May 7, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 21

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

welcome today to our galleries a number of students.

First of all, we have sixty Grade V11 students from St. Pius X Junior

High School in the District of St. John's East. They are accompanied by their teachers, Ms

Linda Lee and Ms Sharon Power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, there are twenty-six Grade X students from

Holy Heart of Mary High School in the District of St. John's East, and they are

accompanied by their teacher, Patricia Goulart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, the Chair would like to welcome today to the

Speaker's Gallery, all the way from Sydney, Victoria, MP Peter Mancini, the NDP Justice

critic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by

Ministers

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on February 4, 1998 Mr. Adam Okkuatsiak

died while an inmate at the Labrador Correctional Centre.

I wish to inform the House today that the Department of Justice has

received a report from the Chief Medical Examiner, and the RCMP has also submitted a

report to the Director of Public Prosecutions for review.

Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that there is ample opportunity to

examine the circumstances surrounding Mr. Okkuatsiak's death, I have advised the family

and I now advise the House of Assembly and the public that a judicial inquiry will be

conducted into this matter.

Government takes such matters very seriously. We want to do everything

we can to create as safe an environment as possible for inmates in secure custody. Mr.

Speaker, a death is not always avoidable. However, it is important that we closely examine

a death in a secure custody facility so that all reasonable measures are taken to ensure

avoidable deaths do not occur in our institutions.

I would like to say further, Mr. Speaker, that since this matter will

now be the subject of a judicial inquiry, it would be inappropriate to make any further

public statements on the matter. Therefore, I will not be making any further public

statements.

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

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

Obviously we support the initiative launched by the Minister of Justice

today, into a very unfortunate incidence. I would just like to add that obviously the

Department of Justice most have conducted an internal review on this situation. I ask the

minister: At some point, whenever he is in a position where he feels he can do so without

jeopardizing the process that he has established today, can he indicate what measures the

department has taken prior to that, that would, I guess, go towards seeing that another

incident of this nature would not happen in the future?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased that there will be a public inquiry into this death.

Concerns have been present ever since the death and we were awaiting the operation of the

new procedure under the Medical Examiner Act to follow through, and I see that it has

resulted in a judicial inquiry. I think we look forward to a full public and open

examination of all the details, to ensure that if it possible to prevent a death of this

nature that it can be done in the future.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I guess my question today is for the acting Minister of Finance. The

government knows full well that some of the major revenue sources in this year's Budget

will soon start disappearing.

Under the Harmonized Sales Tax deal, Ottawa agreed to compensate the

Province for the hundreds of millions in lost revenue the Province will see under the

reduced tax rate. Under the compensation formula, Mr. Speaker, we applied $127 million in

last year's Budget and we are applying $127 million in this year's Budget.

Will the minister confirm that this revenue will be dropping from $127

million to $63 million in next year's Budget, $31 million from $127 million the year

after, and zero in all the years following that? Once confirming that, can the Minister

indicate what government has done, and has it yet determined the impact of this loss of

revenue on the provincial budget?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague will be along

shortly.

I do know that we have discussed the impact, as the hon. member has

pointed out to us, I just do not have the figures in my head right now. So, I will take

the question under advisement until my colleague arrives. He should be along momentarily.

Maybe the hon. member might want to let one of his colleagues go with a line of

questioning and come back to the Minister of Finance when he arrives. I do not have the

details in my mind.

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

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

My questions are to the Minister of Education. In the last several day

parents of students in school District 2, the Northern Peninsula - Labrador South Board,

have closed schools in order to bring to the attention of the government the need to have

greater numbers of teachers assigned to assure that the sound educational program

continues to be offered in their communities. Today, I say to the Minister, two more

schools in that district have been closed by the actions of parents.

I want to ask the minister if he has had discussion, or will he be

having discussions, with the school board with the aim being to resolve the differences

and the difficulties that these parents are encountering with school-teacher allocations.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is most unfortunate that parents have decided to take the actions

that they have, in withdrawing the students from school.

Mr. Speaker, I have been dealing with the school board. I spoke with

the Chair of the Board a week or so ago. They had been dealing with officials of the

department for a couple of weeks before that. We are having a meeting later this afternoon

with the Chair of the Board and the Director of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want anyone to expect that the answer is

likely to be additional teaching resources provided from the government to that school

board or any school board.

We heard the representations, Mr. Speaker, in the last year or so, from

the school boards as to what the impact of teacher reductions would be, and that lead the

government to the conclusion that we could not take out the 450 teachers that would have

normally left the system as the result of matching the student decline. Therefore some, in

excess of 200 teachers, were reinstated into the system.

The school board has had some difficulties in satisfying parents with

the allocations that they have done. Some parents have a disagreement - for whatever

reason the parents think their disagreement is with the government. The government has

assigned the teachers to the board and the School's Act gives the school's board the

authority to decide into which schools those teachers shall be assigned. It is not my duty

to decide whether they should be in Hawke's Bay, St. Anthony or some place else.

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

Valley.

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

Perhaps I should say to the minister, when he meets Dennis Parsons and

Pius Walsh at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon, he might tell them there is no point in their

coming to see him because he has already said in the House that the meeting he is having

with them today is going to be totally unproductive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the minister: Why is it necessary for

parents in St. John's to take the Province to court in order to get fairness in the

allocations of teachers? Why is it necessary for parents of the Great Northern Peninsula

to initiate boycotts to have the minister initiate the reforms we talked about at the

classroom level when we talked about educational reform a year or so ago?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Neither action is necessary, Mr. Speaker, but the member opposite nor

myself nor anybody here can tell a parent whether or not they would like to challenge a

decision made either by the government, by a school board, by a town council, or by any

other entity, Mr. Speaker. That is an individual choice.

The parent and the school board in St. John's has decided, which is

their right to do so, to challenge a particular issue with respect to teacher services and

allocations relating to special services, special education. That is their right to do so.

I think it is totally unnecessary, in my view, but their view is that it is in their best

interest so they have decided to pursue that action.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is most regrettable when any group of

parents come to the conclusion that the best interest of their child is served by taking

them out of school. I think that is poorly directed. It is misuse of the whole resource.

It is not using anything or anybody to the best advantage. I think, Mr. Speaker, that

maybe we are still on a learning curb where some people do not quite understand what

people in this Legislature, including all the members opposite, voted upon when they

passed a new Schools Act. The new Schools Act, Mr. Speaker, just to give one example, in

section 75, which was fully debated clause-by-clause in this Legislature and endorsed at

the end of the piece by members opposite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Under duties of boards it said, `A board shall appoint and assign

duties of teachers'. It does not say that the Minister of Education shall do that.

Everybody in this Legislature agreed that the government will provide the block number of

teachers and it is better for the board to decide which school they are assigned to, and

that is what they are in the process of doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is the

insensitivity of the minister and the government.

Mr. Speaker, the parents in these communities tell me that they have

forwarded petitions to the minister, they have written letters to the minister, they have

worn out a fax machine faxing things to the minister, and they have gotten no response.

Therefore, they have come to a boycott out of absolute frustration. Maybe the minister

should be replying to his correspondence and that kind of thing.

Mr. Speaker, these parents were promised a better tomorrow. They were

told that education reforms would be happening at the classroom level. It is not

happening. When will the process of meaningful reform begin at the classroom level that

will positively help the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly those who

are in small communities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has begun, it is in process, but unless - and this is the point I

will make with the school board representatives today in the meeting - unless that

particular school board, or any other board, wants to pass a motion which in effect would

say that they will give away their right to assign teachers to the schools in their

jurisdiction to me as the minister, unless they want to do that, then everybody, including

the parents, have to understand that it is the board's role to decide how many teachers go

into which school.

We will have some very useful dialogue this afternoon with the school

board representatives because there are dozens of options that they have with respect to

the allocation of teachers, none of which include or need to include additional teachers

above and beyond what they were allocated. That particular school board lost fewer

teachers this year than any other school board in the Province.

Secondly, so that everybody would know for the record, the only

teachers that were removed from District 2 were the twelve units that were put back in the

system last year to accommodate the court injunction in the middle of the summer. Other

than that, that board did not lose a single teacher.

If that is not a commitment to letting them go ahead - and even though

they have had significant student decline - and make improvements, if for some reason they

are doing the allocations which they are entitled to under the act in a way that is not

satisfying to parents, the parents need not ask me. They should be in a dialogue with

their school board members who live in their own communities who have gone to those

schools and are in charge of the decision. The only reply I have given to the parents is

that they are talking to the wrong person. Talk to the school board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Minister, as you are well aware, a very important economic

generator of activity in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador each year is our

municipal capital works program. It is always important that we try and get these things

out early. I say to the minister, the construction season is fast approaching. When will

you be announcing this year's program?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I have circulated it to certain privileged members,

like the hon. Member for Ferryland; he knows about his. Mr. Speaker, I may be in a

position later on today. I am waiting for a report from Treasury Board that went on this

morning. I do not have it yet but I should have it later on this afternoon. If I do not do

it today, I will be doing it tomorrow, hopefully. I will not be able to do all the

announcements on capital works because we have not dealt with all of them yet, but we will

have a sizeable amount of capital works ready to be announced, at the latest, Monday. The

latest will be Monday.

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

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, Minister, we all realize, and I am sure you do as well, that

this summer in various parts of this Province, with the number of people coming off TAGS,

we are certainly going to need some extra funding in there.

What I would like to ask you now is: How much money can we expect to

see in this year's capital works program? And, will there be a little bit extra to help

municipalities to keep up their infrastructure?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: It is old news, Mr. Speaker. It was announced in the

Budget that the capital works budget for my department this year would be $26.5 million,

and that is what it stands at today.

Out of that $26.5 million, about $4 million or $4.5 million has to go

immediately to industrial water systems upgrading, and passing it over to towns - I think

most members of the House understand that - and there is a little bit of money that we

have to flow through last year's contracts because of overruns and this sort of thing.

But, generally speaking, you will be looking at about $20 million, $21 million, or $22

million in capital works that will be announced.

Over and above that, I cannot make any commitment; it is not for me to

say. If the Minister of Finance were here and you asked him that question, I would

probably stand up and clap for you if you got a few extra dollars from him, but I am not

in a position to say that I will be able to provide, or this government will be able to

provide, any more than $26.5 million this year, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: I say, Mr. Speaker, it is too bad we cannot get the

Minister of Finance here.

In past years, the Province has convinced Ottawa to do its

part in

financing infrastructure and community works programming. I would like to ask the minister

now: Has any representation been made to Ottawa concerning the infrastructure program for

the 1998-1999 fiscal year? If it has, can he table any correspondence that he may have had

with the federal government concerning this? And, could he tell us if there has been any

response to date from the federal government on the infrastructure program?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, at the First Ministers'

Conference, and I think this is general knowledge, too, because it was reported in the

media, the Premiers - not only our Premier but the other nine Premiers as well as ours -

lobbied the federal government first for a new transportation initiative, if I remember

correctly, and then subsequent to that a new infrastructure program, but not for

1998-1999; for 1999-2000.

The reason for that was that there are only two provinces in Canada

that actually have the previous infrastructure money spent. I wouldn't want to be quoted

exactly, but there are still hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure from the

old program that haven't been spent in Ontario. Alberta has, I think, just about all of

their money not spent yet. We were one of the two provinces in Canada that has up to now

spent all its infrastructure money. Most other provinces have a lot of it left. Therefore,

the federal government doesn't see any need to make any long-term commitment as it relates

to infrastructure, especially for this year, knowing that most provinces wouldn't have it

spent anyway.

With that in mind, the Premier has lobbied, I think, to be quite honest

about it, I can safely say twice if not three times, with the Prime Minister. I haven't

written any letters. I have supported the Federation of Municipalities in their approach,

and I am going to the FCM at the end of the month and we are going to talk about it at

that particular point in time. I am going to let my views be known to the FCM and they

will be doing another lobbying.

I have spoken directly to Marcel Mass and a number of other ministers

every time I have gotten the chance to meet with them on other issues. The infrastructure

program has always come up. In fact, I will say to the hon. member that I even said that

maybe they could squeeze or try to find a few extra dollars to give Newfoundland because

we were so conscientious in getting the program off the ground. I cannot provide you with

any letters because I never wrote any, but I will say to the hon. member that there has

been a strong lobby by this government for a new infrastructure program.

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

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

Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop picking on her, boy, give her a day off.

MR. SULLIVAN: She doesn't deserve a day off, I say to my colleague.

She deserves a week off, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, the deal to compensate Hepatitis C victims

is not acceptable and we have to do better. The current agreement, as the minister is well

aware, only covers the period for people who contracted the disease between 1986 and 1990.

Last week, Minister, you said the Province cannot afford to pay for people who contracted

Hepatitis C outside the 1986 to 1990 period. You also stated yesterday that you are not in

a position to take this to Cabinet until you have met with your provincial counterparts. I

now ask the minister: Why isn't our Province defining its position before you go to that

meeting?

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

Services.

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

The short answer is because our Province does not agree in unilateral

action, whether it is by a province or by the federal government. This agreement that we

made was made around the table with all my colleagues from all the provinces, as well as

the federal government. I have made it very clear, I have called on Minister Rock, I have

called on the Chair of the Health Ministers, to call a meeting as soon as possible. I will

be very happy, articulate, and able to state our position in terms of where we are going

with this when I get around the table with the people who made the agreement. We believe

there is a process.

This is not about generating media activity and one province outdoing

another. This issue is too important. The day before yesterday, Quebec had no money to put

into the program. Then Ontario came forward and offered to pay their provincial money.

Yesterday, Quebec came out and said now they are going to put provincial money in. The

ground is moving. I believe the proper place to discuss that issue in relation to its

importance is around the table where those deals and those agreements can be made

appropriately.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister doesn't have to stand and tell the whole world what the

position is, but to go to a meeting without going to Cabinet and knowing what the position

of this Province is, I find that going ill-prepared, I say to the minister. You should

tell your Premier the same thing you just said, and tell him to stop announcing federal

programs before they announce them themselves. Apply the same principles here.

Now this agreement that was struck, I say to the minister, is not based

on affordability. It is based on legal liability, the 1986-1990 agreement.

I ask the minister: Will she stand now and accept that there is a moral

responsibility on behalf of this and other governments for the period prior to 1986?

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

Services.

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

I have been very clear in my position, as has been the Chair of the

Saskatchewan ministers representing the Health Ministers across the country. I will meet

with all of my colleagues around the table and I will discuss the issues at hand. I have

made it quite clear. The difference though, Mr. Speaker, is that I like to know all the

information; I like to have all of the facts. As we speak, things are happening.

I just gave an example: Two provinces have changed their positions. I

think it is only appropriate, it is important, and certainly it is what one would expect,

that you would have all the information before you make any sort of decision. That was the

position we took on the previous arrangement, and that is the position we will take on

this arrangement.

I am calling, and I have called, on the Minister of Health for Canada,

as well as the other ministers, to meet as soon as possible. I have been told that we will

be meeting next week. We are now in the process of finalizing a date, and those issues

will be brought to the fore.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, Michael Harris has stated their

position, and other provinces have indicated them publicly. Many have mentioned it today

in The Globe and Mail , I say to the minister. It was Allan Rock who announced on

Monday that there would be a meeting with ministers. It was in Tuesday's Globe and Mail .

It was carried in the media on Monday. And you indicated before this House on Tuesday that

you requested a meeting with Allan Rock, and he was going to have the meeting. Minister,

you are a day late with the announcement. It is already out there and the meeting was

scheduled.

It is becoming evident that the pre-1986 victims are going to receive

compensation. It will be either through the courts, through the provinces acting on their

own, as this letter here indicates, or through an agreement among all provinces, I say to

the minister, with the federal government. I think that is the best approach.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He ought to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Don't you agree it would be more compassionate to

come to a quick settlement rather than drag those sick people through a lengthy court

battle?

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

Services.

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

In response to his

preamble, it was Friday afternoon when I, in fact,

spoke with the Ministers of Health across the country and raised the issue of calling for

a meeting, if you are getting into the chronological times. I have since spoken to Mr.

Rock and reinforced that as well, Mr. Speaker, just so he has all the information.

I will say again that I am quite prepared to go and sit around the

table and work with all my colleagues, as I have. I also re-state, for the importance and

the information of those people who are listening here today, that the 1986-1990

arrangement for those people with Hepatitis C remains intact.

What we are going back to the table for, is to discuss the issues

around Hepatitis C pre-1986. I am quite prepared to do that, and I will discuss those

issues around the table. I do not believe in unilateral action, this government does not

believe in unilateral action, and we do not support that on the federal government. Mr.

Speaker, I am quite prepared, on behalf of this government, to bring those views forward

around that table.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the

Minister of Finance a couple of questions.

The minister knows that some of the major revenue sources in this

year's Budget will soon start disappearing. Under the harmonized sales tax deal, Ottawa

agreed to compensate the Province for hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the

loss of revenue under the new reduced tax rate.

Under the compensation formula, last year we applied $127 million to

last year's Budget, $127 million in this year's Budget. Will the minister confirm that

this will be dropping to $63 million from $127 million next year, in 1999, and it will

drop even further in the year 2000, from $127 million to $31 million, and every year

thereafter - there will be nothing. If he can confirm that, can he indicate what action

government is taking to prepare itself for the impact of this significant loss of revenue

to the Province's budgets in the years to come, and thus to the provincial economy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The figures are close to what the hon. member says. Essentially, we

received 100 per cent in the first two years and then it dropped to 50 per cent and 25 per

cent. So the money diminishes after four years and, in fact, there is no money after four

years.

It is the obverse of saving for the rainy day, Mr. Speaker. It has been

raining in Newfoundland for the last two years, and Labrador. The difference is that two

years ago we had a shrinkage in the economy of 2.3 per cent; the year past we had a

shrinkage of 1.3 per cent; this year we will have growth of 4 per cent. So, as any person

would do, you determine your finances and your cash flows depending on your intake. So it

was wise and prudent for us to obtain the money that we would get over twenty years at a

time when we needed it, and dispense with it at a time when we knew the economy would

grow. That is the answer to the hon. member's question.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is even worse than what we have

imagined, if that is the case, if we take the Minister of Finance's value. Let us ask him

this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Education has no knowledge of what I

am talking about, and I don't expect him to, but let me ask the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: He has no knowledge of what is taking place in his

own department. Why should he have any knowledge of what is taking place in the Department

of Finance, Mr. Speaker?

Combined with the reduction in harmonized sales tax, combined with the

loss of revenue from Term 29 - in which the Province took $40 million in year one, $40

million in year two, and nothing from now till the year 2016; we also paid a $30 million

penalty for doing it - let me ask him to confirm this: that in 1999, all things being

equal, we will actually be short $104 million in revenue; in the year 2000 it will

increase to $136 million in revenue that will be short; and in the year 2001 it will be

$167 million in revenue that we do not now have. Can the minister confirm that, please?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have to review the hon. member's figures. What I can confirm is

that, of course, the twenty-year quantification of the figure for Term 29 - as the hon.

member indicated and I confirm -will decrease over the next four years. The HST

compensation, however, will increase by 2 per cent per year over the four-year term, the

amount to be quantified. So I would have to see his figures and where he is getting them

from.

Obviously the HST figures are constant and in fact increase. It will in

fact be reconciled at the end of four years, but it provides for a pre-quantified increase

based on the assumed inflation rate of 2 per cent.

I am not sure where he is getting his figures from, but if he could add

them all up and present to me I would certainly be delighted to take a look at them.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The figures are pretty clear, Mr. Speaker. In the

1997 Budget we took $127 million on HST, $40 million on Term 29, for a total of $167

million. Now, in the year 2001 there will be no money coming from HST, zero. There will be

no money coming from Term 29, zero. Therefore, in that four-year period we would have lost

$167 million in revenue.

The question I now ask the Minister of Finance: Is he so convinced

today, as he was two years ago when they entered into the deal on HST, that the growth in

the economy that would occur as a result of this deal - is he so convinced today that, as

a result, the growth in the economy will more than compensate for that revenue? If he is

convinced that is the case, what basis can he put forward and table in this House that

that will actually take place?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am more convinced than ever, and it is based on

projections that we may have been exceeded. As I indicated to the hon. member earlier, the

GDP shrank in the last two years and it was prudent for us to front-end load the support

mechanisms that were negotiated in some cases many years ago but in the other case more

recently, to supplement any loses we might have. What we decided in the case of the HST,

for example, was that we knew what our losses would be but the price that we paid was we

injected into the taxpayers of the Province $105 million. Now frankly my belief - and it

may run contrary to the hon. member's - is that if we want our economy to grow, the

government should tax less and trust the people of the Province to use the money more

wisely than we might otherwise spend ourselves.

So what we have done is, we made an assumption that if we allow

taxpayers to utilize that $105 million, gave businesses the full benefit of the HST input

taxes credits, that the economy would grow. Now, were we wrong? Because before we did this

the economy shrank by 2.3 per cent; it shrank by 1.3 per cent. After we did it, the

economy this year will grow by about 4 per cent if not more. Not only that; retail sales

tax, since April 1 last year when we amalgamated the two taxes, what happened to retail

sales taxes? Or what happened to retail sales (inaudible)? They grew by over 60 per cent.

So, were we wrong? No, Mr. Speaker. Statistics support our position and I am firmly

convinced, as is the government and my colleagues here before you, that the economy will

grow, and that due to the measures we have taken there will be more than sufficient growth

in tax revenues as well to offset the losses that we have sustained.

Mr. Speaker, I would rather see the money go back to the taxpayers of

this Province than see government take money and spend it on things that might otherwise

not be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this the type of voodoo economics that

we have seen from this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality of it is that the last two Budgets have

been built on a one-time flimsy measure that will get this government to the year 1999.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way the Minister of Finance can stand in his place today and say

that we will not be short that amount of money, because we will.

On top of that, will the minister confirm that the situation could even

be far worse in next year's Budget because of the continued escalation of out-migration

and the impact that will have on transfers to the Province? That in that respect we may in

fact be $40 million on top of the $167 million less in next year's Budget?

What the minister should do, Mr. Speaker, is stand in this House,

acknowledge there is a problem, and tell the people of the Province what this government

plans do about it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - for the services that the people of this Province

have come to rely on and expect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member speaks about voodoo economics, which is a wonderful

phrase that George Bush made popular. Voodoo, in many of its adherence views, is a way of

making the impossible possible. I think that the hon. member's assumption is that we

cannot do it because he cannot. I say to the hon. House, and to members of the public -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: - that is clearly not the case. If it is voodoo then we

are eminent practitioners of the art, because we are making what the hon. members consider

impossible on that side of the House possible on this side. How have we done it? A 6 per

cent increase in retail sales tax in one year; GDP growth backing off from over a 4 per

cent decline in two years to a 4 per cent increase. They are not our figures, Mr. Speaker.

The TD Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the

Bank of Montreal, all agree with us, Mr. Speaker.

There are two ways one can establish additional revenues in government.

One is to tax more, which this hon. member obviously advocates, and the predecessor

governments on that side of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: - or, you can make the economy grow. We have chosen to

tax less and have growth in the economy, due to trust in taxpayers and businesses.

If the hon. member has a different recipe, let the taxpayers trust him

to try it. We do not believe in it; the hon. member obviously does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents

of the Province; some from St. John's, some from Stephenville, Kelligrews, Mount Pearl,

Harbour Breton - dozens and dozens, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I can tell you where they are all from, I suppose.

There are twenty-eight from Prince of Wales Street, Cornwall Avenue, all over St. John's.

There is another dozen from Stephenville, another dozen from various places, all over the

place.

People all over this Province, Mr. Speaker, are petitioning this House

of Assembly on the issue of a school lunch program. Why are they doing that? They are

doing that because they are concerned about the fact that there are children going to

school hungry.

Now, members opposite might find that funny, Mr. Speaker. They might

think that is a big joke but, I will tell you, it is not a joke to the thousands and

thousands of students who are going to school hungry in this Province. It is not a joke to

Dr. Patricia Canning, who submitted a report to the Minister of Education two years ago,

or this time last year, which he released last October. It is not a joke to the people who

are trying to provide a school lunch program in this Province but do not have the ability

to do it because there are not enough public funds into it. It is not a joke to the

communities concerned about the fact that not only is education receiving not enough

attention from the Minister of Education but that the students going to the schools do not

have proper grounding and ability to learn from the education system that we do have.

Mr. Speaker, it is recognized by every single study that has ever been

done that there is a problem with hungry children in this Province and in this country.

Mr. Speaker, if they want to make political ballyhoo out of that and laugh at me and laugh

at the problem, then they can go right ahead and do it. The people in this Province do not

think it is funny, Mr. Speaker, and this hon. member does not think it is funny, and I am

going to continue to present these petitions as long as they keep coming in. Mr. Speaker,

as long as they keep coming in, I will present these petitions.

The St. John's School Lunch Foundation, Mr. Speaker, is having an event

on May 21 to try and raise attention. They are asking people to skip a lunch for the

School Lunch Program and donate the amount to the School Lunch Program in this Province.

That is what organizations have to do to ensure that hungry children are fed in this

Province. Mr. Speaker, it is not right. The government should ensure that this social

problem is resolved and resolved to the benefit of the children of this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, what these petitioners want is not a program based on

charity but a program that understands the need for a universal, comprehensive School

Lunch Program for every single school in Newfoundland and Labrador, in order to help end

child hunger and to give our children a better chance in school. That is what we want, Mr.

Speaker. We do not want to have what happened here two weeks ago with the Government House

Leader and myself and other members of this House, on all sides of the House, including

the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, going to Ottawa saying: We need a program for

TAGS recipients because there has to be retraining, because 79 per cent - was it 79 per

cent or 69 per cent? The Member for Ferryland knows the number. Sixty-nine or 79 per cent

of the people in the TAGS Program do not have a high school education. They have not had

the benefit of full education, Mr. Speaker, in this Province.

By preventing children from having a proper nutritional basis on which

to learn, we are preventing those children, when they become adults, from participating

fully in our society. So we have to solve that problem now, Mr. Speaker. If we solve that

problem now, not only will we end the pain of hunger that children feel but we will also,

perhaps, end the pain and the long-term problems that will be caused by those children not

getting a proper education.

This is a very, very important issue, Mr. Speaker, not one that should

cause laughter and merriment on the other side of the House; and I ask them to take it

seriously. I know they have made some moves, Mr. Speaker, they have put another amount of

money into the School Lunch Program for the next number of years, but we still only have

10 per cent of the schools in this Province that have any kind of a school meal program.

Mr. Speaker, that has to change, that has to be fixed. The schools that need it the most

and are the ones that are not getting it, Mr. Speaker, because their communities do not

have the resources to put behind a program of this nature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am delighted today to rise again to support the petition put forward

by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, in the last year or so, we have had about twenty-five

different presentations on this topic made in this House. I have spoken on most of them

and the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi has spoken on them an equal number of times.

Mr. Speaker, we want to again today, through this petition, say to the

House that there is a connection between child poverty, child hunger and school

achievement.

Mr. Speaker, the Williams Royal Commission report which was published

in 1992, in their background studies noted that child poverty was one of the most

pervasive barriers to educational attainment. Studies conducted for that Royal Commission

by the Department of Health, the Department of Education and the Department of Social

Services, now called Human Resources and Employment, they show that one child in four in

this Province was going to school regularly hungry.

Mr. Speaker, these studies were conducted before the difficulties

occurred with the cod fishery and other economic downturns. There is every reason to

believe that in 1998 there are actually more children going to school hungry than the

stats which were cited in the Royal Commission done by Dr. Williams. As the member has

already said: The Patricia Canning report again cited the correlation between

socio-economic status of the parents and school achievement of the children. Mr. Speaker,

she placed the number at around 40,000.

Also, I should say to the members, that the National Forum on Health is

quoted extensively in the 1997 report of the Social Policy Advisory Committee. Mr.

Speaker, that report said that poverty is far more than financial deprivation, and that in

the in-school system it leads to exclusion, isolation, and marginalization.

Mr. Speaker, their study said that children who grow up poor show

almost three-and-a-half times the number of conduct disorders, almost twice the chronic

illnesses, more than twice the rate of school drop-outs, hyperactivity and emotional

disorders, as compared to children who do not go to school hungry.

On January 10, just last year, the federal Minister of Finance said: I

believe child poverty is the great social policy challenge of this generation. He further

said: I think we are now reaching the point of absurdity in terms of inequality. I remind

the House, as I did just the day before yesterday, that ten years ago we had a commitment

by the Parliament of Canada that we would eliminate child poverty by the year 1999, and

nine years later there are 500,000 more hungry children in Canada today than there were

nine years ago.

We in this Province know there is a cycle to poverty. We know what

affect it has on children. While we commend the government for some initiatives through

the children's food foundation, we want to say to the government that they have just

simply done a little bit. They have been able to take a small initiative, but that is a

beginning. We are pleased to compliment them on that. We want to say to them, however,

that in St. John's right now there are seven schools offering a School Lunch Program.

There are something like eighty-two schools in the Avalon East system alone. In terms of a

percentage, not 10 per cent of the schools in the St. John's Avalon East system have a

School Lunch Program. Mr. Speaker, there are some initiatives being undertaken now looking

at school breakfast programs.

We know there is a direct connection between the fact that children

come to school hungry and how they perform throughout the school day. We want to say, on

behalf of those children, that we can't expect them to perform well in school if their

minds are on the fact that they haven't had a breakfast or have had no lunch, or if they

have to walk the corridors when all the other children are eating. They have nothing for

their recess, they have no way of getting anything for recess. No wonder we have

hyperactivity, no wonder there are school drop-outs, because every single day these

children are reminded that school is a negative place, that school is not a happy place.

When you are going to school and you can't measure up to the other children because you

are not able to concentrate, then how can you expect to learn?

Mr. Speaker, we know that when children are hungry they have headaches,

they feel fatigued, they are restless, they have difficulty concentrating, they are

irritable, they are sleepy, and just plain crabby and cantankerous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we have to do something about it. If we

don't, then the consequences long-term are going to be devastating to our Province and our

country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to say just a few words with respect to

the petition presented. I'm glad to have the issue addressed again. The government doesn't

treat this issue as anything other than a very serious issue, which it is, which is why

there was $1 million put into the Budget this year to enable the School Lunch Program in

the Province to be expanded in a sensible, reasonable fashion.

Mr. Speaker, just in terms of some of the rhetoric, however, that the

members opposite used, which has no foundation, there is a very good School Lunch

Foundation in the Province. Some of the rhetoric from the members presenting their

positions, has no foundation because they try to exaggerate a circumstance which is

serious, but which is not of the scope that they suggest.

Mr. Speaker, just to point out, for example, that the Canning report

did not do any new research on hunger in Newfoundland schools. They quoted pre-existing

studies which were done that suggested there was a certain level of hunger. That is why

the government, two years ago, acted by putting an additional $300,000 into the School

Lunch Foundation, and this year reacted again and acted by providing another $1 million.

It is not an issue, Mr. Speaker, that this government treats lightly,

but it is one that we have been acting upon consistently since we have been in a position

to do so.

Members opposite, like the Opposition critic for Education, would

suggest that there is every reason to believe, would make a statement with no foundation

whatsoever, that there is every reason to believe that it is worse in 1998 than it was

before. For a responsible person to stand and, out of thin air, suggest that he knows

something is going on in the Province, where there is a better, more expansive, more

expanded program than there has ever been in the history of the Province, and just for

political purposes or otherwise to suggest, as if he knew, that there is reason to believe

that it is worse now than it has ever been, the opposite is true, Mr. Speaker.

We have made tremendous in-roads with respect to this problem. We have

taken it seriously, and will continue to do so despite some of the nonsense that gets

included with the serious proposition we are discussing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I note for the minister that I was

quoting from research documents done from 1973 until 1996 by officials of the government.

Therefore, I am quoting from assessments that have been done by the departments and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - therefore I conclude that their statements might

have a better chance of being right than the minister has of being right right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of order.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I did have a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair had called for further petitions. Nobody

stood in their place, so the Chair then called Orders of the Day. I believe the hon.

Minister of Justice -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The person who spoke - we had intended to present a petition. I said to

the Government House Leader that I was expecting it today. We didn't present either one

yesterday. With permission of the House, if we could revert to Petitions? Because we do

have petitions on behalf of constituents we would like to present.

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, if we have unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I would

prefer to revert to Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: We return to Petitions. Is that an agreement? Yes.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I have a petition today, and again it is on an educational issue. This

one is presented to the House of Assembly and it reads:

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador:

We, the undersigned residents of the Province, petition the

Legislature, the House of Assembly, to direct the Department of Education to direct or to

legislate a paid adult bus monitor program for all school buses in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the House's attention the fact that we

have a real serious problem with our school buses in this Province. I was talking the

other day to some people who are in the know on this particular topic, and they tell me

that many of our buses are old, they haven't been inspected in a manner many people in the

business find to be satisfactory. School buses are part of the necessity we have in this

Province. We must have school buses because of the fact that our children live many miles,

in some cases, from the location of the schools. As we have further -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to say to the Minister of Education that we have to stop the

practice in this Province of permitting buses which are no longer eligible to meet the

legislative criteria in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec be allowed to be brought into

this Province and used here, buses that are eleven, twelve, and thirteen years old.

We are not satisfied to put our children on those buses without - well,

because they are still within the law, so we need to have another look at school bus

safety. We know there have been some accidents in this Province. We are told that the

inspections that are done are often not done comprehensively in a manner that would assure

the safety of the children.

Mr. Speaker, there is a whole issue arising as to whether or not there

should be things like seat-belts. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we had consultation with

the parents, the school boards in this Province, and the school councils, on the whole

issue of school bus safety. It is time that we develop a dialogue and give parents in this

Province an opportunity to say what they really feel, and to tell the government that they

should be looking at school bus safety in a manner that will assure that every single

child goes to school on a bus that is relatively new, that is safe, that has been

inspected properly, and that in all reasonableness guarantees the safety of the child. Of

course, Mr. Speaker, as well I have to say that in some cases we have to look at the way

we handle driver education on school buses. These are issues that are all tied together

and all deal with the issue of school bus safety.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government, it is time that we develop a

consultation paper, look at the issue and decide whether or not we should have bus

monitors; we should have a look at the issue of the age of the buses, the education

program for the drivers of those buses, and also have a look at the whole issue of

seat-belts and all other issues surrounding school bus safety.

Mr. Speaker, I present the petition on behalf of the people who signed

the petition, and they are as far away as the Goulds, Colliers, Brigus, and that area.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition presented by the Member for Waterford

Valley and I congratulate him on keeping this issue before members of the House. It is one

that only seems to be an issue for government when somebody is unfortunately killed or

seriously injured as a result of a school bus accident.

We have a situation in this Province where every single day there are

hundreds of school buses travelling around the Province with students without seat-belts,

where the bus driver does not have the capability of keeping order and discipline on

buses, or even protecting young children who may be as young as five and six years old

riding on school buses in large numbers, often under very treacherous conditions around

the Province, in the wintertime, which we are not experiencing now. In fact, we have had a

very favourable winter season this year.

This spate of petitions and public concern most recently arose, Mr.

Speaker, with the death of a young student at Holy Family School on the St. Thomas Line.

That was a very tragic incident that occurred and would not have occurred had there been

proper supervision of children by full-time adult - not necessarily full-time but paid

school bus monitors who would be able to ensure that the exit and egress of school buses,

and the behaviour and situations of children on board the school buses were properly

monitored. We are not looking at a terrible expense, particularly when it comes to the

benefits of safety for our school children.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures in front of me, but at the time

of this incident in St. Thomas Line, the school bus statistics on accidents in this

Province were revealed, going back a number of years, and there were an appalling number

of school bus accidents. I think there were some 250 or 300 school bus accidents reported

over a period of ten to fifteen years, and a number of deaths occurring as a result of

school bus accidents, so it is not something that happens only once in a lifetime, or is

so rare an event as not to need the attention of government. I think that government must

revisit this issue, must look at the actual danger that is occurring to our school

children on an ongoing basis. We are not talking, as I indicated, about a terrible

expense. We are talking about the safety of our children.

We have just been through, in this Province, after perhaps fifteen or

twenty years of agonizing over the issue, a referendum and a major change in our school

system to try to make it a little bit more efficient, a little bit less burdensome to the

taxpayer in terms of the value for money, and we have made substantial savings because of

the change to the school system.

I recall the current Minister of Justice, when he was Minister of

Education, saying that as a result of the changes anticipated, as a result of the change

in denominational education, we would save as much as $8 million per year in school buses

alone. In school buses alone, we would save $8 million a year. I know the Member for

Waterford Valley remembers that figure presented to this House, that $8 million a year

would be saved on school buses alone if there was a change in the denominational education

system.

Well, we have that change in the denominational education system, Mr.

Speaker. What small portion of that $8 million would have to be used to provide paid adult

school bus monitors to protect our children? I don't know if it would be necessary for

high school students. Obviously they are old enough to look after themselves in the school

bus situation. But certainly for primary and elementary schools it would be very

appropriate to ensure their safety by making sure that any possibility of there being an

accident, whether fatal or not, is avoided by the proper kind of supervision that children

in this situation need.

It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the driver of a school bus, no

matter how diligent, observant, dedicated or competent, cannot possibly pay full attention

to the road and full attention to the children as well. It would be distracting enough -

sometimes it is distracting enough in a car - when you have a couple of kids in the back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: It must be incredibly more distracting to have twenty,

thirty or forty students in a school bus, and I ask government to take this issue very

seriously.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a

petition. The petition reads:

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

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the TAGS program whereby the federal government compensates

fisheries workers for its mismanagement of the fisheries resource is due to expire in

August, and many people entitled to funding have already been or are about to be taken off

the program prior to that date;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to take a lead role in convincing the federal government to announce and

implement, without further delay, a successor program to TAGS which includes income

replacement, licence buy-back, early retirement and economy diversification; and to give

immediate consideration to those who are entitled to compensation and are now, or are

about to be, taken off the program.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed not only by fishermen and fish

plant workers. I see names here from Labrador City, I see names here from up and down the

Labrador Coast, as well as names from my own district as well. I guess it goes to show

that many of the comments that we are hearing on the radio, on the Open Line shows, are

not indicative of what people are thinking out there. People who are not directly involved

in this program are not necessarily against the people who are receiving a TAGS cheque.

The people I talk to, I can assure you, are not living in any lap of

luxury because they are getting a TAGS cheque, especially when you look at - I think the

average TAGS cheque for a fish plant worker is something like $266 or $262. If I recall

correctly, the average TAGS cheque for a fisherperson is something less than $300,

$280-$286.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are involved in this industry - you know

them very well; they are in your district as well - have certainly seen much, much better

times.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at people in Central Canada saying that

maybe it is time for some of those people to get off the tit of Ottawa and move to other

areas, it might be a situation where I am sure that they don't understand exactly what is

happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There are people coming off this program

every day. There are people coming off this program every week, people who are finding

themselves - 25 per cent in fact - going to the department of social services in order to

feed and support their families. It is no fault of their own.

Many people might say: Well why don't they move on? Why are they

staying in their communities? Why don't they move on to Ontario, British Columbia or

Alberta? Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not an option for a lot of those people. That is not

an option for somebody who find themselves - in fact, over 40 per cent of the people

directly involved with TAGS have less than a grade IX education. Going to another province

to start a new life is certainly not an option when you consider that those people will

have to bar up their homes, walk away from their worldly belongings, their worldly

possessions; bar up their homes and walk away from them.

You can put all the `For Sale' signs you want on a house down in

Catalina or Duntara or Keels, and I can assure you there will be nobody rushing in to buy.

It is one man's castle, Mr. Speaker. It is the man's castle, it is his life's belongings

and what he has worked for all his life. To bar that up and move to another province and

start over again without an education, and to start a new occupation, is certainly a very

frightening place to find yourself.

Mr. Speaker, there are some positive things happening out in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, but unfortunately it is not going to look after all the people

that were involved in the fishery. I think the onus is on each one of us here in this

Legislature to speak out for the 20,000 people who are presently on this program.

I commend the All Party Committee from the House of Assembly here. Each

and every member of that committee went and pleaded the case of those Newfoundlanders,

pleaded the case -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I say to the member opposite, a good Chairman,

and pleaded the case of the 2,000 people who are off this week. Their last pay cheque went

into the post office yesterday, over 2,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and out of

those 2,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, 25 per cent plus are going to find

themselves going to the department of social services. They are going to move into the

department of social services, almost sneak in because they are very proud people and it

is somewhere that they do not want to go. Those are people who made their livelihood by

getting up 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m., getting in a fishing boat and working fifteen and

sixteen hours a day. Now, Mr. Speaker, that has been taken away from them.

What those people are asking for is very reasonable, as far as I am

for this catastrophe that has happened here in Newfoundland and Labrador, to look at early

retirement. They are saying: Mr. Ottawa, would you look at reducing the retirement age

maybe from fifty-five to fifty for people with a long-term attachment to the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: They are looking at licence buy-back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, just a second to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: They are looking at licence buy-back, Mr. Speaker,

whereby people would have the opportunity to sell their licence and be compensated for

that. They are not asking that their licence be able - I should not say they are not

asking but I don't think it should be a situation that licences should be sold to another

individual. I think if we are going to have to get those people out of the fishery then it

is out of the fishery that they must get, and the licence has to be bought back by

government and stay with government. I don't agree, Mr. Speaker, that we should treat

fishery licences like we do a milk quota here in this Province, where people have been

given a licence for little money or with no money and be allowed to sell it back to

government or sell it to somebody else and make a lot of money. That should not be. If we

are going to take people out of the fishery, they should come out of the fishery, but they

should be compensated. They should be able to leave this particular industry with dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to pay particular attention to this

petition and petitions that I have presented day after day. Hopefully, when the Government

House Leader travels to Ottawa - I understand that he is, probably later today or sometime

this week -that he will be successful in lobbying the ad hoc Committee of Cabinet up there

to put forward a program to respond to this particular need.

Thank you.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here today to support my colleague on this petition, as I have

done many times in this House, Mr. Speaker. I will just draw attention to the point that

he made about the committee and commending the committee. I will do the same thing, as far

as commending the committee, because everybody had the same interest, it was one focus

when we went there.

I mentioned yesterday and I will mention it again, I will be honest:

The first week we went - and I think a lot of the committee members felt like it - we were

not sure what the effect would be. We were not really sure, of course, when you hear

speculation and so on, what the effect would be. The second week was better, we were more

organized and so on. But the first week we went up, Mr. Speaker, I really had doubts about

whether there was anything done. Who do you believe, you know, when they say, oh, the

announcement was already made or was not made? There was speculation going on.

The way I left the Province that day - I was in Grand Falls, Central

Newfoundland, doing some constituent work with appeals and within three hours, Mr.

Speaker, I had to pack a bag, jump on a plane and go to Ottawa on this emergency.

Everything was up in the air and you were wondering who you should believe. There were

different reports in the media and so. We knew one thing, that we had to go. There was no

doubt about making the decision that you had to go. But at the time I doubted whether we

would be effective and have the full potential of our meetings, how we would get our

message across to Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, that week was a bit hectic.

The second time we went up, I will say, we were well organized, we had

the meetings and we had more time. To be honest with you, after that first week I did not

feel like going back, because we were rushed in and out of rooms and we did not know who

we were meeting with. It would change on a moment's notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I will say it: It was George Baker's fault.

Whoever's fault it was, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Sure it was, and it was ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. It

was so unprofessional for elected people and for governments to be acting that way. You

would go into a room and you were in the wrong room, you had to go to another room and

then the media would call you out of that one. You would go into it with another group,

all hyped up to make your big presentation on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

everyone of us were, all members of the All Party Committee.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker - and I said it before - the Member

for Torngat gave one of the best presentations, better that his ministers, at the meetings

we had. I say that in jest, Mr. Speaker. But the truth is, especially on one occasion when

we had ample time, the Member for Torngat gave a really true picture with a lot of passion

and a lot of meaning. I am telling you, I looked around the table and watched the

ministers who were listening to him, and he gave a good example of what it is really like

in his community. He gave the example, he really did, he gave the real home picture. You

could picture it, Mr. Speaker, because if you closed your eyes and listened to the member

from Torngat you could get a true picture as to the serious negative impact the cod

moratorium has had in this Province. He told a true story. I believe the member did, Mr.

Speaker.

He talked about a community with some 80 per cent - I cannot remember

the number now, the member can correct me - 80 per cent social services when the fishery

went down. They were left off the entire package, Mr. Speaker. They missed it altogether.

Pardon the pun, but they missed the boat on the moratorium. That is what the member said.

Here is the irony of it all: They sit on the shores of Labrador with the resources next to

them, and at night-time can see the lights of the draggers offshore. Here they were, a

Newfoundland community with 80 per cent social services - I think that is the number.

Maybe it is 78 per cent, but there is a high percentage of social services in the member's

district.

MR. SULLIVAN: He 98 per cent (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He told this story - I do not want to take away his

thunder, but I am sure he does not mind if I use a little bit of it. He said: Never mind a

man not being able to buy his wife a birthday present, he could not afford to buy her a

birthday card, Mr. Speaker. He was just worried about how he was going to feed his family

the next day. So, they sit on the shores of Labrador and see the lights of draggers from

foreign ships, off the Coast of Labrador. He said there was something wrong.

The point he was driving home, as all of us try to drive home, Mr.

Speaker, is that we are not up in Ottawa because we need a hand-out or because you should

mismanaged an ecosystem and caused a catastrophe that has probably never be seen before,

Mr. Speaker, on the planet Earth; the catastrophe caused in the fishery. That is why we

were up in Ottawa, telling them about people who live in Labrador and people who live all

around the coast of Newfoundland. We were up there because: You destroyed an ecosystem and

put us in a state of economic disaster. It can't be classed any differently than that, Mr.

Speaker.

That's why we all went to Ottawa. Yes, we were sceptical, the first

time especially, the second time a bit more organized. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day,

after the second meeting was completed, I can honestly say that we had an impact on them

re-thinking. I saw the ministers, Minister Pettigrew, and I met with Minister Anderson and

sat around that table. I saw how they listened tentatively, Mr. Speaker, to the

presentations made by all members of the committee, and I think the message was starting

to get through. What I didn't like, Mr. Speaker, is the attitude of the national media -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - and everybody else.

We will continue with that same thing. We did it for the right reasons,

everybody did it for the right reasons, and hopefully we are going to get a good result at

the end of the day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a petition to present to the hon. House today on the claw- back

of the Child Tax Benefit. These petitions come from all over St. John's, and in fact all

over the Province. They are from Grand Falls, Flower Hill, York Street, Brophy Place,

Hunt's Lane, Drake Crescent and Montague. These people have sent these petitions in to me

and asked me to present them to the House of Assembly because they feel that the claw-back

of their child benefit is not just.

This claw-back is intended to go into the $10.15 million to create

programs which are to benefit the children of families on social assistance. Among these

programs we have family resource centres, youth programs and job incentive programs. The

people have said to me: If we are not in a position to be able to take advantage of these

programs, why should our children, who are among the poorest children in this Province,

contribute? We are clawing back from our poorest children.

One woman said to me: My children's money will be clawed back because

we aren't working. Next door to me is a family who are low-income earners, and they will

be able to keep their child benefit. My husband goes out day after day after day looking

for work, and because he cannot find work, because there is no work to find, our children

are being punished. How bad they feel seeing their neighbour go to work while they are out

looking for work and can't find jobs.

One of the things -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: If you are trying to divert me at the moment from

what I'm talking about, from the injustice of this claw-back, it has worked temporarily,

but only temporarily.

We have our poorest children contributing to programs which they will

never be able to take advantage of. We have people out in small remote areas, we have

people in small communities all over our Island, who are on social assistance, whose

children will lose the child tax benefit for a family resource centre, for job incentives.

Give me a list so that I can give the people who call into my office complaining about

this claw back and complaining because they can't find jobs - if the government would

furnish me with a list of jobs that are available in these rural communities for the

families of these children who are losing the child tax benefit, then I will be very glad

to furnish the list of jobs to these people.

Here you have people out in communities where there are no jobs. There

will be no family resource centres, there will be no child care programs, and the children

of these families are contributing to these programs to make this government look good

because they are putting $2.5 million into the programs. The programs will be elitist,

they will be for a certain crowd of people, and not for the poorest children.

As I said, while the father goes out looking for work, day after day

after day struggling to find employment, the neighbour next door, who is a low income

earner, their children will be able to keep the claw-back while the children of the father

who is struggling to find work will have theirs clawed back.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The Chair apologises for not recalling: Is

the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South on a new petition?

MR. FRENCH: No, I am speaking on this one, supporting. She is the

first speaker.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the petition as presented by my

colleague from St. John's West. I find it reprehensible, Mr. Speaker, that in this day and

age, this government is going to claw back the child tax benefits from people in our

Province. We are going to claw it back, Mr. Speaker, from the poorest of the poorest of

the poor in this Province. I don't know for the life of me how somebody can justify doing

that. I think it is a complete and utter disgrace that we are going to do this to people

in our Province.

Some of these people, Mr. Speaker, through no fault of their own,

cannot find jobs. They would gladly change their position tomorrow from social assistance.

Would gladly change their position tomorrow, today, this minute, if they could find jobs

but they can't find any. They can't find any jobs, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to claw

back this money.

I had a call the other night from a lady who is beside herself, who is

now going to social assistance for help, whose husband cannot find a job. He worked in the

fishing industry some months ago, came off TAGS and cannot now find a job anywhere in this

Province. He is not a lazy man, Mr. Speaker, but a very energetic young man who wants to

go to work but can't find any. We are going to say to that family: Well, we are going to

give it to you in one hand but we are going to take it back from you in the other. That to

me is ridiculous.

The poorest of the poor in this Province, we are going to take this

money away from them, and somebody should be ashamed of themselves for doing this. When

people say to you, I don't know where the money is coming from to buy next weeks

groceries, there is only so much that can be done. Yet this government is going to claw

this money back.

To say that the claw-back funding is for employment initiatives and for

family resource centres, who are we kidding here? As my colleague said, we are going to

punish the poorest people in this Province, and somebody had better start caring, Mr.

Speaker. Somebody had better start worrying as to what we are doing with some of these

people and to where we are going, because they seem to be a forgotten lot. Some of the

things that are happening to some of these people who are now, through no fault of their

own, drawing social assistance, and what we are doing to them today, is nothing short of

ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support my colleague from St. John's West. Her

petition, I believe, is very timely, certainly to the issue at hand, to the topic, and

certainly very appropriate. I, as one member of this House, Mr. Speaker, have absolutely

no problem whatsoever supporting her petition. I can only hope that somebody somewhere in

this building is listening, and that somebody will take heed and do something to help the

poorest of the poor in this Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise and present a petition on behalf of

constituents in my district. I think I said the last day that I was expecting a few more

petitions to come in. I do have one here and I will read the prayer of the petition, Mr.

Speaker. That will make it clear.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland to the hon.

House of Assembly in legislative session convened:

WHEREAS the construction of the Goulds bypass road has been identified

as a priority for development under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative; and

WHEREAS the construction of the Goulds bypass road has not begun

despite repeated promises from government; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated that

the construction of the Goulds bypass road will not begin this year; and

WHEREAS significant opportunities for development in the region are

contingent on the completion of the Goulds bypass road; and

WHEREAS the viability of our communities and businesses is dependent

upon an adequate transportation infrastructure that allows our region access to the

opportunities and markets of the capital region; and

WHEREAS the growth of our communities is closely related to the ability

of our citizens to commute to work within a reasonable time each day over highways that

are in good condition; and

WHEREAS the financial resources to begin the Goulds bypass road have

been identified under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to begin construction on the Goulds bypass road this coming year; and as in duty

bound your petitioners ever pray.

Most of the signatures on this petition, in fact all the signatures on

this petition, I might say, are from the community of Calvert.

Mr. Speaker, this petition, and the series of them that have been

streaming in from the different communities and different locations, was initiated by the

Irish Loop Regional Economic Development Board or Zone 20 as we call it. It is an area

that they have identified as a very important part of regional economic development, that

we have a proper transportation system, sufficient infrastructure to be able to have

reasonable access to the opportunities that develop in our region.

We have seen increasing numbers of people coming into our area over the

past three and four years. Many of these have been well noted on the international scene.

We have the boat tours of Bay Bulls, of Witless Bay and Tors Cove, and a new one is

opening up in Ferryland this year. We have the Colony of Avalon attracting increasing

numbers. We have in the tens of thousands of visitors who have been documented. The

documented numbers have come and visited the attractions in Ferryland District this past

while. And I might add, almost all of these gain access through the Goulds area.

Apart from people coming in the Trans-Canada Highway, coming either

down through St. Mary's Bay or down the other way around, which is unlikely because of the

distance, if someone is coming to the district for a specific purpose they access it

through St. John's. Almost close to 100 per cent of the people access it through St.

John's, through the Goulds area, and it is very important.

I get a lot of complaints from people about the condition of the road,

the traffic congestion, the highways, and the mobility of traffic. It is causing great

problems. People are trying to bring tourists back and forth to their businesses. There

are shuttle runs ongoing to the boat tours in my district, back and forth. It is time

consuming and makes things really difficult for their businesses. It is more costly.

Not only that, the factors affect many things, the environment, the

pollution. You spend forty-five minutes driving when you could do it in fifteen in

sections. I mean, that is an extra thirty minutes of consumption and pollutants going out

into the environment. There are environmental considerations. There is the time saved for

people leaving their families in the morning going to work and getting back in the

evening, in addition to the business and economic spin-offs that can result.

We have a port up in Bay Bulls. I would say it would be in the millions

of dollars going to be spent in that particular area. Right now, there is development

going ahead, hopefully, to land a base for the offshore, to employ people in the area. We

have businesses now who are shipping their products from the area and out to other parts

of the world, in fact. Businesses in my district are shipping products to different

corners of this globe and the transportation system is not very conducive for the growth

and development of businesses in the area. That is why it is important that the earliest

possible start - we would like to see it finished by now. We know that cannot be done, it

is not finished now, but the least we can expect is to get something moving on it this

year and hopefully complete it within the next year or two. That would not be

unreasonable, because the money is earmarked, it is in the pot of funds, it is identified

and it is clearly established. What we need now is to get the ball rolling and get

something done.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, you are right.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say, the guy who is (inaudible) as being close to

getting to that Cabinet position there says I am right. I am glad he agrees with me. I am

glad that the minister agrees with me, and I thank the minister for agreeing with me. We

just want to see some action. I am sure the Member for Topsail knows what it is like, but

I can tell him: You better get straight in there because people have gotten into that

chair -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, come on! The record shows the Minister of

Fisheries says no leave.

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise in my place to support the petition presented by the Member for

Ferryland in trying to get the Gould's bypass started this year. He has presented many

petitions in this House of Assembly. He is receiving them daily, I think. He is receiving

those petitions daily from various communities from down the Southern Shore, and it is

something that is long overdue.

The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the present

Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, should have had this started years ago. If he knew

what was on the go within his department, he would have it started.

The Minister of Fisheries says it was not a liberal district, that it

why the money was not spent there, Mr. Speaker. The man should be ashamed to say such

words. He is elected to represent all people in this Province, not just the people in his

district. Especially being a Minister of the Crown, he should be prepared to share the

funds equally, on a per capita basis across this Province. But, no, the man's mentality,

the mentality of the Minister of Fisheries, would not allow him to do that. It would not

allow him to see the overall picture and the needs.

When we form the government, in another few months, we will be fair. We

will distribute the funds and revenues that come into this Province, Mr. Speaker, on an

equal basis. To do that, we have to take care of the districts that have been neglected

over the years by that administration. That is what we will have to do. For the first ten

years of our administration, we will have to do that.

Mr. Speaker, that administration over there -

MR. EFFORD: We had to do that.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries says that is what they had

to do. But I must remind him, from 1949 to 1972 there was a Liberal Government in power.

What happened, Mr. Speaker? The Tories came in power in 1972 and they had to take care of

certain districts that were neglected, just as this administration is doing.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, here we go again; the Member for

Bellevue talking about bankrupting the Province. Let's look back at the history of this

country. Let's go back as far as 1969, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau took over in Ottawa.

The first deficit financing that took place by a Prime Minister of this country, it was a

Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Here we are now on the Southern Shore trying to get a few dollars to do

the Gould's bypass, and all those people can do on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Brian Mulroney tripled the debt.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, now, Mr. Speaker, this Province should thank

God for Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie. They should get down on their knees over on that

side of the House. We know what a Liberal administration in Ottawa is like, that you have

to fight tooth and nail to get a penny out of them for the TAGS Program. When John Crosbie

was there, when there was a deficit in place, they came up with money. But, not now, Mr.

Speaker; they have a surplus.

Paul Martin is pointing to the Premier. I cannot comment about nobody

being in the Premier's chair, Mr. Speaker. That is what he is pointing at.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a petition. I ask him to keep

his comments relevant.

MR. J. BYRNE: The relevance, Mr. Speaker, is trying to get funds

from the federal government and a provincial-federal program to put into the Gould's

bypass. That is the point, Mr. Speaker. That is the relevancy of it.

We have members on the other side of the House making comments that we

should not be trying to get funding for the Gould's bypass. We have a member on this side

of the House, Mr. Speaker, who is up on petitions daily to try to get funding, and we have

people on the other side downplaying it and not saying it is very important; especially

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who is at it all the time.

Mr. Speaker, the Goulds bypass is something that is desperately needed.

It is part of an overall network put in place by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. Obviously it must be an important part of the network if it is there at

all.

Mr. Speaker, we have the Outer Ring Road that is being constructed now,

and we hope that will be completed in the very near future; cross over Torbay Road and on

over to Logy Bay Road for the people on the Northeast Avalon and people working in the

area, coming from the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bypassing your district (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Cutting right through, right on the boundary of my

district, the Outer Ring Road, Mr. Speaker. It is something the people in the area are

looking forward to in the near future.

MR. FRENCH: The Member for Bellevue better watch himself driving

through Whitbourne in the night-time. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes.

With respect to this, Mr. Speaker, and the funding for roads in this

Province, I would like to know what is happening out around Whitbourne. The four-lane

highway, Mr. Speaker, came to a dead end almost. What happened? We have people out there

now who want an overpass and different plans put in place, but where does the Member for

Bellevue stand on this? What does he want to see in the Whitbourne area? Does he want it

to come to a single highway again, or does he want an overpass put in place? What does he

want? I heard that the Member for Bellevue and the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's

had a meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. J. BYRNE: I asked the member a question. Get up and have a say.

Speak to the petition, I say.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. DECKER: Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker. The second attempt to get

Motion No. 1 on the floor. That is the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1: The hon. Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board To Move That The House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways

and Means to Consider the Raising of Supply to be Granted to Her Majesty; otherwise known

as the Budget Speech.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the acting Government House Leader is anxious to get to this

debate, because this is the non-confidence amendment that is now before the House. For the

record, I believe we are on the amendment to the motion.

The amendment reads: That this House acknowledge and condemn the

government's failure to manage competently the Province's finances, its failure to live up

to its duty or its promise to provide adequate direction and funding for social programs

such as health and social services, its failure to secure the future of our Province by

investing appropriately in education and students, and its failure to discharge

effectively its responsibility to plan for and invest in economic recovery and employment

growth in the Province, and particularly in rural areas so desperately in need of

development and jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment which is condemnatory of the

government in general and specific terms, condemning their approach to the whole matter of

the management of the public finance and its spending policies. As such, it's a motion

deserving of a great deal of debate and support from me and my party, who are totally

appalled by the approach. Our caucus is unanimous in its condemnation of the government

for its failure to adequately look after the social needs of the people of this Province

and the educational needs of students at all levels; certainly not only the educational

needs but even the nutritional needs of students; its approach to the School Lunch Program

as one which should be done on a voluntary basis as opposed to a matter of government

policy, and its approach to post-secondary education. We have as situation where one-half

of post-secondary non-university students are forced to pay the full cost of

post-secondary education in questionable programs with questionable instruction.

I see the Member - I was going to call him the minister, but not yet,

next week the minister of whatever. The Member for Bellevue, not the Member for Topsail;

he is not getting in yet. The Member for Bellevue has a particular interest in adult

education, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the House. He knows about this. I

want to ask him this question: Does he think that it is appropriate for a private college

to have teaching the courses, the qualifications for an instructor in a course, someone

who graduated from that course the previous semester? Is that the appropriate standard

that he thinks should be applied in post-secondary education? Well, I say to him, Mr.

Speaker, when he becomes the Minister of Education in the not too distant future, I will

be calling on him to do what the present minister is not doing and to have a full

examination of the qualifications of instructors in our private colleges.

Mr. Speaker, I had a student come to me the other day, a graduate from

an IT program in a private college. There were eight students in the course, Mr. Speaker,

and it cost them $10,000 for Information Technology. Out of the eight students, Mr.

Speaker, and only two of them were working and the two that were working were working for

that particular college teaching the course that they had just finished. They laid off the

people who had the qualifications because they were not part of the cult. They laid off

the people who had the qualifications and hired the recent graduates to teach the course

they had just finished.

It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of when I was a student some thirty years

ago. Thirty years ago I went to Memorial University and I remember a student in my first

year university class who was as young as I was. She had gone to the first year of

university, Mr. Speaker, not out of grade XI

AN HON. MEMBER: You went to university when I did.

MR. HARRIS: I went to Memorial University in 1967. It was a very

good year. Mr. Speaker, in 1967, in my first year class, there was a student who had

graduated from grade XI and the year after she had graduated from grade XI she taught

grade XI. Not only did she teach grade XI, she taught grade XI, grade X, grade IX and

grade VIII, after graduating that year. Now, Mr. Speaker, I was shocked, shocked that that

was the state of our educational system at the high school level at that time.

I thought that in thirty years we had made some progress but now I

find, Mr. Speaker, that we have thrown out all this progress because we have allowed the

private education industry - and some of the owners and operators of these schools are

very fond of saying: This is not an educational institution, this is a business. This is

my business and if you are in my business you will follow my rules.

Mr. Speaker, what I find is that we have turned back the clock. We have

thrown out progress and now we have people teaching courses at the post-secondary level

who just graduated a previous semester. No other experience; no other educational

experience. In fact, Mr. Speaker -

MR. WISEMAN: It's not required.

MR. HARRIS: It is not required, as the Member for Topsail says. Not

required by this government! Not expected by this government! Not expected that people

taking money from students under the Student Loan Program, to finance their education, not

required to have the kind of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trade.

MR. HARRIS: I am not talking about a trade. We are not talking

about a trade. What trade is he talking about here? The trade of animal care? The trade of

pet grooming? What trade is he talking about, Mr. Speaker?

When we look at the recently, finally pried out of the Department of

Education, post-secondary education - it took four months, Mr. Speaker, to pry it out of

them and finally the report was delivered two weeks ago. In that, Mr. Speaker, it made

perfectly clear that the instructors at the post-secondary level - in the private system,

not the public system which the Member for Bellevue is proud to be part of as an adult

educator; the public system, not the private one. But in the private system 60 per cent

have less than a bachelor's degree. That is the kind of education system, 60 per cent have

less than, not... There is no doubt about it, there are only 40 per cent with a bachelor's

degree or better. Sixty per cent have less than a bachelor's degree, who are teaching in

the private college system. That system provides an education to 11,000-plus students.

Fully one-half of the students attending post-secondary non-university education in this

Province are in the private system.

Their tuition pays the whole shot. It pays for the buildings, pays for

the instructor, pays for the profit of the entrepreneurs, and pays for the advertising, I

say to the Member for Topsail, pays for the lifestyle advertising that we have. We have a

situation now where our high school students are being inundated with very expensive

marketing campaigns, I say to the members, that are designed to entice them into the

private college system.

I was in Port aux Basques three weeks ago to a high school youth

parliament for the West Coast. These students at the youth parliament are your more

engaged students. They are the ones who are involved in activities, public speaking, they

want to get involved in public issues. I asked them what they thought of this public

school versus private school controversy.

Do you know what I heard? Many of them said: The private schools seem

to have a better image than the public schools. I said: Yes, that is probably true. That

is because the tuition they charge pays for this very expensive lifestyle advertising that

is promoted by some of these colleges, and they have a marketing campaign that the public

institutions, up until recently, haven't been able to compete with. They are doing it now.

People now even know the name of the college after all the advertising. It probably cost

them $500,000 to let people know what the name of college is, they keep changing it all

the time. The former Minister of Education kept changing the names and re-organizing this

and moving this one around. After the big ballyhoo, after all that changing around, the

shell game that he was playing for three or four years, what did we find out? We found out

that $25 million per year from the public purse had been taken out of the public

post-secondary system. The Member for Bellevue, the next Minister of Education, knows

that.

He knows that because he was involved himself with one of the

predecessors of the College of the North Atlantic, I believe it was the Avalon Community

College. It was the Avalon Community College, wasn't it? He is sitting in the wrong chair

to collect his pension, I would say. If he is hoping to collect a pension I think he had

better move to another chair, because he won't be collecting much of a pension in that

chair, I would say to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. SULLIVAN: The only parliamentary assistant never to get into

Cabinet in recent memory is Danny Dumaresque. So I hope (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is a very interesting point. The Member for

Ferryland says the only parliamentary assistant never to get into the Cabinet was the

former Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SULLIVAN: Eagle River at the time.

MR. HARRIS: Eagle River at the time - its name changed - was Danny

Dumaresque. I hope you don't aspire to follow in his footsteps. I am expecting, Mr.

Speaker -

Maybe he will be saved from oblivion before the next provincial

election by being put into Cabinet in the next week or so. I know the Member for Topsail

is anxious to get in ahead of him but I don't think that is going to happen. I know he

spent a couple of years sitting in another minister's chair and office before he moved

into this House, but I think it is going to be a while before he moves into a minister's

chair of his own.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the role of this government in supporting

the students of this Province in education, there is very clearly a total lack of concern

about the post-secondary students. I have given you one example of a student who just

graduated, having a university degree himself and just graduated from an IT program. Now,

Mr. Speaker, let me ask: Does anybody here know what IT is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Information technology.

MR. HARRIS: Two points for the Member for Bellevue. IT is

information technology, but what does it mean? What is the content of information

technology? Now, I am an educated man. I have a few degrees. I am an educated man.

I look at The Evening Telegram on the weekends and I see two or

three pages of ads, everybody advertising IT programs. Can you make any sense out of what

it is they are offering? What is IT? If you had a course called Automotive Maintenance,

would you know what it meant? Could it mean everything from changing a tire to rebuilding

the engine? If you called it Automotive Technology, it would be even more confusing. What

is Automotive Technology? Changing a tire? That could be a course in Automotive

Technology. You could have a course in rebuilding engines, Mr. Speaker.

What we have in the whole area of informative technology, Mr. Speaker,

is an opportunity for people who are in it for the money to take advantage of the lack of

regulation by this government of the post-secondary institutions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) money?

MR. HARRIS: In it for the money. The person sitting in the

minister's chair over there, the Member for Topsail, knows. Does he know why we have 100

campuses in the private sector? What are they in it for, Mr. Speaker? He is a man whose

government talks about entrepreneurs.

The Member for Placentia was up yesterday. He never had a job, he said,

because he is an entrepreneur. This is the first job he has ever had in his life.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The first job I had was selling newspapers, I say to

the Member of Bellevue, when I was ten years old. That was my first job.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are in the private post-secondary system

are in it for profit. It is a business. There is nothing wrong with business, or having a

business. There is nothing wrong with that in general. I do not have any problem with that

at all. We need more people involved in business. We are talking here about post-secondary

education, about the obligations that we have as a society, that government has to our

young people, to ensure they have an adequate opportunity to learn and to get a decent

grounding so they can pursue the opportunities that life has to offer.

We know, Mr. Speaker, we are behind the eight ball in this Province

economically. We know that we are behind the eight ball with the kinds of policies that

your cousins in Ottawa are promoting in the area of free trade, in the area of the MAI,

and all of these internationalist policies that are designed to benefit the multinational

and transnational corporations at the expense of ordinary people.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology knows that. The China

syndrome herself knows all about that. She has been all around the world trying to get

people to come here and work. Some of the policies that are being designed to support

that, Mr. Speaker, are policies like the MAI. Now let us bring it back down to what it is

really all about. The MAI is about what is called foreign direct investment. The MAI

treaty, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, is about protecting foreign direct

investment from the kind of policies that we unanimously supported here yesterday, the

kind of policies inherent in this statement, in the resolution put forth by the Member of

Labrador West, that we have a policy in this Province to ensure the maximum use of our

resources, the maximum benefit to the people of this Province, the maximum secondary

processing and tertiary processing of our resources, of our industry.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, that stands in direct contrast to the MAI proposal

which will prevent places like Newfoundland, countries like Canada, from insisting,

through legislation or otherwise, on making those multinational, transnational

corporations which are involved in foreign direct investments in this Province, having any

strings attached. No strings attached, Mr. Speaker. That is the problem we have with Inco.

What are we doing with Inco now? Why is there no royalty regime in place? Well, the price

has not really been negotiated. The price of the smelter has not been negotiated, I say to

hon. members. That is what is going on right now.

Inco is saying: Well, we will build a smelter, and we will do this, but

we expect a royalty regime that is going to make sure that our operation is going to be

profitable. The fact that we overpaid $4.3 billion to somebody else - not to Newfoundland,

to someone else - to have the right to that mineral resource, that has to be taken into

account in our profitability and in our definition of economically feasible as well. This

is part of the built-in cost; $4.3 billion is our investment. We have to make a return on

that. That is what they say: We want to make a return on our investment, and our

investment is $4.3 billion.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what if Inco gets bought out? What if the shares of

Inco get bought out for their true market value? And the new company, the new owner, what

is their investment cost? Is it $4.3 billion? Maybe it is $2.1 billion. We do not know

what it is. In fact, I, for one, do not really care because it is not something that the

people of this Province have been paid for the resource. It is something that somebody

else had been paid for the resource. Mr. Speaker, we have to be very careful as a Province

in not taking a stand on these important issues, such as the Multinational Agreement on

Investment.

The Member for St. John's South has raised a number of times in this

House, the issue of water and the export of water. The Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology knows nothing about it. I was shocked and surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was ignorant on the implications and the issue

of the export of water as a national or international issue.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

I ask the member to take his seat. It is 4:00 p.m. on Thursday and I

have to announce the questions for the Late Show.

The first question is: Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Minister of Health re my question on paying for blood tests. That is from

the Member for Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology re my question on water export. That is from the Member

for St. John's South.

Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation re my question on carrier plates and truckers. That

is from the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Official Opposition is

very hard to satisfy.

I want to get back to where I was talking about the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, and her depth of knowledge on the implications of the

export of water. I was shocked that a minister of such international renown, the minister

who is better known in Beijing than she is in Burin, was not aware. She is better known in

Beijing than she is in Burin, Mr. Speaker. That is what I say about the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology. I was surprised.

AN HON. MEMBER: She doesn't represent Burin.

MR. HARRIS: Or even Grand Bank. She is better known in Beijing than

Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever been to Grand Bank?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, indeed I have. I have never been to Beijing,

though - certainly not as often as the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: She has almost as many Aeroplan points as Chuck Furey -

oops, sorry, the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised that the minister was not aware of the

international implications of the export of water that her federal cousin, Minister

Axworthy, was jumping up and down in the House of Commons about the other day, when he

found out that the Conservative Government of Ontario had issued a licence for someone to

export water. I was surprised she was not aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Lake Superior.

MR. HARRIS: Water from Lake Superior? I think a mere 600 million

litres instead of the sixteen billion litres that are being proposed to be exported from

Gisborne Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I do not really have a problem with the export of bottled

water; that is a product. In fact, I have one upstairs, I should bring it to the House

some time, a little bottle about this big, not much bigger than that. Do you know what it

is called, Mr. Speaker? It is called Labrador Water. Do you know where it comes from?

Montreal. They probably even have a copyright on the trademark. It comes from Montreal, a

little bottle like this. I got it on an airplane one time; Labrador Water, bottled at

source, Montreal, Quebec. They are making money on this, Mr. Speaker, and I do not have a

problem with developing a product. You know, we have Evian Water from France and we have

Perrier Water.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gisborne Water.

MR. HARRIS: Gisborne Water will be a wonderful product, Mr.

Speaker. I have no problem as long as there is enough water there to meet the needs of the

environment in that location; we can bottle Gisborne Water. I am already getting water in

my office from Mr. Speaker's district. I have a water bottle in my office from the

District of Trinity - Bay de Verde; a good industry, a good product, a good development.

It tastes good; brought in from Trinity - Bay de Verde to allow people in my office and

visitors to have a drink of good, clean water. Not that there is not good, clean water

here in St. John's, but bottled water is a product, Mr. Speaker, that has a great deal of

market interest in many places, in cities and towns throughout North America and elsewhere

in the world, Mr. Speaker, where their own water is not as good and clean as ours. I would

like to see that developed, Mr. Speaker, but not in a tanker truck, not in a bulk carrier

anchored off the South Coast for the sole purpose of filling up with our water and taking

it somewhere else and then putting it in bottles; not that, Mr. Speaker. That would be

very much against the principles of protection of our natural resources and use of our

natural resources for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, some provinces have already put in legislation, a ban

against the export of water. The Province of British Columbia, for example, has banned the

export of water, Mr. Speaker, banned it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see us have

legislation. I suppose the member would want to give away our fish too or our seals if

there is any left after the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture burns them, destroys

them, kills them or whatever else he wanted to do the other day with all of them, every

single one. If there are any left after that, I suppose, we might have a sealing industry;

I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, the issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: Water is a renewable resource.

MR. HARRIS: Water is a renewable resource, Mr. Speaker, if we can

do something about the acid rain that is coming up from the States. If we had some

sensible policies protecting the environment from acid rain, sure water is a renewable

resource. But it has to be looked after and the environment has to be looked after and

cared for. If we can care for the environment, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to enjoy our

water for many, many years and millenniums to come. Mr. Speaker, this government is not

taking proper care of our environment, and I will move to the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of the protection of our renewable

resources is one which is very much in the forefront. It has to be; look at the fishery.

We have a situation in the fishery where, for 500 years, people in this Province and

countries all over the world - well not all over the world, mostly European counties -

have come to these waters and fished and enjoyed the bounty of the sea to feed the nations

of Europe for hundreds of years and developed an industry, developed a culture and

developed a way of life, not just for people who eventually became what are now

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but for Basque fishermen, for Portuguese and for

Spaniards.

The white fleet was sent here for centuries, Mr. Speaker. Part of the

culture of Portugal is the fishery in Newfoundland and is still to this day, despite the

fact that the Portuguese don't come here any more. The whole coasts of Portugal have a

culture that is associated with the fishery in Newfoundland for generation after

generation after generation, and here in this Province for generation after generation

after generation relied on the cod fishery, the Northern cod stock. What has happened, Mr.

Speaker, in the last twenty years? It has been destroyed. How, Mr. Speaker? By government

policy, destroyed by government policy, destroyed by corporate greed, destroyed by the

lack and unwillingness of political leaders to do what has to be done to ensure the

survival of this.

There is a book just out, and I know the Government House Leader has

made reference to it in our committee hearings in Ottawa, a book by Michael Harris; no

relation, Mr. Speaker, to me or to the Michael Harris in Ontario, I understand. Michael

Harris has written a book called Lament for an Ocean . In that book he describes, in

great detail, the destruction of the cod fishery in the Province of Newfoundland which

took place, Mr. Speaker, not by the international fleets, although a terrific amount of

damage was done in the twenty years before 1977, before the 200-mile limit, but the

destruction of the Northern cod took place, Mr. Speaker, when the Northern cod stock was

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is something that is not recognized by the

Mr. Speaker. In an editorial this Tuesday, May 5, it says: It is time to bag TAGS. They do

not recognize the responsibility for the destruction of this bread basket to the world,

Mr. Speaker, the food basket to the world that was found in the Northern cod stock and the

other stocks around our coasts.

(Inaudible) was famous, Mr. Speaker, for many years. I remember growing

up as a teenager hearing about the prairie provinces being the bread basket to the world,

the great prairies of the United States and Canada producing enough food to feed the

nations of the world. Well, Mr. Speaker, here in the seas around our Province was the food

basket to many parts of the world as well and that has been destroyed. But does The

Globe and Mail recognize that? No, Mr. Speaker. What do they say in the mean spirited,

nasty Central Canadian attitude? It says here: Coastal communities still want someone else

to pay the cost of change. That is all it is to them, Mr. Speaker, a change from working

in the fishery to working somewhere else in some other province. That is all they see it

as, Mr. Speaker. They don't see it as the destruction -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he is just repeating himself.

MR. HARRIS: No, no. This is very important.

MR. SPEAKER: The member does not have leave.

MR. HARRIS: Just a few minutes to clue up. Can I have a couple of

minutes to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty seconds to clue up. (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Minister of Justice

is saying, but he was not listening to what I was saying. What I was talking about, Mr.

Speaker, was the fact that the so-called national newspaper of Toronto, Mr. Speaker,

Toronto's national newspaper, is talking about Newfoundlanders in coastal communities

wanting someone else to pay the cost of change. What we are talking about in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, is the destruction of one of the most important food sources in the

world today, in a world where hundreds of millions of people are starving. We have

most important food resources in the world today.

What The Globe and Mail continues to concern itself with, what

it suggests, Mr. Speaker, is that the people of this Province are not willing to enjoy the

cost of change, not willing to give up their way of life forever and move to some other

part of Canada at the behest of the Central Canadian Economy, Mr. Speaker. We are not

prepared to do that in this Province. We want to make this Province work and we are going

to fight to insist that it works in the best way possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to finish up my few minutes with respect to the Budget debate,

the amendment or the non-confidence motion, and say that I was interested to read on the

weekend, in The Financial Post , an

article that clearly said - the headline goes:

Liberals and Conservatives, two views from the centre. I thought it was dead- on in terms

of the difference between being a Liberal and being a Conservative. It goes on to say

that: Liberals in Canada are really more about management than ideas. Genuine believers,

Liberals are in the central role of government in creating wealth and redistributing it.

They see government as a means by which economic growth can be moved along. Liberals in

the Canadian tradition are centralists who believe our national government is the lead

player in all matters as if Canada were a centralized federation. Liberals are generally

condescending to the provinces which they do not see as equal partners and Liberals use

federal spending power to invade provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, in the last little while we have seen that condescending

attitude. We have seen the attitude that this Province is not necessarily the equal

partner that we should be treated as. We have seen it with Port aux Basques. We have seen

it with respect to the decision made on Marine Atlantic. Everybody knew. It was not as if

Marine Atlantic or its headquarters and the jobs associated with it in Moncton, were being

rifled from that region. Everybody knew that that decision would be coming down and that

all of it should have been here, every single bit of it. I guess we are hopeful. The

Member for LaPoile can certainly enlighten the House at some point if he wants to

participate in the Budget debate, of what will take place.

It goes on to say: Liberals can and have s