March 23, 1998 HOUSE OF

ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 2

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, The severe impacts of the groundfish

collapse are being felt throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The scheduled termination of

the TAGS Program in August and the establishment of a replacement program remains one of

the most significant public policy issues facing this Province today. I wish to assure the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador that their provincial government remains vigilant on

this issue and intends to continue to press the federal government for a well-structured

and substantive response program to replace TAGS.

Mr. Speaker, The Province continues to engage in ongoing dialogue with

the federal government on this issue. We intend to remain co-operative in providing our

advice on the appropriate structure for a replacement program, while continuing to impress

upon the federal government their responsibility for the resolution of the crisis created

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of the groundfish collapse. Given the

anxiety being created by the impending ending of TAGS, we also feel it is incumbent upon

the federal government to announce its intention with respect to a replacement program as

quickly as possible.

The Province has been clear, Mr. Speaker, in stating that a

fundamentally different approach to the existing TAGS program is required to address the

longer-term challenges related to the collapse of the groundfish stocks. We have

consistently stated that we believe that a new program must be comprised of five principal

components.

Firstly, it is clearly evident that income replacement must be a major

component. Most people will be unable to resume their participation in the traditional

fishery in the near future, and in many of our communities there are few employment

alternatives available at this time to replace all the jobs lost in the groundfish sector.

Mr. Speaker, this reality gives rise to the second element, namely,

economic diversification. A major new program of economic development and diversification

is needed to provide new opportunities in our regions. This is absolutely critical to

continued viability of families and rural communities which has been most severely

affected by the groundfish closures.

Thirdly, a post-TAGS program must support employment adjustment and

training for those people who see this as a viable option for themselves. However, this

initiative has to be linked to real job opportunities. But, clearly, training is not the

solution for everybody, particularly those who are older. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there

must be an early retirement option to allow those older workers who have long-standing

attachments to the fishery to have the opportunity to exit the fishery with a measure of

dignity.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there must be a licence buyback program to

promote further rationization of the harvesting sector.

Mr. Speaker, given the magnitude of the crisis and the elements

necessary to bring about the necessary adjustment, it is clear that substantial new

funding will be required. It is inconceivable to even contemplate that these needs can be

met through existing government programs.

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported by some media that a TAGS replacement

program would be a hard sell in Ottawa. I want to make it clear that the Province does not

consider a post tags program to be a hard sell. The Harrigan Report clearly illustrated

the profound impacts of the groundfish crisis on our rural families and communities. I

understand, the Standing Committee on Fishery and Oceans, in the report it will table

today, has confirmed this conclusion and will place the responsibility squarely on the

federal government's shoulders. The Province fully concurs. The Committee's expected

recommendation of a voluntary retirement and licence buyback program is also consistent

with our views, as is the recommendation of the multiyear economic stimulation program and

the continuation of income support.

Clearly, the Standing Committee's detailed recommendations will require

careful review. This said, the focus on redirection of foreign quotas to Canadian

interests will have only marginal benefits for harvesters, processors and communities,

given the relatively modest foreign quotas in place today and the enormous losses which

accompanied the closure of the groundfish fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to reiterate that a substantive and

well-designed post-TAGS grogram is an absolute necessity and an unquestionable obligation

of the federation government. The Province will continue to take all necessary steps to

ensure that this obligation is met in a timely and effective manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the copy of his Ministerial Statement and I

say thank God for George Baker and Bill Matthews!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Only for that fisheries committee, Mr. Speaker, we

would not hear a squeak from that minister or the opposite side today.

Mr. Speaker, what this government has continued to do is run their

silly polls where they have used the taxpayers dollars of this government, the taxpayers

dollars of this Province, in order to conduct a poll to tell the people out there that 51

per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were against further TAGS funding. That is

what this government has done, Mr. Speaker.

We support the initiatives put forward by the government here. It is

too bad that he did not mention the people who have been taken off this program, I say to

the minister, people who have been eliminated from the program because they - women who

have been pregnant, people who have been on Workers' Compensation, people with long-term

attachments to the industry because they were sick, now find themselves without an income.

The minister did not address that.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did say that relatively modest foreign quotas

are in place today. Well, let me tell the House about some of those relatively modest

foreign quotas: 17,000 tons of turbot in 3L; 850 tons of Northern Cod, Mr. Speaker, as a

by-catch; 85 per cent of the quota of turbot in 3L today goes to foreign enterprises.

Let me tell you about another modest quota, Mr. Speaker - 60 per cent

of all the redfish caught in 3L and 3N go to foreign allocations; 1,500 tons of redfish

quota in 3O, Mr. Speaker, 113 tons of bluefish tuna go to the Japanese market - 113 tons.

Consider, Mr. Speaker, that tuna today is worth about $25,000 each and we are giving away

113 tons, while our own people are only allowed to catch 35 tons.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is no modest allocation, I say to members

opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Foreign boats, Mr. Speaker, have landed in excess

of $100 million-worth of shrimp last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

No leave.

Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for making available a copy of his remarks

today. I want to add to the thanks that were being given out by the Member for Bonavista

South that we should also thank Peter Stoffer, the NDP member of the committee, for also

joining with the one Liberal on the committee - not the other four who support another

point of view - in roundly denouncing the efforts of the federal department in trying to

pretend to be protecting the fisheries of this great part of the country while letting

them go the way of the foreign fleets, and letting them go without proper scientific

reports and results.

I agree that heads should roll to demonstrate that it is not just

ministers that have responsibility, but senior officials in government who do not take

their responsibilities to protect the stocks in a proper way. The real responsibility is a

political one, and this government has to make a stronger response. What the minister did

not talk about in his report was the thousands of people who are going to be off TAGs

between now and August.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If those people have not been mentioned, Mr. Speaker,

there will not be any program left for them to extend.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to announced today, on behalf of the Minister of Justice,

that government has made a $50,000 donation to the Newfoundland and Labrador Ground Search

and Rescue Association.

As all members know, our Province is well served by the volunteers who

comprise our search and rescue teams. It is government's intention to give them both the

recognition they deserve and the resources they need to carry out their good work.

There are twenty-eight ground search and rescue teams in Newfoundland

and Labrador and more than 1,000 volunteers. They play a vital role when it comes to

assisting our police forces to seek lost or missing persons.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port has been instrumental in making

the House of Assembly and government aware of the services provided by our ground search

and rescue teams. It is largely due to his efforts and those of Harry Blackmore, the

President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Ground Search and Rescue Association - who,

incidentally, is present in the gallery today - that we are making this announcement.

Mr. Speaker, this $50,000 contribution will enable the association to

carry out its duties more effectively and efficiently. Mr. Blackmore has advised me that

one of his first actions will be to buy additional equipment for the teams and to

refurbish existing equipment.

I am pleased to make this announcement today on behalf of the Minister

of Justice, and I wish the Newfoundland and Labrador Ground Search and Rescue Association

every success in their very worthwhile endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of the statement on behalf of the

Minister of Justice. This is a good-news announcement; we are looking at a $50,000

donation to the good work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Ground Search and Rescue

Association. My question for the minister, though, however: Is this an additional $50,000

than was announced some two weeks ago? So are we now talking a total contribution of

$100,000, or is it the same $50,000 that was announced approximately ten days ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

Section 5 (4) of the Internal

Economy Commission Act, I wish to advise the House with respect to the membership of the

Commission of Internal Economy.

The members are: The Member for Lewisporte, in his capacity as Deputy

Speaker; the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, in his capacity as

Government House Leader; the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board;

and the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. Both ministers have been

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council in their capacities as Ministers of the

Crown; the Member for Ferryland in his capacity as Opposition House Leader; the Member for

Cape St. Francis as a member of the Opposition; and the Speaker, who is Chair of the

Commission. These are the members who presently make up the Internal Economy Commission.

Before we commence Oral Questions, I would like to welcome today to the

galleries, on behalf of all members, ten Adult Basic Education students from Academy

Canada, and they are accompanied by their Instructor, Mr. Harry Bourden.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last week in the Speech from the Throne

government set out that this session of the House was going to be paying attention to

social programs; the kinder, gentler government. Yet, in the Speech from the Throne, the

only initiatives that were announced were ones that had been previously announced on

several different occasions.

My question for the minister, or Acting Premier, is: Last week the

Minister of Human Resources and Employment was on a public radio program, I believe, and

publicly talked about the redesign of the Province's Income Support Program. Why was this

program, or the redesign of that program, not mentioned in the Throne Speech? And what

action or actions have been taken by government in redesigning this Income Support

Program?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question as to why it was

not announced, I would simply say that this announcement was actually made in last year's

Budget Speech.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is not quite correct.

I would like to ask the minister this: Government has had a committee

of senior civil servants working on a redesign of social services, or the Province's

Income Support Program. Is the minister going to commit today to make sure that any

recommendations that government puts forward will be aired publicly? Any redesign of this

program obviously involves literally thousands upon thousands of people in this Province.

Can she make that commitment today?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, there has already been a major public

consultation process that has helped to shape the form and the principles that are being

employed as we redesign the delivery system for income support. I would also say to the

member that the process that we have established for our continuing work on both the

delivery system and the Income Support Program is one that involves extensive continued

public consultation.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would venture to guess that literally thousands of

people who depend on income support would be very surprised to hear the minister's

comments. How many people has she talked to who depend on this system, for consultation on

the type of lives they live? This is the same minister who two weeks ago said that they do

not decide what type of apartments people go in with respect to it, but they do decide

they will only give them $139 a month for rent.

Let me ask the minister this: Will the redesign of any of these

programs integrate any of the federal programs that now exist in the Province?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member

is asking with the question with respect to the linkage between the federal government and

the provincial government as it pertains to redesigning our Income Support Program, and

perhaps there is a follow-up that he would like to have on this. What I can say to you is

that in designing the delivery system to the point that we have right now, there has been

extensive consultation. It has involved representation from all of the major stakeholders,

including consumers or clients who have been represented in this process. We will continue

to have an ongoing dialogue and a validation process that we will work with the public of

the Province, with all of the stakeholders who have an interest in this area, and that

will help shape and refine both the delivery system and the model itself. Where it is

appropriate and possible to work in collaboration with the federal government, we will

include that in order to achieve the maximum efficiency with our resources.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: A good point, I say to the minister. Could she say

As a member of the Premier's self-described troika, integration of

existing provincial programs with federal programs, I think the question would be fairly

self evident. Let me ask the minister this: Four years ago the former Premier, former

government - many of the same ministers are in place today - introduced a program called

the Income Supplementation Program. Is the minister aware of that program? Is the new

redesign of the Province's Income Support Program based upon any of the principles

outlined in that program; and, if so, what principles?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier comments, we

are in the process of developing our approach to a new income support model. It will

involve considerable consultation. I am sure that it will bring together a variety of

different perspectives from anyone who has an interest or something to contribute to this

process. We are at the very early stages of redesigning our Income Support Program. We

expect it will take at least the next year, if not longer, to develop the program and to

ensure it is the best possible program to provide income support to people in this

Province. So we are in the very early stages and we welcome all and any input, and we will

continue to consider all perspectives as we try and design a model.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: As usual, Mr. Speaker, no answer. Let me go to

another part of the Throne Speech where it read clearly: It has always been difficult for

young people to find a job. The Province's "Linkages Program assists young people

through career-related opportunities with local employers, career planning, and bonuses

toward the cost of post-secondary tuition and books." That is it, that is all it

says.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, in view

of the fact that last year the number of young people who left this Province is equivalent

to the size and population of Grand Falls, is he so confident the Linkages Program is

working?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the issues associated with youth

employment are very complex, as the members opposite would recognize. The strategies we

will use, and that we are using, are many. One aspect of the strategies that is directed

towards youth is the Linkages Program, and yes, all of our evaluation to date shows this

to be a highly successful program.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, when 12,000 young people leave the

Province and the minister stands up and says their strategies are working, there is

something definitely wrong. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

going to help about 6 per cent of the student population of the Province, but it will not

kick in until about two years from now.

It says in the Throne Speech that they recognize it will not kick in

until two years from now, and that "My Government will address this problem during

the course of this current Session." The question to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board is: What can we expect for students in this Province in your upcoming

Budget?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate an opportunity to

answer one of the first questions asked by the new Leader of the Opposition in the House,

and congratulate him on being successful in attaining the most sought after job in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the competition was quite tough.

I think the hon. member has been in the House since 1993 and

understands that when the Throne Speech is read and there are suggestions that things will

be dealt with during this session of the House of Assembly, we will be here until June,

July, August, however long we need to stay, and during that period of time one of the

prime opportunities to lay out what students can expect in terms of direct help and

assistance from this government would be during the speech itself given by my colleague,

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, which is going to happen in a couple of days I

understand. I guess the first clues and hints would likely happen in the Budget Speech,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Education is an

example of every other minister over there, because it is difficult to keep up with the

Premier; I understand that.

On March 6, at the Federation of Newfoundland and Labrador Students'

Conference, the Premier made a commitment that in this year's Budget there would be a $3

million grant program put in place. He made that commitment. In view of the fact the

Minister of Education has no idea what the Premier is up to with respect to his

department, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board: Will we see in

the Budget the commitment the Premier made on March 6? Will it be reflected in the Budget

and, in fact, we will see a $3 million grant program for post-secondary institutions in

the Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty obvious today that

the caucus on the other side decided to let the new Leader of the Opposition ask all the

questions. We will do our best to try to answer them as they arise.

Again, I think he has been in the Legislature since 1993. I think he

would hardly expect the Minister of Finance to stand up today, on Monday, and say exactly

what is going to be in the Budget in three or four days time on Thursday. So, I am sure he

has enough interest, Mr. Speaker, to be here for the session on Thursday and he will find

out exactly what is stated in the Budget with respect to that issue. And, I know, because

I have met with the groups regularly and repeatedly, that the student leaders themselves

will be here in the Legislature on Thursday. Because they are looking forward to finding

out, as well, the details of exactly what will be in the Budget with respect to student

indebtedness and those types of initiatives.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is correct. I am not sure if the Minister of

Education listens to the pre-Cabinet commentary weekly Cabinet meetings on Sundays or not.

Mr. Speaker, one final question: Under normal circumstances, up until

this point in time, any time that there was an increase for public servants, whatever the

increase was negotiated, it was automatically given to pensioners. Now, every member in

this House, on both sides of the House, has been receiving calls with respect to this

issue. Can pensioners look forward to Thursday, Minister - can they look forward with

hope, on Thursday, whatever negotiated increases with respect to the unions representing

public service employees, whatever government ends up giving them at the end of the day,

that pensioners in this Province, can look forward to the same increase?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, it is never followed that an increase to

public servants on the wage package automatically results in an increase to pensioners.

There is a different set of criteria at play; one is that public servants have not ever

agreed with government on a package that includes indexing for retired personnel. We have

discussed that with them, we have never been able to come to an agreement with them.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, very few pensions if any, pay indexing to their

retirees. If government were to do it, you would have to consider that you would be taxing

people who are not themselves indexed in order to provide indexing to a small group of

people. So, we will consider it, and any decision, along with many others that the

government has to include in its overall package of measures in the Province, will be

announced on Thursday.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Minister, recently, many allegations have been brought forward

regarding federal fisheries observers routinely reporting irregularities by foreign

vessels fishing inside our 200-mile limit. I ask the minister if he is aware of these

actions, and what has he done since those actions have been reported to insure that such

serious abuse of our fishing regulations immediately end?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by different people

around the Province, and particularly by some of the observers to whom the hon. member is

relating, are very serious allegations. I take them very seriously. I have taken them very

seriously since day one, long before I got into politics, about the fishery problem but in

particular, in the last decade, about the allegations made by some observers.

In fact, I have had the opportunity to sit down with a couple of

observers in relation to the problem that they have been experiencing on the Grand Banks.

I have recently had a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada, one of

many meetings I have had over a period of time with the minister concerning the

fishery-related problems when it comes to the impact on the fishery, the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador, so we will be meeting with the minister again now, since these

allegations have recently come out again. I wish, I only wish, that some of these people

who are making these statements would have come forward long before now and made us more

aware of what they deem to be a problem.

When we research, when we meet with the minister, when his officials

come back to us, then we will see exactly how serious they are, and if they are as serious

as indicated by the individuals who have made this known to the Standing Committee, then I

am sure they will be corrected and I will be part of making sure that happens.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, it is a job, I guess, to relate it to anybody when the

federal minister keeps them so close to his side, when he will not release this

information and even goes so far as to tell observers to stop making reports, according to

the information with which we have been provided.

Minister, in light of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

Report which was released today, we were told some shocking and ridiculous stories

regarding foreign fishing inside our 200-mile zone. We were told of fish being in surplus

to Canada's needs. I ask the minister, how he can support any government department making

such a statement of having surplus fish while thousands of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have to sit at home, Mr. Speaker, go looking and begging for hand-outs, while

our fish plants are closed and the boats are tied up to our wharves.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the hon. member,

being from a fishing community, representing many fishing communities in Newfoundland and

Labrador, would stand to his feet here this afternoon and leave the impression that the

foreign fishing activity inside the 200-mile limit - which I will get to in a minute -

could replace the lost job opportunities and the lost income for 27,000 people in this

Province.

MR. FITZGERALD: Nobody said that.

MR. EFFORD: He is leaving the impression out there that a by-catch

could employee hundreds of fishermen and hundreds of plant workers. It is totally

misleading and a misrepresentation of the true facts about what is taking place. Let me

give you some examples, Mr. Speaker. He referred to 17,000 tons of turbot in 3L division.

Not one pound of that turbot is caught inside the 200-mile limit. It is all outside the

200-mile limit, most of it over around the Flemish Cap. Not one side -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) Black Tickle can see from their

community?

MR. EFFORD: Fifteen hundred tons of cod last year, which was

allocated to France, caught by National Sea.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Fifteen hundred tons of redfish going to Newfoundland

vessels.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister is deliberately misleading this House,

Mr. Speaker. When somebody in Black Tickle can look out through his window -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I told the hon. member that he cannot use that language in the House

and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. FITZGERALD: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

When this minister can stand on his feet and say that this allocation

is being caught outside the 200-mile limit and people in Black Tickle can look out through

their window and see those boats fishing, I suggest to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that

those people must have 20/20 vision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, again, it is one thing to stand in the

House of Assembly in Question Period and be political and put questions back and forth

across the House to the minister, but it is another thing to mislead the people of this

Province. The people in Black Tickle, Mr. Speaker, are desperately looking for work. The

people in Black Tickle need the opportunity to fish.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to the Member

for Bonavista South as misleading this House and I think that was similar to the point of

order that you had ruled on earlier, as misleading the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. minister did not say that the

Member for Bonavista South deliberately misled the House; therefore, there is no point of

order.

MR. EFFORD: It goes to show you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member

is not listening at all, not listening to what the reality is around the Province. Fifteen

hundred tons of cod, referred to by the hon. member as being caught by France - France did

not catch 1,500 tons of cod. France gave that cod last year to National Sea. Fifteen

hundred tons of redfish will be turned over - negotiations are going on now to turn that

fish over to the Canadian vessels and Newfoundland fishing vessels can catch that fish. I

have been invited over to 3PS this year, in the next couple of weeks, to have discussions

on Newfoundlanders catching that quota of fish and landing it in Newfoundland or landing

it in 3PS.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that the statement I

made comes directly from this book which was put together by nine of his own federal

cousins in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, the East Coast Report. The 1,500 tons of fish that was

caught in 3PS by National Sea, I say to the minister, according to this report, was

processed - he is right, it was caught by National Sea but it was processed in either St.

Pierre et Miquelon or France. It was not processed here in this Province. So if this book

is wrong maybe the minister can have it rewritten.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to make a plea. I make a plea on behalf

of the hundreds of rural communities in this Province, Mr. Speaker, I make a plea on

behalf of every business in this Province, I make a plea on behalf of the thousands -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and thousands of fishery workers here today. The

plea, Mr. Speaker, is to ask the minister if he would immediately consult with his federal

cousin in Ottawa, the hon. David Anderson, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to put an

immediate end to all foreign fishing inside the 200-mile limit, on the Nose and Tail of

the Grand Bank and on the Flemish Cap, so that we can have at least some of our people go

back to work in that industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not need the hon. member to plead

with me to represent the fishing industry or fishing interest of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I do it every single day of the week and every single hour of the day and I will

continue to do that. But I will be fair and I will be honest in the representation I make

to Ottawa on opportunities for people in the fishing industry - not only the harvesting,

but the processing industry in this Province.

I will not go out there and tell the people of this Province that

17,000 tons of turbot is caught in 3L division inside the 200-mile limit by foreigners

when the hon. member and everybody else in Newfoundland and Labrador knows it is

absolutely false!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Education. Parents in the Province

are very supportive of educational reform. They stated their opinions in the referendums.

They also recognize, I think, that due to continued decreases in student population some

schools will have to close. However, they want the proposed restructuring to reflect the

best interest of children at the classroom levels, and they want changes to occur only

after there have been appropriate feasibility studies completed that reflect changing

student deployment and the best use of the existing facility.

I want to ask the minister, in view of the fact that the school boards

have only been elected for a few weeks, and most school boards have not completed those

student deployment and facilities studies, will he today give the schools sufficient time

and assure them they will have sufficient staff in the interim to facilitate a rational

approach to educational reform?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Valley.

MR. E. BYRNE: That must be the shortest answer from that minister.

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

The shortest answer, Mr. Speaker. I am encouraged by the minister's

answer, because in the Throne Speech it said, "The confusion and chaos that plagued

our educational system for years has ended." I thought it was going to go on and say

the minister had resigned, but it did not. So I will go on with my second question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: The entire concept of reform centred around changes

in governance and elimination of inefficiencies. We heard a promise, made repeatedly in

the public media, that all the savings would be reinvested back into education. Last week

we heard the minister say there was going to $18 million savings next year, but only $9

million would be going back into education.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister: Why will the government not give

a commitment to reinvesting the entire $18 million back into education and give the new

school boards the time they need to prepare a well-developed plan for educational reform

in this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to remind the hon. the Opposition education critic

that this government has never ever made a statement suggesting that all of the savings

from education would be reinvested in education. It has not been made by this government.

There was a platform, a Red Book, from two years ago in 1996, the election was only a

couple of years ago, in which a number of items were laid out with respect to education.

Maybe I might take the opportunity, in answering the question, to

remind the hon. member that if you look back to last year, as an example of this

government's commitment, last year there were some $20 million worth of teachers' salaries

savings within the system. And this government, of which I am proud to be a part, in fact

immediately put $24 million-worth back into the system to pay off school board debt, which

exceeded the total savings for last year. We put $2.5 million last year into a computers

for schools program. We put $500,000 last year into a tutoring for tuition program. Also,

we increased the capital account last year from $4 million, which it had been for five or

six years, to over $14 million.

So last year, which was the first opportunity this government had when

we had gone from twenty-seven -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - school boards to ten, there were $20 million-worth of

potential savings in education, and the government reinvested $37 million last year alone.

Members opposite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - Mr. Speaker, because they were more interested in

politics -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer,

please.

MR. GRIMES: - than in anything else, tried to portray to the people

of the Province that we did not reinvest the money in education. We did, Mr. Speaker, last

year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: We have taken half of the salary dollars this year -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- and reinvested them already. As we indicated to the School Boards and

everybody else a few day ago when we did the announcement on teacher allocation, there is

a budget coming up in three or four days. We will see if the other $9 million goes back in

at that point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in reading that long list of things

that the Minister allegedly has achieved, he forgot to note, he is the same minister who

sat on the air quality study for eighteen months and denied that it existed until the

Member for St. John's East had it released.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: And then afterwards, he said it was a terrible

(inaudible) Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to

get to his question.

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the Minister, he stated on the public air

waves there could be forty schools closing next year. I ask him: How many of these would

be in rural communities in this Province? And how can this minister so dispassionately

agree with the closure of these schools and still support what is called rural

revitalization, comments made in the Throne Speech. The two things do not seem to go

together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The comment with respect to air quality again demonstrates a perfect

example of what I was describing, as members opposite, Mr. Speaker, wanting to suggest and

play some political games rather than deal with an issue. With respect to air quality -

and the hon. member said it again - he makes the accusation that the minister sat on a

report for eighteen months before he was somehow forced to release it.

The actual fact, which was reported and recorded in this House

repeatedly last Spring, which the group opposite, for political reasons, do not wish to

acknowledge, is that within days after that report was commissioned - which was

two-and-one-half years ago, Mr. Speaker, before I even became the minister - the report

was in the hands of the twenty-seven school boards at the time but they want to describe

that as being a report that was hidden by the Government. It was in the hands of the

twenty-seven school boards. What we did, Mr. Speaker, when I became Minister, because of

the change from twenty-seven school boards to ten, we then took the same report and sent

it out to the ten school boards to make sure that they had it. And this group repeats two

years later that a report was hidden, it was sat upon by the minister. Now nothing, Mr.

Speaker, could be further from the truth, and it characterizes the kind of approach they

take to very serious questions which I would rather answer about the specific issues than

have to point out their approach to the issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, a final supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to do with the air

quality study. I challenge the minister to find the twenty-seven directors or school board

superintendents and get statements from them saying that they ever received it. Our

information, and we contacted any number of school boards, nobody could find it, and when

they had the information, it was far too late. I say to the minister that this air quality

study was released by my colleague here and only then did he have the guts; but I am proud

to say, that he is now out there giving Lysol containers, mops and brooms to people and

saying clean up the buildings and then we will go in and test them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I tell you, the minister should be more

forthright and straightforward in his comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is obvious the minister is trying to keep me quiet, but it will not

work. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has been travelling

this Province, as have I, listening to the concerns of local manufacturers regarding the

Public Tendering Act. The minister tells us that he is as concerned about our local

manufacturers as I am.

Mr. Speaker, just after the Throne Speech, last week, there was a

reception out in our lobby, as there is every year. Now that there is locally manufactured

juice products in our cafeteria and available through our caterer, I ask the minister:

Where is his commitment and why has he not requested that local products be made available

at that reception, as opposed to imported juice products? Where is his commitment to our

local manufacturers?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member correctly refers to a commitment that I gave in the House

last December to consult with respect to appropriate amendments to the Public Tendering

Act to, amongst other things, take into account issues such as economic development

benefit on account of local manufacturers who have made representation, wanting to get

their product into government-funded bodies. I can tell the hon. member, as I think he

already knows, as a result of that commitment we have made considerable efforts. We have

been around the Province in consultation sessions. Between now and Friday afternoon of

this week, I will be receiving ten written briefs, individually, from groups interested in

talking about appropriate change to the Public Tendering Act, to deal with things that you

are referring to, and hopefully, before too long, we will have amendments proposed such

that Cabinet can consider them with a view to introducing legislative amendments in the

House to deal with the issue that he raises.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. MATTHEWS: In terms of juice - I was in the lobby last week - I

would say that was purchased by the group who provided the product to the reception,

probably the CNIB group in the cafeteria downstairs. One of the issues that we are

addressing, one of the problems with the Act is that the Act does not extend to

subcontractors. So, at the moment, we have no latitude, we have no ability to enforce upon

them any particular type of purchase. We hope that we will be able to change that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to take his seat.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I hereby tender the Annual Report of the Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation for the fiscal year ending 1997.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

Section 13 of The Auditor General's

Act, I hereby table The Annual Report of The Auditor General for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1997.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS Public Service Pensioners in this Province have not had an

increase in benefits in nine years and their pensions are not indexed for automatic

adjustments; and

WHEREAS the Government has been clawing back from pensioners, Canada

Pension Plan benefits they receive; and

WHEREAS the income many pensioners are left with is so little, that

many find themselves far beneath the poverty line; many are forced to rely on food banks

and the generosity of the public to survive and many cannot cover the special expenses

such as regular medication costs that many seniors encounter; and

WHEREAS like so many seniors in our society, our public service

pensioners are a mostly hidden segment of our people who find themselves especially

vulnerable to neglect and abuse by those who hold power and make decisions; and

WHEREAS it is unseemly that the employer of people who made a lifetime

contribution to their Province as public servants should leave them impoverished in their

vulnerable senior years;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urge the

provincial government to provide adequate increases in benefits to public service

pensioners which reflect the increases in wages for public servants; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the government

to cease clawing back Canada Pension Plan benefits from seniors whose income would then be

below the poverty line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a motion

to move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS The fishing industry is the mainstay of rural Newfoundland and

Labrador; and

WHEREAS the groundfish moratorium has thrown thousands of our people

out of work and jeopardizes the future of numerous communities; and

WHEREAS Canada has declared fish within its 200-mile limit to be excess

to our needs, despite the tremendous need in local plants for fish to process, and despite

the fact that other countries do not declare fish in their waters to be in excess of their

needs; and

WHEREAS the just released report of the House of Commons

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled the East Coast

Report, concludes the existing Fisheries Observer Program is inadequate to determine

reliably the fishing catches and fishing practices of foreign vessels operating in East

Coast waters; and

WHEREAS the East Coast Report recommends, species by species, that

Canada reclaim fish quotas within our 200-mile limit that are now given to other

countries;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government

of Canada to immediately end all foreign fishing within Canada's 200-mile limit and on the

Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve

itself into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the raising of supply to

be granted to Her Majesty.

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for

the granting of supply to Her Majesty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

my constituency who wish to address the hon. House of Assembly of this Province on the

issue of the closure of schools. The petitioners state that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador proposed the reform of the educational system in this Province in order to

benefit the children of the Province, and that in order to benefit these children it is

important that all children have access to a neighbourhood or community school.

These petitioners state that the proposed closure of St. Joseph's

School means the loss of an important neighbourhood school vital to the well being and

education of the children of our area, and any decision to close schools so soon after the

school board elections contradicts the democratic process and prevents the newly elected

board members from discharging their responsibility.

The petitioners ask the House of Assembly to demand that government

take all measures to stop school closures until the newly elected board has had a full

opportunity to consider the needs and circumstances of students and schools within their

jurisdiction.

These petitioners are parents, friends, students, and relatives of

those who attend St. Joseph's School on Quidi Vidi Road. This school is vital to the needs

of that neighbourhood, and I would go so far as to say the community that is within that

neighbourhood, the communities of Quidi Vidi, of the Battery, of that whole east end of

St. John's which has for generations been served by a school, St. Joseph's. In fact the

oldest building, which has since been turned over to the School Lunch Program, was built

in 1895.

Right now there are two reasonably modern structures which are quite

adequate and satisfactory for the operation of the school. As is indicated by the

petitioners, and was evident to the Members of the House of Assembly who visited the

school a couple of Fridays ago along with school board members, this school performs a

very vital and important role for the young students who go there.

These students, almost to a person, almost 100 per cent of them,

participate and take advantage of the School Lunch Program. This is recognized by the

school council as important and vital to the health and well being and the educational

needs of these students. In fact, the school council has asked for help to try and have a

school breakfast program as well to ensure the needs are more fully met.

This school pays special attention to the needs of that community. They

have a tremendous program with the resources they have. They have a music program, a band

program; they have a swimming program available to them at The Battery Hotel. They have a

preschool program, a pre-kindergarten, for those who are registered in the kindergarten

program who are able to come there several afternoons a week for a period of four or five

months in the winter (inaudible), the spring of the year, which is very vital. Anybody who

knows anything about education knows that what goes on before kindergarten is often as

vital as what happens in the school in determining the success of students in school.

The community and neighbourhood to which this school is responding is

in great need of having a school that is going to, in this case, with the closure of St.

Joseph's Parish Church, represent a focal point for the parents of that community and the

needs those children have in that community.

The actions of the government in essentially placing before the board a

few weeks after they were elected - the first democratically elected school boards in the

Province of Newfoundland and the first, of course, under the new school reform - placed in

their hands is the immediate prospect of the requirement of closing as many as five or six

schools almost immediately, without adequate time to really consider what has to be

considered, I suppose, by law, the full extent of the consequences of what is happening,

the full extent of the effect on the communities that are going to be dealt with, and the

needs of the children, particularly here in this situation where these children will be

scattered all over town without appropriate transportation.

It is difficult enough as it is. The school bus comes from Quidi Vidi

village to the school. Last year the government policy imposed a $10 per month school bus

pass on them. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that those parents cannot afford to pay that to

have their children brought from Quidi Vidi to St. Joseph's, and the collection of that

fee has been almost negligible since Christmas because the parents just cannot afford it.

It is very important to save this school. In fact, this school should

be given a lease on life that indicates that this school will continue, and that if that

is the case, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - with the long-term commitment to the continuation of

that school, the school population will grow, people will want to be part of that school,

and parents will bring their children there and save that school.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the parents and children of St.

Joseph's School, that the House of Assembly and the minister do everything they can to

save this school.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to stand for a moment and second and speak to the

comments made by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. I, too, had an

opportunity approximately two weeks ago, along with the Member for Cape St. Francis, to

have a tour and spend some time at St. Joseph's School where we met the teachers, many of

the students, and many of the concerned parents who feel that it is just perhaps a matter

of time before this very important neighbourhood school may be a thing of the past.

As the member indicated, this is truly - although within the City of

St. John's - a neighbourhood school. It has serviced hundreds and hundreds of families and

school children for many years in our city. It has been a community centre; it has been a

service centre; it has been a centre of academic excellence over many years; and it is sad

that this school, along with others, is indeed on the chopping block, as it were, without

the necessary review and assessment being put in place by what are now duly elected school

board members who are obviously given the responsibility to make these very key and

important decisions.

In my own district there are, in addition to St. Joseph's School, some

two other schools which apparently have been arbitrarily selected by individuals who are

no longer on the school board. Now we have these duly elected school board members who are

being confronted with making these decisions which will seriously affect these

individuals, these students, these parents and families, as it relates to these particular

school closures. So I sympathize with the petitioners as it relates to St. Joseph's. I

understand truly what they are experiencing. As I have indicated, I too have constituents

who are being confronted with this very serious matter and I support the wording of the

petition and the words as expressed by my colleague.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make a few comments with respect to the petition that

was so ably presented on behalf of the parents who have concern with respect to St.

Joseph's School.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this is one of the few points in time

where this Legislature has been very solid and unanimous in its support for an issue,

education reform, because the objective is clear. It is to benefit the children in the

Province so that we will have a better educational opportunity as a result of the reform

being able to play itself out, as a result of school boards being put in a position to

operate a single school system for the first time in history, in September of 1998.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everybody here, and anyone who might

listen to the comments, with respect to the roles that we have; because the hon. member,

in presenting the petition, indicated he would like for the minister to do everything

possible to try to make sure that some different decision could be made with respect to

St. Joseph's School.

The minister and the government have done a lot to date with respect to

that particular issue, but whether St. Joseph's School or any one of the other

eighty-three schools that this particular board operates opens or closes is not a decision

for this minister or for this Legislature to make. The same Schools Act that we

unanimously endorsed at Christmas time leaves the responsibility for organizing schools,

closing schools if they need to be, consolidating schools, in the hands of the school

boards.

What the government has done as a result of representation made

repeatedly throughout the year by school boards, school councils, parents, the Home and

School Federation, is to put the Avalon East School Board in a position where it wasn't

two weeks ago when it announced it may have to close St. Joseph's - because it has not

said that it will; it gave notice that they might have to - and at that point in time they

were looking for formulas which would have seen the Avalon East School Board lose

sixty-five teachers for next September. They were hoping that number might get down around

thirty-five or so.

As a result of the announcement that was made last week by government

in reinvesting $9 million in teachers' salaries, they now know they can go back to the

drawing board, reconsider some of their potential decisions, because they only have to

accommodate twenty-four teacher reductions instead of the thirty-five or forty they were

projecting, and instead of the sixty-five that was being feared by everybody.

Another factor is that of those twenty-four, eight of those teachers

were given back to the school board because of a decision made by Justice Barry to open a

second high school on Bell Island which was closed last year; and everybody understands

they can run a single high school on Bell Island with eight fewer teachers and a better

program. The Chair of the Avalon East School Board, when she has been speaking publicly on

behalf of the group, has indicated repeatedly that if they do make some changes - which

they gave notice of, five or six potential changes - they are confident, with this level

of teacher reductions, they can make some changes and improve the program.

Now I understand there are particular circumstances, well articulated

by the member from the area, with respect to St. Joseph's and that part of the community

within the community. Those issues are before the school board, where they should be,

because it is their decision to make. They have been well spelled out. I am sure that the

group, the school council and others, will make another representation to the school

board. I believe at the end of the day the school board will make decisions that in the

final analysis will show there is a real opportunity for an improved educational

experience for the students who are in the whole area and district covered by Avalon East.

We have done as much as we can in the first instance by taking the

teacher reduction from a prospective number of sixty-five, which is what the board was

dealing with when they made these tentative announcements, down to a real number, an

effective number, of sixteen, provided they implement the changes that were in place last

year and reversed because of Justice Barry.

In a school board with 33,000 students, 2,500 next year fewer than they

had a couple of years ago, 2,500 empty desks, and with eighty-three schools, we are

confident they can accommodate the loss of sixteen teaching units without having a real

problem and without having detrimental effects upon the students in this area. We will

work with them, Mr. Speaker, to see that occurs.

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

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

I have a petition to present to the hon. House of Assembly on behalf of

the parents who gathered here yesterday afternoon, who walked here from Brinton Memorial

in very stormy conditions, with rain and ice pellets falling upon them. They were led up

the Parkway by the members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. They felt very strongly

about what they wanted to communicate to this Legislature.

In fact, they had written the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation letting him know they would be here yesterday, and wondering if he would

have the doors open to accommodate them. When they arrived they were told they were not

allowed in, that they had gotten orders that said: No, you cannot come in. Even when they

asked if they could come in to use the phone to call for a taxi, because they would not

have to walk back down to Brinton Memorial, they were denied even the opportunity to walk

in, one person at a time, to go in and use a telephone. That is the reception they got

yesterday afternoon when they came to this Legislature, and in fact, a number of us had to

help those parents who had small children. Children who were too young to go to school,

children four and five years old, we had to help them, take them in our cars and transport

them to their homes or to some other designated place, Brinton Memorial or St. Joseph's or

whatever. That is the reception they got. There was no government member here to welcome

them and they were denied even the common courtesy of coming into the lobby to use a

telephone to look for a taxi, in the kind of inclement weather we had yesterday. Now who,

in his right mind, would deny anybody access to go inside yesterday to use a telephone?

but, that is what happened here yesterday afternoon.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the petition we have reads as follows:

We, the parents and friends of schools in the Avalon East District

assembled at Confederation Building on Sunday, 22 March 1998, request the provincial

government to declare a moratorium on the reduction of teaching units for the school year

1998-1999.

We make this request with the conviction if the Avalon East School

Board is forced to close schools or severely reduce programs with the benefit of a

well-developed and well-vented plan, it will contribute to educational chaos rather than

to effective educational reform.

We stress, the petition reads, that we are not opposed to school

closures and changes in school configuration. In the context of declining enrolments and

infiltration of neighbourhood schools, such changes must and will occur. However, we are

convinced that the changes should only be made on the basis of a comprehensive plan that

has been thoroughly developed, vetted by extensive consultation with parent groups and

schools concerned and implemented with sensitivity to the children and families who will

be affected.

The Avalon East School Board has a process in place leading to such a

plan. Unfortunately, it will not be completed and available to guide the Board's decisions

at this time. We firmly believe that the only reasonable way to deal with this dilemma is

a moratorium on teacher reductions for 1998-1999, so that the plan can be developed,

vetted and ready for infiltration next year. Our presence here at Confederation Building

is evidence of our dedication to this belief, the petition reads.

We sincerely trust that the provincial government will consider our

petition as such far-reaching decisions are made.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this petition is supported by the Chairperson of the

Avalon East School Board and I have here some of the comments from the Chairperson, Ms

Cathy LeGrow. She says: We, the Avalon East School Board, stand in firm support of the

area school councils in pursuit of a fair, a just allocation of teachers for the school

boards in this school district. The Board has undertaken considerable political action of

its own in an attempt to influence government's decisions in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the Chairperson of the school board continues to write a

lengthy commentary in which she says that these parents have legitimate concerns. As a

matter of fact, the next three nights -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Just a moment to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: For the next three nights, from seven o'clock until

ten o'clock, the Avalon East School Board will be meeting at the Holiday Inn here in St.

John's, to hear representations from the parent councils and they will be here - it is not

advertised very well but the school councils will be able to make their presentations and

they have allocated three evenings. However, the decisions on teachers' allocations have

been made prior to even the opportunity for the school councils to have a hearing in front

of the school board and to put forward their position.

So I say to the minister, when he announced the changes that he had

last week, he should have listened to the parents first and then made his decisions,

rather than the other way around.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and support the remarks of my colleague on this side of

the House, the Member for Waterford Valley.

It is kind of remarkable in a way - many of the people who were here

yesterday were the very same people who were out last summer campaigning, working hard on

the Yes campaign for the referendum. It would be kind of ironic if the people who were out

fighting on the same side as the government for education reform because they believed

that was the best way to improve the opportunities for their children in schools were,

first of all, shut out of Confederation Building by someone's order; and second, that

their voices are not being heard when they say that the school boards - and some of the

school board officials were there, because they believe the same thing - that they have

told this minister, told this government, that the process of them undertaking a proper

review of the commitments and obligations under the schools act, a review of the

alternatives open to them, a process that has already been set down in law, a due process

that has to be followed when and if schools are to be closed, that they just do not have

enough time to do that.

It would be very ironic if the schools these people are fighting to

save will be closed when these people have been out fighting to bring about school reform

to ensure that more of these schools can stay open. St. Joseph's itself is a good case in

point. The school council of St. Joseph's went to the Avalon East School Board last year

and said if it came to a choice between a neighbourhood school or a denominational system,

they were very much in favour of a neighbourhood system. They were not looked upon very

favourably necessarily by some of the other schools in the same situation, but they said:

Neighbourhood schools are what we believe in, this is what we are fighting for, and we are

prepared to fight on that side along with the government and the government position to

support neighbourhood schools.

Other people at the meeting yesterday were front and centre in the Yes

campaign supporting the changes we now have with changes to Term 17. Once again, a

terribly great irony if those people are not only shut out of Confederation Building but

are not given an opportunity within the school boards themselves to be able to carry out

the promise of school reform, which is a fully considered set of rules made by

democratically-elected people.

I agree with the minister. It should not be a question of political

preference or political lobbying to save one school versus another. Enough of that has

gone on in the past and a lot of people are unhappy with it. What is being asked for by

these petitioners, and by the demonstrators yesterday and, I think, by the school boards,

too, is to be given an opportunity to undertake their mandate set down for them within

this new schools act and to be able to properly consult, to properly give due process and

notice, to properly consider any objections that might come from the people, and to make

sure that before any decisions are made a policy that will last will be put in place.

This ought not to be a decision made because of a crisis, or an

artificial crisis, brought about this year, another crisis next year, another crisis the

year after that. These new school boards have got to be able to undertake their

responsibilities as the fourth order of elected representatives in this Province. We only

have four. We have Members of Parliament, we have members of this Assembly, we have

municipal councils, and now we have school boards. They are playing a very important role

as elected officials by a democratic franchise, by a universal franchise, and that is a

role they ought to be allowed to play without being hamstrung by arbitrary rules or

arbitrary formulas that require them to make hasty decisions without sufficient time to

lay a proper policy framework down for the maintaining of community schools in rural

communities, and neighbourhood schools in urban communities.

These petitioners ought to be listened to. The plea is for adequate

time to carry out their responsibilities under the Schools Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the comments made by the presenter of the petition

and also the speaker to the petition.

The issue again, because it was raised again by the parents for the

committee for the school council and so on in the Avalon East area, on the face of it,

there is no question, it would sound fairly reasonable to suggest that because a board was

just elected a month or so ago they may not have sufficient time to make some decisions

for next year.

Last year, when individual schools were given notice that they may be

changed in some way, shape or form, the parents - and in any case I don't believe I have

experienced very many circumstances, probably not any, where there have been many

voluntary closures of schools without someone feeling that there was something else that

could have been done or should have been done - the parents are guaranteed under the act,

as the hon. member points out, an opportunity to present to the board and to make their

case. They will take advantage of that. They will be given that opportunity because the

new law says they must be given that opportunity; but, if we look at it again, on the face

of it, a call for a moratorium on teacher lay-offs, in this board alone, when the doors

open in September there will be 2,000 fewer students in the building than there were when

they opened this year, or a year ago in June.

Mr. Speaker, they have lost in excess of 900 students this year over

last year. Their projections are that there will be 1,100 fewer students in their

buildings next year because of the decline in the student population in this area. They

have eighty-two or eighty-three schools that they have been operating, and they are asked,

in the face of that, to try to accommodate the loss of sixteen real teacher units;

twenty-four, but eight of them, as I characterized, are only in the system because of a

judgement in the courts last summer - not a judgement but an injunction granted in the

courts last summer - which could quite easily and readily now be implemented because there

is no obstacle to it.

I really don't understand, and the government does not understand, why

any board, even a much smaller board with smaller numbers, without any panic, without any

real difficulties, could not accommodate the loss of sixteen teacher units in some seventy

or eighty schools; a move, or two or three.

As I indicated in response to the previous petition, when they were

making the tentative plans that they announced a couple of weeks ago they were in a

position to lose anywhere from thirty-five to sixty-five teachers. It is now down to

twenty-four, which can realistically be shown to be sixteen. We are not asking anybody to

do anything drastic. We are not asking anybody to tear the system apart. We are asking

people to make reasonable judgements.

Those people who ran for the school boards, the fact that they were

just elected does not change the fact that circumstances here have not changed. The staff

that has been servicing this board for almost two years now, since we went from

twenty-seven boards to ten - the Avalon East Board is almost two years old - their

circumstances have not changed. The research that has been done for them has not changed.

The staff advice has not changed. It will change in a week or so because they will have a

lot more teachers than they expected, and that is always one of the key ingredients with

respect to whether or not they have to run five schools, ten schools, fifteen schools,

twenty schools, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that with the action that the government has

taken in reinvesting $9 million directly into the teachers' salary bill, and putting an

additional forty or so teachers back into the Avalon East Board that they could not count

on when they were making these tentative decisions a couple of weeks ago, means they have

a lot more flexibility now and they should be able to make reasonable decisions without

causing negative impacts on students and programming.

In fact, I have heard the chair of the board speak publicly. She has

said that they do believe they can make some changes, but they expect the changes to

produce an improved educational opportunity for the students, not the opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition from 242 residents in the

communities of Jamestown and Winter Brook. It reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the roads in the areas of Jamestown and Winter Brook are in

very poor condition and are in desperate need of paving;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to pave approximately two kilometres of road in Jamestown and approximately eight

kilometres of road leading to and including the community of Winter Brook, as in duty

bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I think this must be the third or fourth petition that I

have brought forward here in this House within the last number of months from those same

residents. Those people are getting very anxious now because they know that there is a

Budget about to be brought down here in the Province. They know that capital funding for

roads is about to be announced and they are asking if we, the 242 people who signed this

petition - the 162 people who live in Jamestown, and the 114 people who live in Winter

Brook - can kindly be considered for some pavement this year.

Those people pay their way like everybody else. They go out and pay

$140 a year to register their private vehicles; they pay eighty dollars for their

licences; they pay the same amount for gasoline; they pay the same amount for everything

that they buy, but they are not being treated equally when it comes to the type of road on

which they have to drive.

I have had supporting letters from the wholesale truck drivers who have

to make general deliveries to the stores in this particular area, complaining about broken

springs, complaining about damage to tires, damage to the exterior of their vehicles.

I have a supporting letter here from a gentleman who delivers oil on a

regular basis to those communities, supporting letters from a lumber company that is

situated on the road leading to Winter Brook, employing in excess of eighty-five people

for most of the year. I have letters of support from the Anglican minister in the area,

from the United Church, from the school boards, from the bus drivers, all people who are

asking the government of this Province to kindly look at including those two small roads,

small distances in their Budget. One letter was from a ten-year old in the district asking

if the government would kindly look at the concerns of the students, look at the concerns

of the people, the senior citizens and the people who have to drive over this road on a

continuous basis.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was about three years ago this particular road

was upgraded to the point where it was made ready for paving. I think all of the upgrading

have been completed and all it requires now is class A stone and pavement. We do not have

to go down there and do any more ditching, we do not have to go down there to do any more

road upgrading and repairs; all that is needed is pavement.

I am glad to see that the minister came back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where (inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: Jamestown and Winter Brook. I say to the minister,

I presented a couple of petitions here at an earlier time concerning this same road. It is

approximately eight kilometres out to and including the Town of Winter Brook, and it is

approximately two kilometres through Jamestown. It is the only road in that particular

area that is left unpaved.

I know that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation in

Clarenville and Lethbridge continually get calls from people there complaining about the

condition of the road, complaining that the grader goes down and most of the time does

part of the road but does not do the road through the community, and they feel they should

not have to do this. They are not dying communities. In fact, I would suggest that the

population of those two communities have probably even grown over these past number of

years, unlike some of our other communities.

I would suggest the communities of Winter Brook and Jamestown probably

have some of the lowest unemployment statistics in the Province. Most people there are

fortunate enough to have a job. They are fortunate enough to be able to get up every

morning and go to work. All they are asking for now is to be treated like everybody else,

or most people, I should say, in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to be provided with a

decent road over which to drive.

You talk to the housewives there, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and the first thing they complain about is not

being able to put their clothes on the line to dry in the summer time because of the dust.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: You talk to home-owners there who are unable to

open their windows in the summertime because of dust coming into the house; they are not

asking for anything unreasonable. It is something in which I support them, and I hope that

the minister will see fit, in this coming fiscal year, to provide those two communities

with a simple request and a simple thing that we all take for granted, just a little bit

of pavement to look after the road leading to Winter Brook and the remainder of the road

through Jamestown.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon on yet another petition from residents primarily

of the District of St. John's East as it relates once again to school closures, and in

particular St. Bonaventure's and Brinton Memorial. I would just like to read the prayer of

the petition:

We, the parents and friends of schools in the Avalon East district,

assembled at Confederation Building on Sunday, 22 March, 1998, request the provincial

government to declare a moratorium on the reduction of teaching units for the school year

1998-1999.

We make this request with the conviction that if the Avalon East School

Board is forced to close schools or severely reduce programs without the benefit of a well

developed and well vetted plan, it will contribute to educational chaos rather than to

effective educational reform.

Mr. Speaker, it continues by saying: We stress that we are not opposed

to school closures and changes in school configuration. In the context of declining

enrolment and the implementation of neighbourhood schools, such changes must and will

come. However, we are convinced the changes should only be made on the basis of a

comprehensive plan that has been thoroughly developed, vetted by extensive consultation

with parent groups and schools concerned, and implemented with sensitivity to the children

and families that will be affected.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps those last two sentences are in fact what really

this petition is all about. We have individuals who are obviously concerned about the

future of their schools and how it relates to education reform in this Province. They want

to see in place, Mr. Speaker, a system constituted by the school board which gives

assurances to all parents, all children, all supporters of indeed all schools in the

school district, that a fair and equitable plan has been put in place to assess that the

proper decisions are made.

As the petitioners have indicated, it is obvious - and from the points

that were made by the Minister of Education earlier - when there are 2,000 less students,

clearly that will have an impact on what classrooms remain open, perhaps even what schools

remain open, how many teachers will be in the system, what programs will be offered and so

on. However, what the petitioners asked for is a fair and equitable hearing to ensure that

all eighty-two or eighty-three schools are treated equally; that three or four or five are

not hand-picked, are not singled out, and then an assessment or an appraisal is made of

their needs or their deficiencies; but no, all eighty-two or eighty-three schools are

looked upon equally with fairness, with equity. Then everybody has an equal say, there is

an equal start for all those concerned, and then the parents, and indeed the students and

others, can feel that there is some security in such a process and procedure being carried

out.

So on behalf of my constituents, the constituents of St. John's East, I

ask that the hon. minister convey the message, if he himself is not prepared to take an

active role in these decisions, to at least convey the message to the appropriate school

board members and school board officials the fact that these parents want assurances that

the proper procedures and processes are in place to ensure that the proper and appropriate

decisions are made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

As I have done before, I want to rise for a moment or so to support the

petition brought forward by my colleague from St. John's East and to indicate to the House

that we have more petitions arriving. In fact, some have arrived since I came into the

House this afternoon. I can tell the minister that there is a great concern out there, a

great concern on behalf of parents, that this whole reform process be child-centred, and

reforms that were advocated by the people who were supporting the government's position

last year be implemented in a manner that reflects consultation and due process.

Mr. Speaker, what the parents are asking for from St. Bon's is an

opportunity to be assured that their points of view be taken into consideration. What all

of these parents recognize is that changes will occur. They have occurred in this area in

the past. In fact, the total number of schools that operate in the St. John's region today

in comparison with the number that was operating, say, ten years ago, today's number is

substantially lower than it was just a few years ago. However, what the parents are

finding is that the new school board members who were elected in a democratic vote on

February 17 have not had time to really get their minds around all of the issues. That is

not a reflection on them. It is a very complicated process.

If I were sitting as a school board member in this Province today, and

I was being asked to make a decision on whether or not school A should close and school B

should stay open, I would want to have all of the information. I would not be prepared to

have some bureaucrat tell me what he or she wanted. I would need to have all of the pros

and the cons, and all of the history of the decision. Only then would I be prepared to

make a decision, because in the final analysis it is the school board members who have to

be answerable to the parents. When push comes to shove that is the bottom line, that it is

the school board members who are going to have to say: We supported this decision, or we

did not.

That is what democracy is all about. So we hear the parents say, the

ones who were here yesterday with their placards, and the ones who had to use their

placards for shelter because of the fact they were barred out of their own parliamentary

building by orders of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, these parents

are saying: Slow it down a little bit; make sure we make the right decisions.

As an example of the kind of decision that has to be made, most people

will know that the former integrated school board, the Avalon Consolidated system,

operated on a kindergarten to grade VI, primary-elementary units, a junior high school

system of grades VII, VIII and IX, and a senior high school system of Levels I, II and

III. It was a three different school system approach. However, the former Roman Catholic

School Board in St. John's operated on a kindergarten to grade VIII, and then had grades

IX and Levels I, II and III students in the senior high school system. When you are trying

to mesh those things together, it just takes time.

For example, in the former Avalon Consolidated system, in the junior

high school sections, there would have been provision for home economics and technology

education. While it was true for some of the Roman Catholic school systems, their

facilities were not focused in the same direction. If we are going to make sure that every

child in the Avalon East area is going to have equal opportunities in their neighbourhood

schools, it is just going to take a little while to put it together.

What the school board members who I talked to in the last forty-eight

hours - and I talked to several - said to me, was that they need time. They will not be a

rubber stamp. They were not elected to be a rubber stamp. What they are saying to the

minister is: Give us the time to make the right decisions. They are not failing in their

support of the reform initiative. What they are saying is that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - they need more than a few weeks before they have

to make all of those very difficult, significant, and long-lasting decisions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am presenting a petition today on behalf of residents in the

community of Biscay Bay. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session convened, the

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the construction of a Goulds bypass road has been identified as

a priority development under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative; and

WHEREAS the construction of the Goulds bypass road has not begun

despite repeated promises from government; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated that

construction of the Goulds bypass road will not begin this year; and

WHEREAS significant opportunities for development in the region a

contingent on the completion of the Gould bypass road; and

WHEREAS the viability of our communities and businesses is dependent

upon adequate transportation infrastructure that allows our region access to the

opportunities and markets of the capital region; and

WHEREAS the growth of our communities is closely related to the ability

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

are in good condition; and

WHEREAS the financial resources to begin the Goulds bypass road has

been identified under the Canada Newfoundland Transportation initiative;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to begin construction of the Gould bypass road this coming year and, as in duty

bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

This is from the community of Biscay Bay, and there are hundreds, in

fact, probably thousands will be coming in over the next while. This is the first of many

circulated within the communities by the board that has been identified to oversee

regional economic development in the area, that is, the Zone 20 board.

The Zone 20 Board sees the Goulds Bypass Road as a means to entice

businesses into the area. There is a development underway in Bay Bulls now with hundreds

of thousands of dollars expended already, hopefully to be able to land some offshore

contracts there that would really expedite businesses. It has storage capacity far

superior in space and requirements to here in the City of St. John's, in certain parts

here. It has space and what we need is ready access and proper transportation network.

That has been on the books for some time. I know, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation has indicated that it is - I am referring the Minister to a petition that

is starting to flow in on the Goulds bypass road. The Minister has indicated and, in

writing, too, I might add, that it will be completed by the end of the agreement, year

2002 - 2003 but, I remember back in 1992, just two months after been elected - not this

minister, now, not the current minister, I am sure he will be more efficient. I can count

on him, I am sure; but former ministers who attended there a meeting, mayors of different

municipalities, environment. It was a go. It was identified, it was given endorsement. It

got bogged down a little bit between agriculture and environment but that hurdle is

cleared.

I have been informed over a year ago by the ministers involved that all

we need now is the will to get a good system highway through the Goulds area, because it

is really frustrating for people driving here, from the Confederation Building, for

example. I can drive to the southern end of the Goulds, to Big Pond area, in about

forty-five minutes and it takes another forty-five just to go a very short distance,

one-tenth of the distance almost, it takes half the time because the Goulds highway is

like Water Street in traffic time. It is very, very difficult. And it is needed. The area

has been depressed, devastated by the downturn in the fishery, by the moratorium. And

something that will allow people who live in the area, at least to commute to work

elsewhere so they can maintain their houses there, live in the area, raise their children

and have them attend schools in the area there, at least would keep the communities alive

and keep a strong base there in those communities. It is very important.

It is important to areas in the remote end of my district, like

Trepassey, the southern end, a town that has gone from 1,500 people down to actually about

750-some people right now. The census in 1996 shows that it has dropped to about 1,000

people from 1,480 in 1991, and that is a massive drop from a census report; but you count

how many people left in the last two years there since the census was done - they are in

the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Ontario, you name it. There are there in the hundreds.

The community now has sixty houses closed down. In a community the size of Trepassey with

sixty closed houses, you can buy a house for $3,000. Several have sold from $3,000 to

$6,000, some for as high as $8,000, properties that have been put there at a cost in the

range of $45,000 to $50,000 many years ago.

So what we need in this area is a commitment to get something done that

is already earmarked, that the government has given a commitment to do it, in writing, it

has been identified -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a minute to finish up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we need now is a commitment to get a start on it this year. At

least there is a sign of hope for investors. Some investors of one particular company have

invested significantly in the Bay Bulls Waterfront Area, an opportunity there to see that

there is hope. There is a commitment that government will move to encourage economic

development in those areas and certainly follow through with that. There is only one way

to do it, that is to follow through with some real dollars to get the project started.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 Ferryland on behalf of constituents in his district concerning the Goulds

bypass.

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing stories about the Goulds bypass now

for years and years.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is almost easier to get a cardiac bypass and that

is not very easy.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I would say it is probably easier to get a

cardiac bypass, Mr. Speaker.

This bypass, Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, has been promised in

writing by this Administration, I believe.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it has been verbal for years, but I had a

letter from the minister saying that it is going to be done within the two (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A letter from the minister saying it is going to be

done, that is good enough for me, Mr. Speaker; that is a commitment. Hopefully, sometime

this century, Mr. Speaker, it will be started, by the way things are going now. Maybe it

will not happen in the next century - the same type of thing, Mr. Speaker, promises,

promises, promises, but nothing ever comes of promises. Now, the Goulds bypass, Mr.

Speaker, is very necessary for the people of the Southern Shore.

MR. EFFORD: Sit down, boy!

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, the Member for Port de Grave may not know

anything about the Southern Shore; I am certainly sure he knows enough about the Port de

Grave area; I was out there last Summer, Mr. Speaker, and they did not have to get on

their knees and beg, I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker. You talk about unfairness in this

Administration! Go and take a look or drive through some of the communities in his area,

Mr. Speaker, or the roads between their communities, take a look at some of those - talk

about unfairness.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will keep the crowd on that side awake, Mr.

Speaker. I have no problem speaking up in this House of Assembly for the people of the

Province.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) send that to my constituents.

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, he can send it to his constituents,

alright, and they will only see the bias of that minister, Mr. Speaker, and they will be

ashamed of the man, I say to you, ashamed of that man there seated in the House of

Assembly.

We had the Member for Bonavista South, in this House today, asking

questions of that minister and he could not answer the questions. So I would not speak up

too much if I were him, there in his chair sitting down trying to interrupt and to

distract me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Goulds bypass, something that has

been promised for years, something that is absolutely necessary. I travel the Southern

Shore Highway every now and then, not nearly as often as the Member for Ferryland, of

course, or the Member for Kilbride, but the roads in the Goulds and Kilbride are

atrocious. They are almost as bad as the roads in my district, Mr. Speaker, which I have

been fighting for, for years since I came into this House of Assembly, trying to get some

work done on the Marine Drive in my district, and the Outer Cove Road, Torbay Road, the

WindGap in Flatrock, the Bauline Road. The longest speed bump in the Province, Mr.

Speaker, is the Bauline Road.

So I am here, of course, speaking from experience and sympathy for the

people of the Southern Shore with respect to the Goulds bypass. The condition of the road,

the amount of traffic on that road is horrendous; trying to get out into the traffic is

comparable to trying to get into the traffic on the Torbay Road by someone trying to get

off the Pine Line or Middle Cove Road or Quigley's Lane in Torbay. That is the comparison

I am making with respect to the Goulds highway and the Torbay highway, the road going to

Pouch Cove.

We know it has been planned - we know that the Goulds bypass has been

planned for years, and to be in a network of highways with respect to the Outer Ring Road

in and around St. John's. The Goulds bypass and the Torbay bypass have been planned for

years and years but nothing has ever been done about it since this Administration came to

power. The now Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture sitting in his chair, when he was the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, put the Torbay bypass on the back burner.

I know. I went to a meeting with that man, Mr. Speaker, and supported him when he was

speaking up in support of the Outer Ring Road. But he put the Torbay bypass on the back

burner, I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker. There is no loyalty from that man over there,

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, none whatsoever. There is no point in doing

that man a favour, he does not give anything in return, I can guarantee you that.

Now, with respect to the Goulds bypass, again, it is a road that is

desperately needed. The traffic on the Goulds highway, the existing highway, as I said, is

horrendous; the condition of the road - pot holes. Water and sewer went in -

MR. SULLIVAN: It is dangerous for pedestrians in the Goulds.

MR. J. BYRNE: Dangerous, there is no doubt there, Mr. Speaker. With

respect to the shoulders of the road, you have pedestrians walking and we have cuts across

the road and fill-in where the roads were torn up to put in water and sewer and what have

you. You have traffic trying to manoeuvre around these pot holes, putting pedestrians who

are walking on the shoulder of the road in the Goulds and that area in danger of being

knocked down.

It should not have to come to the House of Assembly. The member for

that district should not have to bring a petition to the House of Assembly to be given

decent roads in the area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Make it known that the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture will not give me leave to speak up for the people of the Southern Shore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The message is to the hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit

estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year ending

March 31, 1999 by way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of the

Constitution Act 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:______________________

A. M. House, Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together with a

bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the message, together with a bill,

be referred to the Committee of Supply.

All those in favour, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply on

the message and the motion of the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole on

Supply

CHAIR (Mr. Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very briefly, the amounts of Interim Supply are set forth in Bill 2 on

the last page. It is roughly 30 per cent of the Province's overall budget, which is

generally in the vicinity of $3.4 billion, and is intended to carry government business

over until the normal time at which the budget is passed, as one hopes it will be, in

mid-to late-June.

The reason it is slightly more than one might presume for this, instead

of being just 25 per cent it is around 30 per cent, is that many of the capital

expenditures of government take place in the early part of the year. So, for example,

there is a fairly substantial amount in here for the roads program, about $46 million. The

Trans-Labrador Highway is about $28 million, the provincial roads program is about $8

million, and water and sewer under the Labrador Inuit Agreement is $3.1 million, for a

total of about $85,600,000. The rest of the heads of expenditure pretty much equate to

about a quarter of the normal amounts allotted over this period of time.

Rather than deal with it in much more detail, Mr Chairman, I would

leave it for members to raise any issues or concerns. I should say it is Interim Supply

only. It represents about 30 per cent of the budget. If members have any great concerns

about the overall thrust of government, then, of course, it remains open to pass this in

due course and defeat the government on the main budget. I do not think there would be

anything in this that would take away the second right from the former.

I would be pleased to answer any specific questions with regard to any

of the departments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are here to debate Bill 2, relating to Interim Supply, an amount in

excess $1 billion. That is the amount the members of this House are called upon to debate

to allow this government to meet its financial and fiscal obligations up to and including

March 31, 1998.

One billion dollars is a figure which is quite significant, and as the

minister himself has indicated, even beyond his own expectations with respect to what

would be included in the Interim Supply legislation for this year.

Mr. Chairman, when we look carefully at the

schedule affixed to the

bill - in fact, at

Section No. 3 of the bill, we look at the breakdown of each particular

department and we see by tradition, health and community services and education resulting

in almost - in fact, beyond 50 per cent of the total amount. That is not unusual because,

by tradition, both health and education have certainly represented the bulk of expenditure

in this Province. That is followed by Works, Services and Transportation of almost $200

million.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance, I am sure, will have questions

raised when we enter into the Budget Debate and, in fact, Mr. Chairman, will have answers,

hopefully, with respect to questions raised on education, health and indeed, all

departments of the Province. However, on the education issue, Mr. Chairman, it is

interesting we note that on today's date we have filed in this hon. House the report of

the Auditor General and this, of course, is a review of departments and Crown agencies of

government. It is government's report card, Mr. Chairman. The report of the Auditor

General is the financial or fiscal report card which is an assessment of government's

track record, as it were, with respect to all departments.

It is interesting that we look at the Department of Education in

particular because last year, Mr. Chairman, was an historic year in education in this

Province. It was referred to earlier by members on this side of the House and, indeed, the

minister himself referred to education reform and the great advances and the great changes

that have been made in the education system and the education department in our Province.

We note the commentary, Mr. Chairman, of the Auditor General with respect to, in

particular the Department of Education and school districts. There is a list of the ten

new boards and I would just like to briefly refer to what the report of the Auditor

General has to say.

In May, 1997, we completed a review of the restructuring of the

twenty-seven school boards into ten district boards. The objective of this review was to

assess whether financial controls and practices during the wind-up were adequate and

whether transactions were made in accordance with government and board policies and

procedures. This review included an examination, Mr. Chairman, of staff remuneration,

operating expenses and capital asset controls of three former school boards and a review

of staff remuneration for seven other former boards during the eighteen-month period prior

to the dissolution of these boards. As a result of the findings during the review of the

old boards, the review was expanded to review compensation practices of three of the new

district boards.

The Auditor General, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, has made the

following submission: Financial controls and practices during the wind-up of the Provinces

old twenty-seven school boards and the start-up of the ten new district school boards were

not adequate. We have the Auditor General essentially saying to the people of this

Province that the procedure that was used, Mr. Chairman, by this government in

implementing education reform, in the dissolution of the twenty-seven old boards and the

start-up of the new ten boards - the procedure was not adequate or the controls and the

practices that were put in place were not adequate.

In addition, the Auditor General continues: In areas where it was

apparent that boards were not complying with Department of Education policy, the

department did not initiate any action to ensure boards adhered to its policies. Now, this

is a fundamental statement, Mr. Chairman. It is a fundamental statement. We have an

independent body, the Auditor General of this Province, an independent person, who is

saying that the department did not initiate any action to ensure that boards adhere to its

policies. That is a critical comment, I would say, Mr. Chairman. What it is saying to this

government and in fact what it is saying in particular to the Ministry of Education is, it

is not necessary, Mr. Chairman, at all times to simply wash ones hands. It is not

necessary to say, Mr. Chairman, that we will not get involved. Let the boards do what they

have to do. Let the boards make the tough decisions. Let the boards gather all the

information, collect all the data and then, as a result of this collecting of data, make

the tough choices; because we have an independent body simply saying that the department

did not initiate any action to ensure boards adhere to the policies with respect to the

transfer and the transition of the old system of twenty-seven boards to the new system of

ten.

So I say to the minister, if we can just bring this example and narrow

this example to something much more basic and much more recent, and that is with respect

to decisions that are being made, the tough decisions on school closures, on the reduction

of programming, on the reduction of teachers, on the allocation of teachers, we say to the

minister: Be not afraid to become involved. Don't be afraid, Mr. Minister, to lend a hand

to boards who need your help. Don't be afraid to say to the new school board members: You

are new, the process is new, you have just been duly elected; however, if you need our

assistance in the Department of Education, we are here to guide you, we are here to work

with you, we are here to ensure that the best possible results are in fact a result of

what education reform is all about.

This is just one small example. It ties in, Mr. Chairman. I am

interested in knowing what either the Minister of Education or the Minister of Finance can

say in justification of in excess of $200 million being required at this time as a part of

Interim Supply legislation. Exactly what are the details? What are the particulars? What

is the rationale behind such a significant expenditure being required at this time to

allow the Province to conduct its affairs as it relates to education in the Province?

Mr. Chairman, the one example that I have given from the independent

Report of the Auditor General is asking the minister to become involved. It is asking the

minister to play an important role in the transition process. It is asking the minister to

say, once again: We are not afraid to make tough decisions; we are not afraid to make

recommendations to school boards. In fact, we are there as your minister, we are there as

the ministry of education, to show leadership, to show guidance, and to show that we are

willing, as part of a team, to help in this whole educational process in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of comments in this particular debate on Interim Supply

in Committee. I somewhat appreciate the question by the hon. member with respect to why we

would need, at this point in time, $212 million for education on an interim basis, and

would offer some answer shortly; but as the Finance critic, in standing up and singling

out education in his initial presentation during Committee, I understand that he misses

being my critic already and would like to be back in education. Maybe I will talk to your

caucus chair and your new leader and see if I can get you back.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is caucus chair.

MR. GRIMES: Oh, you are the caucus chair? You got bought off easily

in the race, eh? Don't run and I will make your caucus chair; very good.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: That is how much attention we pay to those kinds of

things on this side of the House. Well, we do miss you as the critic for Education. Maybe

you can look for a reassignment of duties.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the issues raised from the Auditor

Generals Report, and with respect to the proposition that the minister should be more

hands-on with respect to education matters, the hon. member, when he was Education critic

and debated the new Schools Act last fall, leading up to the passage of it at Christmas, I

don't remember him making that proposition or suggesting that we should change the Act.

In fact, if he wants to make a proposal at some point in the future, or

if his party wants to put the proposition forward, that in fact we should not have school

boards and the Minister of Education should do everything with respect to organizing

education in the Province, I would invite the Opposition party, at any point in the

future, to bring that forward as the official position of the Opposition, that we should

not have school boards and that the Minister of Education should do everything, including

deciding which schools should open and close, and which students should go to which

building. If that is the position, I would gladly entertain it for debate at some future

point for possible amendment to the Act.

What we decided to do, and what was supported unanimously before

Christmas, was that there would be defined roles for the ministry of Education, which are

laid out in the Schools Act; there would be defined roles for the school boards which

would give them greater autonomy, greater involvement, because they are the parents. Now

we have the member, for whatever reason - political reasons, I guess - standing up and

saying the minister should get more involved, the minister should be more hands-on, the

minister should do it all. Only a couple of months ago, before we recessed, he, as the

Education critic, jumped up and voted for a Schools Act that said the minister should do

this and the school board should do that. So why he has changed his mind during the period

of recess, maybe he will enlighten us some time in the future.

With respect to the commentary again - selective reading, I would

suggest, from the Auditor General's Report - talking about: the department did not

initiate any action to ensure boards adhere to its policies and so on... It did go on, and

if he reads the whole piece, which I hope the public of the Province will read, it will

acknowledge exactly what the department did. The department instructed the school boards,

under the legislation, to put the senior staff on the salary scales that had been agreed

to by the Cabinet, by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

The ten school boards, individually and through their provincial

organization, the Newfoundland and Labrador School Board Association, each individually

and collectively came to the minister that the hon. member just said should get more

hands-on, should be more helpful, should work with them, and should do stuff instead of

just saying, `You do it and I will do what I am going to do', and wash my hands. He just

said, do something. We did something. We said: We will give you permission - if you think

it is a priority as a school board, because you are out there empowered to make these

decisions - if you think it is a priority to give these senior executives in your board

higher salaries than what the Cabinet has debated and agreed they should have, then you

can do so up to a certain limit, but we will not give you the money from the salary vote

for those positions; because there is again a

section in the act that says the salaries

for those positions, director and assistant director, will be set by an Order in Council,

by the government, by the Cabinet of the Province. The boards then came back and said, we

would like to give them a raise. We said, well, we disagree.

So the minister was hands-on. The minister did exactly what the hon.

member just said. The minister took an active role and said no. They came back again and

said, we still disagree. We said, well, if you think it is a priority, you explain to the

parents why you are taking money that the government would give you for other things -

running schools, buying supplies, getting textbooks, getting lab materials - and if you

think it is a priority to take that money and up their salaries then you can do it up to

this maximum - again, not what they asked for - but you explain to the people why you are

spending that money in that way.

That is what the Auditor General details; that is what the Department

of Education did. It did not say, absolutely no, you cannot do it. It said, if you do it

then you must take the money from some other grant and you must justify to the people, as

school boards with authority under the act, as to why that is a priority instead of

keeping another school open, keeping some (inaudible) staff in the school, having some

more money for student assistants, having some more money to buy equipment and materials.

If you think you should give these people a raise instead, go ahead; because we are not

giving you the money and you will have to explain to the people why you thought that was

the most important thing and the most pressing issue in front of and confronting your

board at this time, to give these senior executives a raise.

That is what that whole issue is about, Mr. Chairman. So the member has

to make up his mind whether he really is going to plead that the minster do something or

not do something, because if the minister just sat there and washed his hands then he

would not have done anything and there would be no commentary in here; except you would

have ten boards out there with staff who are paid less than they currently are, still

disgruntled and so on. Mr. Chairman, there is a fuller story behind that.

A shorter response and a shorter issue with respect to: Why would the

Department of Education, of all departments, need $200 million, roughly, in Interim

Supply? The answer is clearly this: Because we do want to make sure that the boards, the

ten school boards, have the funding that they need to finish out the school year for

starters - because this funding usually takes us through to the end of June - to

accommodate all of the issues that they need to in planning for next year, because it is

one of the areas where you have to spend money now in order to be ready for the opening of

school in September. You have to make commitments to teachers for salaries; you have to

make commitment for your support staff; you have to keep the things functioning through

the summer; you have to pre-order textbooks which are millions and millions of dollars

that you have to pay for in the next few weeks and months in order that they be in the

Province and distributed to the schools for September.

So the education system works in such a fashion that there is... You

would think that for a few months you might get by with one-fifth or one-sixth of the

allocation, but because of pre-commitments, the things to which you must giv