know what the hon.

members are for. As I said, if we were taking this particular resolution in

isolation, yes, we would be able to say that this is the priority of the

Opposition, but it is difficult to know their priority when as I said tomorrow

they will be talking about social services, they will be talking about health.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman were to have attended

Memorial last year he would have paid, according to these statistics here of

September 14, 1995, he would have paid $2300 at Memorial University. If the hon.

gentleman decided to go to the University of Prince Edward Island he would have

paid $2800, a difference of $500. Supposing he decided to go to Acadia he would

have paid $3400 in tuition, a difference of $1000. Supposing he decided to go to

the University of Cape Breton the tuition fee there would have been $3000.

Supposing he decided to go to Dalhousie where many of our students go, he would

have paid a tuition there of $3095. In the fifteen universities in Atlantic

Canada, Memorial in 1995 had the third lowest tuition in all of Atlantic Canada,

the third out of fifteen universities. To hear hon. members talk you would think

that it would be an exorbitant excessive rate and they could go to the mainland

and get tuition free, or else get tuition much cheaper.

I think possibly the only province wherein tuition is lower

than Memorial right now as a province as a whole would be in the Province of

Quebec. In the Province of Quebec the fees are marginally lower than in

Newfoundland, than in Memorial. Outside of that, every one of them are asking

much higher fees for the tuition. Not a matter of $200 or $300 but more in line

with $600, $700 and $1,000, depending on the university.

I know that is not the only factor that one would use in

establishing whether or not tuition is equal and proper and just for all our

people. One would also use the unemployment figures and the salary per capita

and all of those kinds of factors. But looking at the Maritime region, which is

not too much dissimilar from Newfoundland, I think we will find out that our

tuition fee is not that excessive. I for one do not subscribe to the theory

advanced by the hon. gentleman that all is going to be doom and gloom, that we

are going to have courses cut all over the place, that there will be no more

opportunity to get degrees in this Province, that Memorial University is going

to be downgraded to some kind of a high-school institution or something.

No, Mr. Speaker. The intention of this government is to

ensure that Memorial University is a world-class institution that is still

offering education to our students that is going to be of the highest quality

and is going to train them to be productive and contributing citizens of the

future. That is the commitment of this government and that will continue to be

the policy of this government. Despite the gloom and doom offered by the member

opposite, that is not going to change the mind of this government. We are not

going to be derailed; we are not going to be taken off the course of offering

top-notch services to our people in every area. We intend to make this Province

a better place in which to live. We intend to make it a better tomorrow.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to

rise in support of the private member's resolution so ably brought forward by my

colleague the Member for Kilbride. I can assure the member opposite, indeed the

members opposite that cuts in education, and specifically cuts in post-secondary

education in this Province, are matters which are of deep concern to members on

this side of the House. It is a reflection of this concern that this private

member's resolution was brought forward today.

I'm surprised at some of the commentary referenced by the

previous speaker with respect to the appropriateness of this type of private

member's resolution being brought forward to the House of Assembly. One has to

question: If education and educational matters cannot be brought forward and are

not considered to be issues of importance to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in

our society today, what type of issue can be brought forward as part of a

institutions and in particular our only University, if issues relating to

post-secondary education in this Province cannot be brought forward or indeed

cannot be the subject matter of a private member's resolution, what else is

there? Clearly this is an issue of importance to all Newfoundlanders, and that

is precisely why my colleague the Member for the District of Kilbride saw fit to

post-secondary education in this Province.

Let's look at the provisos. This ought to act as a reminder

to all members of this House, in particular members opposite, why it is indeed

important that a private member's resolution such as this be brought forward in

this manner.

WHEREAS ensuring ready access to high-quality post-secondary

education is crucial in developing a productive workforce and building a vibrant

economy. Clearly, such reference, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear that the very

essence of our society in this Province, and indeed any hope that we have as a

our society and indeed, to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am going to continue with the next proviso: AND

WHEREAS the

Provincial Government, and having reduced Memorial University's operating budget

in real terms by substantial amounts in recent years, has announced in this

year's Budget, as announced by the hon. Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

last week, that the University's total grant will be reduced by $8.1 million

this year, next year, a further $3 million and the following year a further $3

million, in excess of $14 million, Mr. Speaker, being reduced from Memorial

University's operating budget.

Clearly, this is an issue which has to raise the concern of

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and that is reflected in the news

releases, the news reports, the members of the faculty of Memorial University,

those involved in the teaching profession, in particular the Professional

Teachers Association, anybody who has a vested interest in education in this

Province, has reacted quite severely to the announcement of in excess of $14

million being cut from the operating budget of Memorial University within the

next three years.

Mr. Speaker, this institution is an institution which, as all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are proud of and hopefully, in the future we

will continue to be proud of. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, it is our

only university; it is the only university in this Province to which

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have access - granted we have a variety of

campuses scattered throughout; it is an institution of higher learning

excellence; it has excelled particularly in the number of faculties and

disciplines. For example: Marine sciences and marine technology; for example in

the area of earth sciences, the geology department has historically proven

itself on the map in terms of educational excellence.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, again the Department of Business or

the Faculty of Business at university has excelled where our students have

competed nationally and internationally in various competitions and have done

exceedingly well. This is a reflection of the status and indeed the excellent

status which is enjoyed by our Faculty of Business at Memorial University.

Within the humanities, the Folklore Department, the Department of Second

Languages in particular French and Spanish, and other departments within the

humanities at Memorial, they have excelled internationally in terms of writings

and in terms of various periodicals, and members of the various faculties at

Memorial have been recognized as academic scholars in a variety of departments

at the university. So indeed, we have an institution for which we can all be

very, very proud; we can all be very, very proud. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is:

how long will we be able with pride to say that we continue to have an

institution of academic excellence? How long, Mr. Speaker, can we continue to

say that, and that is the thrust of my concern and, Mr. Speaker, that is why I

am proud today to speak to this Private Members' Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, in a document which was released entitled:

Post-secondary Indicators, 1995 , in fact, it is a publication by the

Department of Education and Training and is dated in February of 1996. It lists

concerns, this is a publication presented, published by the Government of this

Province and it, in a very honest way, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, brings

forward concerns that the department in and of itself has recognized which

exists under the current situation at Memorial University. This is prior to, Mr.

Speaker, the announcement made by the Minister of Finance last week. This is

prior to the proposed reduction of an amount in excess of $14 million over the

next three years.

I would just like to mention some of the concerns and I

repeat, Mr. Speaker, these are concerns which I feel have been made in an honest

way, by the government of this Province, illustrating to the public of this

Province, where areas of concern lie. I would like to refer to just several of

them. Fewer than half the undergraduate students at Memorial University complete

their degree five years after they first enrol. The average annual graduation

rate over the period 1985-1993 was approximately 46 per cent. Public college

participation rates in Newfoundland for both males and females lag behind

national rates. More males than females enrol at levels of all adult basic

education programs in the private training institutions yet fewer males graduate

from the program.

During the academic year 1992-93 and 1993-94 students

borrowed, on average, $3,000 annually from the student loan program. The

majority of the loans, some 58 per cent, were issued to university students

where one student in two had a student loan. The number of applicants for

student's loans, as well as the level of student indebtedness in the Province,

is growing. Again, this is a reflection of the status at the university in 1995.

Although tuition is still low, compared to many other parts

of the country, the financial burden on students, due to the low per capita

income in this Province, is among the highest in Canada. With this sort of

revelation, Mr. Speaker, being made and again in a forthright manner being put

forward by members opposite, it can still find a way to reduce Memorial

University's budget by some $14 million.

Although tuition is still low compared to many other parts of

the country, the financial burden on students, due to the low per capita income

in this Province, is among the highest in Canada. That is a significant finding

and that shows precisely why the students of our Province need particular

attention, Mr. Speaker.

Whereas the level of post-secondary participation by females

almost tripled since 1972, participation by males grew by less than 50 per cent.

Although, a more modest increase in participation rates would be expected for

males, given that their rates were historically higher, such a low rate of

Again, an issue or a question which has to be asked, why is it so many young

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not taking advantage of an educational

institution, of an academic institution which has excelled itself worldwide?

Why?

The percentage of youth in Newfoundland receiving university

degrees is lower than in any other Province in this country. That is a startling

statistic. The Province is losing many of its educated people and it is this

particular point, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to reflect upon. The point,

Mr. Speaker, is that we have what we commonly refer to as a brain drain. We have

young Newfoundlanders, educated Newfoundlanders who find, out of necessity, no

other resort but to leave this Province. During the five years between 1986 and

1991 more people left the Province than entered it. More people left the

Province than entered it during that five year period. Of the out-migrants, more

than 45 per cent had a post-secondary education. So the problem is clearly not

but the problem is equally: What are the advantages, and what are the

opportunities out there for young Newfoundlanders who find within themselves an

ability to get an education?

This is a critical problem which faces Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians today, and it is a problem which has to be seriously addressed by

members opposite, and that cannot be done, I would submit, by the elimination of

five colleges within rural Newfoundland, or, in fact, three in rural

Newfoundland and two in the city of St. John's. It cannot be done by the

abolition of first-year university in so many centres throughout this Province.

It cannot be done by reducing a budget to our fine university by an amount in

excess of $14 million.

Education has to be given priority by this government. Last

week we saw evidence of the Education department being the single highest

department hit by budgetary cuts. The education of young Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians is essential if we are going to progress as a Province, if we are

going to progress as a people, and if each individual young Newfoundlander and

Labradorian can have a feeling of self worth. It can only be done when the

educational opportunity is there, and when the educational opportunity is taken,

and I would submit that the direction of this government is to counter that; it

is to frustrate the educational opportunity that does exist, as minimal as it

might be.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker - I understand my time is up - it

is with pride that I second, or I speak to this resolution that was made by my

colleague, the Member for Kilbride. It is an important issue. I have to take

exception to points that were raised by the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

Education is critical, educational opportunity must be uppermost in the minds of

this government, and every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian, hopefully,

matter has been given appropriate attention, then and only then can

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians seek the educational opportunity they so richly

deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: And colleagues.

MR. RAMSAY: And colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very interesting. I suppose,

if you were to look at the Opposition's performance to date, the Opposition

would have everyone in the Chamber believe that they are not required, as an

Opposition, to give us any indication of how they would do it. It seems to be

that they, as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition - they like to call themselves the

P.C. Opposition; prior to the last election that is what they called themselves,

the P.C. Opposition - maybe now they will change to Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition because the P.C. Opposition, as they called themselves, did not seem

to work as a political tool which they were trying to use. Even the placards

around the House of Assembly and elsewhere had P.C. Opposition marked on them,

as a bit of a change. When the Opposition was the Liberal Opposition, it was

called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Now, it is the P.C. Opposition. So they

are Progressive Conservative Opposition, a party which, by virtue of the history

of conservatism, would have one think that they would balance the Budget more

quickly than we would, that their intent during the last election, which was

fought and won by this side of the House, was to balance the Budget over the

course of their tenure of government.

Now, if they were to perform this noble feat of balancing the

Budget in this period of time - and it is not outside the realm of possibility

that the government may achieve a balanced budget this year if we are to achieve

some other fiscal savings or if we were to be able to avoid utilization of the

$30 million contingency fund, if we are able to achieve some $18 million in

other growth in our economy or if we were able to realize $18 million of

savings, then we would achieve a balanced budget this fiscal year. So we would

probably have gone beyond what the Opposition has stated that they would do.

They, of course, would not use the Term 29, I think it is,

money, the $8 million per year that we managed to leverage into a large sum that

has allowed us to protect health care. They wouldn't use that, so we would just

wonder how they would manage to balance the books this year without having taken

some very radical measures.

MR. TULK: You know how they would do it, the same way

they did it from 1982 to 1989 - close down hospital beds.

MR. RAMSAY: Similar to some of the things that have been

done from time immemorial, I suppose. At one time we were able to grow in the

building of infrastructure.

MR. TULK: There were more hospital beds closed down in

this Province from 1985 to 1989 than there have been before or since.

MR. RAMSAY: Anyway, just to go on from this. We have to

wonder just how the Opposition have put this forward. What is their purpose in

putting forward this? Is it so that they can stand up and say to the university

population: Look, we are against the tuition increase, the government is for the

tuition increase. By laying down this kind of resolution that does not

necessarily provide constructive solutions for the benefit of the people of the

Province, this is one way that they have put forward to attempt an embarrassment

of the government, to say that they can point the finger at the government

members and say, they are for a tuition increase and we are against it.

I think the people will see through this. The people of the

Province have gone beyond the pettiness of private members' resolutions on

times. Many of the private members' resolutions are, of course, things that are

very necessary, very timely. In this case, though, we have a situation where we

have to achieve fiscal savings. We have a difficult situation where the finances

of the Province have to be brought into line. What do we do? When we consulted

with the people of the Province we were advised by people throughout the

Province that they wanted health care protected over and above everything else.

That seemed to be the key factor in public consultations that the people of the

Province wanted to be protected. So we listened to the people, we have

implemented policies that the people of the Province wanted us to implement.

That is the first case in point.

Secondly, the people of the Province want us to reduce the

overall waste in the system. If we have what some would refer to as the poorest

- I would say, the Province in the Dominion of Canada that has the largest

potential. Let us stop talking about ourselves as being the poorest province of

the country, and talk about ourselves as having the largest and best potential

of any province in the country. If we look at our potential and we talk about

what it is we intend to do, can we, at this stage in our evolution as a

Province, afford to have and continue to have the lowest tuition in the country

by a wide margin?

Not to suggest that we think that tuition should go up -

because I am sure if we could afford it, if we had other sources of revenue,

then we would do whatever we could to achieve the possibility of free or

marginal tuition. But we have to keep in line with what is happening throughout

the rest of the country, and the tuition increases - albeit they will have to be

some burden to the students involved, the university education that students can

achieve is still a tremendous value. The unemployment rate among university

graduates is 5 per cent, in the most recent correspondence that I saw, from one

of the think tanks that had done a recent analysis on educational achievement.

So you have a select group in society who have had the

privilege and have worked hard to gain a university education or post-secondary

achievement of some form, where they have diplomas or university degrees, have

an unemployment rate below the national average.

Now, of course, the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador,

if the student has training in a specific area and is unable, as a result of

that education, to get a job or to find a career opportunity here in the

Province, may have to go somewhere else - that is often the case; but also, on

the other hand, we have people who have to come to this Province and fill jobs

for which we have people who are untrained in a specific discipline as well, so

it is a bit of a trade-off there.

Now, what would we call the value of Memorial University to

the people of the Province? Well, one thing, when it was instituted as I think

it was Memorial University College at the time, and down on the Parade Street

campus - I think that was probably where the hon. the Government House Leader

attended and maybe this gentleman across the way there, the Opposition House

Leader which, after that, became the Fisheries College following Memorial's

being built on Prince Philip Drive. At that time, Memorial was the only place, I

suppose, that the majority of Newfoundlanders who aspired to a university or

college education would seek. I know, the former Premier spoke of not really

even knowing much about what university was, as was the case throughout rural

Newfoundland.

Now we have come to a situation where, and this is very

disheartening, Memorial has not done a very good job of selling itself to the

people of the Province. We have university students throughout this Province who

feel that they have no choice but to go to a university elsewhere to achieve the

education that they want. In some cases, it is because the program offerings are

different and they had selected a program, but in other cases, it is purely

because they see Memorial as something that is second rate or what have you. For

what reason I am not sure, but Memorial has not, I would suggest, done a very

good job of selling itself to Newfoundland as its captive market.

There are people who come to Memorial University from all

over the world and attend programs there. It has world renown in certain area of

course offerings and program offerings; it has world renown as well with some of

the programs that it implemented and its recent achievement in the area of MBA

competitions through the School of Business. But, to the average student, and I

know, in my own family, I have arguments time and time again, telling them that:

look, Memorial University is a solid, really good university, it does have this

kind of reputation, and you would be well-served to go there, but instead, they

choose, for some reasons, to go to different universities and I suppose you

cannot argue with that, they have the power of their own choice. But we do offer

this and this university's grants from the Provincial Government that assist

them in offering the programs they offer and help maintain a service to the

people of the Province and to others besides.

So, if we look at what is happening here, the government is

taking a decision which will possibly see the university raising their tuition

rates. Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, it is reality; I suppose

you would have to say. The reality of the situation is that we have to find the

savings in the education program somewhere. The majority of the education

program is in the form of employees, teachers' salaries etcetera, grants to

institutions, and to find those savings, it will require that the university be

cut.

Now, the Opposition touts it as being $14 million in cuts.

Over three years, is the part they forget to say. It sounds like a much larger

figure when you don't talk about over what period of time it is. Now, I think it

is three, four and five thereabouts, or three, three-and-a-half and

four-and-a-half, something along those lines in each of the next three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Eight, three and three; okay, so it is $14

million in total.

The university, in some cases, has been isolated from the

fiscal situation that government has gone through. All one has to do, in some

cases and we don't want to suggest that one should not develop good quality

infrastructure but if you look at some of the developments on university campus,

over a period of time, they do have a lot of discretion in their spending power

because we, as a government, do not dictate to them how they spend their money.

There is an element of arms length operation, with the university, in the way

that they spend their funds. Again, we don't have the full access, through the

public accounts committee, to their expenditures to put them under full public

scrutiny. We have the Minister of Education who can bring that to bear but there

are other things I think we have to look at.

What can we suggest to Memorial University that would assist

them in finding these savings? I would suggest first and foremost that they

would be required to accept the first year technology program equivalency for

all of the technology programs throughout the Province, that they would be

required to give this equivalency. That in turn would save them money because

there would then not be a requirement to continue offering the full plethora of

programs to those who have already completed similar programs at other

post-secondary institutions. There seems to be a very strong reluctance on the

part of Memorial, Senate and others involved, in allowing this first year

equivalency for Newfoundland based programs and yet, in most cases, they will

accept the first year technology program equivalency for other Atlantic

technology institutes, schools and colleges throughout the Atlantic provinces.

So it does not make sense that you would accept equivalency for others and not

for your own. Now if there are issues that have to be addressed on that specific

problem maybe they should address them or maybe government should dictate, by

virtue of legislation or other means, that the university should do this. That

can relieve some of the pressure on the programs at the first and second year

level that would allow equivalency.

Another thing that was suggested to me recently by someone

who used to be involved in public life in the Province, this individual

suggested that maybe there could be an Atlantic university which would be

nothing but a paper institution and that institution could get into the granting

of degrees based on the mix of programs that a person had from the various

institutions. So if they had two senior years from Memorial and they had their

two years of technology background from another program that an Atlantic

university degree be granted to that individual on the basis of an evaluation of

those programs or maybe they could have a - suggest that they then do four more

university courses, five or whatever might be an appropriate amount to give that

full rationale mix of programs so that a degree could then be granted as an

Atlantic union type of thing that is run by the variety of different

universities throughout Atlantic Canada because there is but one tax dollar and

as we, as Canadian taxpayers, are supporting Memorial University, we are also

supporting Dalhousie University, we are supporting UNB, Mount Allison and all of

the various universities throughout Atlantic Canada as a part of your federal

taxes. So we have to make sure that the Atlantic universities are offering

programs that benefit all of the students. In my particular area of the Province

students are much more likely to go to Cape Breton, UCB.

Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, these students I think do need

to have Memorial sold to them better so that they will be interested in staying

here and utilizing the services. We have to get that first year equivalency or

second year equivalency brought in. Finally, I think we have to do whatever we

can to see to it that the students are provided with the best overall

educational opportunities within the confines of available monies so that the

people of the Province and the students of this Province can benefit from this

point onward as they have in the past and can help build Newfoundland and

Labrador and create that better tomorrow because it is not going to be created

for them by government. It is each and every individual involved in the

educational system essentially, going to have to do their part to create it for

themselves. I think that is the message we have to get out; we have to become

much, more self sufficient.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member on leave?

MR. RAMSAY: No, I am finished.

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

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

If my hon. colleague wishes to have additional time there

isn't any difficulty in our being helpful and co-operative. We always want to be

helpful and co-operative and share suggestions with the government.

Mr. Speaker, I speak to this resolution today because it has

been a priority of the Liberal government from the time it got elected in 1989

to have a strong focus on education. I recall hearing Dr. Warren who was a

candidate for election in St. John's North when carrying on his campaign and

offering himself as a candidate indicating that he would have a prominent

position in the new Liberal government if the Liberal government got elected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that Dr. Warren did get

elected, and we know that Dr. Warren became the Minister of Education, so we

know that in 1989 when the policy manual was being drawn up at that time for the

Liberal government there were strong words in the policy manual which we have,

the campaign 1989 policy manual, and it talks about the strong commitments that

the Liberal government would have in the area of education.

Let me quote a couple of comments from the campaign manual of

1989. It says our economic, social, and cultural development depends on

improving the quality of education available to our people. Newfoundland and

Labrador cannot hope to participate fully in Canada's twenty-first century if we

continue to neglect our responsibilities in education. Now, let me continue with

the commitment to university and post-secondary. It says, `University and

technical training facilities must relate to the Province's social economic

direction, and services should be coordinated to avoid inefficient use of effort

and resources.' Note this comment. It says, `Post-secondary facilities will be

expanded to allow more students of rural areas to participate in career

development without being penalized by the high cost of accommodation and

transportation.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is where the Liberal government got

its mandate to expand the community colleges, and that is where they got their

mandate to go out and expand those facilities where we offer first year

university courses in various parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker,

as part of that commitment in 1989 there was a commitment to build a university

campus, a full scale university campus, in central Newfoundland, and we know

what hope that gave to the people of Central Newfoundland. It certainly was a

very high priority for the government and, of course, we know that many people

in Central Newfoundland voted for the Liberal government because of that

particular commitment.

There was also a commitment in 1989 that the Grenfell College

in Corner Brook would be upgraded to be a full degree granting institution, and,

of course, later on that college was amalgamated with Fisher Institute and it

did achieve that status. There is a strong Liberal mandate in education. It is

there and we know what happened. Dr. Warren got elected, he became Minister of

Education and one of the things he did along the way, by 1990 he had developed a

White Paper on education.

Mr. Speaker, I just happen to have the newspaper for October

6, 1990 and let me again read some of the headlines from this particular paper

of October 6. This obviously talks about the commitments of Dr. Warren and his

Liberal government at that time and what was going on.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: I remind the Government House Leader to watch

his blood pressure. Yesterday you were talking about Sprung and all that kind of

thing, so today we have to remind you that you have a past. You haven't got much

of a future, but you definitely have a past.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member, let me quote

from the paper. This is October 6 1990. This is after there had been a white

paper on educational reform in the Province, that is, post-secondary changes,

and there had been 115 submissions across this Province. Some in Lewisporte, I

would say to my hon. colleague, some on the Burin Peninsula. From all across the

Province, 115 groups made submissions in response to the white paper. What did

Dr. Warren say back in 1990 on October 6 as reported here? He said that he was

still committed to the triple E in education. Do you remember the triple E? The

triple E in education talked about the three Es, and they were; equality,

excellence and efficiency.

When we see today students throughout this Province who were

being told in the Liberal mandate 1989 that they could have their educational

facilities in their communities, in Lewisporte, in Grand Falls - Windsor, in

Burin, in Carbonear and all over the place, and now we find that commitment,

which was made in 1989 and was brought forward by Dr. Warren, now we find that

the government has reneged on it absolutely.

I just wanted to again make a couple of quotes here because

Dr. Warren applauded the initiatives of the Liberal government. He said: What a

wonderful initiative it was to be able to expand the college system, to be able

to go and to meet the priorities of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He

made it clear that all University programming of course would remain under the

control of the Board of Regents for Memorial University where it should remain,

and he said that first-year programs would be offered in many parts of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We at that time in the Opposition - at that time I

wasn't a member of it - applauded that particular move. We believe in bringing a

quality of education right out to rural Newfoundland where it belongs.

I just happen to have here with me another book. This

particular book is called Ready for a Better Tomorrow. In this particular book

you would expect us to build on what Dr. Warren said. We would expect ourselves

to be saying: This was the beginning of a process; we are going to build on it

because we are all ready for a better tomorrow. Let me see what is in here. Let

me have a look at what it says. On page l it says: "A key element of our

Platform is partnership. We are committed to an open, on-going process of

dialogue and discussion in decision-making."

I want to know about the discussion that took place with the

Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island before they decided to close the

Bell Island campus. I want to know the discussions that took place with the

Member for Burin - Placentia West before they decided to cancel the University

program over there in the Burin campus. I want to know what discussion took

place with the Member for Windsor - Springdale and what partnerships were there.

Obviously the Premier when he signed this document - and it

is signed by the Leader of the party, the current Premier - he talked about an

"...open, on-going process of dialogue...." When did it happen? I heard a member

say that the member only had two hours' notice before they were told: This is

what is going to happen in your community. So much for dialogue, so much for a

process. The election was over and the Cabinet members said: Boy, don't tell the

back benchers, they can't keep their word, they might let this slip out.

Where do we have here the evidence of dialogue, the evidence

of consultation? There wasn't any. We all know what happened. The members were

told at the last minute what was going to happen and then they were told: Keep

your mouths shut, don't say anything, it isn't nice. You have to stay loyal to

the party. You can't be loyal to your constituents; you have to be loyal to the

party. So the party system says: We have you in our grips now, and you cannot

speak up.

I didn't hear the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

say a single word about cancelling the courses out in Gander. When we had the

big demonstration in Carbonear, we saw the example of all the empty chairs, and

they said: Where are our members? They were all not there.

We know that the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island,

give him credit, he had the nerve to turn up. Obviously it was against the

direction of his leader, but he had the guts and the audacity to turn up and to

face his people. Some of the other members, of course, did so as well, but where

was the consultation? Where did it happen?

Mr. Speaker, let's have a look at the red book for

commitments to post-secondary. I am reading through the first page; it says,

`Ready for a Better Tomorrow'. Commitments on education, nothing on page 3,

nothing on page 5, nothing here about educational changes at all. Where is the

commitment? Where does it say we are going to cancel all the colleges? Where

does it say we are going to close out the first year education courses in rural

Newfoundland completely, with the exception of Corner Brook and Labrador City?

Where is that? I have been looking through here, I read through this, a very,

very... Well, it might be after page 40 - I am on page 40 now - so I am going

through it to see if there is anything here about closing those college

campuses. No, there are advanced technologies there. Just one second, I think I

have found the part where it gets mentioned. Here it is where it gets mentioned.

It is on page 51. I will read it. It says: A new Liberal government will support

initiatives to enhance and extend the reach of distance education by creating a

Chair of distance education at Memorial University and establishing a distance

education centre of excellence to provide leadership and direction.

Now, nobody understood that this commitment to distance

education meant that all the students from other parts of the Province are going

to have to travel further distances to get into post-secondary. That is the only

commitment where it talks about education and anything connected to the

post-secondary; we are going to make a commitment to distance education.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that nowhere in this

document is there any reference whatsoever to the changes that this government

brought in as soon as they got elected in terms of post-secondary education. It

is not there. It is omitted, and one can only assume that if it was announced so

quickly after the election that the omission had to be a deliberate omission.

You just don't omit something like that without doing it deliberately. Of

course, what we are saying is that there was a conspiracy of silence here, an

absolute conspiracy of silence, to have this left out of this red book.

Mr. Speaker, what we obviously have here is a government that

has no mandate at all. They have everything here, down to how many thumb tacks

they are going to have in certain departments, but they do not have anything

here about -

AN HON. MEMBER: No plan.

MR. H. HODDER: No plan whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, what we have, of course, back in 1989 there was

a plan. Back in 1990 the White Paper of Dr. Warren said: We have a plan;

however, when Dr. Warren left the plan was scrapped. Unfortunately Dr. Warren,

the captain of that great ship that was reforming things at that time, when he

left the commitment to education left as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe that is why he left.

MR. H. HODDER: Maybe that is why he left. He saw that

there was a difference between what was being spoken and what was being

delivered.

Now, obviously, in this particular case, in this particular

book, there are no spoken words at all. Therefore, they are not committed to

make the changes, of course, but they did not tell the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, in spite of the Premier's comment where he says: A key element of

our platform is partnership... where is the partnership? Where was the

consultation? It did not occur. The Minister of Fisheries didn't even have the

nerve to go to his district when there was a rally and a protest in Carbonear.

The empty chair is all we saw on television.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Fisheries gets the nerve to

go out and speak to his people, he will find out that the people out there

certainly are not satisfied with his decision making on the changes to

post-secondary and cancelling first year university courses after spending $1.8

million to get it set up over there.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying here is that this government

has no mandate to make the changes it has made. They did not speak about it;

they did not dialogue on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the

opportunity to make my comments.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few

comments with respect to the Private Member's resolution presented by the hon.

Member for Kilbride. I understand it was seconded by the hon. Member for Baie

Verte, I believe. It is always nice to know that our colleagues are interested

in the lot of students in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would particularly like

to compliment the last speaker in terms of the Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did a good job.

MR. GRIMES: He did a very good job, actually, I must say,

in his presentation. I think, having seen him perform in the House now for a

number of years, I very much more so enjoyed listening to him today. I think a

couple of years ago I used to find him very boring, to tell you the truth, but

he was very good today actually. He is getting m