May 18,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLIV No. 26

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like

to welcome to the gallery today thirty-four Grade IX students from Holy Trinity

High School, Heart's Content, in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde,

accompanied by their teachers Mr. Calvin Young and Mr. Roger Gillingham, along

with their bus driver, Mr. Jude St. George.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to welcome to the gallery

today a former Member of the House of Assembly and now MP for St. John's West,

Mr. Norman Doyle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to provide hon. members with an update on the

status of the multi-year accelerated capital works program announced in the

latest Budget. Members will recall that expenditures of $100 million have been

allocated for this initiative that will see projects financed on a 50-50

provincial-municipal basis. My department is currently in the process of

accepting applications from municipalities for this program.

The primary purpose of this multi-year capital works program

is to enable municipalities to complete water and sewer projects at an

accelerated pace and to enable them to achieve economies of scale associated

with larger infrastructure projects.

Guidelines for this program have been developed in

consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities.

The response to date has been positive. I feel confident that we now have a

program that will enable municipalities to complete major infrastructure

projects more efficiently than would be possible under the traditional municipal

capital works programs.

Other positive features associated with this program include

increased economic activity in all areas of the Province and fully serviced

municipalities at an accelerated pace which would result in positive health and

environmental benefits.

We have worked hard to build a strong relationship with

municipalities in the Province. Today's announcement clearly shows that we are

listening, and it is another example of the cooperation that exists between the

provincial government and the Federation of Municipalities, to the benefit of

all residents of the Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the

minister for a copy of his statement before the House sat. The Premier, I

suppose, would refer to this as a good news statement, and God knows, the crowd

on the other side are trying to create a little good news.

I would advise the towns to be very wary of this program,

because if they take advantage of this program they can wait fifteen years

before they can access the municipal operating grants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I think the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs should try and control the Minister of Fisheries, because

when he made the statement that they are currently in the process of accepting

applications, the Minister of Fisheries clearly was heard, on this side of the

House, saying: From Liberals. That is what the Minister of Fisheries is all

about.

He also said, "we have worked hard to build a strong

relationship with municipalities in the Province." Saying it does not

necessarily make it so. I would advise the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs and the government to reinstate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: - some of the $40 million or $50 million

they cut from the municipal operating grants.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The proof was in the pudding. Success in

this program remains to be seen, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, certain aspects of this program

are certainly desirable: the multi-year funding, the amount of money, and the

50-50 participation.

The concern that I have is what level of confidence can many

communities of the Province have in this particular government being able to

participate in a program which would require a payback over a large number of

years? With the unemployment rate in this Province, particularly in rural areas,

the economic activity that the minister speaks off is not spread adequately

across the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and makes it difficult to take advantage of

the program.

Oral Questions

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

I am led to believe that government has been having discussions, negotiations,

with the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company. I understand as well that the clock is

ticking in terms of if that project will proceed and will develop a type of

project that will benefit everybody. I wonder if the minister, on behalf of the

government, could update the House today on the latest discussions that he and

his department and his officials have had with the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company

in the last six to eight weeks.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the issue briefly as

well today in giving an update. Two or three weeks ago a question was raised

with respect to this issue in the Legislature. I informed the House at the time

that since, basically, last summer when the official publicly stated position of

Inco was that they would do no smelting or refining of any Voisey's Bay ores in

Newfoundland and Labrador there have been no official discussions with the

companies since that time. They have offered no other position other than that

in any official capacity. We have engaged in no official meetings.

However, there have been informal discussions between Inco

officials and the Premier and myself on two or three occasions just to keep the

lines of communication open. We are expecting that Inco itself may be in a

position to make a proposal to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

within the next month or so.

Ourselves, Inco, the Aboriginal groups, and the federal

government are continuing our evaluation of the recommendations of the

environmental assessment panel which released its report about six weeks ago

now. When all of those things come together we fully expect that there may

actually be an official meeting with Inco sometime within the next month to six

weeks. Until that happens, there is nothing to report substantially as to what

may or may not occur in relation to any negotiations between the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco, which have the rights to develop the deposit

at Voisey's Bay.

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

Opposition.

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

So unofficially we are waiting for an official response, I

guess, is the Reader's Digest version of the minister's brief comments

with respect to the issue.

I would like to ask him this, because he has raised an

important point himself with respect to the environmental assessment panel. Of

the 107 recommendations, I believe, there are two that are very important. One

is the mode of development. The second is the anticipated successful conclusions

with the Innu. We have announced in the Province, and government have announced,

successful conclusions or at least a successful negotiating period with respect

to the LIA.

Could the minister update us on the issue with respect to

mode of development? Have there been informal discussions with Inco on that?

Secondly, could he update the House to the extent that he can with respect to

how close the Province is with its negotiations with the Innu? Because I

understand that they met with the Premier yesterday.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have nothing to report with respect to mode of development.

That is an issue that will become front and centre when we do have some formal

discussions with respect to the development of the whole project at some point

in the future.

With respect to the Aboriginal issues and the Innu in

particular: Fortunately, I would suggest, at this point in time there is a

continuing dialogue between the government and the Innu Nation. I think all

members would know, and the public of the Province would recall, that only a

couple of months ago we were at a bit of an impasse where the Innu Nation had

decreed that they were walking away from the table and would no longer discuss

any issues with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador unless and until all

of the land claims and self-governance matters in a general and broader based

type of approach were satisfactorily dealt with. That, as I understand it, is no

longer the position of the Innu Nation.

There are a group here in Labrador, in Aboriginal Affairs

within the government, who are continuing a very constructive dialogue, as I

understand it, with the Innu Nation. One of the issues, of course, being

discussed - as well as the Labrador Hydro project, which is one issue they were

discussing - is the kind of relationship that will have to occur to successfully

proceed with a negotiation respecting the development of the Voisey's Bay

deposit as well.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated in

the House today that they are anticipating a proposal coming forward from Inco

to the Province. Is the minister in a position today to confirm that part of

that proposal is a scaled down version of the original smelter-refinery complex

that would see, at the end of the day, semi-processed ore from Labrador smelted

and refined in this Province shipped out? Is that the type of proposal and

informal discussions that the minister, the Premier, and Inco have been having?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no

speculation whatsoever in the discussions we have been having. I described it,

in answer to the first question, as us having informal discussions merely,

simply and only to keep the lines of communication open to understand when they

may be ready to make a proposal. It is not for the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to make a proposal. Our position has always been clear. We want

maximum benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The last position of Inco, which is a year old now, just

about, was not at all satisfactory. We have no idea what it is, and it would be

useless to speculate whether it may be this or it may be that. We have no idea

of what they might propose in the next month or six weeks. That has not been the

purpose of any informal discussions, to try and find out quietly and privately

what it is they might be going to propose. It is just a matter of courtesy

meetings to keep the lines of communication open so that they know, whenever

they are ready to make a serious proposal to request the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to give them the proper permits and licenses to start

a development at Voisey's Bay, that we have been just indicating to them that we

are ready to talk to them whenever they are ready.

We are very patient. We are not in any rush to do this. We

are going to do what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador at the appropriate

time. It will be fully debated and discussed, I am sure, in this Legislature and

outside in the Province, when the group comes forward with a proposition. There

has been no speculative type meeting saying: Well, if we bring this, will this

be okay? Can we try this on? - and so on. That is not the nature of the

discussions we have been having, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of concern in

the industry. There is a lot of concern with people in the Province. There is

much concern with the business community from one end of the Province to the

other. I know the minister knows this. Maybe the minister can either confirm

that or provide his own point of view on this question. I am led to believe that

we really are at the eleventh hour with whether this project will proceed or

whether it will not proceed. This is the information that certainly I have been

told.

I would like to ask the minister: Are we at that point? Are

we at the eleventh hour where the possibility in terms of negotiations or

waiting for a proposal to see this tremendous resource developed for maximum

benefit - I agree; there is no disagreement on that in this House or in the

Province, I would say - but are we at that point, that this project may be

shelved for some time?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe it is important that in

the context of that type of question to again give a little bit of a background

reminder.

The only reason that there were no real discussions and

progress in the last year was because all of us had to go through an

environmental process, in any event, that made a number of recommendations

suggesting that before any lease or permit be given that we be assured that the

life of the project would be some twenty to twenty-five years instead of six or

seven years; that there would be arrangements with the Innu Nation and the other

Aboriginal groups that have a direct interest here, and that these things be put

in place before the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador gives any kind of

lease, license or permit to anybody to develop that particular ore body in

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that contrary to the kind of tone

that was in the last question, the only discussion of a general nature that we

have consistently had with Inco, who are the people who have purchased the right

to develop this if they can get the lease and permits from the government, is

that they firmly believe that good projects get done. That is the constant

phrase that has come through all of the informal discussions: that at some

point, if this is a good project, regardless of what else is going on anywhere

else in the world, anywhere else in different continents and so on, that if this

is a good project, the company will try to come forward with a proposal to start

it and get it done; and, if it is good for Newfoundland and Labrador, we will

certainly try to facilitate it and explain to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador why it is proceeding at a point in time - because it is good for

everybody, or else why it is not going to proceed, if it is not for fifty,

sixty, seventy or 100 years, because it is not good for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: A final question, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Mines and Energy. It goes back to one of the answers that he gave

earlier. He said - and he can correct me if I am wrong - that government is

anticipating a proposal from Inco within the next several weeks - six weeks.

Will you be in a position at that time, Minister, to publicly

release what that proposal is, to give a further update to the people of the

Province on what the nature and status of this very important project is? Can

you make a commitment today that when you receive that proposal, after obviously

what would be considered due consideration by the department, will you make that

proposal public for all of us in the Province to have a look at? What the

details are, what the outstanding issues are surrounding the project, and

whether we should proceed or not proceed, and let the debate begin on what is,

as opposed to right now not knowing exactly where this project is going?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think again that the full expectation not only by ourselves

as a government but by Inco as the corporate player in this, as I indicated, who

have purchased the right at some significant cost to them to develop this if

they can get an agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the

absolute expectation for everybody involved is that this whole project has

already attracted so much attention in Newfoundland and Labrador that it would

be impossible for anybody, once we start a formal actual negotiation, to do

anything with it other than in a very public way.

So the expectation from Inco is that when they make a

proposal, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, after a due period of

consideration and evaluation by the government, that the full expectation from

them is that whatever they propose will become very public in Newfoundland and

Labrador because this whole issue has raised a lot of public interest from the

beginning.

Everyone understands that you do not do the actual minute

detail of the negotiation in a public vein, but once the examination is done of

what is proposed and once the government is prepared to answer aye or nay as to

whether or not we are about to give a permit, a lease or a licence, they fully

expect that the full details of what we are going to agree to or disagree with

will be public in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Acting Minister of Health and

Community Services. Personal care homes in this Province have been experiencing

financial problems for some time. Over the last several years, several have

closed and others are on the point of bankruptcy. Your department is seriously

underfunding this important sector of our health care system. We have seen

subsidized beds in this Province drop by between 300 and 400, from 1,346, just

in the last four years alone.

Owners cannot survive with the $8 per month increase that was

provided in the Budget this year. It is really an insult to these, and the

impact is going to be felt by residents of those homes. The question is: Does

the minister feel that the current $923 a month is sufficient to care for those

residents?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in allocating the resources of

the Department of Health and Community Services, there are many conflicting

priorities that the department has to contend with. The hon. member has brought

to the floor of this House on many occasions over the past number of weeks, many

of the items of concern that he has raised with respect to costs of things like:

the cost of nursing, the cost for physicians, the cost for equipment, the cost

for many, many other health and community services in this Province.

Certainly, when you try to look at the kind of levels of

funding that we provide for issues like the home care, when you look at levels

of service for long-term care, these are all issues that have to be taken into

consideration when you are trying to allocate your funds and do it as prudently

as possible.

The Minister of Health and Community Services has said on

many occasions that they have difficult decisions to make, and I am sure all

members of the House are aware of some of those difficult decisions as we try

and deal with issues as they arise in health.

At the present time, and through this current budget process,

this is the level of funding the department has seen fit to allocate based on a

whole range of other priorities that it has to find funding for. That is

certainly something that everybody can recognize, that you have to work within

the means that you have, and that certainly there are only limited dollars to be

able to give to any individual priority within the department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the minister, was $923 a month sufficient? I still do

not know whether it is yes or no. If she looked at a report that is in her

department, the Department of Health and Community Services, she might find out

that it is grossly inadequate - that the department has not released it because

they know it is very underfunded, I say to the minister.

Maybe I might release that report too, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I

might.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, how can you justify paying

government funded nursing homes up to $5,000 per month, in cases, to care for

residents who require the same level of care when personal care home operators

are expected to care for those people for $923 a month?

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

Employment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I will do when the minister is

here, not when (inaudible) out of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this kind of line of

questioning, I guess, was started last week, I believe, when there were some

suggestions made with respect to the quality of care that was being provided in

public, long-term care institutions versus private home care institutions. There

was certainly some dissatisfaction, discontent and upset that those particular

suggestions caused in the long-term care facilities in the Province that are

publicly funded.

What everybody knows is that there are different levels of

care and that in large cases - I can only speak at a general level at this

point, as the acting minister - but there are different levels of care that are

provided and, for the most part, you are seeing higher levels of care in the

public facilities versus the private facilities. I would expect there is some

connection between the levels of care that are provided in this manner.

I would suggest that if we want to get to the actual

specifics, other than at the general level that I am able to comment on here

today, that perhaps the question can be deferred for more detail to when the

minister is actually here.

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I wish the minister were here. I will deal with things

when the minister is here, not when a minister stands while I am out of the

House and deals with things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have the intestinal fortitude and the

professionalism to deal with it when the minister is here, I tell the minister.

That is when I will do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am glad the minister said it is based -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the minister said that it is based on the level of

care because the minister's department, or the department of which she is the

acting minister, has just approved Level II care for personal care homes. The

minister has not put the funding to go with the increase from Level I to Level

II in these, that is provided in nursing homes. Minister, why are setting a

double standard of care based on where a person lives?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear in my

comments. When I responded I said, in very general terms, that I could speak in

very general terms as to the nature of the policy, but that if you wish to have

a specific and detailed response to your specific question you should ask it

when the minister is present so that she can provide you with the specific

answer. If you care to check, that is definitely the nature of my comments to

the previous question.

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the minister. I am sure she

will read her comments in Hansard later and see exactly how she said it should

be funded, on the level of care.

I ask the minister: Are they intentionally trying to keep

funding at a low level to personal care homes and force them out of business

because government does not wish to pay a subsidy to these people? I ask the

minister: Is it your plan to expect those residents to have to fund 100 per cent

of their care in personal care homes even when their income is below that level

required?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I really

understand what is at the bottom of this question. If you ask me very

specifically, then the obvious answer, as some of my colleagues are suggesting

here, is no. I am kind of left thinking that there must be more to the question

than what I am hearing right here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I say thank you to the other side of the House for that round

of applause when I got up.

In the Estimates Committee hearings the topic of municipal

assessments came up. The Member for Bellevue had some problems with certain

questions. So I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs the

following question.

The Municipal Assessment Agency will receive the last

$500,000 of a $3 million subsidy over three years this fiscal year. With

out-migration and high unemployment rates in rural Newfoundland, small towns are

having trouble collecting their property taxes. In turn the towns are having

trouble paying their assessment bills. We have a letter from the town of St.

Mary's basically confirming this. I ask the minister: How much does the minister

expect the per property assessment to rise for these rural towns when the

Municipal Assessment Agency loses its subsidy this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new Municipal Assessment Agency was put in place, in

part, in response to what would best serve the needs of the municipalities

themselves in terms of getting assessments done in a timely fashion and getting

them done at an appropriate cost. The subsidy over a three-two-one year period

does expire this year. The business plan of the assessment corporation has all

of that factored into it. The rates they are charging municipalities has been

generally accepted by the municipalities has been generally accepted by the

municipalities as being a fair assessment rate based on the service that is

being rendered.

I am not personally aware, as minister, of one instance where

a municipality has come to me and said that this is going to have an adverse

affect on their fiscal position next year or on their ability to get assessments

done. There may very well be communities where because of the increase in the

assessment rate they may think it will cause them some difficulty.

The upside to it, Mr. Speaker, is that the municipalities are

now having assessments done in a more timely fashion so that they can adjust

their tax rates at an earlier date, and thereby enhance their revenue stream to

meet their own business plans and provide the level of municipal services that

they are, of course, mandated to do.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

I do not know who is more out of touch of with what is going

on in the Province today, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health, or

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I have a letter here from the

town of St. Mary's bringing up their very concerns. It has been sent to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, I will get to the question, Mr.

Speaker.

For the Municipal Assessment Agency to operate, full recovery

would have to be expected, I say to the minister. What controls are there in

place to prevent an outrageous increase in property assessments to

municipalities in the future? Were there financial projections done for beyond

this fiscal year to address the concerns of the smaller towns in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? Are the smaller towns, in reality, being hung out to

dry here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody over here out

of touch or unplugged from the real world or from the responsibilities that they

have as ministers or otherwise. We are all well plugged in.

I would suggest that if the hon. member wants to be well

informed and learn something that he plug in as well to what he hears from this

side of the House on an ongoing basis. He will be well served, he will be well

informed. He will be the better for it. He will be a better constituency man

himself.

As to the substantive part of his question, the business

plans of the Assessment Agency have been developed in collaboration with the

Federation of Municipalities, which represents the interests of all the

municipalities. If you ask the question, as he did: What mechanism is in place

to ensure that things will not get so substantially out of hand on a cost basis

that municipalities will be injuriously affected?, then I say to the hon. member

that the best mechanism possible is in place, and that is a good working

relationship between the Federation of Municipalities, our department, and the

new Assessment Agency. That working relationship, which is going along very

well, at the end of the day will ensure that the municipalities' real interests

are best served by virtue of this agency.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister he

should unplug whatever computer he is plugged into. I can tell you that.

Obviously, he does not know what is going on with respect to rural

municipalities. Maybe it is because he is a fairly new minister in the

department and maybe he should be given a little bit of leeway.

I say to the minister that the Newfoundland Municipal

Financing Corporation can attach the municipal operating grants to get the money

they are owed. The Municipal Assessment Agency cannot. I ask to the minister:

Has the Assessment Agency asked the government to give it the power to attach

the municipal operation grants as the Newfoundland Municipal Financing

Corporation can do today? Is government contemplating such a move? What would be

the impact if they are given that authority?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: I think the answers to his questions are

yes, no, yes, and no again, if he really wants the short version. If you would

like some more meat on the bones I would be glad to oblige.

The new Assessment Agency does not have the authority to

attach MOGs, to intercept payments from towns for whom they have done work. We

are not contemplating giving the agency that level of garnishee ability or

attachment, because we believe that the Municipal Assessment Agency, as it has

already demonstrated, can work best and most effectively on behalf of the

municipalities on a direct basis.

I would say to the hon. member that I had an opportunity a

month ago to go to his district, actually, and meet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Hold on now. Wait until I am finished. I

met with the joint councils. I just happened to be in his district where the

meeting was being held. I met with the joint councils of the northeast Avalon,

which included some towns in his district, and which included some towns in

other districts in the Province. I can tell you that I garnered no sense of

concern or being distraught with respect to the new agency, which we discussed,

because of its operation. As a matter of fact, the municipalities were a very

congenial, cordial group of individuals representing the various towns. They

were, on balance, quite pleased with the fact that we had a municipal agency to

do the assessments -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - and things were working very well. So,

rest easy and sleep well tonight, all is in good hands.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister, by the answers he is

giving here today he should have a chat with a few people within his department.

Obviously you do not know what is being planned.

If the towns have their municipal operating grants attached

to cover assessment charges, their infrastructure will suffer. Remember that the

reason many towns cannot afford to pay is that their tax base has been

disintegrated over the past few years. Without MOGs they cannot build the

infrastructure needed to attract new investments. So it is a downward spiral

that ends with streetlights being turned off and streets turning to mud, I say

to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: When is this government going to stop

abandoning our rural communities which find themselves in dire straits because

of the cuts to the municipal operating grants over the past few years, and the

downloading by this government with respect to this Municipal Assessment Agency

when the towns cannot afford to pay their assessments? Who is going to pay it

for them, I ask the minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member, as usual, is an if and when member when he

gets up: When the sky falls in, and if the world comes to an end, and if

something else happens, and because something else might happen. Chicken Little,

whoever he was, seems to replicate this fellow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the fellow who said the sky is

falling.

For the hon. member's information, the sky is not falling in

on the heads of us or our municipalities. We are working closely with the

municipalities in the Province through the Federation. We have just introduced a

new municipalities act that has been asked for for many years. We have delivered

on it as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: We are in the process, Mr. Speaker, of

having a $120 million capital works program for the first time ever in the

Province. We are committed to a new urban and renewal planning act which will be

presented in the House in the fall session to further assist the municipalities

doing their work.

All I have heard, in all honesty, in the five or six months

that I have been in the department are words of congratulations, words of

commendation, and words of general satisfaction and encouragement from the

Federation that represents the municipalities. Do we have municipalities that

are having a difficult time? Yes, there are municipalities who are having a

tough time in certain circumstances, but on balance, Mr. Speaker, the towns are

responsible, being run by responsible councillors, and they do not need the

gloom and doom that this member tries to perpetuate and put forward -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - on a scaremongering basis to excite the

people of the Province when there is no need of it. He should be doing better

things!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Justice.

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the annual

report of the RNC Public Complaints Commission covering the period from April 1,

1997 to March 31, 1998. It is in accordance with

section 39 of the RNC Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform the House that the Resource Committee

has considered and approved, without amendment, the estimates of expenditure for

the following departments: Fisheries and Aquaculture, Forest Resources and

Agrifoods, Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Industry, Trade and Technology,

Mines and Energy, and Development and Rural Renewal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present the report of exemptions under the

Public Tendering Act for the month of February 1999.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources

and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present the Newfoundland Crop Insurance

Agency annual report for 1998, and the Livestock Owners Compensation Board

report for 1998.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to present the following petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland

in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned nurses of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to accept the

following prayer:

We, the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, have honestly

and openly conveyed our concerns about the failing health care system of this

Province. In good faith and under the collective bargaining process of this

Province we attempted to negotiate these issues with the Liberal Government.

Premier Tobin and the Liberal Government showed their lack of respect for

nurses' concerns and made a mockery of this Province's collective bargaining

process by legislating nurses back to work without binding arbitration.

If the Liberal government honestly wishes to pursue

constructive dialogue with the nurses of this Province in an attempt to help

solve the existing health care crisis, we wish to inform the House of Assembly

this can only be made possible if the Liberal government admits they made a

mistake in not acknowledging the depth and scope of the crisis facing health

care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the hon. House of Assembly

repeals Bill 3 and the Liberal government resumes bargaining in good faith with

nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador by using the collective bargaining process

that existed before Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to continue to present those

petitions as they come in on behalf of -

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman must sit down

while I am on a point of order.

I do not know what position the House has taken, but I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are the new Speaker now, (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: No, (inaudible) when any member is recognized,

the other member sits down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: No, not at all, the member who is speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the House has changed its

rules with respect to petitions, but time after time this hon. gentleman

presents petitions that are not in accordance with the Standing Orders of this

House. I heard the hon. gentleman read the petition, and at no point did this

ever meet the conditions of the Standing Orders of our House.

It is addressed - talking about the Liberal government. No

petition is supposed to do that. A petition is addressed to the House of

Assembly with a prayer, and that is to avoid debate. Again, I could be wrong.

Maybe the House has changed its rules and the hon. member's petition is

acceptable.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member should realize that when he was absent from

this House, the Speaker made a ruling on your point before and ruled a statement

- you stood here and indicated that I was presenting a petition that was not in

order, and his hon. the Speaker ruled that what I did was within the rules of

this House at that particular time. The member should read Hansard to find that

out.

Secondly, this is a petition I presented on a dozen

occasions, continue to present to this House, and nobody has objected except the

member. The only member who has objected to this in the House is the Member for

Terra Nova. If he does not want this to be heard in the House, certainly it is

addressed to the hon. House of Assembly.

It says: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province...,

and they are calling upon this House to repeal Bill 3. They are calling upon the

Liberal government to resume bargaining with the nurses of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is in order. It has a prayer and it has a

request.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair has not seen that particular

petition. I want to ask the hon. member if he has consulted with the Table on

this matter, on that particular petition? Has the hon. member done that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I have presented this exact

same petition on a dozen occasions before in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The Chair has ruled in the past that when someone raises a

point of order on whether or not a petition is in order, it is difficult for the

Chair to decide if it is in order or not until the Chair has seen it. The Chair

has not seen this particular petition. What the Chair has done is ask hon.

members to consult with the Table before presenting a petition in this House. I

said that if that is not done and there is a question of the order of the

petition, then the Chair would have to rule that the petition is out of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: On the petition, Mr. Speaker, or...?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has asked the hon. member if he

has cleared it with the Table.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I received the petition and I

felt it was not in order. I sent it back and said, I cannot present this. They

reworded it and I still said I could not, and we did pass it in on several

occasions before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is the same petition, Mr. Speaker. It

has been passed in here and signed by me each day and presented to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been informed by the Table

that it has looked at the petition and has decided that the petition meets the

requirements of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By leave to comment on the petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) apologize (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I say to the Minister of Mines and

Energy, it is you who should apologize to the nurses.

I am pleased to speak to this petition. We have seen the

nurses demonstrate in a very professional manner. We have seen the nurses carry

on their right to strike in a very professional manner until it was cut short by

government under Bill 3. It should have been called the sunshine bill because

their right to strike was cut short until after vacation was over. Then,

government wanted to call them back to the bargaining table again.

These nurses bargained in good faith. They bargained with

government, expecting the right to binding arbitration if government ordered

them back to work. That right was taken away.

All these nurses are asking for, as a professional group of

people in this Province, is the right to either fair bargaining with government,

the right to strike, or their right to binding arbitration if their right to

strike is removed.

Unfortunately, neither of those has taken place. The nurses

were ordered back to work with 7 per cent. We all know in this House that

doctors were given a much higher raise than 7 per cent because doctors were

deemed to be essential to our health care system. Nurses are no less essential

to our health care system than doctors. Their services are also essential to our

health care system. Otherwise, government would not have ordered them back to

work.

All the nurses are asking for here is that the hon. House of

Assembly repeal Bill 3 and the Liberal government resume bargaining in good

faith with nurses in this Province by using the collective bargaining process

that existed before Bill 3 was implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of the nurses and in support

of this petition today, and I am proud to do so.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few

comments with respect to the petition that was presented.

I think everybody in this Legislature knows the game that is

being played by the Official Opposition in presenting the petition weeks, and

now months, after the issue has been dealt with decisively by this particular

Legislature and this government. They will stand up and suggest that there is

something wrong with the course of action taken when, in fact, when they were

government they did exactly the same thing.

It always puzzles people like myself, and people on this side

of the House, when they can see a group standing up because they happen to be

very happy, as I understand it, very pleased about the fact they are going to be

in Opposition for another four years. They were very excited about it at their

annual meeting. They have secured their place as the Official Opposition for

another four years, and were patting themselves on the back for it. We hope to

let them congratulate themselves again in four years' time for another four or

five years in Opposition because that is where they are headed.

Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador can see what happened.

When they were the government, they took actions exactly identical to what this

group took when they were the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Worse.

MR. GRIMES: As a matter of fact, a little worse because

they were going to fire the people first. They were going to fire them before

they fined them.

We have the other Opposition party talk about how they would

take care of all these people in the public service, particularly nurses, when

the NDP government in Saskatchewan was worse than the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador in that five seconds after the nurses went on strike in

Saskatchewan, the NDP government had them ordered back to work with a similar

piece of legislation. They will have the nerve to stand up one of these days and

suggest, of course, that: We would never do that. Trust us. We would never, ever

do that.

Of course, they can say it because they will never, ever be

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The group opposite had a seventeen

year period where they were the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and

their track record speaks for itself because they did the same kind of thing.

They legislated health care workers back to work with more severe legislation

than was seen here a month or so ago.

The thing that I am puzzled about as well - I noticed when

the issue was being dealt with, with the nurses, I used to walk through the

lobby and regularly our friends opposite would be out playing to the crowd,

being big heroes. They would not admit here in the Legislature what they had

done out there. They would not stand up in Hansard and say what they had done.

When I used to walk through the Legislature, the nurses booed

me. They booed me. They did not speak to me like their friends over there, who

were mollycoddling them and so on. They booed me. I was a bit puzzled by it

because they certainly were not booing me for the fact that we had created 125

brand new nursing positions above and beyond what they had asked for at the

bargaining table. They were not booing me, I am sure, because we had just given

them a 7 per cent raise after they had eight years of a wage freeze, that they

had the first raise that they had gotten in some nine years that this government

gave to them. They could not be booing me or anybody else for finally giving

them a raise.

They could not be booing us for converting some 540 casual

nurses to permanent nurses when, at the bargaining table itself, they had only

asked for the conversion of 400 casuals to full-time and so on. We converted, or

are in the process of converting, 540 nurses, so I knew they could not be booing

me for that.

They certainly were not booing me for the fact that we had

just provided $20 million for new equipment in the hospitals so that they could

do their jobs better. They certainly were not booing me because of the fact that

we had just reinstated $40 million into the operating budgets in the hospitals

where they work and the institutions where they provide care for our patients.

They certainly were not booing me because we had provided

another $20 million at the end of last year to make sure that their jobs could

be done better on behalf of patients in the institutions of Newfoundland and

Labrador. They certainly were not booing us for adding additional supports with

licensed practical nurses and other support staff in the hospitals so that they

could concentrate on their nursing duties and not have to do other duties.

They certainly were not booing me for the fact that we had

put kidney dialysis in the hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor to expand that

service in Newfoundland and Labrador in the last year or so. They certainly were

not booing me or anybody else because we were committing hundreds of millions of

dollars to build new facilities in places like Stephenville, Harbour Breton,

Fogo, Gander, Grand Bank, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and Grand Falls-Windsor with a

new senior's home.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, I was puzzled. I can understand why

they were talking to their friends because they pretended to be their friends.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: They pretended as in the point of this

petition that they would never do those kinds of things when the record shows

the exact opposite, Mr. Speaker. I hope they present the petition again so we

can go on the record again as to what is really happening in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition signed by parents whose children attend the Gander Bay school system,

particularly parents from Harris Point, George's Point, Clarke's Head, Wings

Point, Victoria Cove, Rodgers Cove, Horwood, Stoneville and Port Albert. This is

part in my constituency and

part in the constituency represented by my friend

for Bonavista North.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT:

Part in my constituency as well, I say to

the hon. member. So I am representing constituents of mine who presented me with

those petitions when I was in the school at Wings Point last Friday, I say to

the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I have to admit, having

listened to points of order here today, that I have not submitted this petition

to the Table for it to have a look at. I would say right up front that strictly

speaking it probably does not meet the rules in the sense that it does not

mention the House of Assembly, but there is no doubt about the prayer of the

petition. The prayer is asking for reconsideration for a different formula for

putting teacher positions in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

So while the technicality may be outside the scope of what is

laid down in our rules, I think that this House on dozens of occasions over the

last number of years has allowed petitions to come forth when they did not

exactly meet the strict criteria as laid down in our Standing Orders. I want to

say it up front, lest I be accused of trying to sneak something in by the back

door.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, having said that, the prayer of

this petition is this. The people who have signed it are asking the government

to allocate teachers to our schools on the basis of program requirements, as

opposed to the current practice of pupil-teacher ratio, the aim of which is to

ensure appropriate instruction in the prescribed curriculum irrespective of a

school's pupil enrolment.

This particular petition is signed by fourteen people from

the area served by the Wings Point school. I want to say that on Friday I had an

opportunity to visit that school because, as I said, three or four communities

in my constituency send -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: To allocate teachers to our schools on the

basis of program requirements as opposed to the current practice of

pupil-teacher ratio. That is the prayer, I say to my friend for Bonavista North.

I met with the school council in that school. I met with a

student assembly at that school. I took questions from the student assembly.

Some of the things that I learned - and it is a beautiful new school, lovely,

four or five years old, I understand. It is a great place, a lovely building,

but they have a serious problem and the member should realize that they have a

serious problem. The problem is this.

That school is a K-XII school with 330 students from K-XII.

Last year that school had twenty-one teaching units. This year it is going to

lose one of those units. Over the past five years they have lost units and as a

result of losing units - I hate saying units because it is personnel, it is

teachers, it is people, it is human beings, but that is the way it is referred

to these days, as units. Over the last five years that particular K-XII school

has had to make cuts including the following. They have had to drop industrial

arts, home economics, music, and they have had to drop French at the senior

level and French in the primary level. That is what they have had to drop at

that school over the past five years.

That school, Mr. Speaker, has paid a price. We all know that

it is a K-XII school. What they are doing is they are trying desperately to keep

the numbers in primary and elementary school as low as they can. The price that

has been paid for that of course is two things. Firstly, the class size in the

senior high level is much higher than the norm because they are using more

teaching units in the primary and elementary grades to keep the numbers down.

Secondly, they are in a situation now where they just do not have the

allocations any more to be able to offer anything other than a basic core

program. No frills. There is not a frill left in the senior high school program

in this particular school. As a matter of fact, they are now having to alternate

school.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a serious situation that the people in that school

want addressed. They are sending their petitions in here that are perhaps not

technically correct, but certainly correct enough that this House ought to be

able to give consideration to the prayer.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. Member for

Lewisporte that I think it was some three or four weeks ago maybe that I met

with the people from Gander Bay, Wings Point school, first when this issue

started to become apparent. We made a point to them at that time that we would

work on their problems, that we would work within a Cabinet system of government

on their problems. Also, that if you are a member of Cabinet, you do not go

around taking on the government; that you do not have the liberty that an

Opposition has of getting out and saying they would do this, that and the other

thing and doing whatever they want to do, knowing full well that they have to do

nothing.

If this government had to stand here and add up the totals

the Opposition has passed out since we came back from the last election - we

will not say anything about the election, the $800,000 income tax that they were

going to pass back to people. They were going to cut $800,000 worth of taxes out

of the economy. We will not say anything about that. We will look at just what

they have said since they came back here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Would the hon. gentleman contain himself?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) money (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Would the hon. gentleman over here contain

himself?

AN HON. MEMBER: No I can't, I can't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman

that if you add up the totals this Province would be a financial wreck in the

same way as it almost was when the Tories left here in 1989.

Let me say to the hon. gentleman, let me say to the people of

Gander Bay, that the Minister of Education and the Premier have committed in

this House to studying the problem. They have a brand new school that this

member here pushed hard and got for them, one of the best schools in this

Province, and I am proud that they have it. Let me say to the hon. gentleman

that the Premier and the Minister of Education have committed themselves to

looking at this problem, to looking at it in a sensible fashion, to looking at

it and keeping rural Newfoundland in mind as opposed to what the differences are

between rural Newfoundland in terms of geography. Not the differences in people,

but the differences in geography between rural and urban Newfoundland. I am sure

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would agree with me that there are vast

differences.

They will look at this problem. This government will look at

this problem. Where there need to be holes plugged this spring while we are

waiting to move on to putting perhaps a better plan in place for the schools in

this Province, this government will do it. I want to say to the Opposition that

we need no lessons from the other side.

Now the third person can stand over there and have a go at

it. Here he comes, I knew it would be. They had it planned twenty minutes ago.

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

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

I am very pleased today (inaudible) to stand in support of

the petition presented by my colleague for Lewisporte. We are not going to use

politician slights or anything to address this petition. I am going to talk

about the students who are so often left out of this debate, the people of this

Province who are our greatest resource, who keep leaving in droves every year.

They are the people who are sitting in the classrooms from kindergarten to Grade

XII.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I want to agree with the hon. member that

the students are very important in this debate. I want to tell the hon. member

that in Clarenville last night, when the parents wanted to have a province-wide

walkout of the students in this Province, and the parents were advocating that

we haul all the students out of the school, a student got up and said: You are

all out to lunch. The one thing we do not want is to miss any more school, we

are concerned about our education. The parents backed down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to

interrupt on a petition being presented by this Member of the House of Assembly

as we talk about the students in K to XII in Riverwood Academy in Wings Point.

That is why I am here to speak on, not to be interrupted by such tripe as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: The bottom line is the students in school.

Any parent or former teacher - as I am, both, a former teacher and parent - with

kids in school today can tell you that children in this Province or in any

province, anywhere in the world, do not just go to school. We would love to

think so, but they don't run to school every day and cannot wait to get into

math, history and science class. That is not all there is to education. Anybody

who does not know the difference of that, you are out to lunch.

It is as simply put as this. Unless we have those extra

courses in school, such as physical education, music, drama, the science fairs,

all of those added things that make education whole, then you will see an

increased drop out of students in this Province. It is as simple as that.

When we started talking about core programming, yes, we need

core programming. You need that to be able to go on to post-secondary and so on.

From a six-year-old to a seventeen- or eighteen-year-old who leaves school,

there is a lot more than math and science that makes that person whole, that

makes that person more prepared for the world after high school.

As a former coach, teacher and person who was involved with

extra curricular activities in school, I can tell you now that a lot of students

today, the same as it was fifty-years ago, the same as it will be fifty years

from now, are interested in all the extra things that happen in school. That is

what makes it exciting and fun. It is the same now as it was then for all of us

when we were students.

If anybody is sitting here believing that a core programming

in school is going to keep students interested and will develop that person

wholly and socially, they are not in touch with reality. We need more than the

core programs.

When you see indications of parents and students speaking up

and saying that they are losing drama - I had a list of them a few minutes ago -

but the different programs that they are losing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Let me just say to him that the first thing

that has to be defined here is what is core, what is essential to the schools.

That does not necessarily mean the three Rs, as he is talking about over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, here is one specific example.

This particular school lost industrial arts, home economics, music at the senior

level, French in the primary level. That is already done. What about next year

when they announce a half-time physical education teacher, or that extra

curricular is wiped out altogether? Then try to relate that to the teachers. I

do not call them units, they are teachers, people. They are good teachers who

take their weekends and evenings to coach teams and take students away on

science fairs and all of those things. How are you going to expect to go to a

teacher and say: By the way, now that we have cut you to the bone, now that we

have squeezed you, would you mind coaching the basketball team? Would you mind

taking them on a science fair? How would you expect that to happen?

The point I am making is that this has a ripple effect that

goes down through the system. The bottom line is that it affects the student at

the end of the day. I am seeing it now. You are going to see it more in the near

future, and that is what the shame of this entire process is all about.

This was for education improvement. It was not even for

status quo. We are not even getting status quo. I think there is a time now that

people out there are saying: Even if could keep what we have, we would be

satisfied. Yes, you are going to save monies through some of this reform, but

now they are going to go backwards. Imagine doing school reform to go in

reverse. It just does not make any sense.

Then the members opposite say that we lead the quest. When we

are out in these meetings, I will tell the Member for Bellevue by the way, there

was very little being said. It was what the people told us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: The truth is the government side could not

take it. I support these students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I could, to

inform the House that on Order 2 I think we have some two hours and forty-seven

minutes left. At that point we will be forced by the time to put all of the

heads in Consolidated Fund Services, Legislative, Executive Council and the

Contingency Reserve. Then I think we have nine hours of concurrence motion left.

We have Government Services and I think we also have - we finished yesterday the

Resource Committee. That has been reported on. We would move into those.

I am going to call Order 2.

I also move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House not adjourn at

5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

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

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

I am going to stand today and give some debate on the

Executive Council. We have had some lively debate back and forth. We have had

good answers from the President of Treasury Board on this and we are looking

forward to some more answers. I am sure she has all the answers over there so we

will eagerly await her responses.

Some of the items I am going to ask about today are regarding

the salaries. I will start off, I guess, with the Premier's Office. We have seen

an increase in salary from the budgeted amount last year of $707,800. I am sure

the Premier would like to have all of that amount. I am sure he is not getting

it all. The revised amount was $740,000, so I am just curious as to whether or

not there was somebody else hired or if there was a change in salaries in that

department, or what would account for the difference in the amount of salary

allocated to the Premier's Office.

Also under the Premier's Office, in 2.1.01.04, Supplies, we

see it budgeted at $19,400 and the actual amount spent was $30,000. If we could

find some clarification, perhaps, on where those supplies had been spent, what

they were?

If you want, I can list off a number of items or we can go

back and forth. It is up to yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

We also see Transportation and Communications, a budgeted

amount of $145,000 and a revised amount of $165,000. I cannot say with great

certainty, but I am pretty sure there was more transportation by the Premier

than what is allotted here. I was wondering, first of all, why the difference in

$145,000 to $165,000; and, secondly, if there were any other allocations for the

Premier's travel from anywhere else throughout the Estimates or Budget that

would account for some of the trade missions he has gone on, in the selling of

the Province. I am sure they were all good trips. If we could find out where the

other allocations of funding for transportation for the Premier and the people

who have travelled with the Premier, the trade missions and so on, where that

funding has come from?

Also, under Executive Support, I say to the minister, we see

Professional Services had $32,700 budgeted. There was only $10,000 spent. Now,

while we are not complaining that the Executive Support division was very frugal

in their spending, I am just wondering if there could be some explanation as to

where the $22,700 savings had come from.

Again, under Purchased Services, there was a $20,900 saving

in that department last year. I am wondering if there could be some explanation

as to where those savings had come from.

Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, there was $27,000

budgeted and only $5,000 spent. Maybe we could have some clarification of where

the savings had come from there as well.

I will allow the minister to respond to those before I ask

some others.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the question of the member opposite, I have

already answered, actually, all of these questions a couple of times before, but

I will answer them again today. You may not have been here in the House when

those were asked, but I will afford you an answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to read Hansard.

MS THISTLE: Or, as my colleague suggested, maybe Hansard

would be enlightening.

Your first question was directed to 2.1.01, which was

Salaries for the Premier's Office. I have to say to you that in 1996, when the

Premier came to this office, there were seventeen employees and today there are

fifteen. The amount listed here for Salaries, $740,000, is the cost of fifteen

permanent and one contractual position. The increase was due to a special

assistant in severance expenses, and it also reflect the non-recurrence of the

twenty-seventh payroll period as well.

Under 2.1.01.03, Transportation and Communications, that is

basic travel related expenses such as telephone, fax, cellular, and courier. It

is also included to cover the cost of travel by any other Member of the House of

Assembly who is authorized to represent or accompany the Premier at official

functions.

Number 04 was routine office supplies and sometimes lunches,

when they were considered to be working lunches.

Under 2.2.01, which is Executive Support, there was an actual

reduction in salaries there. It represents the salaries of eleven permanent and

one contractual position, and also the fact that there would not be a

reoccurrence of that twenty-seventh pay period.

Number 06 is Purchased Services. That would be in relation to

meeting room rentals for committee meetings, official entertainment, photocopier

charges, printing. That would cover all divisions of Cabinet Secretariat.

The other one is Property, Furnishings and Equipment. It was

office furniture. Actually, it was budgeted for $27,000 but only $5,000 was

used.

I have to direct your attention to the bottom line there.

That particular heading, 2.2.01, the budget was $975,300 and there was only a

need to spend $903,700, so there has been some good planning there.

I believe that might answer the questions that you asked in

that category.

Thank you.

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

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

There are a couple of other areas in which I have some

questions. Under Economic Policy Analysis, we see under Employee Benefits,

$1,000 was budgeted last year and again this year. There was actually $2,100

spent.

Under Supplies, we had a budget of $2,000 last year and this

year. Last year there was actually only $500 spent.

Under Social Policy Analysis, we had a budget of $161,400 for

Salaries. There was actually only $114,000 spent. Again, were there some changes

in staff that would account for that, a decrease in salaries, which is probably

unlikely?

Under the Offshore Fund - Administration we see, under

Professional Services, $37,300 was budgeted both last year and this year. There

was only $15,000 spent last year. If we could have a brief explanation as to

what that was.

Again, Purchased Services, $7,500 budgeted last year and this

year and only $2,000 spent last year. Maybe the minister could provide some

explanation there.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under 2.2.02, that would be the heading for Economic Policy

Analysis. Your question was on 02, which would be Employee Benefits. That

section was an increase due to membership and conference registration fees.

Under 04, Supplies, it was budgeted for $2,000 but in actual

fact only $500 was used because the requirements were less than anticipated in

that area.

Under 2.2.03, Social Policy Analysis, Salaries, it was

budgeted for $161,400 and only $114,000 used. That represents the salaries for a

full year of two permanent and one temporary employee. The savings were actually

due to vacancies for part of the fiscal year.

Your other question is related to the Offshore Fund -

Administration. This is a federal-provincial initiative that encourages

development of individuals and businesses as it relates to the offshore

Newfoundland and Labrador funding. This funding is provided through the

Department of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Your reference to Professional Services, 05, it was budgeted

for $37,300 and only a budget of $15,000 was used. The cost of Professional

Services was actually less than anticipated and it represents the hiring of an

independent auditing firm.

Under 06 in that category, Purchased Services, it was

budgeted for $7,500 and only $2,000 used. It is interesting that you are asking

questions when all of the funding has not been used. That is an interesting

question. The reason for that was advertising and printing costs. In that

particular one, 2.2.04, the budget for that one was $130,100 and only $96,000

was used in total.

Thank you.

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

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

Under the Economic Renewal Agreement Administration, we see

last year a budget of $124,300. There was actually $141,000 spent.

Under Employee Benefits there was $1,800 budgeted last year

and this year, and only $500 spent.

Under Transportation and Communications, again, $10,000

budgeted both last year and this year, and $20,000 spent. Why the double in the

budget there?

Under Purchased Services, $2,400 was budgeted last year and

this year; there was $5,000 spent.

Also, under that same heading, there was a revenue of $95,000

last year, up from a budget of $77,200. I am just wondering where that revenue

comes from, and what would account for the difference in what was budgeted and

the revenue received?

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under the heading 2.2.05, Economic Renewal Agreement

Administration, the question with relation to Employee Benefits, 02, occurred

from membership and conference registration fees.

Under 03, Transportation and Communications, was the cost of

telephone, fax machines, cellular and travel. I have to tell you that these

travel expenses were greater than originally anticipated.

Under 06, Purchased Services, it is in reference to printing

of information brochures and photocopier charges.

The last question you asked in that category was 01, Revenue.

That was anticipated revenue from the federal government under the Economic

Renewal Agreement, and that would be 50/50 funding.

Thank you.

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

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

While the Minister of Fisheries keeps recognizing me, I think

I will keep getting up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) stand up, at least say something.

MR. T. OSBORNE: At least when I say something, I say to

the Minister of Fisheries, it is of substance.

Under the Advisory Councils On Economic And Social Policy we

see, under Transportation and Communications, $78,500 budgeted last year and

this year, and only $20,000 spent. I am just wondering, why the difference

there?

Under Supplies, $5,500 both last year and this year. There

was $1,200 spent.

Under Purchased Services, again $20,000 last and this year,

and only $5,000 spent.

Under Property, Furnishings and Equipment, $4,000 both last

year and this year, and only $1,000 spent.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, with reference to subheading

2.2.06, that would be Advisory Councils On Economic And Social Policy, heading

03, Transportation and Communications, that is standard costs relating to

travel, telephone, fax machine and cellular phone.

Under 2.2.06.04, Supplies, is routine office supplies.

Funding is also provided for working lunches and for dinners for the Advisory

Council meetings. I might add that $5,500 was budgeted and only $1,200 used.

The other one, 2.2.06.06, Purchased Services, is standard,

which is meeting room rentals, expenses associated with the meetings,

photocopier charges and printing costs.

Under 2.2.06.07, Property, Furnishings and Equipment, it was

budgeted for $4,000 and only $1,000 used - purchase of office furniture and

equipment.

The total budget for that category was $245,100 and only

$174,200 was used.

I must say it is a very efficient committee, when you

consider that there was a budget of $245,100. We depend so much on this

independent advice to government, and they have lived well within their means.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

I say to President of Treasury Board: I was just told by my

colleague that she has the information on Adler bars and fish chowder. She told

me that the Minister of Fisheries is good with fish chowder. He organized a

wedding about a year-and-a-half ago and the fish chowder was fousty. It was his

daughter's wedding - the Minister of Fisheries - and the fish chowder was

fousty. Is that true?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That was what she came over and told me.

The fish chowder was fousty.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had it in his boat too long.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Minister of Fisheries organized a

wedding for a certain family member a year-and-a-half ago and the fish chowder

was fousty. They threw it all out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Minister of Fisheries.

MR. TULK: Fousty fish chowder.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Fousty fish chowder. At least you would

figure the Minister of Fisheries could organize fish chowder.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I only asked if it was true.

I say to the President of Treasury Board, under Protocol,

2.2.07.03, Transportation and Communications, we see $170,000 budgeted, only

$30,000 spent, and we see $170,000 budgeted again this year. I am wondering, why

the difference in what was spent and if there was only a need to spend $30,000

why we budgeted $170,000 again this year?

Under 2.2.07.04, Supplies, we see $50,000 last year and again

this year and only $20,000 spent.

Under 2.2.07.06, Purchased Services, we see $140,000 last

year and this year and there was only $110,000 spent.

Under Senior Management Development Committee, 2.2.08.06, we

see $25,000 budgeted last year and this year, although there was nothing spent.

I was just wondering why we budgeted that amount again this year if there was no

need for the expenditure?

Then we get into Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat,

2.3.01, the Minister's Office, and I guess the reason for the differences there

was because that department was set up just late last year. I will ask the

minister to confirm whether or not that was the case there.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the question on heading 2.2.07, Protocol: The

budget and the activities surrounding this one are usually for major provincial

events such as Soiree '99, the 50th anniversary of Newfoundland joining Canada,

the year 2000 celebrations and arranging the itinerary for visiting dignitaries.

It is all related to whatever extra events are going on throughout the year.

Your question was on 2.2.07.03, Transportation and Communications. That is the

usual standard charges or expenses for travel, telephones, cellular phones and

the like.

2.2.07.04, Supplies, shows a reduction and spending of the

funding that was forecasted to be $50,000 and only $20,000 was used. That would

include the routine office supplies, gifts, and souvenirs. It also included

funding for the purchase of the Newfoundland and Labrador Bravery Award Medal,

the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Medal and the Newfoundland Volunteer

Service Medal.

The 2.2.07.06 heading, which is Purchased Services, that

amount was entertainment such as lunches, dinners, receptions, banquets,

photocopier charges, printing, advertising, lease of office equipment, vehicle

rentals, photography charges. That is about it.

If you look at the total Protocol budget, it was forecasted

to be $462,500 and only $249,000 was spent. It relates mostly to what

celebrations and events are envisaged throughout the year.

Under 2.2.08.06, Senior Management Development Committee,

Purchased Services, there was an amount of $25,000 budgeted. It was for the

development of human resource policy respecting the development of management

and executive. That activity did not take place and as a result there was none

of that budget used.

The next category was 2.3.01. Your assumption for the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was quite right. That $30,000 represented

a portion of the year only for the minister's salary.

Thank you.

CHAIR (Oldford): The hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

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

Under Executive Support, the Intergovernmental Affairs

Secretariat, we see Salaries gone up this year considerably from what was

budgeted and spent last year. As well, we see under Transportation and

Communications that what was budgeted last year was $71,000. There was actually

$137,700 spent in that budget. Under Supplies, they roughly doubled the budget

last year in what they spent from what they had initially budgeted there. Under

Professional Services, the amount had gone up from $1,500 to $12,800. Under

Property, Furnishings and Equipment the budget was doubled again. I'm just

wondering if there could be an explanation as to why that amount had doubled.

CHAIR: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, in response to the question

concerning 2.3.02, Executive Support to the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs, the first heading, .01, Salaries, forecasted to be $256,900, when in

actual fact it was $265,000, represents the salary cost of four permanent and

one temporary position. This year coming up it also makes reference to the new

office of ADM regional development. A strong focus on rural development, I might

add.

Under 2.3.02.03, Transportation and Communications, that

budget is really issue-driven. It depends on the issues of the day and that

budget particularly had new funding because of the discussions on social union

and various other ones on resource policy. That went from $71,000 to $137,700.

Now this year it is back to $71,000, so unless there is a major issue that turns

up throughout the year the forecasted amount should stand.

.04, Supplies, the budgeted $6,600 went to $12,300, and that

is for routine office supplies. In .06, Purchased Services, there was actually a

decrease there from $27,800 to $15,000. That represents the standard services

such as photocopier, printing and so on.

The other one you asked about was Professional Services also,

.05. That would relate to anticipated consultant studies on issues such as

native land claims and resource development. If you look back at last week, the

agreement that was signed - all of the budget really in this category is

issue-driven and sometimes can escalate, depending on the issue. Of course, this

coming year you will be dealing with the big ones like Voisey's Bay, the

Churchill River project and so on.

In .07 there was $2,500 budgeted for Property, Furnishings

and Equipment but in actual fact it was $5,000. That was for the usual office

furniture and equipment.

Thank you.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: There are only two other subheadings in

the Resource and Economic Policy, so I will do both of those.

Under Social and Fiscal Policy, 2.3.03, we see under

Transportation and Communications a budgeted amount, both last year and this

year, of $29,300. That was almost doubled in the actual expenditures. Under .04,

Supplies, there a decrease from $3,500 to $2,000. Under .05, Professional

Services, the amount budgeted both last year and this year was $12,000. There

was only $5,000 spent. I wonder if there could be an explanation as to what that

was.

Under Resource and Economic Policy, 2.3.04, we see under .01,

Salaries, an actual decrease this year in salaries. There was $240,600 budgeted

last year. There was roughly $6,000 in addition to that that was actually spent,

but we see a decrease in the amount of budget this year. With an extra pay

period under this fiscal year that would amount to a substantial decrease in

actual fact, when you take in the extra pay period that should have been on

there and the actual decrease. So I wonder if the minister could tell us why

there is such a substantial decrease in the amount of salaries under that

subheading?

There was $49,400 budgeted for Transportation and

Communications, .03. There was approximately half of that actually spent. When

you look at the total amount there for .04, Supplies, $2,400 budgeted both last

year and this year, only $500 was spent. I wonder if the minister could provide

some explanation as to where the savings were accrued there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think we spent enough time

talking about the bureaucracy in St. John's and professional services and all

the other things that are in the Estimates.

I would like to address two issues that have been centres of

debate in this House and around the Province for the last while. Number one is

education reform. The hon. Member for Lewisporte talked about the devastation of

rural Newfoundland. I remember in Question Period about one week ago, he got up

and questioned the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal about the

devastation in rural Newfoundland, and how rural Newfoundland was gone. This

government was a failure.

I want to remind hon. members that before we introduced Term

17, and before we brought about the great educational reform - the only

government that ever attempted it - it took us two attempts to do it, but we

brought about this great educational reform in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: And had the intestinal fortitude to do

it.

MR. BARRETT: And had the intestinal fortitude to do it,

and reorganized and reformed the educational system in this Province. Of course,

I am very proud to be part of the government that initiated that, and brought it

forward and got it approved.

I remind hon. members that if we look at a simple thing like

school construction in this Province, and the way that money was allocated over

the years, it was a disgrace. It was an absolute disgrace how taxpayers' dollars

were allocated for school construction in this Province.

Money was allocated to the churches based on their population

and, depending on the percentage of the population of that religion - there was

a period when this government gave $25 million a year, I think, for three or

four years, for school construction.

What we saw seeing happening in rural Newfoundland and around

this Province were schools being constructed that now will be boarded up because

they were a waste of money, because we put schools there based on religion

rather than based on need.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Tories do that?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the Tories did it, and previous

governments did it in this Province.

I have a situation in my district right now in St. Bernard's,

Jacques Fontaine, where there are two relatively new schools, two kilometres

apart, and there are not enough students for one school, let alone two schools.

Ten years ago, a school burned down, and because the people

could not come together and because of our constitution and all those

complicated matters - I am not saying the people in the area would not come

together, but the churches would not come together. The powers to be would not

come together. They could not agree on what to do about the school. What

happened was, the school burned down and they built a new school. That is ten

years old.

This year, in September, two kilometres away, there will be a

new school boarded up. If we could drag it from one end of the Province to the

other...

We look at the Northern Labrador Coast. Next week, this

government will be opening new schools in Hopedale and Rigolet. I do not know of

anybody in this House, but I had the privilege and honour of travelling the

Labrador Coast. If you were ever into the school in Hopedale or Rigolet - I

attended a meeting last night in Clarenville where people were complaining about

their educational system.

I can tell you one thing, if these people ever went to

Hopedale and Rigolet and those communities - the hon. Member for Torngat

Mountains - and if we never reformed the educational system in the Province, the

Premier and the member would not be in Rigolet and Hopedale this week opening

new schools, because of the way the money was being allotted. We did not

allocate it based on need. We based it on religion.

People are out there now, saying that education reform is a

failure. No, it is not a failure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Education reform is the best thing that ever

happened to this Province, I can assure you of that.

As a person who spent some twenty-five years in the education

system in this Province, and saw the waste that was being carried on in this

Province in education, it was disgraceful.

We talk about the devastation of rural Newfoundland. When we

talk about opening new schools in Rigolet, Hopedale, Nain, Arnold's Cove, Old

Perlican - the hon. Member for Lewisporte says we are devastating rural

Newfoundland.

Over the next two years, this government is going to spend

$125 million on school construction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Codroy Valley, waiting ten years for a

school.

MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, Codroy Valley and

communities like Arnold's Cove would have had to wait ten years if we had not

reformed the educational system in this Province. Ten years they would have

waited, or longer, before they could have gotten a new school; and people in

this House are talking about doom and gloom.

I have been sitting here since this House opened back in

March, in the last two or three weeks, and I get so depressed sometimes that I

figure I should go and get some pills at the doctor's office because the

Province is falling down around our ears. Thanks be to God, two or three times a

week I go out to my district. I go out to my district and see what is happening

in the great District of Bellevue. When I walk into Arnold's Cove, and people

are waving and saying: Percy, (inaudible) great. We are getting a new school.

Yes, we are getting a new school. If you had not been part of a government that

reformed the educational system, we would never have gotten this new school.

MR. TULK: I was out there on the weekend to a graduation

and I thought they were going to canonize him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Canonize him, or was it cannibalize?

MR. TULK: Seriously (inaudible), Southern Harbour.

MR. BARRETT: In Southern Harbour, they love me.

AN HON. MEMBER: In a different way. In a different way,

Percy.

MR. BARRETT: All fifty-five of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They love you in a different way.

MR. BARRETT: They love me in a different way.

It was the right thing to do. We talk about the devastation

of rural Newfoundland. The educational system - in rural Newfoundland we have a

problem. We have a problem and we have to rethink and re-look at the formula for

allocating teachers. There is no doubt about it. It is archaic. It is out of

style. It is out of date, as was our educational system before we reformed it.

I remember when I was principal of the school in Point

Leamington. Kids used to leave Point Leamington and travel on a dirt road from

Point Leamington to Grand Falls, past a high school, past an elementary school,

and travel to Grand Falls to go to school, all in the name of religion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, now. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on. Okay, we went through this

debate long before you became a member of this House, all in the name of

religion, and do you know something? Half the people in that community refused

to send their children to Grand Falls. They came to the school that I was

principal of.

AN HON. MEMBER: Choice. Constitutional choice

(inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Constitutional choice, yes. It was a

constitutional right, but it was not the right thing to do. We wasted a lot of

money on education in this Province that we should never have wasted. We are out

there now and the road show is going around the Province listening to the

complaints of people in these communities. If we had not reformed the

educational system, I can tell you one thing, we would be in a worse state than

we are today. We would be in a worse state than we are today if we had not

reformed the educational system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) anti-Confederates and

anti-reformers on the other side.

MR. TULK: We know where you are coming from.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we know,. Now we know. One member,

two members, three members.

MR. BARRETT: I tell you one thing we said, when we were

looking at the reforming of the educational system in this Province, that we

needed roughly $100 million or $125 million in new capital construction if we

were going to reform the educational system in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't have to send the RCMP to the

school like they are doing now.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. member can shout and bawl all he

likes, but this government is on record as reforming the educational system and

within the next couple of years we will have the best educational system in this

country. We will be allocating teachers based on need, allocating teachers on

the quality of education, not based on religion or any other factors. We will

look at schools in rural Newfoundland and we will be giving them teachers based

on programming. This government is committed to rural Newfoundland.

If we were not committed to rural Newfoundland, would we be

spending $125 million in rural Newfoundland on highway construction? The people

in Blaketown, Arnold's Cove, Old Perlican and all the other communities around

this Province are looking at this government and saying: This is a great thing

that you are doing. We have to allocate our resources in education based on need

and no other factors.

I was alarmed yesterday when I picked up the paper and saw

that the school board in St. John's was able to hire another seven music

teachers. I have nothing against music, but I can assure you there is something

wrong with a formula that this school board can allocate seven more music

teachers and we are losing some teachers in rural Newfoundland in essential

programs. Probably we need only one school board in this Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Who is going to fix it? This government will

fix it. I can assure you that this government is committed to rural Newfoundland

when it comes to educational reform and when it comes to providing a quality

education in this Province. I will be back in a minute.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take a few minutes and to have a few words to

say, especially to the Member for Bellevue. To hear him talk, he was the only

one in Newfoundland and Labrador who agreed with education reform. I would like

to tell the hon. member that 71 per cent of the people in my district voted for

education reform. So, do not jump up and wave your flag.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: I do not mind the sandbagger in the back

because nursing on the West Coast is different than it is on the East Coast. All

of a sudden he has something in his back and he found his voice. Since 1996 he

is finally able to talk.

The nurses on the West Coast next time around, I say to the

sandbagger, will look after you. Your statements about the nurses have gone to

the West Coast. They will look after you, you need not worry about that.

I would like to say to the Member for Bellevue, Sir, that you

were not the only one in this House who stood in his place and voted for

education reform. I believe that everybody in this House voted for education

reform. I believe that everybody in this House voted for education reform the

night the legislation was passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the House.

MR. FRENCH: In this House. The night that the education

bill was passed, every member here voted for it. There was one district in

Newfoundland and Labrador that voted against it, but that member stood in his

place on the night that the legislation was passed and voted in favour of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FRENCH: Well, I think you should know. He used to sit

with you.

He stood in his place and voted for education reform. That

was his choice, and I have no argument with that.

I want to say to the member that when you talk about all the

money for schools, and where schools are built, and on and on it goes, maybe you

should tell us about the school for Whitbourne and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want me to get up?

MR. FRENCH: No, you can get up when you like. You can get

up when I am finished. I believe you are taking too many lessons from the

Minister of Mines and Energy, because it seems that you are the only mouthpiece

left on the other side. It seems, when somebody sits down, you are the only

fella who jumps up; but again, since 1996 you have found your backbone. Since

1996 you have finally found your voice and you have now found out that you can

actually talk.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Oh, he is a great fella. As a matter of fact,

I say to the Government House Leader, what a shock I got several weeks ago when

this House was closed and I went out to a friend's cabin and I hauled up to be

greeted by this red and white sign that was nailed onto the roof of the cabin:

Vote for Percy Barrett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Well, I said to myself: If I have to go in

there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: The guy who owed the cabin was. I think it

was his brother-in-law who nailed the sign up. It was a job to get rid of it,

Percy, but I think after a day or so I think somebody arranged for the sign to

disappear.

I just want to say to the Member for Bellevue that I believe

in education reform there was an awful lot of people in this Province who

certainly supported education reform. When you talk about music teachers - and I

listened several days ago to Newfoundland fiddle player, Kelly Russell, and I

listened to an instructor, I believe, from Memorial University talk about music.

To say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I think the minister knows me a bit better

than that, I say to the member. If I got something to say to the minister I will

say it to him. I would not poke fun at anybody in here. So there you are.

Again, to say that one school board may have a number of

music teachers, that is fine, but there are schools in this Province, I say to

the member, and I have been to some of those districts, where these schools are

actually going to lose their music teacher. I say to the Member for Bellevue

that that is not right.

The education reform I voted for, the education reform I

wanted to see, was the person who lived in St. John's or Cow Head or who lived

up north or lived in Labrador - I thought that all of our education would be

equal. I thought that everybody in this Province had the right to the same type

of education. That is the type of education reform, I say to the Member for

Bellevue, that I supported. That is the kind of education I voted for.

I was at a function about a week or so ago when there were

school administrators there who told me that by cutting teachers they were going

to have to cut programs. That is wrong and it is very sad. When the minister

stands and asks us for examples of what transpired, and then when she gets them

she really does not want them, then again there is something wrong. I would like

to refer to the editorial, the picture in I believe it was Saturday's paper,

which I think clearly shows the minister in the light that some of these schools

boards around this Province are holding the minister.

While you may think it was a road show, the information that

has come back from people travelling this Island has been correct, it has been

true. I am sure if you have travelled to some of the other areas of this

Province you have heard what cuts in education, cuts to teachers, will do to

schools, how certain schools will lose programs. I don't know if you think that

is right. I do not think that is right.

Like I said, the education reform I voted for was to create a

better system of education in this Province. The new system that I had hoped

would be created was that the students, the young men and young women,

throughout this Province, from one end of her to the other, would all be treated

equally and would all have the right to the same education as somebody in St.

John's or in Corner Brook or in Port aux Basques, or wherever. Everybody in this

Province has the right to the same level of education. I'm sure you would want

that for your district. I certainly want it for mine.

All was not well. I do not know about the teaching cuts,

because I do not know if there are any taking place with the Avalon Board. I

think the Avalon Board are still tied up with their restructuring. Even though

it seems to be completed, all their schools are in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: They have closed schools. You will get no

argument from me on that. If the schools have to close, I have no problem with

them closing when they close the schools. The only thing I would have asked the

Avalon East School Board to do was to give parents a better understanding and to

respond to correspondence about schools which now their children are going to be

forced to go to. I believe those parents had a right to that, and I still

believe that today. The parents who have to take their child from one school and

send the student to another have a right to know if the education they are going

to get in a newer school - not in a newer school physically, but in a new school

to that student - if their education is going to be on the same level and on a

par with the school they came out of.

A lot of times, or in some of the meetings I attended, the

Avalon East School Board could not answer those questions. As a matter of fact,

two months ago I wrote them. I am still waiting for an answer back. We will find

out. I hope they do not have any problems. I hope for the sake of the students

that they do not have a problem.

The school where I went to in my own district is one of the

schools, I say to the Member for Bellevue, that is closing. It is shutting down

this year. Once the school closes in June that is it, and the students will be

moved to others. There is another school in close proximity to that one that

will close as well. They will move the students to Upper Gullies, Kelligrews,

Long Pond or wherever. Those things are happening and if it has to happen, fine.

The only thing I say is that the parents should have the right to know, if their

children are going to a different school, if the education they are going to get

is going to be on a par with the school they are giving up.

I found in one of the cases, although I think the Board has

since corrected it, that one of the schools offered a tremendous band program.

When they took the students out of that school and moved them to another one

that program was not there, it was not offered. I understand now the program is

going to offered, so that will make a difference.

I have some concerns about numbers in some of these schools.

I hope they are not rushing to do the work in schools at the expense of safety

and other things. I hope the engineering work that is going to be done is going

to be done and done properly, and that when the schools reopen with larger

numbers in the fall of 1999 then I hope that all the safety issues are addressed

and covered, and that there will be no problem to the students who have to

attend any of these schools.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Conception

Bay South made the assumption that I, you know - the fact that I was the one

that... What I said was that I was very proud to be a member of a government

that took the leadership. You can sit on that side of the House forever and a

day and you can promise everything. You can say you are going to cut taxes, you

are going to give this program money, you are going to give that program money,

but you do not have the authority or the wherewithal to do what is necessary.

All you do is criticize what the government does. Sometimes you do provide some

worthwhile suggestions.

What I am saying is that it was this government that I was a

member of that took the leadership role. Granted, once the parade started the

Opposition joined in the parade, because if they had not joined the parade they

would have been left far behind.

I want to get back to the Member for Windsor-Springdale. What

I was talking about was with regards to a seventy-two passenger bus that for

twenty-odd years left Point Leamington with six or seven students on, bypassed

schools in Point Leamington, bypassed schools in Botwood, bypassed schools in

Bishop's Falls, and travelled to Grand Falls at tremendous expense to the

taxpayers of this Province.

What I am saying is this. There was nothing wrong with it.

Under the Constitution they had every right to do it, but it wasn't right to do

it in terms of expecting the taxpayers of this Province to foot such a

tremendous bill for this kind of waste. That is what it was, a complete waste of

money. We are paying for it now. When I go out to these meetings and meet with

the school councils, teachers, and all the groups in my district and other

districts, and people are saying that we have to cut programs, when we talk

about the $500 million that we have in debt, that we pay on the interest on the

debt, it was because we made these crazy kinds of decisions where we wasted

these kinds of monies in the past. That is why we are paying today.

It is not easy being on the government side. It is not easy

going out to those meetings where people are practically crying because they are

going to lose some programs.

I was not the one who made the decisions. It was governments

and people who sat in this House and sat up on the eighth floor in the old House

of Assembly who wasted money over the years, who did not have the intestinal

fortitude to be able to change the system. What I am saying is that I am proud

to be part of a government that took that leadership and reformed the

educational system.

If we had not reformed the educational system in this

Province, I can assure you that we would be in a worse mess today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: If we had those buses coming out of Point

Leamington and all those other places, and buses meeting each other on the road

with five or six students, two and three buses leaving the community and going

to different communities, transporting students all over the place to different

schools, where would the money all come from?

We are talking about a Province, and we are talking about the

Premier and the Minister of Finance who just talked about reforming our taxation

system. We are paying 69 per cent personal income tax. We have 15 per cent HST.

We have the highest gasoline taxes - all these taxes that we pay.

If we had not reformed the educational system, and stop those

seventy-two passenger buses travelling all over the Province, we would have to

raise taxes or we would have to cut programs or lay people off. We would have to

find the money somewhere.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Ferryland will have an

opportunity to participate in the debate. I hear him every day up talking doom

and gloom - the old ambulance chaser. Just sit and listen to me for awhile and

you might learn something. I want to talk about the positive things that are

happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. If Mr. Doom and Gloom wants to keep

preaching doom and gloom, he can keep preaching doom and gloom.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the old ambulance chaser. I was coming

in from my district the other night and the lights were flashing. First, I

thought I had done something wrong on the highway and I was going to get a

speeding ticket. When I looked, there was an ambulance behind me. When I looked

further behind me, I saw this grey-haired man driving the car behind, chasing

the ambulance. I said: That is the hon. Member for Ferryland. He is chasing

another ambulance. He is wondering where it is going to go - Mr. Doom and Gloom,

the man who would not apologize for statements that he made.

I want to get back to the hon. Member for Conception Bay

South. He said: Talk about the school in Whitbourne. I do not know what he has

in his gall about the school in Whitbourne.

The school in Whitbourne is now going to be built in

Blaketown. It never was intended. The school board - years and years ago there

was a plan, educational specifications, a consultation took place for people

from Chance Cove to Cavendish. It was a process that went on for two years with

the school board, the old Avalon North School Board. They put together a plan

for a new school in Blaketown, in the District of Bellevue. They submitted that

plan to the Integrated Education Committee. The Integrated Education Committee

said to them: You can wait another twenty or twenty-five years before you get

that new school in Blaketown, because under our present education system, and

the way the money is allocated to the churches, it is going to take another

twenty or twenty-five years before you get that school in Blaketown.

We are not talking about the school in Whitbourne; we are not

talking about the divided highway in Whitbourne; we are talking about the school

in Blaketown.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) the school in Blaketown.

MR. BARRETT: I am coming to that.

The Integrated Education Committee said that it was going to

take twenty or twenty-five years before you can construct a new school. In the

meantime, the poor students in New Harbour and Norman's Cove are going to

schools that are out of date, dilapidated, falling down around their ears, but

in the name of religion we are going to say it is going to take another twenty

or twenty-five years because those other groups are going to build schools in

Newfoundland that are not necessary, because they have their right under the

constitution to get the money for capital construction even if they do not need

a school.

At one time, if the roof blew off a building on an integrated

school and the government said: Look, we are going to have to allocate another

$500,000 to put a roof on that building, that roof cost more than $500,000

because we had to give all the other religious groups in the Province the same

proportion of money. You talk about a waste of money, and why we are in the mess

we are in this Province.

I can tell you what happened with the school in Blaketown.

One of the proud moments of my political career was to announce a new school for

Blaketown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: One of the first things that happened after

we reformed the educational system is that all the members who sit on this side

of the House and all the members who sit on the other side of the House, who

were elected to serve their constituents -

MR. TULK: Can I go out and call my wife?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, see if she has your pills ready, will

you?

- all the members on that side of the House and all the

members on this side of the House who sit on the front benches, in the second

row and the third row, have input in terms of the need for school construction

in their districts.

As soon as we reformed the educational system and took that

control away from the churches, where they were going to determine where the

schools were going to be built in this Province, the hon. Member for Trinity-Bay

de Verde and the hon. Member for Bellevue lobbied strong and hard for a new

school for that area.

The Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, the hon. Speaker, and

the hon. Member for Bellevue had nothing to do with where the school was going

to go, because the people from Chance Cove to Cavendish in Trinity Bay and the

inland community of Whitbourne and Markland had determined about ten years ago

that the school would be based in Blaketown and built in Blaketown because it

was the central location.

I hear people talk about, in rural Newfoundland, if we lose

our school we are going to lose our community. What a lot of bologna! The

community of Blaketown in my district is probably one of the fastest growing

communities in Newfoundland. It lost its school twenty-five years ago. It

amalgamated and the schools were in New Harbour. There was not a school in

Blaketown, but the community still grew because the area had good schools where

the people could go.

Now it is coming back around. Blaketown is going to get a new

school.

MR. TULK: Is that right?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, $6.8 million. As a matter of fact, we

announced it as a Grade IX-XII school. Do you know something? What happened

because of this government and the great things that this government is doing in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador? We are here promoting rural Newfoundland, great

faith in rural Newfoundland. What we are doing - we just approved another

$800,000 the other day. The Minister of Education announced another $800,000. It

is not going to be a Grade IX-XII school. No, it is going to be a Grade VII-XII

school, and the students from Blaketown to Cavendish, the Grade VII students,

will go into that new school in Blaketown and, as the enrolments decrease -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. BARRETT: What a shame.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I wonder if the hon. gentlemen will give the

hon. gentleman leave. I have not heard a speech like that in this House in

fifteen or twenty years. Have you?

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. TULK: It has been at least fifteen years ago since I

heard such a speech.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with the

Government House Leader. That is one of the biggest loads of bull I have heard

here since I came here in 1996.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: No leave, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: I have to check the list and see where that fits

on the list, whether it is considered parliamentary or not, but I have my

doubts.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TULK: Did you ask him to withdraw (inaudible)?

MR. HUNTER: We did not withdraw.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask him to

withdraw.

MR. HUNTER: You talked about the road show, Percy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Member for Bellevue.

MR. HUNTER: The Member for Bellevue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) animal.

MR. FRENCH: I did not call anyone an animal.

MR. HUNTER: The Premier had his own road show during the

election. When he went to Triton during the election, he promised that the needs

of Brian Peckford Elementary were going to be taken care of and he made a

personal commitment for that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: What area?

MR. HUNTER: For Triton-Brighton school and Brian Peckford

Elementary. That school needs an extension really bad. There were a lot of

savings in the district in that area because of school closings in that area.

I will just read some of the letters that we have here. One

is from an educational psychologist, and she states: I have assessed students in

a staff room. Obviously, that room must be accessible to teachers. I have

recently been completing assessments in a room which was designed for storage of

lab equipment. The staff Internet computer has now been set up in the same room.

The space is so small that I virtually am unable to turn around.

That is the kind of reform that we have in that school, Mr.

Chairman. That is happening already, right now, and if it is going to continue

in the fall then a lot of these special needs students are going to have to

learn in a small room, fifteen by nine. It is a closet that - also there are

more letters here from support people, professional people who have great

concerns about the type of education that these students are going to get. There

will be three special education students in that room next fall, and if we do

not recognize the problem out there then I am afraid that these people will not

have equal access to education. I believe that in the school reform it was a

power struggle between government and churches.

The Member for Bellevue indicated that people had to travel

on buses, on a long bus ride to get to school. They still do. I would like to

inform the member that there was a 70 per cent decrease in students in Badger

because they had to drive on a long bus ride. If the bus rides existed years

ago, they are worse now. We are seeing a decline in student enrolments because

of some of these longer bus rides.

So you cannot use that as an excuse, saying that is why we

had to close some of the schools. Some schools are closed in neighbourhoods,

putting kindergarten students on long bus rides, which they never had to have

before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you have to look positive.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: There are some positive aspects to the

reform, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: I do not think we can use the excuse because

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the hon. risi