May 8, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 22

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

the opportunity to welcome to the gallery today sixty students from Grades V and VI, and

they are students at St. Mary's Elementary in the District of St. John's South. They are

accompanied by their teachers Mr. Eric Hiscock, Ms Barbara Rouse, and Ms Millie Hayley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have forty Grade X students from St.

Michael's High School in the District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island,

accompanied by their teachers Ms Ida Marrie and Ms Tina Forde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to draw the attention of all members

to our guests in the Speaker's gallery today. They are two students, Angela Thomas and

Jason Wiseman, along with their teacher Lyndon Williams, and Whytie Horlick. They are from

Musgravetown High School in the District of Terra Nova. Both students, along with their

lead technology teacher, Lyndon Williams, will be departing from St. John's later today to

travel to London, England, for the official re-opening of Canada House in London, England.

The students and the teachers will showcase for Her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth, the technological capacity in Canadian schools. Musgravetown High School was

selected to represent Canadian schools due to their innovative use and application of the

Internet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: One particular noteworthy initiative is the recent

development and delivery of an on-line Global Issues course, developed for Industry

Canada's SchoolNet.

To commemorate this event, a celebration will be held concurrently at

the Musgravetown School. A direct communication link - audio and video - via the Internet

will be established between Musgravetown High School and Her Majesty at Canada House.

Statements by

Ministers

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House will recall,

government committed in the Throne Speech of March 18 to provide the ground search and

rescue units in this Province with the resources they need to carry out their duties. On

March 23, 1998, government announced a $50,000 grant would be provided to the Newfoundland

and Labrador Ground Search and Rescue Association. The Association is made up of

twenty-seven teams throughout the Province.

Government also committed to give these volunteers the recognition they

deserve as they play a very critical role in our society when it comes to locating missing

citizens.

Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, I should like to say that there are a

couple of groups in my own district and there can be no doubt they do tremendous work. The

knowledge of local people of the area is very valuable in searching for local people, and

they certainly do excellent work.

I would to acknowledge Mr. Harry Blackmore, the President of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Search and Rescue Association, and some members of his team who

are in the gallery with us today.

I am pleased to advise the House that the Ground Search and Rescue

Association will now have a direct link to the Department of Justice. They will have a

voice within government, and we will be listening very closely to what they have to say,

Mr. Speaker.

The Ground Search and Rescue Association has a very close working

relationship with both police forces in the Province. We have every confidence that the

volunteer searchers along with the police forces provide the best circumstances for

finding missing people as quickly as possible.

That is why the Department of Justice is very interested in working

with the Newfoundland and Labrador Search and Rescue Association to assist them in their

preparations, so they can carry out the searches when called upon to do so.

We look forward to working together with them in the future and

sincerely hope they will continue to have such an impressive success rate of locating

missing people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note at the beginning of my comment that the Ground Search and Rescue

Association has been successful because I notice the Premier is in his seat this morning,

Your Honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All hon. members know that it is considered unparliamentary, and it is

unparliamentary, to make reference to members who may be absent from the House. Again, I

caution the hon. Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House do acknowledge and

recognize the very great work which is done in this Province by the Ground Search and

Rescue Association. The spirit of voluntarism is alive and well in this Province, and it

is shown and demonstrated in great ways by this particular Association. We welcome them to

the House of Assembly this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the opportunity to thank, on behalf of all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, the Ground Search and Rescue teams who do such excellent work.

Mr. Speaker, when someone is missing - a family member, a child, a

father, or a Member of the House of Assembly perhaps - it is very great comfort to know

that there are competent, well-trained and dedicated people who are knowledgeable of our

Province, who are willing to engage in the long hours, the time and energy it takes, to

find someone who is missing, and we thank them for their work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Approximately a year and a half ago, I stood in the House and asked the

Premier about the development of non-utility generators in the Province - NUGS

essentially. I asked about the privatization of rivers and the Premier rejected, out of

hand at that point in time, that the privatization of rivers in Newfoundland and Labrador

for private development, for non-utility generation, was not, I guess, a policy approach

by his government.

I would like to ask him today: What is the government's policy with

respect to non-utility generation, or NUGS, of power in the Province? And, is the

government committed to public development of our rivers if it is necessary, or is he

committed to handing the power of our own rivers over to private developers? What is the

policy of government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well, because he

has been a critic for this policy area for some time, that there is currently a policy in

place that allows proposals to come forward, and there is a policy process being followed.

But he also knows that nobody on this side of the House believes that you go out and

develop rivers just for the sake of tapping whatever hydro potential is there.

One of the reasons this government has worked so hard - we take such

satisfaction, having been successful in bringing together another proposal with the

Province of Quebec for the development of the Churchill River power systems - is that we

want to make available for use in Labrador, and for use in Newfoundland, new hydroelectric

power potential.

Mr. Speaker, if we can do that we are not forced to look at every small

hydro development on the Island, we are not forced to look at every river; and, given a

choice between the needs of both industry and the public of Newfoundland and Labrador for

hydroelectricity, given a choice between sourcing it from small rivers or sourcing it from

the Churchill River power developments, we will take the Churchill River power

developments every time.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has refused to

answer the question. If we want to talk about the Lower Churchill development, then we can

talk about it, but the question I asked the Premier today is: Why is government moving

forward on the Island portion of the Province with handing over rivers in this Province to

private developers for energy? Is that the policy approach that is taking place and is the

Premier saying that is not the government's policy? Is that what the Premier is saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the House will note, and indeed the

people of the Province will note, that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to talk

about the Churchill River power development. It has been months since the deal was

announced and the Leader of the Opposition is still uncomfortably perched on a fence. I

can tell the Leader of the Opposition it is better to be standing on either side of the

fence than to continue to sit on the fence because it is not good for your posture or

health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the reality is - and the Leader of the

Opposition is an intelligent man and he knows this - the reality is, we are striving hard

to bring the Churchill River power developments to reality; we are striving hard to

promote - and we did so again this week in Houston, Texas - offshore gas development. We

have nineteen trillion cubic feet to be developed, because we want other sources of

electricity for this Province, other than tapping into small rivers. If we can keep all of

our small rivers for the use of our citizens, both as a recreational resource and as an

environmentally protected area, that is what we are going to do on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: What the people of the Province are coming to

realize, Mr. Speaker, is that whenever a question is asked of this Premier he never

answers it.

Now, with respect to the Lower Churchill Development: Is the Premier -

if he wants to talk about it, I will ask him one question on it - is the Premier telling

me today that the final negotiations are completed, that the deal is ready between the

provinces, because if it is and he lays it on the table, I will give him a quick answer.

Otherwise, if he expects this Leader to sign a blank cheque for that Leader, he can forget

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, here we go. We have the Board of Trade

of St. John's, the Board of Trade in Labrador, we have all of the construction

associations, we have the labour unions, we have the engineering society, we have all of

the former chairmen of Hydro, all of the former presidents of Hydro, we have every last,

living, breathing, thinking citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador saying: Let us get on

with Churchill River power developments; and we have the Leader of the Opposition saying:

I am going to think about it some more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

stops to think about it, he will recognize that these developments are positive for our

Province and these developments remove from us the obligation, Mr. Speaker, to look at

other sources of power that we do not necessarily want to tap into.

Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition, as a matter of principle, I

believe we should avoid, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible at all, tapping into smaller river

developments by going for these large projects which give us long-term, stable electrical

rates for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Opposition.

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

For the record let me say, as a matter of principle this leader does

not believe in turning over rivers to private developers.

Now I will ask the Premier again: Why is government pursuing the

private development, handing over 6 megawatts - we will ask a specific question on a

specific river - why is government pursuing handing over development of the North West

River to a private developer? Why would not Hydro develop that river, if it was necessary

to do so?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, government has not made any such

decision.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, two years ago government, the Cabinet,

not Hydro, called for proposals for private development of the rivers. So government, in

fact, does have the power to make the decision, Premier.

Let me ask you this: Do you understand that, when it comes to private

development of rivers, essentially what we are doing is handing over regulated monopolies

to private interests. Would it not be better in the public interest if Hydro themselves

were to develop that river, if it was necessary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the

Leader of the Opposition is making a case not, as I have pointed out, to avoid developing

these rivers if it is at all possible. Our policy is to find power sources somewhere else

other than developing these small rivers. That is not the problem for the Leader of the

Opposition. He wants to develop the river. He wants the river developed but he wants Hydro

to do it rather than a private sector operator to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, they don't care whether it is Hydro or a private sector operator. They want

these rivers maintained the way they are and that is what we are going to try to do, avoid

developing them at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier is still not answering the question. He

still will not answer any question. My suggestion to the Premier is that he may shoot

another poll to the people of the Province, like the other polls on how he runs his

government, and ask them do they believe in the privatization of our rivers; because he

will find that they do not.

Let me ask him directly: Does he support North West River being

developed by private hands; yes or no, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't support, unless it is

necessary, a single tree being cut. I don't support, unless it is necessary, a single fish

being caught. Mr. Speaker, I don't support, unless it is necessary, a single river being

developed. We do all of these things to pursue the best public policy interests of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said, a moment ago, that

there is a public policy process in place that ultimately will come to the Cabinet for a

decision. The Cabinet has made no such decision. No decision has been taken to develop the

North West River.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I suggest the Premier talk to some of his ministers,

especially the Minister of Environment. I mean, the North West River is about that far

away from being developed. All I have asked the Premier is: Does he support, as the Leader

of the Government and Leader of the Liberal Party, the development of North West River by

private developers? Does he support handing over our rivers in this Province, which are

owned by the people of the Province, to private hands; yes or no, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition - and I

have to assume that it is totally -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I am trying to answer his question, but his

colleagues really don't want to hear the answer, obviously.

I have to assume it is inadvertent on the part of the Leader of the

Opposition -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jack Byrne won't allow me to speak,

and I am trying to answer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Premier that, in this House, it is the practice to

refer to hon. members by the district that they represent.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that timely reminder not

to identify the Member for Cape St. Francis by his name.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said, a moment ago, that the

process or the decision to proceed with the development of the North West River - and he

held up his thumb and index finger - is about an inch away. Mr. Speaker, that simply is

not true. Ultimately, this question will be dealt with in Cabinet and in a Cabinet meeting

it will be discussed. There is no decision, there has been no decision, to develop this

river.

I go back to the earlier comments of the Leader of the Opposition. The

Leader of the Opposition, basically, is saying to the House: It is fine to develop all of

the rivers of Newfoundland and Labrador as long as Hydro does it. Mr. Speaker, I don't

think the river feels any better about its development, whether it is Hydro or a private

sector operator. Either it is necessary or it is not necessary. If we can avoid developing

our rivers we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has not answered the

question. Let me ask him again.

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

Again I have to remind hon. members that repetition of questions,

according to Beauchesne, is not permitted.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

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

I would like to ask the Premier this question: Is it government policy

to develop the rivers in this Province, to turn them over to what are called non-utility

generators, private development? Is that the policy of the government? Or is it the policy

of the government that any hydro development, if deemed necessary, should be done by its

own Crown corporation? What is government policy with respect to the development of rivers

in this Province, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the current policy is well known, it's

a matter of public information. There is no mystery about it. I don't know what the Leader

of the Opposition is talking about. There is a public policy process out there. There is

an invitation which has been issued by Hydro. That is being addressed. Ultimately the

matter comes back to the Cabinet. Now, the Leader of the Opposition surely knows that. At

an appropriate time, when the matter is referred to Cabinet, we will deal with it. If the

Leader of the Opposition is not aware of that process, I offer to have him fully briefed

on the entire public policy process. Mr. Speaker, we know very well how the system works.

The question I put to the Leader of the Opposition is: Why does he

insist that it's okay to develop all of the rivers if they are developed by Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro versus somebody else? I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we should

work very hard to avoid developing these small hydro resources, and the way to do that is

to develop the Churchill River power system. The whole Province is still waiting to find

out whether or not the Leader of the Opposition has a position on this. Everybody else in

society has looked at it and has made a comment. The Leader of the Opposition remains

silent on this important public policy question.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier as well. We have to take advantage of

this situation this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, recently an All Party Committee of the

House of Assembly made two trips to Ottawa to find out some answers on what a new

post-TAGS program would look like. The Premier recently made a pilgrimage across this

country preparing for his next life, and I understand that he also met with the chairman

of the ad hoc committee of the federal Cabinet, and I also understand that he met with the

Prime Minister.

I would like to ask the Premier today: What assurances he can give

20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that there will be a post-TAGS program, and that

there will be funding put in place for those people who opt to move out of that industry

to make that transition?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member is right, I did arrange for

an All Party Committee to be received in Ottawa. He is right that I did meet with the

Prime Minister. He is right, I did meet with the chairman of the Cabinet committee. He is

right, I did talk to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He is right, I did talk to the

Minister of Human Resources Development. He is right, I did talk to the Newfoundland

representative in the federal Cabinet. He is right, I did talk to at least half a dozen

other federal ministers over the last two weeks, many times, to support the effort to have

a post-TAGS program, and I can tell him I'm satisfied there absolutely will be a post-TAGS

program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Later this morning I'm meeting with the hon. Fred

Mifflin, Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet, to be briefed on the latest

developments with respect to the Cabinet committee.

I want to thank the member, and thank others in this House, on all

sides, who I think have done good work in an effort, led by the Ministers of Fisheries and

Aquaculture and Development and Rural Renewal, to bring the message of the need of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to other parties in Parliament. I thank them all for a

job well done.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of items that we put forward as an All Party Committee of the

House of Assembly were licence buy-back, early retirement, economic diversification, plus

others.

I ask the Premier: Your predecessor, Mr. Wells, wouldn't take

part in a

retirement age of fifty for those people with a long-term attachment to the fishery. Do

you, Premier, accept fifty as a reasonable age for fishers and fish plant workers to be

able to retire from this particular industry, taking into consideration their long-term

attachment to this industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to go below age

fifty-five in such a program. Indeed, I suggested exactly that when I was the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans back in 1993, as the member may well know. We have indicated to the

federal government our willingness to participate with them in an early retirement program

along the lines as has been done in the past. We will have to wait and see the outcome of

the federal deliberations.

We would certainly hope that they would be flexible in the approach to

early retirement. There are some cases of people who have spent a lifetime, some of them

going back to their teens, in the fishery or in a fish plant, and who at the age lower

than fifty-five find in the fishery, you are in a fish plant, and who at an age lower than

fifty-five find themselves in a very difficult circumstance. We think that ought to be

looked at, but obviously that is not unilateral in our power. I suggested, as the member

may well know, when I was a federal minister, exactly that kind of approach.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, 2,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians saw their last TAGS

cheque go in the mail two days ago; 2,000 real people like you and me. I ask the Premier:

What assurances he can give to those 2,000 families out there today that they will be

included in a new post-TAGS program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an assurance that

the 2,000 people who have received, as the member has just pointed out, their last TAGS

cheque will be included formally in a post-TAGS program. What I can assure the member, and

what I can assure those families, is that I have raised the circumstance of these

families. By the way, the number, Mr. Speaker, is closer to 4,000 between now and August;

2,000 in the last few days, the member is right, but there will be several thousand more

for a total of 4,000 by August.

Mr. Speaker, I have reached the plight of these families directly with

the Prime Minister and directly with the other ministers in Ottawa who have to take this

decision. There have been some indications in the last week or so, particular comments by

the federal minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Fred Mifflin, that this group is

going to be looked at as well for special programming. Mr. Speaker, I await the outcome of

the deliberations in Ottawa.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minster of Human Resources and

Employment.

Recently we have had many high school students in the building, in the

offices of the MHAs, the ministers and department officials. These students are also being

placed elsewhere throughout the Province.

Human Resources and Development Canada has just announced the

cancellation of the funding that makes the Youth Internship Program possible. That means

the cancellation of many internship opportunities, newer and less established ones, and it

undermines the plans for internships in new areas in biotechnology, aquaculture and

international trade.

Has the provincial government yet decided to step in and increase

support for this very worthwhile program when the federal government steps out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister for Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this program which provided funding for

the co-op program, as many people know it, is one which has been funded exclusively by the

federal government in past years and has operated through the schools and primarily

through the Department of Education.

Along with the Minister of Education, we have been working to try and

get the federal government to look for other sources of revenue that they could put into

this program. We recognize the value of the co-operative program to our students in our

high schools. I know, from comments earlier in the House and elsewhere by the Minister of

Education, that we are doing everything within our power at this time, to try and get the

additional funding that is required to reinstate or continue this program.

Ultimately, it is a federal government program that was addressed

through the high school students to try and provide them with experience with work, and we

will certainly try to ensure that that can continue.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will be

familiar with the most common neurological disease effecting young adults in Canada;

multiple sclerosis. She would be aware that there are promising drugs that can

significantly slow the process of this disease and give people their lives back, but the

drugs cost between $13,000 and $18,000 a year.

Why has the minister decided that the Province will not cover the cost

of these drugs when they can vastly improve the lives of people who cannot otherwise hope

to afford them?

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

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

As the member opposite may know, we spend about $50 million a year on

our provincial drug program, and under our formulary, which is the list, we house a number

of drugs which are able to be provided. Every year thousands of new drugs come into the

market. Betaseron, I believe, is the one to which he is the one he is referring. There are

hundreds and thousands of other drugs put on the market every year. What we have made a

decision to do, as have many other provinces in this country, is that because our money is

limited, because we have been activity lobbying to the - that many other provinces in this

country is that because our money is limited, because we have been actively lobbying to

the federal government for more money for these programs as well as many others, we have

made a decision that we would use evidence-based decision making and that would be

supported by strong clinical trials and evidence that the ability to put this drug on the

formulary would, in fact, be both cost effective and also be supported by clinical

evidence.

Mr. Speaker, right now we are looking at any number of drugs. I receive

hundreds of letters in the course of a month being asked to put any number of drugs on our

formulary for coverage. So that is the process we use and the process is comprised of a

group of clinical experts, mostly of physicians that have expertise in that area to make

those decisions and recommendations to government.

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

Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services referred to

evidence-based decisions with respect to this. She certainly did not apply that last week

with respect to the questions asked by the Member for Ferryland.

Minister, have you considered the fact that spending the money up-front

to pay for these drugs may actually save our health care system, our social system and our

economy many times that investment, since the people helped by the drugs will be able to

function without costly disabilities and medical aliments?

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

Services.

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

I don't want, at any time, to minimize the impact of introducing any

new therapies or drugs for anyone who is suffering from any sort of disease. But what we

have to do, with our limited monies and the fact that we are making decisions every day,

is to have the evidence to support the clinical trials usage and the money to put there.

As has been pointed out, when a drug that will be introduced will cost approximately

$20,000 per year per person we have to be very clear that: (

a) we have the money to do it,

so that we don't have to take other drugs off our formulary; and (

b) we have the clinical

evidence to support that decision.

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

Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the prescribed treatments for MS are Copaxone, at

$13,000 a year; Betaseron, $17,000; and Rebif at $18,000. How does the minister suggest MS

patients pay for these drugs? What do you say to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

steering into the darkness of multiple sclerosis and asking you, as minister, for help?

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

Services.

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

As I have previously said, I can understand a person's willingness and

desire to try drugs that come on the market, but if you are listening, every day you hear

about new drugs for fertility, new drugs for virility, you hear of new drugs for

anti-cancer treatments and new drugs for people who are suffering from alzheimers. Mr.

Speaker, the point I am trying to make - and I think it is a responsible one - is that we

do understand the desire for many people to take drugs once they come on the market. But

because we have a limited amount of money to provide for new drugs - we put $50 million

into our formulary. We have put new money into the formulary to be able to sustain the

growing cost of the drugs we currently have that are listed on our formulary. We have to

be sure that the evidence is provided clinically and that we have enough money in our

system so that we don't have to take other drugs off our formulary in order to provide

other people with an opportunity to have other drugs.

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, just for the purposes of an update. The deadline has passed on the MAI

agreement and I am wondering if the minister is aware whether or not talks are proceeding

on the MAI agreement between Canada and the other countries and if she can give us an

update on that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure as the hon. member is aware, talks

were taking place in Paris on the MAI. At this point in time, those talks have been put on

hold for six months, not to say that they will not happen within the six month time frame,

but at this point in time this Province does not have a position on the MAI because there

is no definitive document from which we can draw a position on, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Based on the talks that are taking place on the MAI

agreement, I ask the minister, based on what is in place right now, what areas of that

agreement do you feel are beneficial to the Province, to industry in the Province, to our

environment and so on?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me say that because this is very much a

work in progress, if anyone were to look at the number of pages that exist in the MAI

document there are so many ifs, ands or buts and so many footnotes to what is happening,

Mr. Speaker. We know that as far as health is concerned, as far as the environment is

concerned, as far as the fishery is concerned, that we have assurances from the federal

minister, who is negotiating on behalf of the country, that those areas will be protected.

If not, Mr. Speaker, this Province would not be interested in participating in any form of

MAI.

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

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask the minister - if I can read clearly from her

answer that she has no concerns with the MAI - if you do: Could you outline to the House

what your concerns are - what areas concerning the environment, health, industry, our

resources - where you do have concerns with what is in place at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the MAI is very much a work

in progress. We have, as trade ministers throughout this country, met and looked at the

document, and because there is no definitive position on any of these areas, and because

we have the assurance from the hon. Sergio Marchi that nothing will happen with respect to

the MAI as it impacts on health, education, fishery, natural resources, without consulting

with the provinces, I feel confident that we can rest assured that nothing will be signed

without our consent.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question this morning is for

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Minister, quite some time ago, in March, you were in the Town of

Conception Bay South and conducted a meeting with all the stakeholders involved in the

T'Railway. On that particular night you promised the people in the room that you would

have a decision by the end of March.

We are now into May and I am still receiving calls as to what that

decision will be or should be. I think the case was made very clear to you that night.

There was actually a poll done - which should make the minister very happy - by the same

company that polls for the Liberal government, which clearly showed a multi-purpose use

for the T'Railway in Conception Bay South. I ask the minister today: Have you now reached

your decision, and can you tell the House exactly what that decision is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the House and the hon. member that the decision

has not been made in the time frame that we thought we would be able to make it because we

were waiting for the Town of Paradise, who appointed a committee. They did this, and I

think it was shortly after the Easter break that we received their information.

Some of the information led us to believe that from a multi-use point

of view the community was very supportive of it, providing all of the appropriate safety

measures were taken. We have since then been costing out the safety measures that would

need to be put in place from the end of the Grand Concourse to the end of CBS because I

think you know, as you are the member for part of that area, it takes in a long area of

the T'Railway.

I have recently received a fax, that it would be about $400,000 to put

all of the safety barriers and the signage and the appropriate things in place. Actually,

I have a paper here in front of me from a group that is willing to look at working with us

- one of the stakeholder groups doing this - and I will be meeting with them later today

to discuss this.

So as we figure out, if we can get the appropriate safety measures put

in place then I will be making a final decision on this. I assume we are just days away

from doing it, but it depends on what happens when I continue to meet with these groups

who have an interest in the trail being totally multi-use. But I need to point out, it is

extremely important for everyone to understand that multi-use means: No motor vehicles, no

trucks or cars. When we say multi-use, we mean hikers, snowmobilers and ATVers.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to put forward the following

resolution:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has announced its

intention to prevent social assistance recipients from enjoying the full advantage of the

National Child Benefit in addition to their meagre social assistance; and

WHEREAS the government's decision to use this clawed back funding for

employment incentives and family resource centres, while important for many people, those

receiving social assistance are clearly receiving inadequate benefits on which to support

their families properly;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to change its current policy to ensure that children living in

families on social assistance receive an increase in benefits equal to the National Child

Benefit.

Petitions

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition given me by my constituents in my district. The petition reads: To the

hon. House of Assembly, we ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of Harry's Harbour, in the District of

Baie Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave roads in the

area. Deplorable and unfit conditions of the road to Harry's Harbour makes travelling to

and from school unsafe for schoolchildren as well as jeopardizes the safety of the

travelling public, and betrays the lack of commitment to rural areas of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last line first. People in rural

Newfoundland today are starting to ask the question of commitment to rural Newfoundland.

People in this particular community of Harry's Harbour feel the same way. I do say to the

minister here today that the commitment in the Budget this year of some $16 million, which

is really $12 million for the Province in provincial paving, is not enough. It is not

enough of a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador in things like pavement, where

they expect to ride over a half-decent road. That is all they are asking.

The community of Harry's Harbour saw some pavement years ago and there

are still some fifteen to twenty kilometres - I think it is seventeen kilometres exactly -

still unpaved. They have been waiting a long time and I think it is long overdue. I think

the minister should consider this to be a priority of a gravel road.

Also, there is the point made by the people in the district that they

have schoolchildren. It is not even so bad that if they had their own school in their

community they wouldn't have to travel. Parents say to me: Even if I had to travel it, and

the kids didn't, on these buses. They are not luxury buses, these school buses. You are

talking about small children in the back of those, in which I have driven myself, to sit

in the back of those buses, how bad it is for schoolchildren.

I implore the minister to give some serious consideration to these

roads that are unpaved still. I still raise the point again, and I have said it many times

over, about double-lane highways in certain parts of the Province, like in Gander,

proposed for, and Grand Falls and Pasadena. Which is, yes, something to move on into the

future, but at the same time the priority should be given, I think, to roads that have not

even been paved yet. They are still, since Confederation, waiting for a paved road. That

is not a lot to be asking.

Not only that, the people of Harry's Harbour understand they are not

going to get their complete paving from that program right away. They are not asking for

that. They are reasonable, sensible people who are asking for their share, that people who

live in rural Newfoundland can get a share of some paving to show there is some commitment

to finish that down the road.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister to give them some serious

consideration and consider them as a priority as a community that should be done. It is

still one of those communities out there.

I know there are gravel roads, and the Member for Twillingate &

Fogo raised it about roads in his district. I say to the member there also, and to the

minister, that all of these roads should be given some serious consideration and priority,

and that people in this day and age, when we see so many technological advances, and we

see so much money being spent on other things that a lot of people would question are

necessary, that priority be given to this, because it is a time in rural Newfoundland when

people look to see something like pavement or water and sewer, the necessities. They are

not something extravagant or anything. They are necessities. When people see that, they

see something concrete.

Believe it or not, it is like even more than the old days. It is

(inaudible) people down to believe that there is something tangible, something physical

that they can see, that the government has not forgotten them, that rural Newfoundland and

Labrador is still surviving. They will be there for many years.

Yes, there are problems in a lot of communities, but in the community

of Harry's Harbour they plan to be there for a long time yet to come. They have a long

tradition in that area and believe they will be living there for years to come. They

believe it is time for them to get some recognition by government to say: Yes, we are

committed to rural Newfoundland, and that a necessity such as a road paving should be

done.

I support them wholeheartedly in this petition. I have done this many

times in the House over and over, as the minister well knows here today, and the Premier

knows, and all members know. I have presented and asked for a priority to be given to

these roads that are still unpaved since Confederation.

MR. HARRIS: Why do you have to keep doing it?

MR. SHELLEY: The Leader of the NDP asked me why I have to keep

doing it. Because I guess they are not being listened to.

I support the minister, by the way, and his Cabinet colleagues, of

saying: Put more money into the provincial roads budget so they can address a very

simplistic, straightforward request by people in all parts of the Province who are still

travelling over a gravel road.

I know the minister will, as I continue to raise it with him in

meetings and in this House of Assembly, over and over, and I will continue to do that for

the people in Harry's Harbour, and people anywhere in this Province who have a gravel road

to travel over in this day and age. Here we are heading into the millennium, the year

2000, when we are talking about spaceships and people visiting Mars and everything else. I

don't think it is to much to ask, that people be allowed to drive over a paved road. I say

to the minister, the people of Harry's Harbour do not expect 17 kilometres to be done next

week or next year, but they expect to see even a few kilometres, Mr. Speaker, to show that

the commitment is there and to show that we are moving in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support them wholeheartedly.

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

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

I rise in my place today to support the petition presented by the

Member for Baie Verte, a very conscientious member who is consistently representing his

district in this House of Assembly, who is presenting petitions and asking questions. A

number of times now I have heard him speak with respect to the condition of the roads in

his district. That is part of the responsibility, I suppose, of a member, to try and get

road work done in his district, to see that they are brought up to the standard that the

other roads are within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. From what I can gather,

in discussions with the Member for Baie Verte, there are a good many kilometres of roads

in his district that are not yet paved.

He just made a comment, when he was speaking to the petition, that we

are sending people to the moon, sending spaceships to Mars, and we cannot get a bit of

pavement for some of the roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a administration here, Mr. Speaker, which says they represent

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all the districts of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador; except for the Minister of Fisheries, of course, Mr. Speaker,

who just has interest in his own district, and any other districts outside his own are

foreign to him, although he is a minister of the Crown.

One of the issues the member mentioned with respect to the petition to

get some road work done, the road to Harry's harbour I think he said, Mr. Speaker, he

mentioned the school children, the buses travelling over these roads which are in hard

shape and need paving. We have, I suppose, children, depending on how far they have to go

- I think he mentioned fifteen or sixteen kilometres - who are probably sick with the

rough ride by the time they get to school in the morning and when they get home in the

evening.

There is no need for it in this Province today. If we have proper

management of the funds that are available to this Province, Mr. Speaker, we should be

able to keep our roads in half decent condition, especially for the children of this

Province, for the safety issue.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education is making some comment over

there. I am not sure what he is talking about. But, with respect to rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, we have to have a commitment from any government, Mr. Speaker.

We see some of the communities losing their schools, and the children

are going to bused to other communities. We had an episode up on the Northern Peninsula

this past week. People believe they need the schools in their communities. It is the heart

of any community; their schools.

We have roads which are in hard shape and we are asking communities to

bus their children to other communities, even more so then they have been doing in the

past; another reason to have the roads in this Province brought up to standard. There are

so many dirt roads here, it is unreal.

Mr. Speaker, in my district, a district so close to St. John's, there

are still dirt roads. They are not paved yet. I know of one area down there where there

are 5 kilometres not paved.

The Community of Harry's harbour is looking for some road work, Mr.

Speaker, and the Member for Baie Verte has been presenting petitions here, a number of

them. The Member for Baie Verte is here again today presenting petitions for the people of

Harry's Harbour to try and get some work done on the road leading to Harry's harbour. He

is very concerned about the condition of the road, as I stated earlier, and he is very

concerned about the children driving over the roads to go to school, Mr. Speaker.

I think that the Minister of Works and Services and Transportation

should take a serious look at the Budget this year and see if he can squeeze some more

money out of the Budget for the people of Harry's Harbour, for the Member for Baie Verte

who is acting on behalf of the people in his district all the time here in this House of

Assembly; and not only in the House of Assembly, of course, but in his district. He is

always and forever travelling the district, going to the different communities. I have had

a lot of conversation with him over the past five years and he is certainly one of the

better members in this House of Assembly to represent the District of Baie Verte.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few words with respect to the petition that was just presented

by the hon. the Member for Baie Verte area requesting road work in Harry's Harbour. I

acknowledge that there are gravel roads in Harry's Harbour. I acknowledge that there are a

lot of gravel roads in the hon. member's district. As a matter of fact, I would think the

level of gravel roads in the hon. member's district speaks more eloquently than almost

anything else could, as to the ineffectiveness of the previous member or members that have

been representing that district over the years.

If I recall, Harry's Harbour has been represented by, if not two, at

least one of the Leaders of the Opposition, who was also Premier at the time that he

represented that area. I believe the hon. Brain Peckford represented the Harry's Harbour

area. He was Premier of the Province for ten years and after ten years of representing

that area, that area of the Province has more gravel roads than any other area of the

Province. Now if you can figure out what type of representation that is and what type of

representation those people were given, I think you will also figure out why it was

abundantly clear to the people of the Province that in 1989 it was time to get rid of that

administration and replace it with a Liberal government.

As the result of the change of government, I can tell the hon. member

and I can tell the people of Harry's Harbour through their member and through the record

of Hansard, that we have probably, as a Liberal government, applied more money to gravel

roads in the Baie Verte area than any other government in the last twenty or twenty-five

years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I think the hon. member acknowledges that and I think

he appreciates it. At least he has told me privately that he does.

In terms of the allocation that we gave that district this year for

road work, we gave that district about $1.3 million or $1.4 million out of a $15 million

to $16 million Capital Budget. That is a clear indication, Mr. Speaker, that this

government recognizes that we need to deal with issues on a priority basis without mixing

politics up into the whole issue. Of course, politics is important but politics should not

determine what roads are built in the first instance.

I would also say to the people of Harry's Harbour, that I consulted

with the hon. member with respect to what roads should be done in his district, and as a

result of that consultation we identified two or three projects in his district this year.

I can also tell the hon. member that Harry's Harbour was not on the top of his list. So, I

defer to the good judgement and the good wisdom of the hon. Member for Baie Verte when it

comes to setting priorities in his district and I will continue to take that very

pro-active and that very objective view -

MR. SHELLEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: - and approach to determining what road work should

be done in the future in his district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) going to Harry's Harbour.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) going to Harry's Harbour, I say to the

Member for Windsor - Springdale. You had better stay out of Springdale too from the sound

of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad, you know, because

we have been consulting back and forth with the minister; but he cannot mislead this

House. I have had many consultations with the minister and he should correct it here in

the House and stop playing that silly game when you are talking about people in a

community. On consultations with the minister and with his officials, the most previous

one there, we did talk about Harry's Harbour several times, Mr. Speaker, I say to the

minister. So he is not telling the whole story. Maybe on one consultation meeting, when I

talked about other communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is right, but on some consultations I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to even the

suggestion that I am misleading the House. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I know of no

basis for the hon. member to make that allegation. I simply made a number of points:

(1) that that particular district was not well served by the previous PC administration;

(2) they were represented by premiers of the Province during that same time; (3) when we took

power we decided to do things on an objective and fair basis, and as a result we have put

a lot of money into that district for road work;, (4) this year we have put $1.3 million

or $1.4 million into that district for road work; and

(5) I have to say, with great

respect to the hon. member who has been very cooperative and very supportive in terms of

trying to keep the people of that area reasonably understanding of what we are doing, that

Harry's Harbour was not one of the places -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I can't speak, Mr. Speaker, for the meetings that

were held with Mr. White or the previous minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: All I can say is that Harry's Harbour this year did

not make the list.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my

district. I might say to the minister it is the Goulds bypass. I might add, out of the

ones that were circulated I think this is the last one to come in. There may be another. I

am rather disappointed that this is coming to an end.

I say to the minister, in my district last year what they did - and he

knows full well, I went over and met with him. Talk about roads in Harry's Harbour and

other areas! I had to go over and ask him to provide some more asphalt. So a

Transportation dump truck and a spreader they rented went around the roads and patched up

holes that were a foot deep all over the area. That's what it is, they have been patching

roads for the last number of years. The minister knows that quite well; trying to get

another 150 tons of asphalt and another 50 tons, and they still haven't got all the

potholes covered. That's what is happening. We are covering roads that were done

twenty-five and thirty years ago. There are potholes in them so deep that there is damage

to vehicles and so on.

This petition was organized by the Irish Loop Regional Economic

Development Board, or Zone 20 as will call it. They had a meeting of all municipalities in

the whole area. They gathered together there and almost every single municipality in the

entire district took an active part. They placed petitions within the respective

businesses around these communities, and that is why thousands of names have come in on a

very well planned initiative by the Irish Loop Regional Economic Development Board. That

is the loop that has three leaves on the shamrock, in case he isn't aware of it. I say to

the minister, it is a very worthwhile project. The minister has acknowledged that. He has

said on public record, he has put it in writing, it is going to be done within the terms

of the agreement.

Many other government departments are recognizing the potential in the

area, the tens of thousands of tourists who come into the area. It has been acknowledged

by the East Coast trail being developed, the Colony of Avalon, the boat tours up in the

area. Tens of thousands of people, in fact, are coming to that area each year. We try to

make sure that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation can see the merit that

the Departments of Development and Rural Renewal, Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and

Industry, Trade and Technology, and various other departments are seeing in the area. I

just wish the Department of Works, Services and Transportation would give the same

priority that other departments are giving to a project that is needed.

When you move tens of thousands of tourists a year - I'm talking about

50,000, 60,000, 70,000 - when you look at the boat tours, the Colony of Avalon and those

areas there, you need an appropriate system of transportation in order to have people come

back.

It's a shame when people come back from these and talk about the great

boat tour or the beautiful work being done, the East Coast trail or the Colony of Avalon,

and have to complain about our transportation system and roads that are not fit to drive

on. That is the sad reality of it, and that comes up all too often. It's those little

things that are very important, I might add.

The prayer of the petition highlights some key things, and I will make

reference to a few things in the prayer of the petition that highlight the importance of

it. For example, it says here:

Whereas significant opportunities for development in the

region are contingent on the completion of a Goulds bypass road;

whereas the viability of

communities and businesses is dependent upon an adequate transportation infrastructure

that allows our region access to the opportunities and markets of the capital region; and

whereas the growth of our community is closely related to the ability of our citizens to

commute and to work within a reasonable time each day over highways that are in good

condition.

I might add there are many, many reasons why this project should

proceed. I know the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is certainly not tuned

into it here. I can hardly hear when he shouts back and forth on this important

initiative.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible). I am talking about you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I am not talking about threatening you, I am just

talking about your attitude. I am talking about your rotten attitude. That is what I am

talking about. A minister of the Crown! A minister of the people!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this particular project is worthwhile.

It is identified, it has been earmarked. The people in the area want to see something

happening. There are tremendous developments going on. The problem going through the

Goulds area, driving through a main street in the City of St. John's, the longest street

in the City of St. John's - people have to drive it every single day travelling back and

forth to this city.

It is not an acceptable situation. It should be higher on the priority

list. Work should start on it this year and it should be able to be completed within a

couple of years, rather than wait until 2003 - two or three extra years, over and above

the normal, over a poor road in hazardous condition. There could be many people killed.

Many people have been killed on the Goulds highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

friend and colleague from the historic District of Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, we have now been presenting petitions on this matter for

weeks and weeks, and we want to bring to the attention of the minister that it is time for

him to start to take some action. A few days ago he indicated, yes, once we complete the

Outer Ring Road, the Goulds bypass might then be further up on the priorities of his

department.

Mr. Speaker, the people who live in that part of the Province have been

told on many, many occasions by this government - and while they refer back to previous

times, I would remind them that it is now nearly ten years since they came into office.

Therefore, if you are looking back to the previous Administration, you are beginning to

look at ancient history.

Mr. Speaker, they have to take responsibility for what has happened in

this Province over the last ten years. Ten years ago, the Goulds bypass was talked about.

It was a concept that was developed in the 1980s and it is time now to take some action on

it. For ten years this government has sat on its posterior. Instead of doing some work and

getting some things done, the government has been procrastinating. They have been

inactive. They have been a lot of talk and, as the former leader of the Conservative Party

said: They have been a lot of fluff and no stuff.

So we say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that

the people in the Goulds area, the people who will be serviced by this road, are saying

they have had enough talk and they now want some action, so these petitions have been

coming in. They talk about safety issues, and I know that all members would be interested

in doing what they can to improve safety on our highways. We have had some terrible

tragedies on the Goulds road. It is narrow, it is twisting, it winds through pasture land;

there are virtually no opportunities there for safety in terms of pedestrian walkways, or

anything like that, so we say it is time to do something with it, to look at it and make

sure that this road, the Goulds bypass, moves up on the priorities of the government.

Mr. Speaker, the member as well talked about economic development. I

was listening the other day to a presentation made by the developers in Witless Bay and

Bay Bulls area on their boat tours. I was so taken with that particular presentation

because they gave me some information that I frankly did not know: how many people were

taken out last year. In fact, one boat tour operator in Bay Bulls last year took out -

well, what would you think the number was, 5,000 people? Last year alone, one operator in

the Bay Bulls area took out 45,000 people on a boat tour to see the whales and the

icebergs and that kind of thing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the prospects for that kind of

economic development - and I see that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is

obviously not interested in economic development of that type - we have 45,000 people

using a tour operator down there. That is just one. There are two large ones and a number

of others that are not quite so large, but they do have great potential.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I note there is a lot of hoity-toity, highfalutin and condescending

language going on between the Member for Baie Verte, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, and the Minister of Justice -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - preventing me from presenting my petition on

behalf of the people of Ferryland in a coherent manner. Those are the kinds of attitudes

that are so prevalent here in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: The government obviously is not listening to the

wishes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so the minister and members react to

petitions in a very condescending manner. That shows absolute contempt for ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the petition put

forward by my colleague.

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must rise at this historic

point in the legislative session and knowledge all of the petitions that have been

presented by the hon. Member for Ferryland, inasmuch as he advised me this morning,

through his presentation, that this is in fact the last petition he has to present on the

Goulds bypass road. I think that is a rather historic moment in this legislative sitting,

because he has been repetitiously and rhetorically laying out petitions regarding this

particular piece of construction. It gives me an opportunity at this point to say what I

have already said on a number of other occasions, that the Goulds bypass piece of road is

a priority in terms of being identified under the Roads for Rail Agreement.

It is somewhat an integral part of the Outer Ring Road, and beginning

the flow of traffic from the Southern Shore in the Province. I have to say, that piece of

road will be done probably sooner rather than later, and probably just as quickly as if we

had started it two or three years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, yes, I have to say that there are very good

people on the Southern Shore who have a different political stripe who have raised that

issue with me in other forums.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good Liberals.

MR. MATTHEWS: Good Liberals, yes. Well, there are no other types.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, having said that it is a priority, the

Goulds bypass, and having given that assurance in many private meetings to the town

councils on the Southern Shore, I do want to acknowledge graciously and humbly, and on

behalf of government, the very good work that has been done by their member, the Member

for Ferryland, who has doggedly, tirelessly, rhetorically and insistently continued to

present petitions on behalf of that particular area and on behalf of that particular road.

If the hon. member achieves nothing else in his political lifetime -

and he has achieved many significant points in his career. He was the Leader of the

Opposition. The other day when he took his seat as House Leader over on the other side we

still, over here, at least, some - the Speaker, I think, or somebody - still wanted to

call him the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I can only say that he must have looked very good to

some in that chair, and the time may yet come when he may return to that chair. Because, I

can tell you, that side of the House needs all the help it can get and all the leadership

it can get.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: To the point of the petition, Mr. Speaker, let the

hon. member know, the record shows that we on this side of the House believe that

notwithstanding the fact that we could not start it this year, he has done a good job in

presenting the case. I am sure that the combined and accumulative effect of his efforts

will sooner or later see the Outer Ring Road completed and the Goulds bypass completed as

well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition this morning and, much to the chagrin of the people

on the other side, I do not feel this is the last one because they keep coming in. It is

on Sunday shopping, and it is from people... The hon. the Minister of Fisheries said, in

reference to the Goulds bypass road, they should have voted Liberal. These people are from

Bay Roberts, Chamberlains, Topsail, Paradise -

MR. EFFORD: You have nothing there from Bay Roberts.

MS S. OSBORNE: Are you allowed to name people?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MS S. OSBORNE: Rideout. Do you want their phone number? It is 786 -

MR. EFFORD: That is Baie Verte.

MS S. OSBORNE: That is not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: In December when we voted on this, when it was

rammed through, we said that it would lead to the erosion of family life, and that is what

it is doing.

This weekend we are celebrating Mother's Day. I had a call this week

from a woman who works in retail and she said: I had a choice. I could have gone to my

son's hockey tournament on May 3 - I could take May 3 off and go to that - or, I could

work on Mother's Day. Now, if that is not leading to the erosion of family life, I do not

know what is.

There are many mothers affected by this. There was one hon. member who

said, when we proposed that as well as Easter Sunday the shops be closed on Mother's Day

and Father's Day: I respect my mother every day of the year.

I would suggest that many people respect their mother every day of the

year, to the point that they do not want their mother working on Mother's Day for $5.25 an

hour in retail.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: It has nothing to do with labour, it has nothing to

do with work, it has nothing to do with the day of the week. It has to do with the fact

that traditionally Newfoundlanders celebrated, or had a universal day off that they could

spend with their families, whether it was at a hockey tournament, whether it was going for

a hike, whether it was a picnic, or whether it was just relaxing and having a barbecue.

Now, because of the members, because of the government, this day has been eroded. A very

significant point of this day being eroded is that mothers will be working on Mother's

Day. Not only will mothers be working on Mother's Day, but children will be working on

Mother's Day and will be prevented from celebrating traditional Mother's Day celebrations

with their mothers. That is thanks to the hon. members on the other side of this House who

did not have the foresight to see what this bill would do.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I believe there are certain

fundamental things that need to be addressed with this petition. Government was in a

situation where they did not want to have to deal with it. They were unable to enforce

their own legislation. They were incapable, or did not have the will to do it, so they

decided to throw everything open. That is basically why we have Sunday shopping.

I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that there should be certain days of the

year that are reserved for family, and we should not try to erode the base of the family.

There are enough pressures today in society tearing apart families, compared to years ago.

I do not think there is anything wrong with an amendment we had here in the House when

they introduced legislation to have stores closed on Easter Sunday, in terms of shopping.

I supported that. We agreed with it. We knew government was not going to throw all Sundays

open at that time when we moved the amendment, so we moved an amendment to at least have

them closed on Mother's Day and Father's Day. At least it does highlight the role that

these people have played in the family unit - mothers and fathers in particular.

It is kind of difficult, unless you are in the situation or know people

in the situation, or families, when young kids today have their mother leaving the

household on a Sunday, or on Mother's Day, and go to work in a department store. It is a

difficult situation, especially when probably the father may be working during the day and

the mother may be on night shift working in these stores, and when their family members

are gone. Then, when it comes to a weekend, or at least Sunday, when there is an

opportunity to have it off, when they are closed on Sundays, at least it is one day when

all family members can be together. It is no wonder there is over a 50 per cent divorce

rate across this country today and families are being broken down, because there are so

many pressures on the family.

We do not have to go along with the tides because someone else does it,

or because there are pressures by major chains to do it, because of political purposes or

whatever the case may be, because we don't have the gumption to enforce our own

legislation that is there. If there is something wrong with it, you take the action to

correct it. I think it is important that we should be trying to build and strengthen the

basic ties and the basic principles and values in our society today rather using methods

to erode them. So what is wrong with having something unique? Because they do it in

Ontario we have to do it here? Because they do it all over the place? What is wrong with

being unique? What is wrong with being different? What is wrong with saying Sunday is a

day that stores should be closed?

At least it is a day - because I find, and I know to many people around

rural Newfoundland, particularly where I grew up, Sunday was a day that you gathered

together on a family basis. It was an opportunity to slow down from the regular pace of

work. Traditionally, people who fished in fishing communities all their lives, from Monday

to Saturday, it did not matter whether you had a disastrous week fishing and things got

better on Saturday; they did not fish on Sunday. They did not fish on Sunday. They stayed

home. They could work like Trojans from Monday to Saturday, but Sunday was a day they took

off and they were at home.

Today we are pushing people out the doors. This legislation, while it

may not seem so significant, I can tell you it is adding to the erosion basically of the

family unit. People are scattered all over the place on Sunday. It is just like Las Vegas

now. Seven days a week - Las Vegas, day or night, Monday or Saturday or Sunday - it is all

alike. It does not do much for basic values in basic society, in trying to strengthen

them. The strongest unit in our society today, that kept society together, has been the

family unit, and that has been eroded.

People have an opportunity. It is not helping the economic base. People

have so many dollars in our economy to spend, and if they are going to spend it they have

six days a week in which to spend that money. It is not helping the overall revenue base

of our Province. It is not really adding to our retail sales. This government this year

alone, with Sunday shopping, are predicting retail sales to be no higher than last year.

If you look at the report on the economy presented along with the

Budget, there are insignificant changes in retail sales from last year to this year, in

spite of Sunday shopping, in spite of a full year in which the HST has been applied. There

has been no growth in the retail sales projected by the government in the economy there.

So I don't know what the big deal is with having to open up the stores on Sundays. If

people want shopping, the stores open in the nighttime. They used to close early but now

they can shop in the nighttime. Sometimes you can go right up to midnight shopping. There

are lots of opportunities to do shopping. It is not necessary to have it on Sundays. I did

not support it at the time. I am still not convinced. I might never be convinced.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, bring it back. That is one thing, I say to the

minister. Doing things and reversing them creates a whole new set of problems, and that is

something that I am not prepared - I would consider it and look at the options there and

then wait, but I would not outright come out and make a statement because sometimes when

you turn the clock we have created a monster that we cannot reverse. We have to look at

the realities of that. I am not saying I would not either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not saying I would not but I am not saying I

would. I would have to look at it. Exactly, I am not saying. I would have to study the

effects and the consequences, and look at what might be the best decision to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not. I am speaking on a petition presented

by a member. I am speaking personally from my experience on that. I am not the critic

representing that area. Petitions presented by individuals represent their views. The

Member for St. John's West is presenting on behalf of people who approached her to present

it, and I am speaking on it as the Member for Ferryland District and as an individual. I

do not agree with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a policy statement on behalf of our party.

We will leave that for the critic or for the leader. If it is on a health matter I will

certainly speak on a policy (inaudible) on part of ours, but I do not support it. I did

not think it was a good move. I think a government, by not having to exercise their

control in legislation -

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - shirk their responsibility by bringing in something

that tried to get them off the hook.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. DECKER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, which is the Budget Speech. I

believe we are debating the non-confidence motion, and I think the Leader of the

Opposition adjourned debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1: The hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways

and Means to consider the Raising of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. The Budget

Speech.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, our Leader has a few minutes left there,

and he would like the opportunity, if he could, when he gets in to finish. I think we are

pretty well down to the end of discussion. The Member for St. John's East stood in his

place. There are only about thirty minutes in total left to speak; if we could utilize

that time?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is acceptable. It is understood

that the hon. Leader of the Opposition who adjourned debate is unavailable at this minute.

Therefore, the Member for St. John's East is going to speak, and then we will revert and

allow the Leader of the Opposition to finish off the speech. That is acceptable, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Minister of Justice for allowing me to get my remaining few

minutes in, as I adjourned debate, I believe, on Tuesday of this week. I thank the

minister for his cooperation.

We are towards the end, I guess, of our debate on the non-confidence

motion in this Chamber, a motion which has been presented by members on this side of the

House, dealing with weaknesses and areas in the Budget presentation which we feel ought to

be addressed and ought to be given some element of concentration and address, in the hopes

that government members and members opposite will realize that this Budget, which was

presented a number of weeks ago in this House, is not the panacea, it is not the remedy to

cure all ills, and it is not certainly what is in the interest of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated by many members on this side of the

House, it is essential that a motion of non-confidence be debated and in due course be

voted on, to show the people of this Province that the Budget which has been handed down

is one which in many ways neglects the very real problems and very real issues which

confront the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk on a few topics which relate

in a very direct way to the Budget Debate. I would like to begin with reference to a

meeting I attended last night, a seminar on restorative justice. This is a concept which

is relatively new in our Province, and it is a concept, of course, which gives

alternatives to sentencing, alternatives to incarceration, and alternatives to the

traditional types of dispositions which are found in our criminal justice system. However,

it is an initiative which requires government's attention and government's recognition

that this is a policy and an initiative which can work.

Some of the speakers last night were, in fact, employees of the

Department of Justice. For example, we had an individual from Victim Services, an

individual from Mediation Services, all of whom presented important and relevant

information with respect to the new restorative justice initiative.

This week in the House I questioned the minister on the issue of victim

services as it relates to children. We all know that adults in this Province appear to be

reasonably dealt with in terms of their needs as it relates to victims of crime. However,

there is a gap, and this gap has been acknowledged by the minister in response to

questions which were directed to him earlier this week. That gap exists with respect to

children, and that gap was acknowledged in discussions that were held last night at the

restorative justice initiative seminar.

The problem is that although the Department of Justice has a mandate to

deal with victim services, there is no limitation, there is no restriction, on who the

victims are. So clearly the mandate is for all people of the Province, regardless of age,

regardless of which court they are involved with, whether it is an adult court or a youth

court. Victim services, as we find in the description of its mandate, clearly states:

victims of crime. That includes adults and children. But yet the resources, the personnel,

and quite possibly, Mr. Speaker, the policy of this government, to now - and there may be

a change, let's hope there will be - but certainly the direction to this point, is to

essentially ignore the needs of some, not all, but some children of this Province.

So clearly there has to be a focus, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, on victim

services to include the needs of children who find themselves in very difficult

situations, perhaps as victims of crime, perhaps as witnesses in a criminal proceeding,

perhaps as an individual who is going through, with another family member, a very

difficult court process; but their needs and their concerns ought to be addressed.

I understand, from responses by the minister earlier in the week, that

discussions are taking place - perhaps that is the best way to put it - to see what can be

done to ensure that the Division of Victim Services is there to meet the demands of not

only adults but children as well.

Mr. Speaker, what has been happening, it is my understanding, is that

in some cases the resources of the child protection unit are called upon to assist

children in dealing with this very real problem. But that, in and of itself, Mr. Speaker,

presents another problem, because what the Department of Justice is doing, in fact, is now

relying upon the resources and the personnel in a very ad hoc fashion, relying on the

resources and the personnel of another department; I might add, Mr. Speaker, a growing

department, a department which, in and of itself, only recently received the

responsibilities of child protection, namely the Department of Health.

So we had, in a very inconsistent, unorganized, ad hoc fashion, the

personnel, the individuals, and the expertise of those individuals, in the child

protection unit being called upon in an arbitrary fashion to deal with the needs of victim

services as it relates to children. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. That does

not recognize the very real problem that exists in terms of children who are being exposed

to the judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity at this time for the minister and

his department to carry out its mandate, to do what statutorily and legally it is required

to do and to meet the needs of the children as it relates to victim services. The reason

why it should be done, Mr. Speaker, is very clear in my mind. The reason is very clear

because the children today, in seven, eight, ten, twelve, fifteen years are the adults of

tomorrow, and if their concerns and if their difficulties throughout this process are not

being adequately addressed, obviously it is only a matter of time when their concerns as

adults will have to be addressed.

So, let us nip it in the bud, I say to the minister. Mr. Speaker, let

us deal with this issue now, let us revisit the issue of victim services as it relates to

children, and hopefully, let there be a concerted effort by government, by the Department

of Justice in particular, by the Victim Services Division more specifically, to address

these problems as it relates to children. It is not enough to say, as the minister said

the other day, that most of the children are being dealt with through the resources of the

child protection unit. It is not enough to say that.

What is required, is for the minister to be able to stand up - and if

he is in a position to stand up and say it, I will congratulate him, I will salute him and

I will thank him. But what he has to say, Mr. Speaker, is that all of the children, every

single child in this Province, regardless of the victim services office, whether it be in

St. John's or the other six or eight that are on the Island portion of the Province - I

understand there are two offices in Labrador. But the total ten or twelve offices of

victim services in this Province can stand up and say that the children and their needs

are being addressed and their concerns are being, in an adequate fashion, looked after.

That is the kind of resolution to this issue that members on this side

of the House would like to see, but it requires the political will, it requires the

minister to take direct notice of this issue, and to then turn his energies and his

efforts into making sure that this statutory requirement is being met by his department.

Mr. Speaker, another issue which arose and which is of interest, I am

sure, to perhaps not only the Department of Justice, but also the Department of Human

Resources and Employment, and quite possibly the Department of Health and Community

Services, is the whole issue of mediation and how the development in our society of

mediation is affecting the criminal justice system.

We all know there is a trend to deal with dispute by what is called

alternative dispute resolution. It is a growing mechanism, Mr. Speaker, in response to

many problems which arise which ordinarily and traditionally, certainly in the past, would

end up in a court of law. Alternative dispute resolution is a way to have the parties come

together, sit down, usually with an independent mediator, to try and see where there is a

difference of opinion, and in the course of that discussion, to try and find a common

thread of agreement, and then work with that common thread of agreement to try and expand

a mediated agreement, an agreement that parties can live with.

It is never always perfect. The objective of mediation is not to strive

for perfection, Mr. Speaker. The objective of mediation is to strive for balance in terms

of seeking a resolution that the two parties can live with. We see this trend developing

certainly in the family court system. The role of a mediator, a social worker trained in

mediation, in unified family court, in my view, is as important and essential as the role

of a judge of a unified family court. An experienced and trained mediator who can sit down

with a quarrelling husband or wife, a quarrelling mother and father as it relates to

custody and access, can be as successful, and in many cases, I would suggest, more

successful, than the judge sitting on the bench who must make a decision where a party

wins and another party loses.

That is the nature of the adversarial system, where evidence is called,

witnesses give what is called viva voce evidence, the law is referred to, and in a

response to perhaps a week of evidence and testimony a judge must make a decision: Does

the custody of this child or this family's children go with the mother or the father? In

that adversarial climate, by necessity, unfortunately, there is a winner and there is a

loser.

Now, the alternative, Mr. Speaker, to that approach is the system or

the trend known as mediation, where a quarrelling mother and father can sit down, not in a

courtroom, but in an office or in a boardroom, or for that matter at Tim Horton's. It

makes no difference, as long as there is a trained professional mediator who can sit down

and attempt to work out the differences. It does not necessarily mean that that mother and

father will ever reconcile. That isn't the objective. That is marriage counselling, that

is something else. What a mediator can do is that in the interests of the child, who is

really the victim of that separation, that mediator can attempt to find common ground so

that that mother can win a little bit, will lose a little bit, that father will win a

little bit, will lose a little bit, but on balance that child's interests are taken into

account, to afford him or her the best possible resolution of what in essence is a very

difficult situation. That is mediation, Mr. Speaker. That is what it's all about.

Last night we talked about mediation of a different type, slightly. It

was mediation of a victim and an offender in a criminal justice context. It is an issue

and a policy which again I think the department would be well advised to look at very

seriously, and it has to do in some sense with the impact of victims and the consequence

of criminal activity. Essentially what victim-offender mediation is all about is that in

certain crimes, not in all crimes - it would be most difficult, I would suggest, in crimes

of extreme violence; most difficult. But, for example, in petty crime, property crime,

break and entry, you know, the person who goes away for the weekend, comes home and finds

their house has been broken into, that type of crime, there is a possibility, there is a

vision I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, whereby mediation between a victim and an offender is

a possible way, at the end of the day, to deal with what, in fact, happened, where a

trained individual will sit down with the offender and with the victim of that crime, to

discuss it and to hopefully, in some way, find some sense of reconciliation to the

violation which has taken place.

It is a new concept and, for many people, a very difficult one to even

comprehend. But it has, according to some of the research, had some benefits. It has some

merit, because rather than the victim of that crime feeling forever bitter towards what

has occurred, there is an opportunity to meet that offender head on, to deal with him in

the strongest of terms head on, and, I guess, to get off his or her chest the real

frustration that has come about as a result of the criminal activity.

Mr. Speaker, a new concept, but one which may go a long way to dealing

with the consequences of crime, and to hopefully mediate a difficult situation which has

existed. Now, that does not mean that that criminal goes scot free. It does not means

that. This is just an initiative which may be taken into account, in addition to, in part,

the criminal justice system, but a way of dealing with the consequences of crime as it

relates to the relationship between the victim and the offender.

These sorts of initiatives with respect to mediation, whether that

mediation be with an employer or an employee, whether it be in matrimonial dispute, or

whether it be mediation between an offender and the victim, are new initiatives, but I say

to the minister, Mr. Speaker, they are important initiatives. When he is budgeting on

behalf of his department for personnel at the Supreme Court of this Province, or at the

Unify Family Court of this Province, or at the Provincial Courts of this Province, it is

important, in my view, that the minister recognize the concepts of restorative justice,

recognize the importance of the role of mediation, recognize the absolute requirement in

family law circumstances of the importance of trained individual -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: who can deal with very difficult situations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to clue up my remarks with respect to the non-confidence motion

and to pick up on some of the issues raised this morning.

I noticed this morning in Question Period, under questioning from the

Member from Bonavista South with respect to the TAGS issue, with respect to early

retirement: What can people come to expect from that? What sort of an agreement will be

worked out?

I am convinced, by the Premier's statements, that when we talk about

early retirement for those who have a historical attachment or long-term attachment to the

industry, there may be some hope. But I am less hopeful, based upon the premier's

comments, that for those people who are coming off the program, or who are already off the

program or are ending today, those 2,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - they are not

so hopeful.

I listened to a program this morning where a lady from Burgeo was

interviewed. In that community, prior to the moratorium being called, there were 3,000

people, and today there are 1,800. There are about sixty-five people being dropped as of

today, who will receive their last compensation cheque today as a result of the collapse

of the groundfish industry. Now, sixty-five people in Burgeo, she went on to say, is not

just sixty-five people. The stores that services those individuals in that community are

at stake as well. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the community itself is at stake.

The interviewer asked her specifically: What are your plans,

personally?

She indicated that she had been involved in the fishery for some twenty

years. Herself and her husband had raised a family and built a life for themselves, a

home, all those sorts of normal things that people would do. She said: I don't have any at

the moment. Forty-nine or fifty years old - where do I go? What do I do? Retrain? And what

type of retraining? Let's say that I do retrain and get skills. I am into a job market

where I am competing with people who are twenty-three, twenty-four and twenty-five, who

have much better skills and more opportunities available to them. People in Burgeo today

are waiting for school to close, a number of families, and when it does they are packing

up and moving on.

The importance of a post-TAGS Program is not just for compensation

only, not just for income replacement only; the purpose is to provide some initiative. The

objective should be for further development, the types of things that people in that

community, given half the chance and the opportunity, may be able to create themselves,

may be able to attract to the community themselves.

That is one individual out of 2,000. There are 1,999 more stories like

that, that are circulating in the Province today. That's only now. What happens in August,

is the big question?

I had a call from the Northern Peninsula last night. I talked to a

gentleman there who owns a business. He said: The Northern Peninsula is in trouble. He

said: We can't fish. Compensation is doubtful. The type of program that is forthcoming is

not going to impact or help everybody the way that it used to. He said: Harvesters are

replacing men in the logging industry. We can't go in and cut wood and we can't fish. The

lobster and crab industry is not providing work for everybody. It is providing some work

and a good living for some, but what will happen to the Northern Peninsula?

The debate that is occurring around the school system on the Northern

Peninsula today is an example. It is a manifestation of a bigger problem. It is a

manifestation of a problem where declining enrolments mean that people are moving out. The

numbers of people that are living in the communities on that coast are declining,

opportunities are not there and rural communities are in many ways under attack, Mr.

Speaker. These are some of the challenges that we face clearly as people of the Province.

The results of what will take place over the next couple of years are

largely undetermined and yet to be defined. We still have an opportunity, albeit a small

one, to be forward looking, to talk about the natural advantages in the different places

that we have that can access employment and create employment. The larger issue is

revenue, and how do we generate revenue as a Province to provide the level of service and

the type of life that people can come to enjoy. That is where our opportunities exist.

In the upcoming negotiations between the federal government and the

provinces, with respect to how the equalization scheme will work, there lie many

opportunities. There also lie many threats, but the opportunities exist as well, that

possibly an equalization scheme of the future could in fact promote economic development

and diversification if certain things are done.

Every Premier since confederation, since the notion of equalization has

come into effect, has always talked about the drawbacks to it. That equalization, as we

know it, promotes the politics of underdevelopment. That equalization, as we know it,

promotes dependency. It doesn't provide and promote economic development. It doesn't

provide for a Province to be able to stand on its own feet; and here is why.

Each and every time the Province has been able to get into a

significant resource industry, or other industries that bring in extra economic revenues

or extra revenues directly - mostly we have been exporting - the Province and the people

in this Legislature, no matter what side, have always come down to the fact that, while we

have gained it on one hand, we have lost it on the other.

There is an interesting model in Ireland -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It does not happen. It does not happen, Sir.

MR. SULLIVAN: Have a fund-raiser like they had in Toronto.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. How was that one, John? How did that go? How did

the big fund-raiser at the King Edward Hotel go?

MR. J. BYRNE: When we had one in Harbour Grace, we asked the

Premier to show up and he didn't.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is not too

forthcoming with that fund-raiser, how it went up there. I heard he was handing out

barrels of success, about 400 little barrels of success of Hibernia oil to all the people

there, all the individuals who were at the big fund-raiser in Toronto.

MR. SULLIVAN: They were all calling him flipper.

MR. E. BYRNE: How was it? A good meal? Was it worth $1,000? Was it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not what happened. They paid $1,000 but

they did not pay just - we could get into it. I am not sure if we want to get into it. Do

you want to get into it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) was there.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, he was not, but I know what happened out there.

What was the law office it occurred in? A private board meeting in a board room of one of

the offices out there. That night the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture had former

members going around with tags on them saying, `former MHA.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, yes, he was there; guaranteed.

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes, yes, yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, guaranteed. That was the same fellow who just

got appointed to - what was the board you appointed him to?

MR. EFFORD: The Appeals Board.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Appeals Board in - pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you did. How is he doing with it?

MR. J. BYRNE: Did he get to meet the Premier for $1,000?

MR. E. BYRNE: Doing a great job. Yes, the former Member for Eagle

River was one of my campaign organizers when I ran for president of the student body at

university; one of the top three actually, three of them. Yes, an old friend, sir. Boy, I

tell you, he had the Liberal Party moving on campus when he was there, for at least six

months anyway. He certainly did.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does not want to get into his

fund-raiser out in Port de Grave. I am not going to get into it with him. I could but I am

not. They did not pay $1,000 just to show up and see him. They paid $1,000 - it was

promoted as, `A night with the Premier.'

MR. J. BYRNE: He didn't show up, did he?

MR. E. BYRNE: He didn't show up. The Premier couldn't show up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Was anybody upset over that?

MR. E. BYRNE: There were some people very upset from Port de Grave.

Yes, I would say half of them would have taken it back if they had known the Premier was

not going to be there. It was promoted as a night with the Premier.

MR. SULLIVAN: Danny Dumersque was there, wasn't he, greeting

everybody?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What dinner? Just like the dinner he attended

recently in Toronto, promoted as, `An intimate evening with the Premier of Newfoundland

and Labrador.'

MR. SULLIVAN: They were calling him flipper. He was supposed to be

at a TAGS meeting but flipped and went to another one. They were calling him flipper.

MR. E. BYRNE: John, we know you were there. I talked to people who

were there, who said you were there, John. Anyway, but how was it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He has got you measured up, Sir.

Anyway, we are not going to go on with the Member for Port de Grave.

Did you see the cartoon in today's paper? Have you seen it? Has anyone

seen the cartoon in today's paper? It explains it all. There is a car going right over the

cliff and the caption reads: Anyone with information about the whereabouts of our missing

Premier, please contact the nearest TAGS recipient immediately. Now the Member for Port de

Grave -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Honestly, right in the cartoon today. The Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture probably has the record of the most cartoons in The Evening

Telegram . John, do you save them all? Boy, I tell you, is a great keepsake.

MR. SULLIVAN: We are going to get some copies of that taken off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: Probably, and back on the fight Thursday morning.

MR. SULLIVAN: Whatever department he is in he finds a way to

travel.

MR. EFFORD: Why do you think we gave $50,000 (inaudible) search and

rescue?

MR. E. BYRNE: I hope Hansard records it. I hope Hansard picks that

statement up. If it doesn't, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said: Why do you

think we just gave Search and Rescue $50,000? So we could go find the Minister of Mines

and Energy. Where he is?

MR. SULLIVAN: He doesn't have the energy to come home.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what people in his district are asking as

well. Where is our member? Where is he?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not in his district.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, we know that. He is not in his district.

MR. SULLIVAN: Whatever department he is in he finds an excuse to

travel.

MR. SHELLEY: He is out in his district, probably.

MR. SULLIVAN: Out in his district, I would say.

MR. E. BYRNE: He had a big budget in ITT, a big travel budget. I

was coming across the Parkway one morning and I heard the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology phone in on his cellular phone from Chile, in the back of a cab talking about

the vineyards in Chile with the host of an open line program. I could not believe it. And

the Chairperson of Marine Atlantic was with him. That was about a couple of months

beforehand.

He said: Good morning, Bill. I am calling from Santiago. I am in Chile

experiencing some nice Chilean wines which they are noted for, talking about mining,

talking about what he was doing down there. Bill said: Where are you now? He said: Boy,

technology is so far advanced, I am on my cell phone in the back of a cab in Santiago.

Now, that is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

We thought his travels were going to be somewhat curbed when he became

the Minister of Mines and Energy, but apparently not, sir. Do you know where he is, I ask

the Minister of Environment and Labour. You should send up the balloons: Where is the

Minister of Mines and Energy? I have lots of questions for him. But anyway he is not here.

I cannot wait for him to walk back into the House. What a welcome he is going to get. He

is a good minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, the Member for Topsail found another vacant

seat from a Cabinet Minister. Just yesterday I said: That is not your seat. He said: Boy,

I am like any good Liberal, looking for a vacancy. He found one, it is rumoured. From what

I understand, the legal beagle for Topsail, when the Minister of Justice retires, will be

appointed to that portfolio. That is my understanding. That is why they have put him in as

Chairperson of RNC Gun Control Committee.

MR. HARRIS: The only trouble is, he can't wait ten years.

MR. WISEMAN: The difference between you and me, Jack, is I won't be

double dipping next year.

MR. HARRIS: Sure, you can hardly single dip.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Topsail is absolutely right -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not even the Little Dipper, is he?

MR. E. BYRNE: - he is not going to get the chance to even consider

an MHA pension because we have a great candidate for him, let me tell you. So enjoy your

time while you are here, enjoy it, one term only.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your candidates.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, they are coming. It won't be all of them. It will

be one, one candidate coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) he is already declared.

MR. E. BYRNE: It may be a her, I say to the member. I would not be

convinced now it is a him. I would not be convinced at all. If we could buy him for what

he thinks he is worth!

MR. J. BYRNE: Sell him.

AN HON. MEMBER: We could pay off our party debt.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh yes, we would have enough money to run the

provincial election, guaranteed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to an initiative that is happening in the

Province where we should be spending more money, and that is aquaculture. I had the

opportunity to be down in Bay d'Espoir, to look at the operation in Bay d'Espoir, and it

is too bad that operation is not closer to the media centre, because the profile that that

operation should be getting in the Province - the type of work that they are doing is

equal to or greater than the salmon ladder project in Vancouver; no question about it.

The technology employed is unbelievable. I would say if it were here,

there would not be a classroom in a fifty to 100-mile radius that that would not be number

one on its list to go and see, to show the students the type of technology that is

involved and how forward-looking it is. When you look at the types of things that they are

doing down there, and you look at New Brunswick aquaculture industry, the natural

advantages that we enjoy down there are 100 times greater than New Brunswick's industry.

New Brunswick is experiencing some serious environmental problems at the moment as a

result of an industry where they didn't really look after it the way they should have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. Absolutely amazed, the technology that went into

it, and how they combined it with the hydro station, and how important that was in terms

of the temperature of the water. I was simply amazed at the type of industry that is

developing down there. To think that in one small place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador

- because if that was not there, there would be no community. That is the heart of the

community, and in many ways probably the largest single contributor, outside of probably

the MicMac band, but it must be one of the largest, if not the largest, single

contributor. Two hundred people involved, two hundred jobs in one small place. It is the

type of technology that government should not be standing in the way of but should be

promoting even more.

There are significant other opportunities around. Now, it is a complex

environment. It is one thing to be able to pull it off and do it, but it is equally

important to be able to market it, and that is, I think, where they need more help right

now, in terms of the marketing of the product that is second to none, world class. If you

look at the steelhead trout, salmon; I was down one day when they were out and threw out

the feed. The water came alive. It was incredible, the type of industry that has

developed, and how long it has taken. They have walked through it bit by bit, they have

walked through it slowly, but they are in a stage where they are ready to gallop, I think.

The type of product they are producing needs no explanation to anybody

who has seen it, tasted it. The type of quality control and gene technology, a student in

two months being associated down there would learn more about chemistry and physics than

in two years in a high school.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right? That is where it has to be. A success

story. I am hoping to get down there again before the end of June, actually. It is an

area, I think, that every member who hasn't seen it should take the opportunity to go down

and see. If you want to be convinced about an industry, about economic growth, that it can

happen in Newfoundland and Labrador, go down and see the aquaculture project in Bay

d'Espoir. No more, no less.

It is a compliment to the people who are involved, it is a compliment

to the people who are making it work, because for many years the people involved were out

on a limb themselves, financially and otherwise. The people down there who are running the

program now, and running that industry there, are second to none in the world. They could

name their job in any aquaculture project in a developing country, in Canada, anywhere at

all. They are that proficient, that knowledgeable, of the types of initiatives that they

have undertaken, and the education and knowledge involved. Because it very much is a

knowledge-based industry, in many ways. Because as an industry it has been driven by the

knowledge they have brought to it to produce the product they are producing.

As you said, in one small place in Newfoundland and Labrador, 200

people employed as a result of that project. It is an area on which we should be spending

more money. Certainly as one member in the House, any money we put into aquaculture in the

long run produces... by dollar, it would have to be $6 or $7 or more, to the local

economy, directly and indirectly in spin-offs. The types of services those people require

for the industry are truly remarkable.

Before I sit down I would just like to say as well that another area of

development we have opportunities for is certainly in the IT sector. Over in what used to

be Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, I was talking to an individual earlier in

the week -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: I just want to clue up by saying one thing, Mr.

Speaker.

Right now they are looking for fifty IT specialists. If they were

available right now they would hire them at competitive salaries. I think it is an area

that, while we may have had some success, we have to produce a little bit more success and

a little bit more investment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I believe all of the speakers on the

Opposition side of the House who wanted to speak in this debate have spoken. I have spoken

on the main motion; I have not spoken on the amendment, or the non-confidence motion. So,

while the whip is asking our members to step inside, I will just say a few words on this

momentous occasion, Mr. Speaker. It is an historical occasion when anyone would have the

audacity to put forward a non-confidence motion on this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think we should walk out and (inaudible).

MR. DECKER: I do not where they are coming from.

AN HON. MEMBER: They would be in an awful state then, I guarantee

you.

MR. DECKER: I am tempted to ask our members to stay out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: I am tempted, Mr. Speaker, to ask our members to leave

the House so that we could indeed have this motion carried and then we will be into an

election. I would suggest, if that were to happen, the make-up of this House would be a

lot different from what it is today, Mr. Speaker. But, you know, I suppose there is only

one thing worse than losing an election. That would be to win all the seats in the House.

I do not think I would want to sit in the House. It happened in New Brunswick at one time,

but I would not want to see that happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, having said those few words, and looking

around and knowing there are enough members on this side of the House, if they so wish, we

can defeat this motion - but that is up to the members themselves. They will decide

whether or not we are going to defeat this motion. I would like to tell the members of the

House that I personally will be voting against this motion, and I would ask my colleagues

to do likewise.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: `Aye'.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: `Nay'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division. Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All members in favour of the motion, signify by

standing.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr.

Shelley, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. T. Osborne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French, Ms S.

Osborne, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: All members against the motion please signify by

standing.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the

hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mr. Flight, the hon. the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board, the hon. the Minister of Education, Mr. Lush, Mr. Oldford, the

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, the hon. the Minister of Human

Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Noel, Mr.

Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Ms M Hodder, Mr. Woodford, Mr.

G. Reid, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sparrow.

Mr. Speaker, ten `ayes' and twenty-four `nays.'

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

We are now ready to revert to debate on the Budget.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the main motion now

before the House. Unfortunately the government members did not take the suggestion of the

Member for Twillingate & Fogo and leave the House. They decided they would rather

carry on until the people of Newfoundland and Labrador turn against them before they call

an election.

This Budget Debate provides an opportunity to raise a lot of issues

that are associated with the government's raising an expenditure of revenue. One of the

issues that the government made a lot of ballyhoo about in the Budget Speech was the

provision of new programs made possible by the claw-back of the Child Tax Benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to expose a little bit of a mythology, a spin that

the Child Tax Benefit. The Child Tax Benefit was supposedly, according to Paul Martin,

designed to target the poor, to help eliminate child poverty. Now, if you were designing a

program to help poor children, why would you leave out all the poor children on social

assistance? The poorest of the children are on social assistance in this Province. All of

them are left out of the program. So if you were designing a program, and claiming and

ballyhooing about how this was helping poor children, why have the poorest of those

children been denied any benefit whatsoever from this program because they are not able to

get the kind of improvement that this Child Tax Benefit would add to the incomes of their

families to enable them to be able to increase their living condition?

The Minister of Finance was in the House yesterday agreeing with the

proposition that all families, children and people across this country should have access

to an equal standard of living. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is what he agrees with, why is

it not represented in the policies of his government and his Budget? Why is he not

attacking in a deliberate and effective way the issue of child poverty in this Province,

Mr. Speaker? Why does his Budget force people on social assistance to pay back to the

government money for living expenses when they are pursuing post-secondary education and

borrow it from the banks who have shown their ability to grasp and gather and profit in an

enormous and immense way from the people of this country? What are they doing? Passing

more money over to the banks, forcing people to borrow money from the banks to pay for

their living conditions, for their children's food, for their children's clothing, while

they pursue a post-secondary education and having the money clawed back from that student

loan into the government coffers. Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of policies that this

government has been pursuing rather than trying to eliminate the poverty and the

inequality that exists in this country.

Mr. Speaker, a young Member of Parliament, just the other day,

Stphane Tremblay, I think his