June 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 26

The House met at 2:00 p.m

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise hon. members that

the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is today releasing to the

public the formal review of government's Art Procurement Program. For the

information of hon. members, I have distributed a copy of the recommendations

put forward in this report.

Mr. Speaker, established in 1982 by Cabinet, this program is

designed to recognize and promote the works of our artists by placing original

Newfoundland and Labrador art works in public buildings - actually, as we can

see in these two buildings. The program's art works and crafts are intended to

be representative of the Province's various geographical locations, as well as

the various themes, styles and compositions of visual art media.

Mr. Speaker, in the current economic climate, retention of

the program in this year's Budget sends a very positive message to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Arts community. A review was necessary, however, to

secure the most relevant and efficient art procurement program possible. A total

of forty-two recommendations were made, and include changes to the two-tier

procurement committee to be replaced by a five-person jury, a requirement that

works being purchased be produced within two years preceding the acquisition,

and a clearly stated policy to be developed for lending art work for exhibitions

within or outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, while the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation would like to act on this report as quickly as possible, we will not

proceed with implementing any of the recommended items until interested persons

or groups are given the opportunity to review the documents and express their

views.

Thank you.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed good news that we held on to the Art Procurement

Program this year as opposed to completely eliminating it. I was a little

disappointed that it was reduced in dollar figures but I guess that reflects the

Budget and our fiscal times. Some of the good news, I guess, in this statement

is the fact that we are changing it from a two-tier procurement committee to a

five-person jury, and that as well, we will be lending art work for exhibitions

both inside and outside the Province. I am sure that will indeed work towards

promoting the art works and the artists of Newfoundland and Labrador, both

within our Province and abroad.

I have not yet read the proposal put forth; I will indeed,

however, be reading it and if I have any statements or if I have any points of

interest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OSBORNE: - I will be putting them to the minister in

due time. Thank you.

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

Vidi, by leave? Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to acknowledge the statement of the minister and

say how pleased I am that the jury system is going to be implemented which

allows artists themselves to determine appropriate selections for government. I

also am pleased that the minister is not prepared to implement these

recommendations which have been a long time coming without further comment from

those who are involved. I think that is a very positive approach towards

implementing new programs.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the importance of the agrifoods

industry as a valued and productive part of the Newfoundland economy is often

underestimated.

In the early 1990s, it was estimated there were 300 full-time

positions, 450 part-time jobs, 800 casual workers and 1,000 family workers for a

total of 2,500 direct on-farm workers. In addition, there were 700 positions

associated with the processing and grading in the broiler, egg and dairy sectors

and an estimated 300 persons involved in off-farm processing of other

commodities. This represents 3,500 jobs directly attributable to the agrifoods

industry. With regard to feed suppliers, transporters, manufacturers of

packaging material and other related services, there is no reliable data on

employment. Nevertheless, it is estimated there are 4,000 - 5,000 jobs directly

and indirectly related to the agriculture industry in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, these numbers are estimates from the early

1990s. Today the jobs employed in the agrifoods industry would be higher due to

increased secondary food processing that has occurred over the past few years.

In 1995, sales of manufactured food products excluding fish, were estimated at

$130.5 million, up from $115.2 million in 1992. As companies continue to

successfully market their products both inside the Province and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of successful

Newfoundland and Labrador companies involved in the production, distribution and

export of various local value-added products. Private sector successes that have

contributed to increased economic output include, to name a few, numerous

varieties of specialty jams, jellies, relishes and sauces made from local

fruits: berries, flowers and other unique items; specialty chocolates; locally

roasted coffees; fresh herbal products and beeswax candles.

Markland Cottage Winery has been successfully producing a

blueberry wine for the past couple of years and introduced a partridgeberry wine

within the last year. Hi Point Peat Industries have been successfully producing

an oil absorbent peat product for several years as well as producing peat for

the landscape/gardening market.

Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation produces a full range

of high quality chicken products, including a rapidly increasing volume of

further processed items. Sales of further processed products from Newfoundland

Farm Products are projected to reach $13 million in 1996/97, up from $2 million

three years ago.

Mr. Speaker, these examples I just mentioned highlight the

expansion and diversification that has occurred in the agrifoods industry in the

past few years.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to announce

today the opening of a new agricultural enterprise in Placentia Bay, which

further highlights the continuing diversity of the industry.

Empress Mushrooms is owned and operated by a well-know and

respected poultry producer, Mr. Owen Hickey of Whitbourne. Mr. Hickey and his

family have worked quite hard over the past year or so establishing a mushroom

production complex in Argentia, and I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr.

Hickey, Mr. Ken Browne of the Argentia Management Authority and Mr. Wayne Young

and Mr. Marty Howlett, the ADM for Agrifoods in my department are in the

gallery. This facility produced its first fresh locally grown mushrooms on May

8, 1996.

Current production is 8,000 pounds per week with plans to

expand soon to 20,000 pounds per week. This production will meet provincial

demand; however, the company's long-term plans involve expansion into secondary

processing.

Mr. Speaker, this company, granted EDGE status in 1995,

employs thirty-one full-time and six part-time people. This number will grow as

production increases. In addition to the support provided this operation through

the EDGE designation, the operation also took advantage of capital loans offered

by the Farm Loans Program of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Total

investment, the large majority of which is private is estimated at $1.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, not only am I delighted to see such

entrepreneurial spirit exist in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but our local

consumers, whom I number myself among, will benefit from the high quality

product that Empress Mushrooms can supply to the people of this Province year

round.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to celebrate his success story Mr.

Hickey, who as I said is in the gallery, will be in the Legislative Lobby with a

sample of his product for the members of the House of Assembly, the officers of

the House, and, of course, the press gallery.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for allowing me a couple of minutes to

read this ministerial statement, a couple of minutes before the House opened,

and I certainly congratulate Mr. Hickey of Whitbourne for taking the initiative

to be able to go out and open a new industry and employ local people.

I think it was only about a month ago that the Member for

Placentia distributed the product that is being produced at Empress Mushrooms,

and I have to say it was an excellent product, and I think there should be more

of this being done. I would like for someone to take the time and talk to Mr.

Hickey - maybe I am totally wrong on this, to find out the help and guidance he

got from government and find out the red tape he had to cut through in order to

get to where he is today.

Mr. Speaker, this is the argument that I have always had with

government, the government of the day and the government of other days, that

before a person can go out and get involved in business the first thing they

must be unemployed in order to have the time to cut through the bureaucracy and

the red tape. I call on the minister to support this industry, to support it and

help with the marketing of this particular product, because as I have raised to

the minister before in my own particular area where we have a vibrant

agricultural industry, but because of produce being brought in from other

provinces and dumped on the market at a time when those farmers can be

successful I fear that many of them may not be able to compete in the

marketplace we find today.

I certainly congratulate Mr. Hickey of Whitbourne and I wish

his business every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi have leave?

By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Government House Leader and the

Member for Bonavista South in congratulating Mr. Hickey and his business

colleagues in developing this enterprise which I hope will be extremely

successful. The product is a good one, as the Member for Bonavista South has

said. I've also had the opportunity to sample it. I'm concerned as well as to

what kind of market penetration Mr. Hickey and his company will have.

We hear stories time and again of not being able to get into

distribution systems. You can't buy Bill Boot garbage bags in Canadian Tire

stores for example unless they send them to Montreal first. So I hope Mr. Hickey

and his company are able to penetrate these distribution systems so that

widespread distribution of his products and others produced in this Province can

be available to the consumers here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to advise the hon.

members that government is today releasing to the public a report entitled

Newfoundland and Labrador Air Access Study to Promote Tourism and Trade .

The study was conducted by Sypher:Mueller Inc. with the

purposes of:identifying the most effective and efficient means to achieve air

transportation access to increase the international market purchases of

Newfoundland and Labrador's tourism product; also assessing the extent to which

existing scheduled and chartered air services between the Province and Europe

and the United States meet the passenger and cargo needs of today and the

future. Mr. Hickey may be able, if we are successful here, to have a good place

to be able to send his produce off. And developing a strategy that will address

any of the deficiencies identified.

I have distributed for the hon. members' information a copy

of the presentation that was given by Sypher:Mueller which provides a brief

overview of the study and its findings. The complete study can be obtained by

contacting the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The report suggest that the Province does have adequate air

access to the United States and Europe given the current level of demand. In

properly servicing the market, the study identified several improvements which

need to be made to the Province's airports. The report recommends the following

measures to improve the Province's market share: to set up a promotional

arrangement with Air Canada in general marketing awareness; work with tour

packagers and market a packaged product to tour operators abroad; and build on

the results of the product-Market Match Study findings.

The theme for Tourism Awareness Month is: Ready for '97.

Reports and reviews like these I present here in the House this afternoon will

certainly work to prepare the government and the Province for the tourism

opportunities in 1997 and beyond.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. minister is full of good news today. Again, it is

good news that Newfoundland and Labrador are trying to promote Newfoundland as a

tourism destination, and to promote Newfoundland and Labrador as a tourism

product, and develop a strategy that will address any of the deficiencies

identified in air travel and access to our Province. As the minister has

mentioned her recent trip to Bristol, there are some deficiencies, I guess, in

travel from England and Newfoundland directly, so I am sure we can look at

those.

It is, as I have mentioned, good news that we can set up

promotional agreements with Air Canada in generating market awareness, and to

set up a marketed package product to tour operators abroad, so I commend the

minister for her initiatives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he would

do well to listen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to set the record straight on the story

in this morning's news broadcast with respect to the hiring of a temporary

Market Representative for Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation for the western

part of this Province.

May I first say that the information which I will now provide

was all given to the CBC reporter by me over the telephone last evening. I will

leave it to my colleagues in this House to judge the manner in which the

reporter chose to use this information in this morning's broadcast.

The incumbent in the permanent position of Market

Representative for Newfoundland Farm Products for the western part of the

Province was injured in a motor vehicle accident and is still in the process of

recovering. In light of this situation, the management of Farm Products decided

that they would hire a replacement Market Representative on a temporary basis

until such time as the permanent incumbent returned to active duty. With this in

mind, the position was advertised for a period of six months employment.

The ad for the temporary position was posted in the office of

Farm Products on April 19, 1996 in accordance with the requirements of the

collective agreement. At the same time an ad was placed in the Western Star

requesting applications; it is attached to this statement.

As a result of the above, twenty-eight applications were

received by the Corner Brook office of Farm Products. A selection committee was

then put in place by the management of Farm Products for the purpose of

screening the applications and carrying out interviews. The committee consisted

of: Mr. Gary Corcoran, Director of Human Resources, St. John's Office, Farm

Products; Mr. Don Keats, Human Resource Officer with the Corner Brook plant,

Farm Products; and Mr. Gary White, Manager of the Corner Brook plant, Farm

Products.

The original twenty-eight candidates were screened down to

three to be interviewed. As a result of the interview process, Mr. Don Johnson

was chosen by the committee as being the best qualified candidate for the

position, and was hired.

Mr. Speaker, the above account of the hiring process followed

has been confirmed for me by the Chief Executive Officer of Farm Products and my

Deputy Minister. It demonstrates clearly to any objective person that the

decision to hire Mr. Don Johnson was made after a fair and objective competition

process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: There was no political influence or

interference in this recruitment process by the Premier, myself, or any of my

colleagues on this side of the House, or by any other person on our behalf.

Indeed, neither the Premier nor I had any knowledge of the competition or the

fact that Mr. Johnson had been hired until well after the fact.

Also in relation to this competition, NAPE has lodged a

policy grievance with Newfoundland Farm Products alleging the Sales Officer

(Marketing Position) was not posted in readily accessible places to bargaining

unit employees. This grievance is now going through the normal grievance

process. I should emphasize this grievance relates to a long-standing dispute

between NAPE and Newfoundland Farm Products as to the application of the Public

Service hiring process to Farm Products. It has nothing to do with the process

followed or the candidate chosen in this particular instance.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson should not have and did not receive

any preferential treatment in applying for the position with Farm Products

because of his political affiliation. Neither, I say, should he be excluded from

consideration because of his political affiliation in a fair and open

competition such as that which I have outlined above.

Again, I want to bring to my colleague's attention that all

of the above information was given to the reporter when I was contacted on this

story last evening. I can only but question the objectivity of the reporter and

the way he chose to present the facts of this matter to the public.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Don Johnson's reputation, in my opinion, has

been brought into question. He is a city councillor in Corner Brook, in a

position of public trust; has a business reputation to protect; and, has endured

personal grief.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, there is no specific evidence of

political interference on behalf of Mr. Johnson. Those who say otherwise should

apologize. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

like to thank the minister, first of all, for his statement a few minutes before

the House opened. I would just like to say very briefly, Mr. Speaker, there have

been many concerns in the last couple of months of some hiring practices. We

certainly don't judge the person who was hired but of course there is a

grievance in place and the process it will have to go through. It seems kind of

strange that so many people are laid off this day and age and I guess to be

certainly fair to question and be suspicious, curious or whichever way the

minister would like to put it that when people are losing jobs so quickly they

are wondering how some other people slide into jobs so quickly. I guess it is

fair to raise a concern, Mr. Speaker, but we will let the grievance procedure

take its course and let the process take its course. We will not judge the

person personally but I am certainly sure that a lot of people in this Province

would question the process of the hiring of, not just this position, many other

positions of late, Mr. Speaker, since this government has taken office.

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

Vidi, does he have leave? No leave.

The Chair would like to acknowledge the presence of a former

member of the House of Assembly for St. John's South, Mr. Tom Murphy, who is

sitting in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Premier. A week ago the education minister said that draft

legislation on reducing the number of school boards and establishing a school

construction board in Bill 8 was being finalized for presenting to Cabinet.

The minister said as soon as we have a draft piece of

legislation, in legislative language, we will provide it to the hon. members for

their consideration before we table it in the House. So I ask the Premier, is he

prepared to provide us today with a copy of this legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the matter that the Leader of

the Opposition refers to, that is the consideration of draft legislation has not

been brought by the Minister of Education yet, forwarded to Cabinet for

consideration but as soon as it has been and is ready to be considered by

Cabinet - shortly after it has been considered by Cabinet I will make it

available to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP.

I would say to the Leader of the Conservative Party, as I

have said on a number of occasions now already, Mr. Speaker, that we on this

side appreciate on this matter, on this question, that the Leader of the

Opposition has put aside partisan consideration, as has the Leader of the New

Democratic Party to support an effort on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to proceed with reform of the educational system by seeking to have

passage of this matter in Ottawa. The Leader of the Opposition will know that

all of the party leaders, all of them, in Ottawa, with the exception of the

Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Charest, voted for this matter in the

House.

The Leader of the Opposition will know that in the Senate for

the second evening in a row, second time in a row, conservative senators last

night prevented this matter from going before a committee for further study. I

would ask the Leader of the Opposition to use, as he has in the past, his good

offices and his influence to impress upon members of the Conservative Party in

the Senate that this matter needs to be dealt with, if the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador and more specifically, the children of Newfoundland

and Labrador, are to have a reformed school system this fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Premier, how many

more times in the run of your mandate are you going to ask me to do your job?

Now The Evening Telegram on June 4, quoted the Premier

as saying he expected legislation to be passed by months end. That is just

thirteen sitting days away. Now surely the draft legislation must be prepared by

now. It would only take a day or two, I think the minister indicated. Will the

Premier live up to his promise now and get this out to us this week so we can

have an opportunity to (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to consider what they are hearing here. We are hearing

the Leader of the Opposition, who happens to be the Leader of the Conservative

Party, wanting to duck an issue that is important. Only one national party

leader, and one only, voted against the passage of Term 17 and that leader was

Mr. Jean Charest, the Leader of the Conservative Party. The other member in the

House who belongs to the Conservative Party - because there are only two - also

voted against passage of Term 17.

There is now a campaign in the Senate being launched and led

by Conservative Senators from the Province of Newfoundland, including Mr.

William Doody, and also I'm told involving Senator Ottenheimer whose brother

sits in the caucus opposite, joined by Senator Lowell Murray and others, who are

stopping passage of Term 17. I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Whose job is it

to talk to members of the Conservative Party about the importance of having the

passage of this legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Premier

doesn't realize it has gone through the House of Commons where Jean Charest is

sitting. It is now in the Senate where fifty-one are Liberals and fifty are PCs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I further tell the Premier, before I went

to Ottawa he stated in this House that he had meetings arranged with the Prime

Minister and members of the Liberal Party, and he was going to meet with

Senators. When I got to Ottawa there were no meetings arranged. I didn't have an

opportunity Premier to meet with Senators, or with the caucus of any party, and

you promised it here in this House, I say to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now in your red book and elsewhere the

Premier promised widespread consultation on all aspects of education reform

including not just viability and busing, as you said last week. Will the Premier

send this legislation to a legislation review committee for public hearings

around this Province now so people can see what is in it and have input well

before decisions are made?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

can get himself up in a temper if he wants, but the reality is that the Leader

of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and I on behalf of

the Liberal Party, met with every one of the leaders. We didn't meet the

Conservative caucus because the other member of the caucus wasn't there. We met

the Leader. We met the Prime Minister. We met the Leader of the New Democratic

Party. We met the Leader of the Bloc Qubcois. Every party was met on exactly

an equal basis. As the Leader of the Opposition will know, and as the Leader of

the NDP can confirm, we offered to meet the Conservative Senate caucus, we made

the suggestion to Mr. Charest. He told us he would look into it and get back to

us. No such meeting was arranged. However, there was a meeting with Senators. It

was held in the office of Senator Bill Petten. There was a representative there

- in fact, three there - from the Conservative Senate caucus. The Leader of the

Opposition wouldn't know that because he left Ottawa and came back to St.

John's.

Now I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I take him in good

faith. I believe the Leader of the Opposition supports the passage of this

amendment, I believe he has worked well and hard for its passage during the time

he was there, and I believe he has been let down by members of the Conservative

Party in Ottawa. I say to him I'm prepared to go back to Ottawa and I would ask

him whether he would go again to talk to members of the Conservative Party and

point out how important passage of Term 17 really is to Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might add, your

office arranged the trip and the flight, and your public relations person told

me at 1:30 that day there were no meetings arranged with the Senate. They didn't

try to reach them until that day, the day we were scheduled to come back, I say

to the Premier. He got us on a wild goose chase with no meetings planned and he

misled this House here in this House and in print in Hansard.

Premier Wells was going to bring legislation to this House in

January before the Commons had even debated Term 17 and the amendment might have

even been defeated in the House of Commons. Now it is before the Senate where

there is no chance of this amendment being defeated because it is an optional.

It is only an option that is there. A suspense of veto is all the Senate would

have, a six month suspense of veto -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, why won't

he bring this forward? Is this more reason now to table this that it has passed

the House of Commons and it cannot be defeated in Ottawa?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

is showing all of the skill of an Olympic gymnast here, the way he is bouncing

around. The Leader of the Opposition is quoted in today's paper - may I read

from today's paper?... I do not know if I can or not. He is quoted in today's

paper as saying - because I want to quote him accurately, with respect to the

delay in consideration by the Senate - he is saying: That's fair game what the

Senators are asking for. That it is perfectly appropriate that there is a long,

and I might add, a deliberate delay in the process by the Senate.

Now, if he is saying that the process by the Senate is

legitimate and that we should wait the outcome of their deliberations and the

hearings they are going to have, if and when they ever have them, before we

consider the matter here, but he is standing up today saying go ahead and ignore

the Senate and pass the bill anyway. The Leader of the Opposition has to make up

his mind. The real question here is very simple, will the Leader of the

Opposition - and by the way, I repeat again, there is no question, the Leader of

the Opposition, I believe, in everything I have seen to this point has been

supportive, but will he call the Leader of the Conservative Party, will he call

Conservative members of the Senate from the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and will he prevail upon them the way he has in this House, explain to

them why he believes in the passage of Term 17, because we need it passed

without delay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier was so interested in passing it without delay,

when you were a federal minister last fall it was in your hands and what did you

do? You had seven and a half months when you were our spokesperson in Ottawa and

you could not get it to the House of Commons, then seven and a half months later

you expect the Senate to ram it through.

Mr. Premier, you are grandstanding on this issue. Your

colleagues and buddies control the Senate, they control the House of Commons,

and you are grandstanding on the issue. Now, will you do what you promised the

people of this Province you will do, will you table this and open it to the

Public? Are you afraid the public are going to have input in this? Are you

afraid to send it out to the people of this Province? I say to the Premier, do

the honourable thing you promised and get on with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition, you can get angry and upset but you cannot change the facts because

you are upset or disturbed here today. Now, the Leader of the Opposition just

talked about me being in Cabinet for seven and a half months after the matter

was referred to the House of Commons. It was referred to the House of Commons in

November and during Christmas I indicated my interest in running for the

Leadership, and subsequently did so a month later, of the Liberal Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know how you count but that is only a month,

or a month and a half, part of which was the Christmas break.

I want to say to the Leader we are not going to convince

anybody of anything in Newfoundland having these kind of arguments. There is a

substantial issue and it will not go away, and the substantial issue is that the

Leader of the Conservative Party in Ottawa, obviously, not having the good sense

of the member, not having the good sense of the Leader of the Opposition, not

having the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition, he and his other

caucus member unanimously voted against this in the House of Commons, and now

the Conservative Party appear ready to try and kill or delay education reform in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say that is a shame because I believe the Leader of the

Opposition has worked hard for this cause, and I ask him to prevail upon his

colleagues to bring the passage we need to Term 17 without delay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Premier, all our members stood

and were counted when we had this resolution and yours could not get out through

the door fast enough. They did not stay here and vote I say to the Premier. We

were unanimous and stood here. Now, all I am asking you Mr. Premier, will you

hold true to your election promise and will you allow consultation on this issue

of reform and legislation and not try to ram it through with an all night

sitting before July 1?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I will do better than

that. I will assure the Leader of the Opposition that there will be appropriate

debate in the House, supposing we are sitting here until September 1. That is

the first thing he can count upon. The second thing you can count upon is that

there will be legislation passed to ensure that we move from twenty-seven boards

down to ten interdenominational boards, and that is in place for September.

There will be legislation passed to ensure that we have a single construction

board based on need in this Province and not based on any other consideration in

this Province, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be public hearings before we

make any move on the question of school viability or busing guidelines because

that is what we said we would do during the course of the election campaign, and

we will follow through with that commitment we gave to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador during the course of the election campaign.

Now, I have just outlined what I am going to do in the name

of reform, and I will assure the Leader of the Opposition that notwithstanding

the games that are being played elsewhere, games that he knows about but wants

to turn a blind eye to, that we will see that education reform proceeds because

it is what the children of Newfoundland need and deserve, and I ask the Leader

of the Opposition to get on the horn this afternoon to his colleagues in Ottawa

and ask them to quit playing games with the future of Newfoundland and Labrador

and its education reform process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question

today is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province.

Last week the Premier indicated that his Minister of Justice

and Attorney General, once having reviewed the Supreme Court of Appeal decision

on the Trans City affair, will make a recommendation about whether a judicial

inquiry is warranted. I now ask the minister: Has he had time to review the

judgement? And when can we expect his decision or recommendation as to whether

or not a public inquiry ought to be held?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall the Premier

having made that statement. What I do recall is the Premier making a statement

that the Minister of Justice and his department would review the case as

presented by the Court of Appeal, and after that was done we would be making a

recommendation to Cabinet as to what action to take. Would we appeal to the

Supreme Court? Would we seek a settlement, or what would you. I don't

understand. I don't remember the Premier saying that I would be recommending

that we do a judicial inquiry. I don't think that was the statement that was

made.

The answer to the question of when I will be making a

recommendation to government, I tell the hon. member that will be done in due

course.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I refer to Hansard, Wednesday, June 5, page 728, if the

minister requires clarification with respect to the question that was just

raised.

With respect to the Supreme Court of Appeal decision that was

handed down last week, I ask the hon. minister and Attorney General: Who will be

making that decision with respect to whether or not an appeal will be forwarded

to the Supreme Court of Canada?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the way the process works, the

Department of Justice will take a recommendation to Cabinet, and Cabinet will

make the ultimate decision.

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.

I would like to ask the minister if he is considering setting

processing and/or purchasing quotas for individual plants for caplin production

this year.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister as well if he has consulted

with fishermen's unions and with FANL regarding this proposal, and if those two

groups agree with the decision to bring in those quotas.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: If he is

going to set plant quotas, won't this affect competitive pricing and interfere

with the normal bargaining process as it relates to buying caplin?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have not decided

if we are going to implement a pilot project this year; it is under review. If

and when we implement a pilot project we will give every aspect, what impacts,

what the pros and cons are, of implementing a pilot project on caplin quotas for

this year.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister realize that once that plant processes its

assigned quota fishermen will then have to leave that particular plant and

search for another buyer, thus eliminating the opportunity to provide those

fisher persons with the averaging provisions under the UI Act, with the end

result of them being unable to meet UI requirements. I ask the minister if he

realizes that, or is that the intent of setting plant quotas?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be in the

position of a fisherman this year with the quotas as set down, the prices

negotiated and the demand for caplin, to be in the position of having plants

coming and asking me to sell my caplin. That would be the easy part of it. The

thing is: Will the caplin come in? Will they be of a sufficient size to sell to

the market? There will be no problem with the fishermen selling their caplin;

there will be no problems in the plants handling caplin. That is only based on

the assumption of the member opposite of what may or may not happen.

We have not decided on a pilot project for this year. If and

when the pilot project is decided upon, we will have full consultation with all

the people in the industry, and the satisfaction and the completion of any

decision will be based upon full consultation with fishermen, plant workers and

all those affected by a decision such as we are talking about.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. I wonder

if the minister could confirm to the House today, that he plans, on Thursday

afternoon after the House is closed, to announce in Calgary, a new offshore oil

and gas royalty regime without any prior public discussion or debate within the

Province of Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have been reviewing generic

royalty regimes for a couple of years right now. We had lots of discussion and

debate on it, and I am not going to be announcing it at Calgary at five o'clock

on Thursday. I am going to be announcing it here in St. John's at one o'clock on

Thursday with a Statement in the House at two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi, on a supplementary.

Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Calgary Oil Show is looking forward to an

announcement there as well.

Can the minister also confirm that the government also plans

to announce that these generic royalty regimes, which have not been publicly

discussed in this Province, will be for the Terra Nova project, they will be

excluded from them and will not apply to the Terra Nova oil project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: I would suggest to the hon. member that he

should wait until Thursday, when we will be laying out the details, and see it

all at that time.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

As we are all aware, the Newfoundland Dockyard was not

permitted to present a bid on the Iroquois yesterday. This is the third

such bid that they were not permitted to present. I ask the Premier if we are

going to allow the Federal Government to close the Newfoundland Dockyard without

allowing the dockyard to bid on work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask the

hon. member to share with me some of the information he just mentioned on the

bid on the Iroquois . I must confess, I have heard a statement,I think

earlier this morning or last evening, on one of the newscasts but I don't have

the detail available myself and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

is not in the House today.

I can say to the hon. member that I share with him and with

all members in the House, the concern that the process now underway, as the

member knows, a process that has been undertaken with great difficulty and a lot

of goodwill by all of the employees in the dockyard, must be allowed to be

completed. There has been a great deal of work, Mr. Speaker, that has gone into

trying to bring about employee ownership of that yard. Employees have gone a

great distance and made many concessions to try to see that proposal become a

reality, and it would be in my judgement, a mistake for the national government,

having committed the amount of time that has now been committed to this process,

to not allow it to be completed, and I hope, completed successfully. And to the

extent that permission is not being granted for the dockyard to bid on work that

it can do, then I think that refusal is not contributing to the success of this

project, and I would be glad to undertake that representation with the Minister

of Transport, David Anderson.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is, I guess, are we going to lobby Ottawa to

allow the Newfoundland Dockyard to bid on work, to make a takeover bid more

attractive to the workers of the Newfoundland Dockyard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to tell the

member that I am prepared to raise this matter. I know the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology has raised this matter on a number of occasions with the

Minister of Transport, David Anderson. I just don't have the minister sitting

beside me for the moment to give the House and through the House, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, a full update on the latest developments but we have

worked strenuously for this project.

I think the member knows that when I was sitting in the other

House in Ottawa, in a different job, I arranged the process, the extension of

life for that dockyard, arranged a process that brought aboard the services as a

facilitator of the former Minister of Finance to try and bring about an employee

takeover rather than the closure which was planned for last December. I think he

knows that and would acknowledge it. I am committed to this process. It would be

a shame if the process is not allowed to complete itself and the employees who

have given so much effort to this aren't given a chance to have a success at the

end of the day, as I think they can.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Social Services. In the

House on Friday the minister made some reference, and again in the public media,

she said that some persons who now receive emergency assistance under regulation

No. 8, that is, the $61, may qualify for assistance under some alternate

programs which her department offers. I wonder if the minister could apprise the

House of the different programs that are available, if she has a listing or some

information she wants to share, whereby people who are in the front lines,

social worker offices, might be able to more adequately share that information

with their clientele.

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

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

In response to your question, I did not refer to new

programs. I referred to other policies within the sections that would cover off

specific needs. For example, if a person was receiving an allowance for the

needs to meet a diabetic food allowance, they would now get it under another

article. If they needed it for other special needs, there would be a special

code, and that was the intent of the comments, because they are already in the

policy.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

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

In other words, I say to the minister, the review that you

are undertaking in your office is limited essentially to the correction of

anomalies or cases where people have been coded incorrectly, and they went under

the general category rather than under a specific category. This is basically

then, really a correction in detail. When will the minister be able to tell her

front-line workers - give more specific instructions? Because there are people

out there who are asking for details and they want to know what are the

alternate programs, and which ones will people qualify for when the review the

minister is now doing has been completed.

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

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

A couple of points. First of all, our front-line workers are

very familiar with the policy manuals and they are aware of the various policies

that would apply in these particular cases. So this is not only a re-allotment

of funds. For many cases, they will not actually meet the requirements, but for

others they will. It will be dealt with on an individual case-by-case basis.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

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

I say to the Government House Leader, we have five sets of

questions left and there are only another three minutes.

I say to the minister, to put a human face on a situation, we

have a contact, for example, of a resident in Burgeo who had received $61

emergency funding for the purchase of a furnace, entered into a contract with

the local supplier, and was guaranteed she would have that funding for five

years. In the review the minister is doing, will people like this lady whom I

refer to in Burgeo, be eligible to qualify under some other program?

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

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

As I have said time and time again in the House, the

decisions that we made were tough, difficult decisions, but it was a matter of

choice, it was a matter of deciding to look at all the cases, all the

individuals, or look at a select number of cases.

I cannot answer your question specifically because, as you

know, that is just one component of the needs that are identified when we look

at a total case. To pick one particular component out of a question and expect

me to answer it would not be possible. Because we look at the needs, we look at

whether it is single, whether it is a family situation, we look at all the total

components. If you want to get that type of information your best way to do it

would be to refer your client or your constituent to the social worker or the

financial assistance officer who can give those kinds of detailed answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

On May 24, in the House, we asked questions about the

government's estimate that some 300 health care jobs would be lost as a result

of the closure of the Grace, the Janeway and the Children's Rehab facility. The

minister said in the House that he would undertake to provide, at the earliest

possible day, a breakdown of how the cuts are going and what positions they are

affecting? Can he give us that breakdown today?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in

indicating that I would table that information and the preliminary information I

got wasn't, to be quite frank with you, satisfactory to me. So I have asked my

officials to go back and check it out. I can tell you that preliminarily, what I

did find out was that there was, I believe, 191 fewer jobs at the health care

corporation from last April 1 to this March 31. What I wanted to present to you,

in the interest of completeness, was what the staff compliments were in the

various categories on April 1, 1995, and compare that to March 31, 1996. I can

assure you, the minute that that arrives on my desk it will, the next day, be

tabled in this House for the benefit of a fuller level of information for

everybody.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Establish the Memorial University

Foundation." (Bill No. 16)

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the Newfoundland Dockyard is an important century old

Newfoundland industry, ideally located in the North West Atlantic, to take

advantage of trade and industrial development opportunities; and

Marine Atlantic answers, have jeopardized the future of the Newfoundland

Dockyard during this sensitive period by preventing it from bidding on key

projects involving the Henry Larsen, The Sir Humphrey Gilbert and The

Iroquois ;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House express our

Atlantic answers, for the decisions to prevent the Newfoundland Dockyard from

bidding on key projects involving The Henry Larsen, The Sir Humphrey Gilbert

and The Iroquois .

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I present approximately 9,350 signatures petitioning

the House of Assembly.

To the hon. House of Assembly in Newfoundland, in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador that:

WHEREAS the people of the Province voted in a referendum, on

September 5, 1995, to endorse changes to Term 17 of the Terms of Union between

Newfoundland and Canada and to endorse educational reform of the character

indicated below;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to move

quickly to implement the reforms endorsed in the September 5, 1995, referendum.

Those reforms including the establishment of inter-denominational schools open

to all children without regard to their religion; the right of all children to

attend their neighbourhood school; provision for uni-denominational schools

where parental preference and numbers warrant; the appointment of teachers to be

solely on the basis of merit and qualifications, except in uni-denominational

schools; and church influence confined to religious education and pastoral care

except in uni-denominational schools. As in duty bound, your petitioners will

ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was necessitated -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many signatures?

MR. SULLIVAN: 9,350 - and this was necessitated by a

framework agreement that this Province reached with the churches. It is signed,

it is an agreement, it is stated in print, a quote from the minister. It was an

agreement and that framework agreement set out a course of action that was

different from what people understood they voted for on September 5, and very

quickly after that framework agreement - in fact, we were about first off the

mark. The school boards in St. John's - I think it was from the Avalon

Consolidated Board that I heard comment first. We quickly called a caucus

meeting, and called a news conference, and dealt with issues that we felt had to

be addressed, that they were not moving in the direction that the people of this

Province understood they should be moving, and that is how the growth of `yes

means yes' originated.

We discussed it as a caucus, and we felt it is important that

people should get what people understood they were getting on September 5, and

that course of action, to move from a denominational school setting to

interdenominational, was not being moved, and the agenda was not being

accelerated by this government. I had reservations and that is why, the Premier

may notice, these are the same particular conditions, almost verbatim - there

are just a few words different - that I laid down to the Premier, that Term 17

would deliver those particular points.

One of the conditions of going to Ottawa - and, of course,

the opportunity to meet with all of the parties, the Senate, and all of these -

was to put forth my belief in giving the people what they wanted, and the

opportunity.

Now, there may be a misconception out there that we are

eliminating denominational education in the Province. That is a misconception, I

say; that is not factual at all, and the Premier could advocate that, where

necessary, I added my two cents worth in debate in discussion with leaders there

on those particular issues, and we should never have come to the point where

this was necessitated to have to have a `yes means yes' committee. Because we

believe in the fundamental right - and I have always believed it, and have said

here in this House on that day, and back in 1993 I indicated, as education

critic - the right of parents to choose.

We should have the right, and I, as a parent, should have the

right to choose the school for my child, and it should not be put in the hands

of other people. That is a fair request, and it is one that should be adhered

to. I asked the Premier, and he indicated that these conditions are going to be

met, and we need an opportunity to be able to look at legislation that is going

to enable these to be implemented.

The Premier made reference today... Is it fair, I say - and

it brings us to another spectrum. Is it fair to ask the Senate to do in two

from the time they received it last November until they passed it in June of

this year? Is it fair to circumvent the public opinion process?

These people out there, these parents, felt the need to take

the bull by the horns themselves and to get the ball rolling and to do

something, because the people they elected to do it were not doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what necessitated this. It should

not have to be. When people voice their opinion in a referendum, we are products

of a democratic society. We should expect our legislators, and the people here

representing us, to carry out our wishes in a referendum that was carried out in

this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is only a fair request that we

should get on with this. I am a strong believer of getting on with reform, but I

am also a strong believer in having an opportunity for public input and

consultation before we get on with it. Let's not box ourselves into deadlines

after seven months, that we do not have time to address the legislation

appropriately and to deal with the issues. The wording of that legislation is

important. It is important that people know what they are getting when they get

something. There is nothing wrong with allowing intelligent people out in the

public to have input into matters that are being discussed in this House of

Assembly. I welcome that, and I want that. I don't want to get a piece of

legislation here at 3:00 p.m. and have to push it through by tomorrow in an

all-night debate. We have the time for due process to occur, and to have input,

and that is all we are asking.

We all stood here to be counted, I can say to the Premier; we

all stood to be counted. That is more than I can say for the government side of

the House; they did not all stand to be counted. We support it. We want to do

what is right, but we want to hear what the public has to say, to make sure. We

are not the most intelligent of people here in this House. There are people

outside in society who have perspectives that may be better than ours and may be

more correct, a more legally correct determination if it is subject to

interpretation. We want to hear those, we want to weigh the pros and the cons,

and we want to get to the right decision for the Province that is best for our

children and their children's children in the future, and that is why we are

supporting this. That is why these people want their voices to be heard here.

They want the government to do the right thing, and they want to do the

appropriate thing, but more importantly they want to do it in the appropriate

manner with proper consultation, and listen to these people out there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support - I don't

have a copy of the petition so I have not seen the exact detail but I heard the

Leader of the Opposition refer to each of the points. I rise to support the

petition that has just been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition because I

believe, having heard it from across the floor, that it sounds as if it fairly

represents the kinds of points that we have discussed here, in the House, the

kinds of points that we all, unanimously, have agreed to in the House. So I rise

to give the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I think I speak for members on this side,

our solid support.

I think what you have done is, you have captured fairly the

essence of the reform amendment and the essence of what those in Newfoundland

and Labrador, felt, who, in an informed fashion followed the debate, followed

the discussion, looked at the materials - this is one of the materials that was

available last summer - and then cast a vote for reform in the Province. So, Mr.

Speaker, I have no trouble with that, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and

I would prefer that the Leader of the Opposition and I were not disagreeing in

this place on this matter. I think, perhaps he might prefer, we weren't

disagreeing in any part on this matter because in this matter, even on the

question of process, even on the question of what is happening in Ottawa, the

best interest of education reform is not served when there is division in this

House, and we will all have to try hard -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, you know, the Leader of the

Opposition put a question asking about the process. I pointed out to him that

there is a problem with the process and I think he knows it, and I am sorry it

puts him in a difficult position.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, the Member for Baie Verte says: The

Premier is trying to blame this on two `Tory Members in Ottawa'. One of those

members is the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada who voted `no'. Now,

that is not a minor matter, that is a significant matter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fundamental proposal

put by the Leader of the Opposition, that reform proceed on the basis contained

within that petition, we support it. With respect to the notion, Mr. Speaker,

that on all of the questions, the major, substantive questions contained in the

draft Schools Act, schools viability, all of those questions be dealt with

before a Legislative Committee, we support that as well.

We have made clear, both the Minister of Education and the

House Leader, we have said so publicly in the past, that what we want to proceed

with at this time, is to put in place our school boards for September, to go

from twenty-seven boards to a ten Interdenominational Boards and the

Construction Board. All of the other matters that are referred to, Mr. Speaker,

will come forward in legislation, will be referred to a Standing Committee;

there will be an opportunity for public hearings and there will be an

opportunity for the public to comment on those matters.

With respect to the question that we want to bring forward,

Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Conservative Party in Ottawa decides it wants to

support this and will let it go - that is exactly what is in the book, Mr.

Speaker, if you are going to hold it up, I will pull it up right now, because I

have it here. I have learned to be prepared when the Conservative Party begins

to pull out the book. I have a copy right here, page 68?

MR. SULLIVAN: Page 67.

PREMIER TOBIN: Page 67, I will read the entire page,

67-68: Last year a referendum was held on the important question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Where do you want me to read?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: In the red.

PREMIER TOBIN: In the red?

The new Liberal - Well, sure listen up, listen up. The new

Liberal Government is committed to dialogue and discussion on all elements of

implementing educational reform before decisions are made; and, Mr. Speaker,

there will be dialogue and discussion on all elements of education reform, both

with respect to the package that is being brought forward before the House rises

and, Mr. Speaker, there will be dialogue and public consultation and viability

rules and busing regulations as well. And I will make the Leader of the

Opposition an offer right here and now: If he believes it necessary to sit the

entire Summer, day in day out, seven days a week we, on this side, on this

issue, because it is that important, are prepared to be here seven days a week.

MR. SULLIVAN: You will be here?

PREMIER TOBIN: I will be here.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will be here.

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

Opposition wants to be taken seriously and I want to take him seriously. He

says, get on with it, then he says, slow down - stop, then go. Go, then stop. We

are on side, we are not on side. Our party supports you, your party doesn't

support you. The Senate should get on with it and you shouldn't pay any

attention to the Senate; the Senate has a right to examine this and take all the

time necessary.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) politics.

PREMIER TOBIN: I say to the Leader of the Conservative

Party that he should talk to Conservative Members of the Senate from the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are leading the charge against

education reform in Ottawa. The Leader of the Conservative Party knows that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier's time is up.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I conclude with the

following: page 68 of the same book -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: "There will be no new school viability

rules for September 1996." That is what the Red Book says. "There will be

extensive public consultation before any new school viability rules are

adopted.... There will be no change in the current times for busing students."

This is clear in the document and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to

examine it. Because the implication is clear.

For this year, 1996, Mr. Speaker, we will go through a public

consultation process before we bring forward, as we said to the people in the

election campaign, new viability rules. But even the Leader of the Opposition

would agree that we need to proceed in the meantime, as soon as we can get the

matter dealt with in Ottawa, to put in place ten school boards. You don't

disagree with that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) Senate (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: We need to proceed with a single

construction board. Surely, you agree with that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, then, if we bring that legislation

forward, I ask the Leader of the Opposition here and now: Will he support it?

MR. SULLIVAN: When I see it.

PREMIER TOBIN: Will you put it through even before the

Senate acts? Is that what you are recommending to the government?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) see it first (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: You are recommending we ignore the

Conservative Senators, pay no attention to the process, pay no attention to the

Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Charst? Pass the bill even without

consideration by Conservative members?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

PREMIER TOBIN: Is that what he is recommending?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Leader of the Opposition has agreed. Let the record further show that he has

committed himself to voting for the bill when it is brought forward, as surely

it will, before we rise for a Summer recess.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to answer the

Premier? If I could have leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) I say to the Premier -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: - whatever the Senate does with it -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We won't consider this the third member speaking on the

petition. Is that what we agree with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, it doesn't matter what the Senate says,

what the Conservatives in the Senate say, what the Liberals say, it is only a

suspense of veto. I will stand and support it if I see it. I can't support it

without seeing it. If I see it and agree with it, I will support it. I don't

care what the Senate are going to do with it. I will support it on its merit

regardless of what they think. I supported it regardless of what Jean Charst

thought, regardless of what Prime Minister Chrtien thought. I will support it

if I think it has merit, and I don't care what anybody else thinks. I will do

that, and I challenge you to bring it here tomorrow now and let's get on with

it, and deal with it.

Now, you asked me - you have an answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are getting into -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) my time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would (inaudible) the

Leader of the NDP before I respond.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising in support of the petition, the prayer of the

petition. In fact, I was one of those who was at the meeting at Bishop Field

where the discussion of the so-called framework agreement was debated at a

meeting called by the Avalon Consolidated School Board. At that meeting,I

encouraged the people who were there to make sure that their wishes are known to

government and suggested that they embark on a petition to make sure that

government does not backslide on the wishes of the people as expressed in the

referendum.

I believed, and believe today, that this House will have,

once Term 17 is passed, the ability to implement educational reform in this

Province. But that is the problem. We don't have Term 17 yet, and we won't have

a Term 17 until the Senate passes Term 17. That is the hold-up right now, and I

don't care whether it is a suspense of veto or whether they amend it and send it

back and ask for something else. The fact of the matter is that the people who

were appointed to the Senate by the PC Party of Canada are now holding up the

democratic will of the people of this Province. I think I heard the Leader of

the Opposition say, the people have spoken here, the decision has been made, and

it is up to the electors to pass it and put it into practice. I agree with him.

But we don't have electors dealing with it now, we have people who were

appointed to the Senate dealing with it now! And they are the ones who are

preventing the electors from putting the will of the electorate into practice!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

I have to support the Premier in his call upon the Leader of

the Opposition to have a little chat with the people who have been appointed to

the Senate by his party, have a little chat with them and tell them that the

electors of Newfoundland, including him, and the electorate of Newfoundland have

made a decision about what kind of constitution they want to have, and that if

we have Term 17 passed, once Term 17 is passed, then we can have whatever debate

and discussion about legislation here, because I do not think that legislation

that is contrary to Term 17 is even valid. If any legislation is brought into

this House of Assembly that is contrary to Term 17, I think somebody could go

and get a ruling and say it is unconstitutional. So, if we do not have an

amendment to Term 17, we may as well stay here and debate something else until

we get Term 17 passed, and I for one am prepared to stay here and debate,

because there are lots of things we can debate.

We should keep the House open until the Senate deals with

this and debate something else. There are lots of other public policy issues

that need to be debated in this Province. Nobody is going anywhere. If we have

issues to be discussed and debated then put them on the table. There is lots of

legislation here and there is more to come. I am sure we could have legislation

that would amend the Human Rights Code to fix up the anomalies in leaving out

sexual orientation as just passed by the House of Commons.

There is lots of other legislation that we could have before

us. We could even have the Minister of Mines and Energy's proposal and oil and

gas regime debated in the House before he tells the people of Calgary what he is

going to give to them. We could even discuss that. We might even have changes to

the Voisey's Bay regulations that are now giving a tax-free holiday to the

Voisey's Bay enterprise for ten years. We might even have that before the House.

I am prepared to stay here until the Senate deals with the Term 17 regulations

and I hope that other members are prepared to stay here as well. There is no

rush to get out of here, it is only June 11. We can stay here until the end of

June, or we can stay here until July, August, or September, as the Premier says,

but I think the first step has to be to get Term 17 out of the Senate and back

to the House of Commons, if it has to go back, but out of the Senate so that we

can get on with our work here in school reform as the petitioners want.

PREMIER TOBIN: Could I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier is asking for leave.

Does have leave?

By leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is perhaps true

that on occasion the House does its best work in a spontaneous moment. Because

the last time we had a debate such as this, when it was unscheduled and

unplanned, we made a decision here based on a comment from both the Leader of

the Opposition and from the Leader of the New Democratic Party to put down a

motion which we made unanimous here in this House. We made a decision here,

spontaneously in a debate such as this one, to send a delegation to Ottawa, and

I think all members of the delegation, the three leaders, all did effective

work, all worked with an honest heart, and all made the best representations

they could, and I have never questioned that.

I want the Leader of the Opposition to know, notwithstanding

the exchanges between us earlier today, and how strong they were, that I have

never questioned that, nor will I ever question that. Whatever comment I have

for the Conservative Party in Ottawa is directed to the members of the party in

Ottawa, and I do not question the will of the Leader of the Opposition. He knows

that, and I never have.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's coming.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, I never have, and the Leader of the

Opposition knows that. We now have another debate today, where good work on

behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador is being done. We now have a proposal - I

just heard the words from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and he is

quite correct, you cannot bring forward legislation that flows from the amended

Term 17 that is inconsistent with the amended Term 17 without running the risk

of a court challenge and the certainty of losing before the courts.

I say to the people of the Province, and it is important that

the people of the Province hear this, there is really not any risk of us having

legislation that is not consistent with the amended Term 17 because that

legislation will be challenged in the courts, and will be thrown out by the

courts. This party is committed to taking the only course of action it can take,

once Term 17 passes, to bring forward legislation that fulfills all of the

conditions, those that the Leader of the Opposition referred to in his list of

four or five, but more importantly, and this is where the Leader of the

Opposition draws his list from, what is actually in the amendment.

I would invite the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to

re-read the amendment. If you read the amendment it is all spelled out. The

amended Term 17 spells it out. It dictates the legislation. We have some people

saying you might do this based on Term 17 or you might do that. You can only do

what is written, no more, and I would suggest, no less, than what is provided

for and it is quite explicit in the amended Term 17.

Mr. Speaker, given that the Leader of the Opposition has said

- and I appreciate the offer - bring forward immediately - and I ask him to

respect the program that we have said from day one - bring forward immediately

the legislation to put in place the new boards, to get rid of the current school

board system and to replace it with ten inter-denominational boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Let me finish - bring that forward; to

bring forward as well, the necessity to put in place a single construction board

and, Mr. Speaker, to do the public hearings on all of the other questions as we

said we would, we said that school viability and busing would not -

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: That's right, you agree with that. The

Opposition House Leader is saying, put that off to the Fall. We agree, because

we said it would not be in place for 1996 anyway and that we would have public

hearings first. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to sit down on that basis and to

debate and discuss with both the Leader of the Opposition, through the House

leader here and the Minister of Education, and with the Leader of the New

Democratic Party, proposed legislation. As I said in Question Period, it has not

been brought forward. It will be considered in the next number of days by the

Cabinet. I will then make it available, as quickly as we have seen it and signed

off on it, to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic

Party for comment, before we even table it in the House, to make sure that we

have the comment. I want to maintain the all-party approach to this issue in

this House. If we want to have an opportunity for public debate and discussion,

we will do that as well, okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, discuss it and figure it out,

whatever is necessary.

One of the dilemmas right now - and this is the matter that

the Leader of the New Democratic Party has come to quite rightly - the fact of

the matter is, the constitutional amending process requires a vote of the

Legislature here, we have provided that. It does not require a referendum but we

had that as well in Newfoundland. It is not a requirement but we have had it. It

also requires a vote of the Parliament of Canada and, Mr. Speaker, the

Parliament of Canada is not the House of Commons alone. It is the House of

Commons and the Senate. It is a bicameral system. That is the British

parliamentary system. Members of Parliament sit in both the House Chamber and in

the Senate Chamber. They are all MPs, although we refer to those in the Senate

Chamber as senators.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you don't have a constitutional amendment

finished until the Senate Chamber has voted. Mr. Speaker, it is true that they

have the power only of a six-month suspensive veto. What that means is that from

the day the bill left the House of Commons, the 180 day clock started ticking

six months. The Senate has within that six months the right and the

responsibility to dispose of the bill in one of several ways; to pass it, Mr.

Speaker, they can reject it or they could amend it. At the end of the six-month

period - so that all members know and the public of Newfoundland and Labrador

knows - what then happens is, if it has been either amended or rejected, the

House of Commons either accepts the amendment - that would require us to come

back here again - or it passes the original bill again. Now, that is truly the

amending process. Don't take my word for it. I think the Leader of the NDP has

just pointed this out in the House, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that

is the reality. That is why it is not mere window dressing to say it is

important to have the Senate deal with the matter.

As the Opposition House Leader has just said, we can move now

on the school boards and on the single construction board and do the other

matters later. We all agree to that, but even if we move now on the school

boards and on the single construction board, in the absence of passage of this

bill by the Senate, we don't have a constitutional amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: But we don't have an amendment, and at

that stage, anything we do, any individual can challenge what we do, and it is

open to challenge because the amendment is not completed. So I say to the

members opposite, I have been hoping, and I still hope, that members of the

Senate will give this - and by the way, it is their right to study this matter

and it is their obligation, even, to study this matter. We don't quarrel with

that. All I ask is that it be done in a timely fashion. The Leader of the

should have but when they did call the matter, it was dealt with in the House of

Commons in a matter of days, at your request, my request and the request of the

Leader of the NDP.

I say to the senators, do what needs to be done, give it

proper study, but surely, if the elected House of Commons can deal with the

matter, and if the elected House of Assembly can deal with the matter, and if

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in an election, a referendum, can deal

with the matter, then surely the members of the second Chamber can deal with it

in a timely fashion as well. That is what we are really saying, and I hope to

get back to a point where we work together to encourage the Senate to move this

matter forward quickly so that we can bring legislation that will not be open to

a court challenge and we can get on, as we must, with school reform.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have

leave to respond?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite familiar with the constitutional process in that

it cannot be proclaimed. The Premier read, in fact, the newspaper - one of the

media carried it there - that I indicated it is not law until it is proclaimed.

We brought in an Elections Act a couple of years ago, a Coroner's Act last year;

none of these have come into effect yet. We can pass what legislation we have in

this House; if we do not proclaim it, it has no validity in law. We can do what

we want in our Legislatures provided it does not contravene Term 17, and we can

enact that at the time, and proclaim it, after it passes the Senate. By doing it

now, I say to the Premier, we enable this House to get something without being

rushed. If the Senate passes it on June 28, if you want to enact the boards by

July 1... There is a tremendous transition phase going on now between boards,

because technically there will exist - there are twenty-seven boards now; there

could be another ten new boards. Where is the transition from thirty-seven

boards? That has to be done. There are teachers getting hired -

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-seven.

MR. SULLIVAN: From twenty-seven, with an extra ten. The

transition has to occur on aspects to move from the one structure to another.

There has to be a transition. We do not want to see it on June 29, and you

wanting it in law by July 1 without adequate time. If we can have it outside the

confines of this House so we can have input, or refer it to public discussion

outside the confines of this House, that is fine. There is nothing that I am

aware of, and I stand to be corrected on it, that would prevent us from coming

to this House and putting legislation here on this floor tomorrow, debating it,

and approving it to take effect at a time to be determined. That was done dozens

of times, traditionally done, here with legislation. The Elections Act was not

proclaimed, or part of it; we had the Coroner's Act last year. There are dozens

of pieces of legislation. Most of it does not take effect immediately anyway,

and there are transition periods; there is nothing to stop that.

What is wrong with us knowing up front if you have it ready?

It was going to be ready in two days. The former Minister of Education said last

year on a public broadcast that it would take two days to get school viability

regulations ready. And I said: We won't see that until after we vote in the

House.

In January of this year the former Premier and the Minister

of Education were going to table in this House viability rules on busing that

could affect the rights to provide dollars on a denominational basis to schools

in this Province. It was released in January, and look at the hullabaloo that

happened with these viability regulations, the response.

There is nothing wrong if I stand here, and if anybody from

the legal profession - and we have members here from the legal profession - can

refute what I have indicated here, or can tell me any way that legislatively we

cannot present this here in the House and proclaim it later. We have been doing

it since I came into this House, and it is acknowledged, and we want to see an

opportunity for public input, because when the public do not get time to have

their input, when they are shunted aside and not permitted to contribute to this

process, that is when they get their backs up. I want to hear what those experts

out there in the public who understand this - and a lot of them a lot better

than some of us in here do - I want to hear what they want to say, and I want to

make a judgement that is going to be the best judgement

interpretation by

listening to the best advice that is out there to do that.

I have not heard one thing yet, I say to the Premier, and I

agree with what the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi said on the process. I

know the process of passing legislation federally; I agree with that. I agree

with the process. We cannot ignore the Senate. I said a matter of days, I felt,

should be reasonable in the Senate. I am not talking about weeks or months; I

don't think that is adequate. I don't think the Senate should take two, three or

four months to deal with this. I think they should do it expeditiously from the

time they received it, within a matter of days. I don't think a week or so would

be unfair, even if it went close to two weeks; that is not unfair for the

Senate. That is their job; that is their role. I think it is important, and I

say: Get on with it. Let's get it here tomorrow; let's debate it; let's deal

with it here in the next week or so, and let's proclaim it later on. What's

wrong with that? Is it wrong? The Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi is saying

we can't do it. I say we can. I would like someone to tell me we can't.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is becoming very

interesting. First of all, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am

delighted now to hear him say - and I hope that it will be taken as a signal and

some friendly advice by the Leader of the Opposition to members of the Senate -

that a week or up to two weeks to deal with the matter is a reasonable period of

time. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that if that is the time frame

in which the Senate deals with the matter, if we could have some reasonable

assurance that that is the time frame they are going to deal with the matter in,

then I am prepared to have all of us sit in July to deal with it here and to

respect the process in Ottawa. To allow the Senate to hold, as it is proposing

to do, public hearings.

I assume that some of the interested groups from this

Province may be asked to come and testify. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition

will go and testify. I don't know. It will be his choice. Some groups will want

to go and give comment. Certainly the Minister of Education would want to go and

give comment, and perhaps others. If that is the process going on in the Senate

then I think all of us can agree, if that is the time frame, that the Senate

should be allowed to do its work and then we will have to, if necessary, sit

longer than we traditionally do, by the end of June, in order for us to properly

do our work.

But my concern only is not that the Senate is going to take a

week or ten days or two weeks. My concern, given that it still hasn't even

gotten referred to Committee yet - and by the way at 5:00 p.m. today, 6:30 p.m.

our time, will be the next time that an attempt will be made to push it, refer

it on to the Committee, we will see whether it gets referred or not. So that is

my concern.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if it becomes clear

that within a normal and, in your own words, responsible time frame, that the

matter is not being dealt with, then the suggestion of the Leader of the

Opposition that we might have to proceed anyway, even before the Senate finishes

the process here, is one we will have to take up.

We all want to respect the system if we can but I give this

caution. If we simply accept that we are going to pass the bill here and not

proclaim it - and that can be done - if we accept that is the process we are

going to use, and if the Senate rises for the summer without dealing with the

bill, we haven't proclaimed our legislation, we have a school year in September,

we have all of the children, all of the resources, all of the teachers, all of

the wherewithal for a school year which will be then in slings. Because without

the legislation proclaimed - and you acknowledge yourself we can't proclaim it

till there is final disposition of it in Ottawa - without the legislation

proclaimed we can't put in place the ten boards. That is the dilemma.

The Leader of the Opposition is being practical and I think

being helpful when he says: Start to think about what it is going to look like,

start the process of planning. We are doing that. I assure the Leader of the

Opposition that is being done. But even if we pass a bill, if the Senate rises

and doesn't dispose, doesn't approve the Term 17 amendment, we have legislation

passed here, it isn't proclaimed, we therefore have no legal authority during

the course of the summer to set up a school board system for September.

That is the dilemma. Perhaps the minutes of this debate might

help Senators realize the practical requirements that we have as a province to

have this matter dealt with in a timely fashion so that we can get on with the

next steps that are agreed to by everybody in the Province. I don't think there

is anybody in the Province who I know of who on the steps we have just talked

about - going to the ten boards, going to the construction board - who

disagrees.

I'm going to sit down now because I think we made some

progress. I believe that in the next ten days or so if it becomes evident the

Senate is moving we should wait for the Senate and then act in the normal

fashion ourselves. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if it becomes evident

that the Senate is not moving I will take the Leader of the Opposition up on his

offer to consider moving ourselves if that becomes necessary.

One piece of information, Mr. Speaker. I've just heard, in

response to the comment by the Member for St. John's South, that indeed the

Dockyard has now been given consent and it is making a bid on the Iroquois .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board: To 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. (Budget Debate).

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Again today I rise to say a few words on the Budget that was

brought down by this Administration. I think I adjourned the debate on the

Budget some time ago, and I would ask the Clerk if he could give me some idea as

to how much time I have left.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventeen minutes.

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

I remember when the minister stood to present his Budget, in

the House he made a big deal of the fact that there were no tax increases in

this Budget this year, but the people of this Province soon found out that this

Budget, basically, was nothing but smoke and mirrors, I use the words of the

minister himself on last year's Budget brought in by the former Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board, and this Budget is nothing less that smoke and

mirrors itself. It is a bluff that was run to the people of this Province by

saying that there have been no tax increases.

Now, we are seeing that there have been a number of fees and

licences increased. I mentioned this a number of times in the House previously

but the biggest one I suppose or the one that is most hurtful to the people of

the Province, would be the ambulance fee increase from $40 to $65 up to a figure

of $75 for all rides in an ambulance at this point in time, and I know that the

seniors in this Province are being hit the hardest, Mr. Speaker, with this

ambulance fee increase, the seniors in the Province who more often make use of

that service, a provincial service all across this Province, $75. I know of an

individual who has to pay $75 to get to hospital and $75 to get home from

hospital, that is $150 out of pretty well a fixed income, and oftentimes these

people have to be taken to hospital probably a number of times in the run of a

year; maybe once, twice, three or four times, possibly depending on the

situation.

The Liberal government before this, the one that was elected

back in February, had a policy of trying to keep people in their homes, trying

to keep the elderly in their homes and try to fend for themselves I suppose, and

not have them in senior citizens homes or in hospitals and things of that nature

and by doing so of course, it would require these people to go to hospital more

often than not, so that was a major hit to the seniors of this Province.

Now, there have been a number of licensing fees increases in

this Budget. Well, we had a lot of discussion here in the House of Assembly and

in the public and in the media with respect to the fee increases for the Crown

lands. Now the cabin owners in particular, have been hit pretty hard with this

Budget and it took a while for this to get out. The minister brought down this

statement on May 16, with respect to Crown lands and of course we saw the

application fees going from $50 to $100; we saw the documentation preparation

going from $100 to $200; the rates themselves of course, of the lease per year

substantially increased. We also saw assignment fees for transfer from $50 to

$100; that is another one, I didn't realize that was there actually and

amendments to the lease documents to cost $100, increased fee charge for the

driver of vehicle records from $5 to $10 and the list goes on and on and on,

with increases from $25 to $100 in certain areas, from $75 to $500; $300 to $500

in an other area, so the licence fees have been a major hit to the people of

this Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: He has to be the funniest man I have ever

met.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who is that? Who are we talking about now?

Anyway, the Member for Humber Valley is at it again, over

there I believe.

The minister stood in the House and he made a comment,

`Making Choices for a Better Tomorrow.' He said it going around this Province

and had public input into the Budget process this year. He basically said that,

`Transfer payments from the federal government will continue to be restrained.

There are three measures we can use to address the shortfall; increase taxes,

reduce spending or increase borrowing.' He did all three, Mr. Speaker. They

could look at these, you could do one, two, three, two and three or one and

three. Whatever the case may be, any combination would decide to do all three.

He said, `Some things you have to consider, the burden of

taxation in our Province is already high. Should taxes be increased to pay for

our services? If so which taxes and by how much?' How much taxes should be

increased? Now the minister stood and as I said before: There has been no

increase in taxes, no new taxes. Like George Bush, the former President of the

United States said: Read my lips, no new taxes. Obviously we have quite a number

of tax increases. Well you could not really call them taxes I suppose but they

are fees for services, anywhere from schools, universities, the community

colleges, ferries, anything at all that you want to talk about in this Province

that the people use the public service for, has increased. It says: Spending has

already been reduced significantly. Should we continue to reduce spending?

Should we do it for all services and at the same level right across the board or

should we establish spending priorities? Now, Mr. Speaker, spending priorities,

that's a good line. Of course again they had their spending priorities, Mr.

Speaker, over the past years when they had spending priorities on the Trans City

and I am planning on saying a few words on that topic in a little while as the

time goes on.

Mr. Speaker, it says: Government's ability to borrow is

limited by the heavy burden of debt and a low credit rating. Should there be any

more borrowing? If so, what is a responsible amount? These are the kinds of

choices government will have to consider as it assembles its Budget for 1996.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this Budget has hit the people of this

Province in their pocketbook. It has hit them hard. I say to the Government

House Leader, this Budget has hit the people of this Province very, very hard

and it is being found out day by day, as time goes by, Mr. Speaker - one for

instance, we have 1,000 people who were laid off with this Budget. That is what

we have been told, 1,000 and last year we were told it was 1,000 people laid

off, Mr. Speaker, but we know now, throughout the system there have been people

let go in all the various government departments. We know of people let go in

Housing, we know people are being let go in Hydro, we know people who are being

let go in different groups, Cabot colleges and community colleges. We know there

are teachers being let go in this Province. We know there are people being let

go throughout the civil service and there is a lot of bumping going on now

throughout the civil service and in particular in the hospitals, we know that

bumping has been happening right, left and centre.

Actually I was speaking to an individual today - get this

now, this is one that I really find peculiar - with respect to the bumping

system, apparently you bump to the bottom of the list, I suppose. So if you have

a fairly high position you bump to the bottom. Now I know of an individual who

got her notice on - I think it was on probably Friday. She has been working with

the government for seven years - she took twenty-one days, went to work in a

minister's office and because she did not qualify - and then came back last

year, so it was less than a year - so she worked for a minister's office for

twenty-one days and she lost out. She cannot bump anyone. She is gone at the

bottom of the list. So she can be bumped out of a job and she's finished. Now

that to me is not fair by any stretch of the imagination and somebody is going

to have to do something about that, Mr. Speaker. That I am sure will be brought

up in due course. I am planning on working on her behalf and probably talking to

whoever it takes to talk to, to try to get that situation dealt with. Someone

has worked for seven years in this civil service, it is not fair when the

government brought in this policy that anybody who was on temporary were put on

permanent for the bumping system so she has been here seven years and now she

can actually be bumped by somebody who has been here for two years because she

left her position for twenty-one days, went to work in the minister's office and

now she is out the door, very likely, Mr. Speaker, so that in itself is not

fair.

Now, with respect to the layoffs there are some hard things

going on in this Province. I read an

article in the paper, I think it was

yesterday or the day before, about the number of people who have actually lost

their jobs within the same family. We had husbands and wives, fathers and

daughters, and what have you, being let go. It is so cruel, I suppose, is the

way we have to look at it. It is very cruel that husbands and wives would be let

go from the civil service. Those people have children and now we see people

having to leave the Province because of that.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns about this

Budget and I really believe that this Budget is not a document that was prepared

for the benefit of the people of this Province. I think it is going to hurt the

people of this Province more than it is actually going to help the people of

this Province. Basically, what I would like to do, so that people could have a

proper chance to discuss this Budget, is to move a motion that all the words

after the word `that' be struck out and replaced with the following - I hope you

are paying attention here now, `that this House condemn the government for its

failure to present a Budget that reflects the mandate of the people of the

Province and ignores the basic principles of sound fiscal management.' Moved by

myself, the Member for Cape St. Francis, and seconded by the Member for St.

John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know whether you would like to

take the time, Mr. Speaker, to look at that motion and see if it is in order? I

believe it is in order. That is what it is, non-confidence in the Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

MR. TULK: The motion is in order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Of course, it is in order. You know I would

not move anything that was not in order in this House, I say to the Government

House Leader.

Now, what shall I talk about I wonder? Well, I will talk

about the minister or the Government House Leader. When I say what shall I talk

about, I mean what specific points should I talk about in this Budget and which

of the many, many things that are wrong in this Budget should I talk about?

Which one will I start out on is the question? I will start out on the layoffs,

as I ended on, the thousands of people who are laid off in this civil service,

that we know of.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about the hirings?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition took the words

right out of my mouth, about the hiring that is going on. We have thousands of

people in this Province being laid off in the civil service. We know that there

is a spin-off from that, but how many new faces have I seen in this building, in

the elevators, working in this building since February 22? There are a lot of

stops on the 8th floor where we see a number of faces, we see a number of faces

on the 5th floor, all new people, political staff. How many people are being

hired in patronage appointments in this Province? I am going to have to get a

list. I remember in the last sitting of the House I think I had a list of

somewhere around seventy people, patronage appointments, and this is growing

even more rapidly in this government at this point in time; there are more

people being hired in more patronage appointments. Of course, the media knows

about this. They will pick up on it. I am sure one of these days they will get

the idea that they will come up with a list, and go through the government

departments and see all the new people being hired on, compared to the people

who have been let go, and try to get some handle on the political appointments

in this Province.

Of course, with respect to the 1,000 people lay-off, you have

a chain reaction. We have the municipalities now being forced to let people go,

the municipalities in this Province that have had a 22 per cent cut last fall.

The minister said it was 22 per cent, but when you actually sit down and figure

it out I think it was closer to 28 per cent. We have another 10 per cent on top

of that in this Budget, so we have a number of people throughout the

municipalities in this Province being let go because the municipalities cannot

afford to keep the staff on. We see municipalities in this Province actually

turning off their street lights, making decisions that they cannot maintain

their street lights. We see municipalities in this Province cutting back on

services such as garbage collection. In some of the smaller municipalities, of

course, they only have one garbage collection, but those with two are probably

cutting back to one, so we see a major, major impact on the municipalities.

We saw cuts to the municipalities with their fire-fighting

equipment this year again, although the minister did say he has $1 million put

aside, and he didn't like to refer to it as a slush fund - and I would not want

to refer to it as a slush fund - but maybe they are in for a genuine emergency,

and that is what the minister said, so I certainly take him at his word.

The City of St. John's has been cut 20 per cent, or the St.

John's Regional Fire Department has been cut by 20 per cent. Now, I asked the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs questions on the St. John's

Regional Fire Department with respect to that 20 per cent cut, and he said that

the St. John's City Council actually came to him looking to take over

responsibility for the St. John's Regional Fire Department. Well, as I said at

the time, that may have been the case, but if they came looking for that they

also came looking for the funding to go along with it.

I know that the minister of the time, the former Member for

Waterford - Kenmount, or Waterford Valley I think it was at the time - I am not

sure which - Mr. Gullage, tried to force amalgamation down the throats of the

people on the Northeast Avalon and other areas of the Province, and it was very

poorly managed at the time. I remember meeting with the minister and telling

him: If you want to do something like this, you have to actually come up with a

proper plan, approach the councils, talk to the councils, show them the pros,

show them the cons of such a move, and then let the people decide. Don't force

something like this down people's throats and then get their backs up.

They could not accomplish the amalgamation at that point in

time, back probably in '88 or '89, somewhere around there I believe, when I was

mayor of a small town, but they decided to go ahead with the St. John's regional

fire-fighting, and they just gave it to the board. They appointed a board at the

time and, of course, the City of St. John's was well represented. The City of

St. John's, of course, who pays the larger amount of money, had the larger

representation, but the representation on that board was more than all the other

municipalities combined.

I remember sitting at a meeting in St. John's with the

regional fire committee, which was the city council, Mount Pearl, Logy

Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Petty Harbour, Portugal Cove, and I think it was

Paradise. At that meeting one of the members on the board said: Well, what we

will do is listen to the smaller towns and then we will just do what is best for

the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I left that meeting, and shortly after I left

that meeting three other mayors followed suit and came out behind me. Actually,

the St. John's Regional Fire Department is not properly set up yet, to this

point in time. We still have - well, we now know that Portugal Cove - St.

Phillips is having their own fire department. We have Conception Bay South, I

believe, going their own way. Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, at this point in

time, still do not have a deal worked out with the St. John's Regional Fire

Department, and it is really unfortunate that that is the case because the town

really cannot make proper plans on how much money it should be spending and

setting aside for that service. We really don't know what is coming down the

tubes with respect to the St. John's regional fire department although there

have been a number of meetings and discussions held. The minister of the day

created that problem and he really hasn't done anything to resolve that problem

at this point in time.

Back to the 1,000 people who have been laid off in the civil

service. That is the figure that we were given, 1,000 people let go. It is only

last week in the House I was up on the Estimates and I asked the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation - there was an ad put in the paper for a

tender for furniture to furnish Philip Place. I said, if there was 1,000 people

let go this year, and there was 1,000 people let go from the civil service last

year, that is 2,000 people. They must have had chairs, they must have had desks,

they must have had computers a lot of those people, so why is the government

tendering for furniture for Philip Place? To me it is utterly ridiculous. No,

more than ridiculous, it is disgusting, to think that the people of this

Province now who are paying taxes, the very people who were let go from their

jobs now, actually have to pay their taxes to furnish Philip Place when we have

desks, furniture, hidden away somewhere. It is either hidden away or given away

or sold for half nothing.

That gets back to the point of how well is the government

doing its planning for the people of this Province. When it takes in its

revenues and (inaudible) certain expenditures each year, we of course have to

have proper planning. That has been a major concern of the Opposition over the

past number of years, certainly since I've been here anyway. When we have

budgets coming in each year and - last year for example there was a budget

brought in in the spring of the year and they said it was a balanced budget. We

know now, and we said at the time, because our critic for finance at the time,

the Member for Mount Pearl of the day, stood and said: You are going to be $60

million short. No, that wouldn't be the case because we have it all figured out.

That is what the Minister of Finance said. No, you are trying to exaggerate, you

are trying to get people excited over nothing.

What happened in the fall of the year ? A new mini-budget

comes in, the new Minister of Finance comes in in the fall of the year and says

he has to let go 500 people and he has to start cutting the municipalities by 22

per cent, and goes on and on and what have you. In actual fact the planning has

been sadly lacking with respect to the finances of this Province over the past

number of years, especially since 1989 I would say. I would have to say since

1989 the planning for the finances of this Province has been seriously lacking.

The minister brings down his Budget again, the minister

brings down his Budget this year, and he says we will have to borrow, I think it

was $75 million, somewhere around there. Up in the seventies, anyway.

Whereas

during the election they were saying: We have to be careful, we have to be

fiscally responsible, and we can't borrow too much and what have you. It went on

and on. People were sick of hearing it. Anyway, they get in and do an

about-face, and they decide to borrow money to try and balance out the Budget

this year. But in actual fact it isn't balanced, I suppose, because if you have

to borrow you can't really consider that to be balancing your Budget.

Another major factor with respect to this Budget, of course,

is the tuition fees for, in particular, Memorial University. We saw the Member

for Kilbride bring questions into this House of Assembly to the Minister of

Education. Of course the Minister of Education would not confirm or deny the

questions that were being put forward with respect to the rate of increase for

the different courses at Memorial University, until the Member for Kilbride

produced a document from the University saying how much tuition fees would

increase at University.

The MUN tuition fees will increase anywhere from 42 per cent,

I believe, up to 90 percent. That is a huge increase in fees. This begs the

question: What is happening in this Province with respect to education? We have

a government of the day which said during the election, and prior to the

election, that if we want to get out of our financial doldrums, if we want to

start producing in this Province, if we want to get this Province back on the

road, then we have to get our people educated. I am sick and tired of hearing

people stand in this House - and the former Minister of Education, in

particular, on numerous occasions, stood in this House and talked about the rate

of illiteracy in this Province. Now, we have an attack on education in this

Province, an attack right, left and centre, and it is not only an attack on the

post-secondary, not only an attack on the universities; it is an attack now also

on the community colleges; it is an attack on Kindergarten, believe it or not.

Can you believe, a government bringing in measures to take books that were

planned to be presented to the Kindergarten classes this year, newer books, more

updated books to teach our little children how to read, and they have cancelled

that.

They have cancelled the community colleges across the

Province. There are a number of community colleges being cancelled, or basically

discontinued, or cut out, or whatever word you would like to use, to refer to

it. Take, for example, Bell Island. The people of Bell Island are quite

concerned that they are going to lose their community college on Bell Island.

Last Fall, we had a real racket on our hands, I suppose, with respect to the

ferry system, when the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

came in with these huge, dramatic, drastic, outrageous rate increases to travel

on the ferries. What happened in this House? We had to have petitions presented

in the House; we had people from Bell Island - on both sides from Bell Island -

and people living in the Portugal Cove area, and students who transported back

and forth to Bell Island to the school; we had demonstrations in the lobby; we

had people in the galleries, and finally, the minister relented, only after he

started getting pressure from members on the government side of the House.

Actually, the then Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, which

is now Conception Bay East & Bell Island, he and I attended a meeting on Bell

Island, and there must have been 500 people in attendance at that meeting. I had

an opportunity to really play politics with the situation, and I did not. At

that time I treated the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island quite

fairly. We went over there to solve a problem on Bell Island with respect to the

ferry system, and we solved it, with a lot of hard work, time and effort, with a

lot of people and a lot of help. And now they are losing their Cabot school, and

the people on Bell Island are genuinely concerned that if they lose that school,

what is next? It is the heart of the community, they feel, and there will be

jobs lost, so the Mayor of Bell Island, and other people, have a number of

concerns with respect to that. They are really concerned that they will lose the

school, and it looks like they will now unless something dramatically different

happens.

But it all concerns education. And it seems to me that what

is happening today is that we are going back to pre-1949, when the only people

in this Province - I should not say the only people, but it seemed that if you

were to get an education in this Province prior to 1949, you had to have

dollars, you had to have big bucks, you had to have money, and that is what is

happening today. We see tuition fees increasing; we see an attack on the

education system in this Province as never seen before.

Now, I do not want to get this one thing confused with

education reform, because the attacks I am talking about are the financial

restraints that are being put on the education system in this Province. The

financial restraints, the cutting from the universities and in the community

schools, and the grade schools themselves, I don't want to get that confused

with education reform. It is coming near at hand now that maybe we can get

something.

I remember last year before the referendum, standing in this

House and saying what would happen with the referendum; and, sure enough, what

we predicted happened. I remember the Premier of the day saying that the

amendment to the Constitution would go through the House of Commons by last

Christmas. We said it wouldn't, and it didn't. We said that once it got in

Ottawa it would be tied up, and it was six or seven months before they decided

to bring it to the House of Commons, so actually, the education reform that was

supposed to be in place for this year is not in place and won't be in place.

Now, they are talking about - we heard debate today in the House where the

Premier was twisting the facts and trying to say that the PCs in Ottawa are

holding it up. Now, what a joke! It went through the House of Commons. Mr.

Charst, who is not in the Senate, who is in the House of Commons, voted against

it. So he voted against it? Yes, he is right. That is what he is there for, to

do what he thinks is right. But it passed the House of Commons and now it is

gone to the Senate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Baker vote against it, too?

MR. J. BYRNE: The member from the government - the

Liberal member in Ottawa, Mr. Baker, the Member for Gander, voted against it

also. There is no word from the Premier on the Member for Gander, Mr. Baker,

voting against it - it is all Mr. Charst's fault; because he voted against it,

it is being delayed. And he is not even in the Senate, he is in the House of

Commons. What a farce! Talk about a master at twisting things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and now there is the Senate which it

has to go through. I say to members opposite, now if you sit back and think

about our democratic system in this country, we have the municipal, we have the

provincial House of Assembly, we have the House of Commons and we have the

Senate. What is the purpose of the Senate? The purpose of the Senate is supposed

to be a sober second thought on any legislation that goes through the House of

Commons. So by them just barely discussing it and maybe requesting that they

have public hearings on it, they are only doing what they are being paid to do.

It is supposed to be a sober second thought and that is what they are doing. And

he is here criticizing these people for doing what they are being paid to do.

That, to me, is not right. What is going to happen and what should have

happened, if they wanted education reform this year, it should have been brought

in back in January, before the provincial election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Rightly so, but if they wanted reform - if

this Premier wanted reform so quickly, why did he wait for three or four months

after the election to try to do something about it? He could have had this

brought up in the House of Commons back in January. So to try to pass it off as

Mr. Charst's problem, what a farce! What a twist on words, Mr. Speaker!

I want to get back to talking about the time previous to

1949. I was not even born during Confederation - I was born a couple of years

after Confederation. But I heard my parents talk - I am a Newfoundlander born

and bred - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Very good, young at heart, anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I was born after Confederation. When I listen to

the older people talk about education and times back around 194