May 19,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 28

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly, fourteen journalist students from Lawrence College

accompanied by their instructor Mr. William Callahan, a former member of this

House and minister of a previous government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about the astounding news

release he issued yesterday afternoon, a news release on Trans City, saying the

five former ministers who earlier expressed dissent with the Trans City process

are now, miraculously, satisfied. The Premier speaks for all five members of his

caucus saying that they were quite impressed by the whitewash report of the

suspended Minister of Justice and now they are all singing from the same

songbook as the Premier in praising the Trans City deal as being in the best

interest of the people of the Province.

I would like to ask the Premier, how did he extract the

recantation of the five former ministers? Did he threaten to expel them from the

caucus? Did he promise them that he will leaving soon - that the Premier will be

leaving soon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Did he beg them to praise him so that he will

look good in the eyes of Prime Minister Chrtien, from whom the Premier is

hoping to get a lucrative appointment?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows she can't impute - the latter statement

was out of order.

But the hon. the Premier, if he wishes to respond.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of these days, if she is here long enough, she might

learn not to make statements like that.

Mr. Speaker, there is no miraculous recantation or any such

thing. It is fairly simple. The members aren't bigoted, they aren't prejudiced,

they don't have a committed position that they intend to maintain in the face of

all facts or in the face of all reason. They looked at the complete assessment

of it that was done by the deputy clerk of the Council and by the Government

House Leader and they simply acknowledged that what was reported by the deputy

clerk was a reasonable explanation of what occurred. They acknowledge that no

minister had any more information than they had. Every one of them is agreed on

that. Every one of them has told me they have no doubt about the integrity of

the government and the honesty with which the government dealt with this issue;

each of them has told me that.

Now, if the hon. members opposite want to try to maintain

this forever to get whatever mileage they can out of it - because they simply

have nothing positive to offer. Because even the former Leader of the NDP, in

his advice to the new Leader of the Tory Party, advised her to follow the

policies established by the government in dealing with economic issues. And

knowing they have nothing positive to offer then presumably they have to

continue to rely on something like this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, that was no answer. The mystery remains.

I want to ask the Premier now about out-migration from

Newfoundland and Labrador, about the mothers' sons and daughters and the mothers

and fathers who have been leaving Newfoundland and Labrador.

Statistics Canada recently released to the news media,

statistics for 1993-'94, so they are not completely up to date, but those

figures include the departure from the Province of over 15,000 people in that

year, in 1993 -'94, contrasted with 10,000 the year earlier, an increase from

10,000 to 15,000 from 1992-'93 to 1993-'94.

Now, a departure of 15,000 people from this Province is close

to a loss of 3 per cent of the total provincial population. Is the Premier

worried about these figures?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it concerns me, but I

think, in fairness to the people of the Province, they ought not to be misled;

we ought to put the figures into perspective. The net loss, I don't recall it

specifically but my recollection was 4,500, 4,700, something of that magnitude.

Now, Mr. Speaker, starting in 1988, '89, '90, we finally

started to recover our population, a loss that had started in the 1970s, and in

most years, from the late 1970s right on through, we were losing population

steadily at a time when the government of that day did not have to cope with the

economic catastrophe of the closure of our groundfish fishery.

Now, Mr. Speaker, look at it by contrast. In 1994, when we

had to cope with the elimination of the basis for earning an income for 30,000

people in this Province, our loss was somewhere around 4,500. In 1985, when

several of the leading members on the opposite side were ministers responsible

for the direction of the economy, the net loss was 5,500.

Now, Mr. Speaker, put in that kind of perspective, the

situation is well understood by people. Am I concerned? Yes, I am, greatly

concerned. We are doing everything we possibly can to cope with these extremely

difficult circumstances, and if you are to judge by the objective opinion of

people who speak about it, not connected with government, not connected with the

Liberal Party, we are doing a darn good job with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I happen to know that the Leader of the

Opposition was at a dinner, or a luncheon, yesterday when the Chairman of the

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce spoke about the high degree of success this

government has had in dealing with its financial and economic issues and the

great progress we were making, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. member on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I was at a CIBC luncheon yesterday, at which the

Minister of Finance of this Provincial Government spoke about CIBC being the

government's banker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada recently

released to the public figures indicating that in 1993-'94 over 15,000 people

left Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, these figures are obviously not up-to-date.

More than a year has passed since the 1993-'94 year, and I would like to ask the

Premier - because he would have more recent data, he may have more detail than

Statistics Canada has released to the public - does the Premier have figures

indicating that the problem of out-migration is actually worse than a loss of

15,000 in 1993-'94?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't have any figures that indicate

that right at the moment, but I will check the up to date figures that I do have

and I will make them available. I will also get the figures for 1985 and look at

the out-migration in 1985 and make all of those figures available so that people

can consider the issue in perspective. I also will provide the relative impact

on the economy of an event like the closure of the groundfish fishery and advise

the House as to what the circumstances were in '84-'85 when there was a higher

level of out-migration.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to getting the Premier's data because I

understand that he does have statistics indicating that the problem of

out-migration is worst than a loss of 3 per cent of the total population the

year before last. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem and this is 1995. The

Premier is in office and has been for over six years. What plans does the

Premier have to deal with the escalating problem of out-migration? What is the

Premier going to do to stem the tide of people leaving this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We started it six years ago, Mr. Speaker.

The plan started about restructuring the devastated economy that the Tories left

us with. We started, Mr. Speaker, and put in place policies that gave the

Province a new direction and a completely restructured and reoriented economy,

dealt with the devastating debt level and the persistent deficit year after year

that put us in a position where we had to tax people inordinately and it made it

unattractive for businesses. We started correcting circumstances, Mr. Speaker,

that the former government had put in place where the net income from corporate

income tax was significantly less, about half of the net income from liquor

sales, about half of the net income from tobacco tax and is now even less than

the net income from the sales of lottery tickets. That was the economic mess

that we had to correct.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I remind hon. members that despite our

significant reduction of corporate income tax rate from 17 per cent to 14 per

cent our corporate income tax net return has increased last year and it is

projected to increase again this year. The economy, Mr. Speaker, is starting to

recover because we dealt with the fundamentals. It is laid out in the Strategic

Economic Plan and people were alerted from the beginning. All they had to do was

read it. Don't expect an immediate turn around within twenty-four hours. It is

going to take some time to solve the problem of devastation to our economy that

the Tories left us, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Yesterday the Minister of Finance tabled a report from

Treasury Board and the Secretariat dealing with the Workers' Compensation Review

Division. My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Does he accept the report in its totality, which basically says that the chief

review commissioner interpreted the rules and regulations and legislation

himself - took it upon himself to interpret the legislation - so that he could

charge for postponements? Does he accept that?

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

Labour Relations.

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

I have had an opportunity to look at the audit from Treasury

Board and, as the member well knows, it is incumbent upon the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations, at the end of a calendar year, which would be

July of this year, to review the Workers' compensation Review Commission and its

workings over the past year, and because of this report I would sense that we

would have to go up and use this as, I suppose, a base or a guideline, along

with some other things that we would normally do. I see nothing wrong with the

report. I think it is an

interpretation -

MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible) get you off the hook.

MR. MURPHY: The Member for Green Bay should still be on

the hook. If we had the $90,000 he had in severance we would be able to do a lot

better.

Let me say to the Member for Kilbride, in all honesty, that

there is nothing here only

interpretation, and let me remind the member that the

word `postponement' may very well constitute a case. These are the kind of

things that we would have to look at. When you see commissioners - all

commissioners - who spend a tremendous amount of time reviewing a case, and

subsequently new medical evidence comes into play and causes it to be postponed,

that tremendous amount of work has been done, but we will look at it as required

under legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, the minister responsible for the

administration of the Workers' Compensation Act, the minister responsible for

the review division, is going to wait until the end of the year to do a report.

Just let me read from the report what it says: The chief

review commissioner and the administrator decided that a postponement hearing

constituted a case. While the approach taken is not unreasonable, further

direction and advice on the definition of a case should have been requested from

the Department of Employment and Labour Relations.

Let me ask the minister this: Why are you going to wait until

the end of the year to provide some direction on whether Mr. Gullage can

continue to postpone, and charge for postponements, which this report allows him

to do? Why don't you take some action now and provide direction to the chief

review commissioner and the review division on this matter?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: What the member should remember, Mr. Speaker,

is that the legislation came down in June. June isn't very far away, and I can

say to the member that the cases that were interpreted as postponements prior to

the audit have not been billed for since. We are putting together now the

criteria to do the review. We will be over there very shortly. The House is not

engulfed in flames. I think the member should show a little more responsibility.

He has the report. He was up earlier this year with all kinds of innuendo and

what have you based on no fact. I think what the member has in front of him now

is factual. It is an internal audit done by the people from Treasury Board, an

independent audit that we provided freely to the House as the member requested,

and so we should. I don't see anything in here to indicate that we should rush

over there this afternoon and lock the doors until we are satisfied. We are

doing what is required of us, I say to the member.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the only fact that is obvious

to me is that Mr. Gullage, a blatant political patronage appointment, who is not

qualified to review the decisions in the first place, is continued to allow to

pillage and plunder the injury fund of this Province by getting $500 for

postponing cases while the government will do nothing about it.

In the report also it clearly indicates that between July 1

and August 31 the acting chief review commissioner, Mr. Brace, did not charge

for postponements because he interpreted the rules and regulations as they

should have been interpreted, that one case, once it is heard in its entirety,

for $500. I ask the minister again: How can he stand as the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations and find the actions of Mr. Gullage, who took it

upon himself to interpret the legislation of this Province, where if any other

ordinary citizen had done so would have been thrown in jail or charged - how can

he sit there and let that happen?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, when I refer to the member as

having more responsibility obviously that dissertation and accusations about

anybody is totally unfounded. Mr. Brace and Mr. Gullage and all commissioners,

okay, up to a total of fifty-four as the member knows, had postponed cases,

invoiced, billed and paid for. I say to the member again, the department will be

over there within a couple of weeks with this report and other items that we

would normally do. It is the responsibility of myself as the minister to report

back to government our findings. If we find that there are some discrepancies

that need to be looked at and changed then that report will contain that and

government will deal with it as we dealt with the $437,000 that the Appeal

Tribunal cost Workers' Compensation.

What the member should also realize is that the new regime

has saved over $240,000 and cleared up the whole backlog of those people who had

appeals in there. So to stand up and throw accusations at Mr. Gullage or anybody

else is totally unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

the Premier questions concerning provincially owned fish plants in the Province.

Is the Premier aware of how many plants are owned right now by the Province?

What are the plans that the government has for those fish plants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can't at the top of my head

tell him how many. I don't think it is a large number but I will certainly

undertake to get the information and provide it to him. I can say to him

generally that the government basically wants to put on hold any decision to do

anything with any fish plants that it may own that are not operational at this

stage until the joint federal-provincial fisheries renewal board that is

functioning to deal with future harvesting regulation and future processing

regulation has an opportunity to consider the whole matter and give the

government recommendations. We do not want to exacerbate the problem by making

decisions without taking the whole of the impact on the fisheries in place.

It is absolutely clear now that one of the major factors that

contributed to the downfall of the groundfish fishery, as well as excessive

foreign overfishing, was our own excessive fishing. The federal government

allowed two great increases in the TAC, and the result, with other factors, is

that has caused the destruction of the fish stocks.

One of the pressures on increasing the TAC was the increase

in the number of plants, and the increase in the number of boats, so we have to

acknowledge some responsibility for decisions taken in this Province. We do not

want now to exacerbate an already difficult problem with our fisheries, and we

want to tread cautiously rather than in a daring way, and that is generally the

approach we intend to take, but as to the specific number, I will get that

information and provide it to the hon. member.

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the Premier's answer. There is a fish plant in

my district right now, Mr. Premier, that has been put for sale by the provincial

government. The community I am talking about is the community of Branch in St.

Mary's Bay. The people of that community are very concerned that somebody is

going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which community?

MR. MANNING: Branch, St. Mary's Bay.

The people of that community are very concerned that somebody

is going to come in, the plant will go to the highest bidder, the plant may be

torn down and carted away, without the people of the community really having an

opportunity to express their concerns.

We all understand, as the Premier touched on, what the future

holds in the fishery, and we can never tell what it holds for Branch or any

other rural community in the Province, but I would like to ask the Premier: In

the process of selling off this plant, or any other plant for that matter, in

the Province, will the community concerns be a consideration to the provincial

government before they sell the plants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as a general practise the

government always consults everybody concerned, and the community, of course, is

vitally concerned and vitally interested, before anything is done of this

nature. Almost always the community and the fishing interests in the community

have a significant input before decisions are taken.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we speak here today in the House there are eighty-five

people in the community of Branch who are either on minimum social assistance or

have absolutely no income, and everyone is concerned about the future of the

community. The plant may not operate as a fish plant, but the building itself

may be used for some other industry.

I ask the Premier today: Will be assure the people of Branch

that before a final decision is made on that particular plant, that his

officials, or the officials of the Department of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture, will go back to the community with the proposals and discuss them

with the community leaders and the community as a whole before a final decision

is made on the sale of the plant?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I cannot give the member any guarantee as

to precisely what process will be put in place, but what I can tell the member

is that the community will have ample opportunity for input before the

government disposes of it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education and Training,

and concerns a fundamental issue of upgrading in Adult Basic Education for the

100,000 people of this Province who have been unable to complete high school for

one reason or another.

The minister says the federal government has cut off a number

of purchased seats, and that is his explanation, but that does not explain why

all night school courses for upgrading run by the Cabot College outside of the

Cabot College itself, the community outreach centres in Flatrock, Torbay, Long

Pond, Mobile, and the Goulds have been shut down, and why the western and

central and Labrador community colleges are offering no night school courses

anymore in Adult Basic Education.

I want to know why this minister is presiding over the

destruction of Adult Basic Education opportunities for people in this Province.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member should get

his facts correct. The Cabot College has 741 part-time students in Adult Basic

Education. Now, I do not know where the sites are, but I am confident that they

are sites which are accessible to the people who need them. In addition to that,

they have 429 full-time students.

In the case of Labrador they have fifty part-time students

doing ABE and they have 220 full-time students doing adult basic education. What

the hon. member should realize is that the cut which the federal government just

gave deals with direct funding to individuals who are on unemployment insurance,

or what have you. They are clients of the human resources department and that

department decides how to buy space for their people.

What the federal government has said is, we are no longer

going to buy as much space government to government but we are going to buy

space government to institution. A few days ago they announced 2700 additional

seats which they would make available for adult basic education on government to

institution. That means, for the hon. member's benefit, that they will buy these

seats, in some cases from public institutions and in other cases from private

colleges, or whichever way is most suited to make the adult basic education most

available to the clients who need it.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the facts on these cutbacks come

from the staff who have been teaching these programs, and the reality is that

the Department of Education, through the community colleges, is getting rid of

its mandate to provide basic education to those who need it. Is this part of a

scheme to privatize all this, or is it really part of this government's getting

away from its responsibilities to the people who the school system has already

failed once, and is now, on the community college level, avoiding its mandate?

The cuts, Mr. Speaker, have amounted to more than 60 per cent

of the programs that have been provided for adult basic education through the

community college system as part of its regular mandate. This is a provincial

responsibility. Why is he not prepared to acknowledge that his government has

lowered its commitment to adult basic education through the community college

system? Why is he not prepared to do that?

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

MR. DECKER: That is the easiest question of all. Why am I

not prepared to acknowledge that we have somehow lowered our commitment? The

question is obvious. I am not prepared to admit it because we have not done it.

Why would I admit to something we did not do, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member does

not know what he is talking about.

The fact of the matter is that there are today 4800 seats

available in the public system and in addition to that there are 1200 seats in

the private sector which are being made available. In addition to that in the

volunteer sector everyone is involved. Now, the hon. members talks about some of

the staff whose jobs are on the line. The reality is that we live in an age of

constant change and government and educational institutions are constantly

trying to look at the best way to deliver all of the courses which are about to

be delivered. We are delivering university courses by distance education to

Labrador West and to parts of the Burin Peninsula. Times are changing. We are

using new technology in the deliverance of adult basic education. The other

problem with making the old system available - let me give an example - college

experience indicates that people who are not sponsored will not come on a

full-time basis. With the reduction in sponsorship it is only normal to reduce

capacity. Out of the current 227 on the waiting list for Central Newfoundland

only five are prepared to go full-time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Natural Resources. Back in the Budget of 1993 the government revised the

Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, and this was done at that time to ensure a

positive climate for investment in mineral development in the Province. At the

time government said, and other members said at the time, that the cost of this

initiative would be quite low, and that was true enough, and that it was

expected to attract significant attention for potential investors.

One of the clauses, Mr. Speaker, of that particular act,

Section 4, Subsection (2) said that a person may, in the current taxation year,

deduct from the amount payable, under the Income Tax Act in respect of mining

income in the Province for that particular year, shall apply for only one of

each of the first ten years after commercial production is achieved.

Is the minister, now in light of what has been happening in

Voisey Bay and the substantial royalties and tremendous benefits to this

Province that could be realized, contemplating any changes to this particular

act?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the Voisey Bay discovery is

beyond our wildest dreams. It is the best mineral discovery probably in the

history of Newfoundland. It is a great discovery that is going to bring great

value to the people of Newfoundland and Labour. When we made our changes to the

tax legislation, or announced them two years ago in our Budget, it was after

there had been a change in the federal budget of the federal taxation measures

so that flow-through share regimes that were encouraging mineral exploration and

expenditures across Canada had been disbanded and we were looking for a way that

we could encourage people to come to Newfoundland and Labrador to explore. Well

in that regard I would say we have also succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

In that, obviously, there are some financial implications. In

developing this tax legislation, we modelled in doing that, every mine that we

have ever operated in this Province that in recent times, relative to our

taxation to see what would happen. With regard to Buchans for example, we took

the Buchans model and put it into the taxation model so what would happen with

Buchans, what would happen with the Daniel's Harbour, we modelled everything

that we knew and everything that we thought we could expect and now we found

Voisey Bay which is bigger than any of us could ever expect.

Since the discovery of Voisey Bay, we have been obviously

doing our own assessment. We have an interdepartmental committee in place that

has been looking at all the information relative to Voisey Bay, taxation wise,

development option wise, every aspect, to see how this mine will be developed

some years in the future. It is some years in the future, it will be developed

as a mine I expect when all issues are addressed and everything is known; and at

that time we will ensure that there is going to be a fair return on taxation to

the people of this Province but also a fair return to the company for the money

that they have invested. We are doing that evaluation right now, we will

continue to do it until final decisions are made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough please

to call, Motions 4 through 7, and then go on to the first readings in the usual

way?

MR. SPEAKER: Four through seven. Does the hon. the

Government House Leader intend to do these as one motion or do you want separate

motions put on each one?

MR. ROBERTS: I am in Your Honour's hands; there are only

four, it might be quicker to do them one at a time, Sir?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, if the House consents, I'll do them in

that fashion.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act". (Bill

No. 18)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's

Act". (Bill No. 19)

Motion, the hon, the Minister of Natural Resources to

introduce a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act And The Mineral Holdings

Impost Act". (Bill No.21)

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a

Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act". (Bill No. 20).

On motion Bill Nos. 18; 19; 21 and 20, read a first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I say to my friends opposite we

will have a look at Order No. 8 in due course but we are currently on government

orders and unless the gentleman for Bonavista South has joined the ministry

overnight, his orders don't come under government orders.

Your Honour, would you be good enough please to call Motion

No. 1; I understand the Leader of the Opposition will continue to try to

enlighten us on the Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1, the Budget Debate, motion of

non-confidence.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I adjourned the debate yesterday, I had just moved an

amendment to the motion, basically, the non-confident motion is what I proposed,

seconded by my colleague from Waterford - Kenmount.

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons why we and most people

around the Province lack confidence in the Budget the government has presented

to the House of Assembly. Well, first of all, it is a misrepresentation of the

facts. It claims to result in a current account surplus but on examination that

is revealed to be illusionary. The projected surplus is made up of $70 million

from the sinking fund. Mr. Speaker, that $70 million was set aside to pay down

our debt and with the $70 million being taken out of the sinking fund,

essentially the debt is being enlarged.

Mr. Speaker, in another part of the Budget documentation, the

claim is made that the government is bringing down the debt but obviously both

can't co-exist. It is not possible to have a current account surplus, more than

half of which is made up of a transfer from the sinking fund and, at the same

time, have the debt lowered. I refer members to the page on the public sector

debt which precedes the estimates, it is roman numeral XI. This demonstrates

that the total public sector debt is calculated by adding together the

provincial direct debt, the Crown corporation and other debt, the indirect debt

and then subtracting from that total the sinking funds. Obviously, when the

sinking fund amount is reduced, as it has been this year with $70 million being

taken out for current spending, then the bottom line is, the total public sector

debt has been enlarged.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example of why we maintain

that the Budget is a misrepresentation of the facts. The government is trying to

hood-wink people into believing that they are bringing in a fiscally responsible

Budget with a current account surplus and, at the same time, that they are

lowering the debt. In fact, they are adding to the debt and they are not really

balancing current account.

Apart from the $70 million being taken out of current

account, the government is also making up the claimed current account surplus by

taking of the second instalment of the federal grant for the South Coast and

White Bay ferry operations into current requirements. The bulk of that federal

payment for the downloading was taken into current account and actually spent

last year. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is like selling your house and using the

proceeds to buy groceries. You can operate that way for a couple of years but

when the money runs out there will be nothing left to buy food and there will be

no asset, no house either.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the government is projecting the

revenue from the sale of Newfoundland Hardwoods and Holiday Inn for the claimed

$130 million current account surplus. So we have $70 million being taken out of

the sinking fund. In a way, that adds to total government debt and that is

irresponsible. We have $13 million from the Federal Government for the

downloading of the ferry services and then we have another $13 million which the

government anticipates to realize from the one-time sale of the Crown

corporations, Hardwoods and Holiday Inn. The other $7 million they are taking

from the Offshore Revenue Fund. So, Mr. Speaker, it would be wonderful if the

government had succeeded in bringing in a balanced Budget and even better if the

government succeeded in having a current account surplus for the current fiscal

year, but based on these calculations that just is not going to happen. The

government is essentially fooling or tricking people by claiming to have a

Budget that is going to end us with $130 million current account surplus. This

Budget is misleading.

Mr. Speaker, the government is misleading people on a number

of fronts. The government continues to mislead and try to trick people on the

Trans City scandal. The Premier might well leave. The Trans City deal was

entered into back in the Fall of 1991. The Premier, in the face of overwhelming

evidence to the contrary, is still trying to maintain that that was a good deal

for the Province. Now, we have a judgement of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland

indicating otherwise. The Supreme Court has concluded that the government broke

the law in doing the deal with Tom Hickman, Bill Case and Joe Butler. A few of

the members of the Cabinet at the time who are no longer in the Cabinet have

over the past few months dared to speak out publicly, indicating that they

didn't think it was right and that they weren't made privy to everything that

the Premier and the `Gang of Four' had, but now the Premier has whipped them

into line.

The Premier issued a release yesterday presuming to speak for

all five, maintaining that all five have taken back their previous objections,

that all five are satisfied by the report of the former Minister of Justice,

that all five are now concluding that yes, they had the same information as the

other Cabinet ministers and that yes, the same as the Premier, they think that

this really was a good deal for the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is fooled by that. Actually, it is a

pathetic attempt by the Premier to try to cleanse his record. We have to ask why

this is happening. Why would the Premier want to have all these internal

goings-on? Why would he want to have the former Minister of Justice write a

report? Why would he want to silence the five former ministers who had been

daring to voice some reservations? Is it because the Premier is concerned about

the record that may be examined by Prime Minister Chrtien and the Prime

Minister's advisors on judicial appointments? Is it possible that the Premier

has decided to retire from politics and is now concentrating on the next phase

of his career, which he is hoping will involve a Federal Government appointment,

perhaps an appointment to the bench.

We have to ask why would the five former ministers, having

earlier voiced or written objections to the Trans City goings-on, would suddenly

recant. Why would they allow the Premier to speak for them? Can't they speak for

themselves? It is quite puzzling. We can only speculate that it has to do with

the internal politics of the Liberal Party. It is no secret that many of the

Liberal members and Liberal supporters outside the caucus are hoping and

expecting that the Premier will retire sooner rather than later. It is no secret

that the race to succeed the Premier has already started. We can only speculate

that yesterday's astounding news release has something to do with the internal

politics of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier can go through these pathetic

attempts to make the Trans City deal appear to be justified but the public have

pronounced otherwise. The people of the Province have already decided that the

Trans City deal was rotten and people were naturally, greatly influenced in

their thinking about the transaction by the Supreme Court judgement. What people

have not seen yet is the full expos on the extent of waste of public funds

involved in the Trans City arrangement. Are we going to tell them - we will help

tell them. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, a sure

sign that the deal is going to unnecessarily cost far more than the $3 million

in court order damages, is that the Premier and the government refused to put

the deal to the test of an independent inquiry. The closest the Premier would

come to an inquiry was handing it to the minister sitting to the Premier's left,

the minister I referred to last week as the fugitive from Justice.

Mr. Speaker, with the Trans City deal there was trickery and

there was corruption. Now, we have the example of the rigging of the electoral

district boundaries. Mr. Speaker, the government announced with some fanfare

that it was going to cut spending on the House of Assembly by substantially

reducing the number of seats and that seemed to be quite popular in the

Province. The government then provided for legislation setting up an independent

commission, the commission did about a years-worth of inquiries at a quarter of

a million dollars of public cost. The commission made a proposal for forty

districts. The government didn't like that arrangement so they changed the rules

in mid-stream. They introduced amendments to the legislation to change the

parameters, sent the commission around the Province a second time bringing the

public spending on the exercise up to $400,000. Last June, the commission

brought in its final report recommending forty-four districts saying that the

parameters in the legislation were more restrictive than they would have liked

and pointing out some possible amendments which would allow them to enlarge

certain districts and make some changes which were enumerated, which would have

resulted in forty-five districts.

Mr. Speaker, instead of dealing with that legitimate report

from a legitimate commission, the government tried to fool people by having the

Minister of Justice hand-pick a judge to do the bidding of the Cabinet in coming

up with a proposal for forty-eight districts. Now, what is disturbing about

this, of course, is that the government tampered with a process that in this day

and age is supposed to be completely impartial but did it in such a way that was

calculated to fool people. So there is a consistent pattern. We have in the case

of Trans City an attempt to camouflage, trick and fool. We have in the case of

the electoral boundaries rigging another attempt to hide from the public what is

really going on and then we have the Budget that is now before us which was

packaged in such a way as to give one appearance when the reality is quite

different. It gives the appearance of being a balanced Budget with a current

account surplus even when, in fact, it is not really balanced and when the total

public sector debt is being increased.

Mr. Speaker, not only is the Budget misleading, it is

fiscally irresponsible. Despite the rhetoric about needing to come to grips now

with the problems that have accumulated so that we don't pass on an even greater

burden to the people who come after us, this Budget is doing exactly what has

been done in the past. This budget is compounding the burden. It is doing that

by increasing the public sector debt, it is doing it by taking into current

spending the proceeds from the cashing in of assets, and it is taking into

current spending the one-time grants from the Federal Government for the

downloading of the ferry operations.

Where is the money going to come from for the Province to

operate the South Coast and White Bay ferry services in three or four years

time? I suppose the thinking of the current Premier is that he will be on the

Supreme Court, or Ambassador to Singapore somewhere in three or four years time,

so he won't have to worry about that. Those who come after will have to deal

with that accumulated problem. Mr. Speaker, this Budget is fiscally

irresponsible.

In terms of economic effort, the Budget is a dismal failure.

The Wells' Administration has failed miserably in its responsibility to improve

the economy. One of the fundamental errors of this Administration has been

neglecting our traditional resource-based industries, the industries in which we

have a natural advantage or a competitive advantage, the industries that include

the fishery, the forestry, and the St. John's Dockyard, which we have been

debating lately.

The St. John's Dockyard is an industry employing up to 700

people, in which we have a tremendous geographic advantage over competitors. It

is a facility which provides ship repair and ship servicing, and because the

Dockyard is thrust into the Northwest Atlantic shipping lanes, two full steaming

days away from the competitor in Halifax - Dartmouth, we have a natural

advantage, and that is an advantage that we should capitalize on. Instead, the

government has ignored it, neglected it. In fact, worse than that, apparently

the government has aided and abetted the Federal Government in basically

allowing it to deteriorate, crippling it by prohibiting competition or bids for

foreign work, so we have to ask why. Why has this government given up on such a

major employer in the Province, which is so logically suited for this location?

When it comes to the fishery, the government has complete

responsibility for processing. Once fish are landed, the Provincial Government

is in control. Now, the fact that the Federal Government has control over

harvesting is problematic in terms of the development of the economy for the

benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a mistake we made at the time of

Confederation. This government and this Premier, during the Meech Lake process,

basically completely ignored the opportunity for negotiating a change to give us

more control over harvesting, but with the terms of Confederation that we have

had to work with, the Province has had full say over the processing sector, but

this government has basically run away from its responsibility for the fishery.

This government has been quite satisfied to shrug shoulders and point to Ottawa

whenever a question arises.

Now that we have had the calamitous loss of the groundfish

stocks, particularly worrisome off the Northeast Coast, the government is

basically waiting for Ottawa to make decisions about adjustment. A couple of

days ago here in the House of Assembly, my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank

asked the minister of food, fish and Agri-foods about the government effort to

make harvesting adjustment decisions, and the minister couldn't even name the

members of the industry adjustment board. He cited the three federal appointees

to the harvesting board, and he couldn't tell us whether the Provincial

Government has appointed anyone to the board. He indicated that the Province

might have appointed one, and it might have been announced. He certainly wasn't

demonstrating any concern or knowledge. It was quite pathetic, actually.

So, when it comes to our most important industry for which we

obviously have a huge natural advantage since we are out here on the vast

Continental Shelf, the industry that has provided a livelihood for more of our

people and families and communities than any other, the Provincial Government,

strangely, has been quite passive.

The forestry is another major part of our provincial economy:

The three newsprint mills, the sawmill industry. Again, the Provincial

Government has shown very little concern or interest. The indications are that

we have a wood supply shortage that is going to get worse. Just recently I

received a report done for the federal Department of Forestry, paid for by a

federal-provincial agreement on planning. The report is dated March 1995. The

report gives some estimate of the extent of the wood supply shortage.

It says: The softwood requirements for commercial production

into pulpwood, sawlogs and fuel wood over the foreseeable future are projected

to exceed the total allowable annual cut for the Island by approximately 595,000

cubic metres. The newsprint industry faces a deficit of 239,000 cubic metres

annually from their own limits, and the remaining deficit of 356,000 is from

unalienated Crown lands which is the primary source of sawlogs for the sawmill

industry.

Mr. Speaker, this is quite alarming. It indicates that the

forest management efforts of the past have not been enough. It indicates that

the loss of wood through harvesting, through natural causes, has exceeded

regrowth. With this information - and I assume the government, which is totally

responsible for forestry, would have had this information with more detail for

quite some time now - instead of having less effort in silviculture we should

have more effort.

The Federal Government has just announced in the recent

Budget a decision to withdraw completely from providing funding to provinces for

forest management. A great deal of what our Provincial Government has done over

the past fifteen years, twenty years, has been paid for by the Federal

Government through a series of joint federal-provincial agreements. The loss of

the federal revenue for forest management is a bad loss for the Provincial

Government. Strangely, the Premier and the ministers haven't even acknowledged

the loss. Basically, they've acquiesced in it. We all remember that a couple of

days before Paul Martin brought down his Budget the Premier of this Province

said publicly: Cut, go ahead and cut. Well, they cut. They withdrew completely

from cost-sharing forest management in this Province.

Worse than that, the Federal Government - I shouldn't say

worse. It may not be as bad, actually. But of concern as well was the federal

Budget decision to essentially close the federal forest research centre in

Newfoundland. That centre, I think inappropriately has been located at

Pleasantville, but nevertheless it has been located in Newfoundland. The centre,

together with field stations in other parts of the Island, have provided annual

employment on a full-time and seasonal basis for about 200 people. The Canadian

Forest Research Centre personnel have a great deal of scientific expertise about

Newfoundland forests, about several aspects of the forests, including insect

problems. The federal government decision essentially is to transfer the

Newfoundland Forest Centre to Fredericton, New Brunswick and to change the

mandate for the operation from one concentrating on the local forests to one

dealing with only national and international issues, so we stand to lose a great

deal of the scientific expertise about our own local Newfoundland forests. We

are also losing 200 jobs, 200 a year, many sophisticated high paying jobs, and

again not a whimper out of the Premier.

We have to ask why this Premier is allowing the federal

government to do whatever they want in the way of reducing services to the

Province, cutting jobs, and shifting personnel and services out of Newfoundland

to the Mainland. Why wouldn't the Premier of this Province be fighting for the

interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? It is unimaginable that the

Premier of New Brunswick would be silent in the face of a federal government

decision to move the forestry centre from Fredericton to St. John's, or

Fredericton to Corner Brook. Why is the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador

silent? Why is the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador apparently going along

with the Chretien government's move to hurt this Province?

Mr. Speaker, we should have learned a powerful lesson from

the loss of the northern cod stocks. When you look at what is happening today

with trees, when you look at what is happening with crab, you have to wonder if

we have really learned anything, or if we are not simply repeating the same

patterns, the same patterns of mismanagement, greed, overharvesting, and undue

pressure on precious renewable resources. If the fish and the trees, which

provide the basis for a substantial part of our Province's economy are not

properly managed and conserved, then the problems we have now will obviously

become much worse for the people who come after us. This is 1995. What are

people going to be saying thirty years from now about what we did when it comes

to the fish stocks and crab stocks? What are people going to be saying about our

performance relative to the forests?

I was saying earlier that this Budget fails to come to grips

with economic questions, and I made the point that one of the basic mistakes of

the government is neglecting fundamental resource based industries which have

always made up most of our economic activity and generated a substantial part of

our wealth and employment. I am talking about industries such as the fishery and

the forestry. What the government has put a disproportionate amount of emphasis

on include opportunities related to the so-called new economy.

Now, I would maintain that government needs to have a

balanced approach. We need to pay a great deal of attention to the traditional

industries which are still making up the bulk of our economy, and if we are to

have any hope to survive and maintain any number of our coastal communities are

going to have to continue to be of primary importance, but at the same time

government should be pursuing opportunities in the areas of high technology and

services, knowledge based businesses which are not geographic, businesses which

can be done successfully anywhere in the world but just as well in Newfoundland

and Labrador as anywhere else.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, the government has basically put most

of their economic development thrust into the Economic Recovery Commission.

Recovery, has a hollow ring when you look at the steady deterioration in the

five or six years since Doug House was appointed and, Mr. Speaker, one of the

efforts of the Economic Recovery Commission was a publication that came out last

year called: Business Ideas for Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't know

if any of you saw it. It is pathetic, I mean, you know, first, a reader laughed

and then after you have had a chance to digest it and think about it, there is a

temptation to cry.

What's the Economic Recovery Commission touting as

opportunities for business development in the Province? Well, I will just give

you a few examples. It's written for the primary school reader in a Dick and

Jane style of prose. First, we have cakes and cookies -this is one of my

favourites actually, big opportunity in cakes and cookies - The potential exists

for the production of fresh and frozen cakes and cookies. Local processors could

produce: cakes, brownies, cheesecakes and frozen torts to service the local

market. Some ideas for cookies would include: biscuits, cream-filled,

fruit-filled, short bread and holiday cookies. The cookies could be bagged,

boxed or tinned. Cakes and cookies like bread products will increase in demand

with quality and freshness. What a revelation! Now the only thing is, Doug House

forgot to include recipes in the back of the book.

Now what other business opportunities has Doug House

identified: Breads. Fresh bread products are always in demand and processors

could benefit from introducing new products in this area. Then we have coffee.

Processors could import coffee beans by bulk and utilize them to process

decaffeinated, regular and flavoured coffees. Confectioneries: Local processors

could take a share of our market that is largely serviced by processors from

outside of the Province by producing confectionery items such as, brittle,

fudge, caramel, praline, taffy, toffee, mints and others; and then we have,

moving along -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that?

MS. VERGE: This is by Doug House and the Economic

Recovery Commission.

MR. J. BYRNE: Does he visit Auntie Crae's before he goes

to bed?

MS. VERGE: A good point, the Member for St. John's East

Extern made.

It appears as though Doug House went to Auntie Crae's at

Churchill Square and walked through the store and got a

chapter for his book by

itemizing what Auntie Crae's is doing, but in another

chapter he identifies as a

major opportunity for new business, Rocks. Rocks have the potential to provide

diverse products for crafts, garden decorating and concrete surface enhancement;

and then we have driftwood. Provincial driftwood is plentiful and on and on, so,

Mr. Speaker, instead of addressing the big opportunities, the big

responsibilities, we have Doug House concentrating on brownies and rocks.

Mr. Speaker, time is moving along and I understand there is

somebody waiting for me outside. To sum up, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many

reasons why we, in the Opposition and the people we represent, lack confidence

in this Budget and in the Premier and the government who produced the Budget.

First of all because the Budget is a misrepresentation of reality; it distorts

figures by projecting a current account deficit when that's not justified. When

it claims that the debt is being reduced when it is actually being increased

because of the big haul from the sinking fund, the $70 million that is being

taken out of the sinking fund. Mr. Speaker, the Budget is fiscally irresponsible

because it is calculated for short-term political gain at some cost to the

citizens, taxpayers and politicians of future years. The Budget will compound

the problems that will be passed on to those who come after us.

Economically the Budget is quite inadequate, consistent with

the performance of the Wells' administration throughout their six years in

office. Overall the government has badly miscalculated by neglecting the

traditional resource-base industries. They have put a disproportionate emphasis

into pursuing opportunities related to the new economy. Some of that effort, I

believe, is justified, and may pay some dividends, but by contrast much more

significant opportunities related to the fishery and the forestry are being

missed, and realistically most of our communities will make it or break it on

the fishery and the forestry. Cookies and rocks may provide a small income

supplement, but people are not going to be able to stay here based on some of

these ideas Doug House is touting.

Mr. Speaker, socially the Budget is quite insensitive. When I

spoke yesterday I pointed out that the cut of $10 million in social assistance

is either another misrepresentation of what is actually going to be spent, or it

is going to necessitate a callous reduction in the meagre payments for people

who have no choice but to turn to the provincial government for income for basic

needs.

Mr. Speaker, I will finish now by saying once again that this

is a government that can no longer be trusted. The Budget cannot be believed.

The claim that Trans City was in the best interest of the Province cannot be

believed, and is not being believed, and the attempt to rig the electoral

boundaries for Liberal partisan gain has to be seen for what it is and must be

stopped.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to add a few comments to the debate this morning.

First of all, I wanted to return to some comments made by the Minister of

Education and Training just yesterday when he was trying to clarify some of the

comments I made during Question Period a few days ago.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the allocations in the Human

Resources

section of the Budget, which is item 1.2.05, you will find that in

last year's allocation there was $257,400 allocated. This year there is $395,200

allocated, and the minister indicated that really is in the form of purchased

services, which makes up a good bit of that - of course, that is $84,000 of it -

but that would still leave nearly another $40,000 that has been added to the

Human Resources Division.

If we go over to item 1.2.02, we will find that last year

there was again the total administrative support there, the bottom line there

being that there was $1,154,400 and, of course, that is moved to $1,269,800.

What that means, of course, is that there have been additional people added to

the bureaucracy. At the same time we find that we have had reductions in youth

services. We have to ask ourselves, who is paying the price? Where is the

additional money coming from, because the totals of the budget for that

department would show a significant decrease.

Mr. Speaker, we know where that extra money is coming from.

It is coming from the classrooms of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is coming from

reduced numbers of teachers. It is coming from reductions in programs. It is

coming from a cancellation of adult basic education seats in the various

colleges. We also find as well another increase in the royal commission

implementation. We find that last year $341,000 was spent, this year $418,000

spent.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: That is right. My colleague for Ferryland

indicates the total reduction in the department spending this year over last

year is over $6 million. We know that savings is not coming from the

bureaucracy, not coming from the minister's office or his support people. It is

not coming from the group that is out there going to be implementing the royal

commission recommendations, because that is all showing increases. So where are

those dollars being saved? As I said before, they are being saved at the

classroom level, they are being saved in the programs aimed at trying to improve

the quality of education in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in 1989 in the Liberal campaign manifesto the

following quote appears: Young men and women who cannot find work have become

despondent. There is little incentive to complete school and to seek higher

education or vocational training. If this situation is allowed to continue we

will be sowing the seeds of our own economic and cultural destruction.

I say to the minister and to the government, what has

happened to the commitments made in 1989? Young men and young women are just as

despondent today as they were in 1989. Just last week I talked to one high

school where five students dropped out within a week. Unfortunately two of those

students were passing every single course. Why did they drop out? Because they

told their guidance counsellors that they didn't see much purpose in staying.

These students went off to join the labour force in Prince Edward Island. We

agree with the statement made in the Liberal policy manual of 1989. What we want

to say to the minister is that he has to show greater leadership in making sure

that we don't end up having more people dropping out of school. Therefore we

have to go and make sure that the means are provided in budgets to encourage

them to stay in school.

In 1989 as well, and I quote from the Liberal campaign

manual, it says: The Liberal youth program will include a revised student loan

program that will accommodate the needs of students in the advanced years of

their education. Since 1989 there has been an 84 per cent increase in tuition

fees at Memorial University. That is the kind of revised student loan program

that this government in consort with their federal partners have introduced in

this Province. We know that many students this coming fall will not be going to

Memorial. We know that many of the people who would like to go can't go because

they are poor. The price of being poor is to be denied access to higher

education. That is the price you pay for the fact that you are born into a

family that is not able to send you off to university.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the enrolments at

Memorial are going down. They are going down not because the students don't want

to go to Memorial, they are going down because the parents can't afford to send

them to Memorial University.

So therefore, Mr. Speaker, we ask the government, What has

happened to your commitment to accommodate the needs of students in the advanced

years of their education? We know what has happened to it. We know that the

Provincial Government, in full co-operation with the Federal Government, has

made it more difficult to get grants - in fact, there are no grants at all -

everything is put on the basis of student loans and students simply are saying

that they can't afford access. Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy that is unfolding,

when young men and women in this Province have to say that they can't afford to

go to university or they can't afford to take advantage of post-secondary

education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, as well, I would like to comment

more fully on Adult Basic Education. This morning, my colleague, the Member for

St. John's East asked questions on this particular matter. It has been asked as

well, a week ago, by members of this party - the Member for Mount Pearl, while I

was away. The situation is that we have the minister denying that there is a

reduction in commitment to Adult Basic Education. Well, all his convincing is

not going to do much for the lady who called me two days ago and called me this

morning at 8:30 from Stephenville to tell me that at West Viking Community

College -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If hon. members want to carry on a conversation, I suggest

they do it outside the House.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, as I was indicating, I have

received calls from all parts of the Province, and this morning in particular

from the Stephenville area, where there is a great concern about the number of

spaces that are being dropped for Adult Basic Education. Now, Mr. Speaker, the

information I have received from that particular college is that there are

thirty students right now in Level I. After June 30 of this year, all Level I

Adult Basic Education spaces will be gone. In fact, there are only four seats

open in August for Levels II and III. The question is, Who of those thirty,

which four, will be able to move on to Levels II and III?

Mr. Speaker, the real problem here is that in the last

year-and-a-half the number of spaces at West Viking College has gone from ninety

seats to thirty seats to four seats. Now, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that these

people -

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible). You're misleading the House.

MR. HODDER: I say to the minister, I am only saying here

the information that has been communicated from the college itself and I assume

the information to be reasonably accurate.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is that these students -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Education and

Training.

MR. DECKER: The hon. member doesn't have his facts right.

West Viking has 376 full-time spaces and 440 part-time. Now, the hon. member

can't come to this House and come up with fabricated information, whoever is

giving it to him, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't have his facts correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, there is no point of order. The hon.

member disagrees with the statements that the hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount is making but that certainly doesn't constitute a point of order. A

difference of opinion is not a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, with all the extra staff that

the minister has added to his department this year, I am sure that with the

increase in bureaucracy he will be able to get his fact correct from West Viking

College.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training on a point of

order.

MR. DECKER: The hon. member knows full well that there is

no increase in bureaucracy. As a matter of fact, we have taken three divisions

and made them into two, and we have laid off fourteen people. Tell them there

has been an increase in bureaucracy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, therefore, he must be paying the

people who are there more. They must have had fantastic increases in pay because

the total cost goes up. If there are fourteen fewer people then you are still

adding to the bureaucracy regardless if it is more than salary or not.

The truth of the matter is that in this Province there are a

great number of adults who left school without completing their high school

education. The initiatives undertaken by the government in the literacy program

are commendable and I have supported them. The concern that I have is not an

argument with the minister over whether the number of seats are thirty, twenty,

or whatever it is, the argument is over the word `commitment', and it is a

commitment that we have to continue to those people who left school, not because

they lacked ability, but because they, for one reason or another - because of

parental support, or because of the culture in particular communities - whatever

the reasons might have been, whether or not they left for personal reasons, we

have to make sure that we continue the commitment to assure that young and

middle-aged Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are given the chance to go back to

school.

Now, we have to facilitate that and we can't say to people,

as has been said in some of the colleges: You can come back in but it is going

to cost you $500 per semester, so therefore you are looking at $1,500 per year.

These people can't afford to pay that kind of tuition.

MR. DECKER: They are paying $1.00 an hour. This is

ridiculous!

MR. HODDER: The truth of the matter is, regardless of

what the minister is shouting across the floor - $1.00 an hour, these people

can't afford $1.00 an hour. These people do not have the wherewithal to pay that

kind of money. These people are poor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to look at a couple of

other issues as they pertain to education. The minister has been so focused on

governance issues that people in the profession are wondering when we are going

to see some real results at the classroom level in education, the real classroom

level in education. Teachers are talking about disruptive students, and they are

talking about identification of troubled learners at an early age. Now, the

minister has spent three years and the only thing he has achieved is that he has

become a disruptive minister.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister that he should be

spending a little more time talking about the basics in education, and talking

about what is happening at the classroom level, because just the other day I

called a school in the St. John's area and I found out there were 715 students

and thirty-four teachers. That compares not favourably with some of the other

schools across the Province.

MR. DECKER: So, what are you saying, close down the

school in the smaller communities and have all the teachers in here? Is that

what you are saying?

MR. HODDER: No. What I am saying to the minister is that

we need to have a comprehensive small schools policy. Last year during the

labour dispute the minister said: If I can get the control to be able to

allocate teachers the way I would like to allocate them we would have a really

positive small schools policy. We are asking him today: Where is it? Where is

the small schools policy? I would be the last person to stand here and say there

should not be - the same ratio should be applied all across the Province in all

the schools.

MR. DECKER: So you are saying, close out the small

schools.

MR. HODDER: I'm not saying close the small schools, I'm

simply saying that we have to allocate teachers more wisely.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to speak a few moments ago about

identification of troubled learners at an early age. The minister started off a

couple of years ago with his initiatives in kindergarten - full day

kindergarten.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you were against (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, at that time, my position was

the same as it is today. I believe in having a part-time kindergarten from

September until December and full-time from January until the end of the first

year. That's what is done in Nova Scotia. It is working quite well. That was my

position two years ago, it is my position today, and it is backed up by good

solid research from right across the country. What the minister has done is he

has fumbled around with full-day kindergarten. He talks about taking a

curriculum off the shelf in New Brunswick and bringing it in instead of doing a

comprehensive thing at that time as he is now supposed to be doing.

The truth of the matter is this government takes no

responsibility at all for education until a child gets to be five years old.

Let's compare the example in other parts of Canada. In other parts of Canada the

department of education takes responsibility for the learning environment of

children as young as age three. The Royal commission in Ontario is committed to

two things: Early childhood education, and having the learning difficulties

identified early and addressed. We are saying to the minister today: Give a

commitment to early childhood education. If we are going to have an early start

program in this Province for children we should be doing something about it and

not simply saying that we are going to put fewer dollars into early childhood

education. We need more dollars put into it.

I wanted, as well, to comment on a couple of other issues as

regards education. A few days ago the minister talked about integrating students

of different abilities into classrooms. Everybody in education knows that

integration of students of different abilities into classrooms is a positive

step. We know that. It is supported by all the research. What we have in other

provinces is more support at the classroom level. In this Province we have taken

students out of various institutions, we've closed down the institutions, but we

haven't put the support into the schools to make a positive program possible.

I can't find in this Province any support for cancelling or

changing the initiatives of the minister as far as the integration of students

is concerned. What we want from the government is support by the way of

personnel to make sure that students who have learning difficulties have equal

opportunity to learn. That is what we need. I say to the government, when we are

allocating teachers, make sure we recognize that students who have difficulty

need support from different agencies, from the teacher level with special

education teachers to support from Social Services with social workers, support

from Health, making sure that their health needs are addressed, and we need a

multi-departmental approach. If we do all of that we might be able to identify

some of the learning difficulties at an early age. We can find lots of money at

the federal level for stay in school when people are sixteen and seventeen years

old. When they are already out of their age grade relationship we can find lots

of money to help them catch up. What we don't have any commitment to is

identifying students who have learning difficulties when they are three, four,

five, six and seven years old, and all the research will show that you can tell

by the time a child is three whether or not that child is likely to have

difficulty in Grade I or Grade II.

What we need is some commitment to put money at the front end

of education. Young children have no voices. What we need is a child-centred

philosophy of education. Education and departments of the bureaucracy are not

known to be very child centred. They are system centred. We want, in this

Province, to put some emphasis where we need it, and we need a better commitment

to primary and pre-school education. If a child does not have the skills on

getting to Grade III or Grade IV, then you can be assured he is going to have

greater difficulty being able to cope when you adopt remedial measures that are

too little, too late.

Mr. Speaker, children exist in the future tense. They are

what we have to look forward to in terms of our educational system. Children do

not have political power, so therefore what we are saying is that we need to

have a commitment to youth and a commitment to pre-school, and a commitment to

early childhood education. We say to the minister and to the government, that is

something we don't see a great deal of.

A great many of the comments in the Royal Commission Report

were on the length of the school day. There are recommendations in the Royal

Commission Report on making the school day longer. We haven't seen any

initiatives in that regard at all, but we do know there is a direct relationship

between the amount of time a child spends in school and achievement. The same

thing goes for the length of the school year. There were recommendations that

the school year be increased basically by ten days to 200 days. Again, we have

not seen any implementation of that particular recommendation.

There has been some work done on the time on task. My

contacts within the profession tell me that there are fewer days lost now for

things like high school graduations, and other activities like that, than there

used to be; but am assured by my contacts within the profession that there can

still be tremendous improvements made in time on task. However, I have not seen

a great deal of emphasis placed on that particular aspect of educational reform

either.

A positive thing - school councils: the Royal Commission

recommends that we would implement school councils. Some school boards do not

particularly support school councils; however, it is a fact that where parents

become directly involved in education, students do better, and the more direct

involvement we have by parents, the better the achievement levels will be.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the government, in a

positive sense, they should be encouraging school councils in every single

school in this Province. It does two things: it makes sure that the parents

themselves are more accountable to themselves for what happens, and makes sure

as well that the schools become more responsive to the community. It is not

putting extra pressure on the teachers and the school is saying it makes the

joint approach work more positively, and education is too important to be left

to teachers alone; it has to be the responsibility of everybody in the community

not just teachers. It has to be the responsibility of parents, the

responsibility, in some cases, of grandparents, the responsibility of the

business community and the whole of society.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say as well, my contacts and

profession tell me that we are doing better with student absenteeism, a positive

measure, and the department is to be commended for some of the initiatives they

are taking there. However, it is a case of where, absenteeism is still a very

fundamental factor in lowering student achievement.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit, I want to comment on a couple of

other things. I want to comment on the electoral boundaries issue. When the

government announced in 1993, I think it was in August of 1993, the Mahoney

Commission released a proposal dividing the Province into, I think it was forty

districts, and that recommendation was that, it was not a recommendation but, in

essence, a proposal that would serve as a focus for public discussions. When

these discussions were held, I made a presentation to the Commission, in

writing, which argued for fewer members in the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what has happened in the meantime is that

we have gone through a lot of changes - I have just been notified my time is

rather short - but I say to the government: If you are going to make changes in

the electoral boundaries, let's do it, don't do it piecemeal. Take the

forty-four, that was the first proposal, that's what I would support. Either go

with the forty-four or find - well, you are left with fifty-two -

MR. SULLIVAN: Or find another judge.

MR. HODDER: Or find another judge. Mr. Speaker, we are

committed to lowering the number of MHAs who sit in this House and I say to the

government, get away from the gerrymandering -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking this morning when I heard the

Premier's response to the initial question from the Leader of the Opposition

with regard to the change of heart, I suppose, on the part of the five former

Cabinet ministers. In the Bible, I believe, we had one prominent person, Saul,

struck down on the Road to Damascus by seeing a brilliant flash of light, but

even the Bible, which gives great credence to miracles and extraordinary

happenings, did not foresee five people being struck down on the Road to

Damascus in one fell swoop, Mr. Speaker.

It has become obvious that this government is doing its best

to clean up its image. We had a situation with regard to the Workers'

Compensation Appeals Tribunal that was nothing short of scandalous and played as

such in the press and among the body politic for quite some time and all of a

sudden, now we get a report that seems to tame the wild horses of scandal with

regard to that particular situation. We have the Government House Leader doing a

report on the awarding of government contracts for hospitals; what we are

getting is, Mr. Speaker, the government sort of cleansing itself of any taint of

wrongdoing. It is obviously a situation of political damage control and in

general, I guess, the word is `whitewashing, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the President of the United States has a scandal sort of

hanging out in left field with regard to his particular Administration, one that

sort of stays there, it hangs there, it just won't go away, Mr. Speaker, and

that is called white water. What we have around here, Mr. Speaker, is, I guess,

a situation called whitewasher. One has to wonder with regard to the

Administration, Mr. Speaker, who is the designated whitewasher of the week? The

next thing you know, VOCM will be having an award on, Mr. Speaker, instead of

`newsmaker of the week' it will be `whitewasher of the week'. What we have is an

Administration in desperate trouble, its image severely tarnished and going out

of its way to clean up, if not its act, Mr. Speaker, the appearance of its act.

One has to wonder if the Faustian deal hasn't been done within the Liberal

caucus with regard to Premier Wells, that the deal is that everything will come

together, everything will be glossed over, everything will be whitewashed; in

exchange, Mr. Premier, you will probably have to do two things; go easy on the

electoral boundaries situation, and leave quietly so that the Liberal Party can

organize a leadership convention.

Mr. Speaker, the other factor, of course, which the Premier

would want out of this bargain, is that he needs his image whitewashed. He needs

the perception of his being a patriot, of his being a statesman because

obviously, the Prime Minister is due to appoint him to something lofty, be it

ambassadorial or judicial and we couldn't have the Premier leaving office and

taking on a significant role at the behest of the national government with any

kind of a Nixonian image. The Premier obviously has to appear lily-white, at

least in technical terms, on the national or international scene. So what we

have is the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador acquiescing to his

requirement of an image refurbishing in exchange probably for a timely exit so

that the Liberal Party can rejuvenate itself in terms of a leadership convention

and at least stand a chance come the next election.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party needs to do a fair bit of

refurbishing as regards its image. For fifteen years, I worked for the former PC

government of the seventeen years that the Liberal Party was in Opposition. I

worked fifteen years for the former PC government, first of Frank Moores and

then of Brian Peckford. The one thing, Mr. Speaker, that characterized the

Liberal Party then and even now in government, which I find utterly amazing, is

that the motto of the Liberal Party seems to be `my party first, my country

second and my Province third'. Even though it is a provincial Liberal Party it

is my party first, my country second and my Province third.

When the Liberal Party took over the government, when the

Assembly Chamber was up in the tower of this building, Mr. Speaker, I had the

occasion during one Christmas social to go over and visit with them in their

common room. A few photographs on the walls, Mr. Speaker, spoke volumes about

the attitude of the Liberal Party that has the motto: `My party first, my

country second and my Province third'. On the wall of the common room up in the

tower, Mr. Speaker, were portraits of federal Liberal Prime Ministers, not even

Joey Smallwood was hung on the wall of their common room, Mr. Speaker, nothing

but federal Liberals. That showed where the priority of the provincial Liberal

Party was.

When the eighth floor was redecorated during the days of

Premier Peckford, as Chief of Staff, I hung portraits of Premier Smallwood in

the outer lobby and in the inner lobby of the Premier's Office. One of the first

things that the Liberal Party did in coming to office and taking power and

moving into the eighth floor premier's office was to take down the photo of

Joseph R. Smallwood. Shows you the provincial orientation of the provincial

Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker. The first thing they did was gut the icon of their

party, the man who took their party and the Province into Confederation with

Canada. Shows their orientation. Therefore is it any surprise when Brian Tobin

sells out to the Spaniards that they give him a standing ovation in this House.

Out my way nobody is fooled. The people in my district

understand full well that the whole scenario with regard to the Spaniards

started off good. We were arresting the people who were breaking the fishing

rules. The minute the diplomats got involved we knew Tobin had been elbowed

aside and from then on his role was strictly showmanship. The Canadian

government and their federal representative for this Province, they sold out. By

the time we got the deal with the Spaniards there was hardly a fish left

swimming in the ocean. We gave them back their nets, we gave them back their

bonds, we gave them back their fines, we gave them back their fish, we gave them

a pat on the back and we said: We are sorry, we didn't mean to do you in.

The people out there in the Province know that it was all a

show. It started off good. To be fair to Brian Tobin, he did the right thing at

the very beginning, but he didn't sustain the effort. After the initial effort

of arresting the Spanish trawler from there on in it was all downhill, it was

all showmanship. The Premier was reluctant at the beginning to get involved with

showmanship, but after being shamed by the Member for Port de Grave and a few of

the other members in showing up on the waterfront of St. John's at least the

Premier, in an effort to do political catch up, I guess in an effort to improve

and refurbish his image, didn't mind hanging around on the wharf in New York. I

see a great grin on the face of the Member for Port de Grave because that

sentiment I'm sure is one that is whispered among his confrres, if not openly

to the media.

MR. SULLIVAN: He won't be grinning after the next

election when these boundaries go through.

MR. HEWLETT: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if part of the

Faustian bargain between the caucus and the Premier, apart from whitewashing the

image with regard to the Trans City scandal, with regard to the Workers'

Compensation scandal, is some sort of promise on the Premier's part to maybe

drop the entire issue of the electoral boundaries. A number of the Liberal

members, Cabinet ministers, in the case of the Member for Windsor - Buchans a

back bencher, have real problems with regard to the outcome of the electoral

boundaries report. Maybe a part of the deal with the Premier to refurbish his

image is that the government officially will back off. The Government House

Leader in charge of the House business has always caveated his remarks in

response to petitions that I've put forward with: If we do it, when we do it,

that sort thing.

The Premier has always said: We are going to push ahead with

this boundaries commission report. One has to wonder who he was tough bargaining

with, the members of the Opposition or actually the people in his own caucus.

Acting tough and bargaining tough with the people in his own caucus to get the

best image deal he could as he exited the political life of this Province. The

Liberal Party, including five dissident members, will all sort of toe the line

and say: Oops, I was mistaken, I really didn't mean to say that the Premier did

the Trans City deal without fully consulting with me or other members of the

caucus or Cabinet. Somehow there has all been a tremendous great

misunderstanding, and a lot of these off the record conversations I had with

members of the media - I was having a bad hair day, I was having a bad day and I

really didn't realize what I was saying. Now that the Premier has made it very

clear to me, obviously yes, I was mistaken. The Premier did it right and there

is no problem with regard to the way the contracts were awarded to Trans City.

The five dissidents have now become the five fans, to use the

words of my colleague for Humber Valley. Sounds like a singing group, Mr.

Speaker, but they are singing all from the one hymn book, and it is the hymn

book whose main song is: My party first, my country second, and my Province

third of all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just wonder if the hon. member would allow me to introduce

a group that is in the gallery. They are leaving in a few minutes. I got the

notice a little bit late.

I would like to welcome to the gallery on behalf of all hon.

members students of St. Stephen's school of Grand Le Pierre and they are

accompanied by their teacher Mr. Rumbolt and two chaperons Mrs. Rumbolt and Mr.

Hickey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the students in the gallery I would say that most times in

the House of Assembly the most interesting, and maybe even, I suppose, the most

entertaining time in House business, is the business of Question Period when

there is a lively flow of debate back and forth between both sides, when voices

are raised, when tempers sometimes flare and things get a bit exciting.

Seeing we had visitors to our gallery I tried to stir up the

pot a little bit here today by saying a few things with regard to the opposite

party that they do not believe are altogether complimentary, and hopefully will

get a rise out of them, and maybe, Mr. Speaker, after I sit down somebody from

the other side will stand and speak. We have been in a Budget debate here for

the last number of days and all of the speakers, students should know, have been

from this side of the House. The government side are not standing to speak, they

are not standing to defend their point of view. The most you will get are a few

catty comments flying across the floor.

MR. EFFORD: You have not said a thing about the Budget

yet, ten minutes and not one thing.

MR. HEWLETT: Another thing I should point out to the

students as well is that a Budget debate, or any debate on a tax or money bill,

allows you to speak on a wide-ranging variety of subjects and is often used by

members of the House of Assembly to discuss matters relating to their districts

or issues of importance to the public generally.

The Budget debate does not require, as the Member for Port de

Grave said, a dull, dry, boring, diatribe on the finances of the Province. What

we are talking about here today is not so much the finances of the Province, but

the behaviour, the image, and the attitude displayed by the Wells

administration. The Wells administration is in trouble with the general public.

Its image is in deep trouble with the general public. The Liberal Party, I do

believe, has decided the best way they can survive is to jettison the Premier,

go through a leadership convention of their own, come forward with a new leader,

take on, I guess, our party in another election, so you will have two parties,

hopefully revitalized with new leaders, going before the people in the next

election.

What I believe, Mr. Speaker, will happen to this Liberal

Party is what similarly happened to the federal PC Party, that the damage to the

image was done, and that bringing forward a new leader was not sufficient to

refurbish the image of the party. We have a situation here where the Liberal

Party, Mr. Speaker, is acting in desperation to try and salvage its grip on

power. Having been in the political wilderness for seventeen years they know

what it is like to be in opposition and they do not want to go back there, Mr.

Speaker.

It is good for democracy for parties to alternate back and

forth between their status in government and opposition, and not only democracy

but I do believe but I do believe the body politic and the Province in general

would benefit significantly from a change in government, not only from a change

in government leader but from a change in government party.

We have a situation here in this Province where this party

has worn out its welcome. The party in power has worn out its welcome with the

people and it has pushed its luck too far. It has involved itself in

questionable activities, and the other thing it has refused to do, it did not do

when it was in opposition and it is still not doing now in government, is

standing up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberal Party puts

its party first, the nation second, and the Province third, even though it is a

provincial Liberal Party. It did it when it was in opposition, when we were in

government, and it is still doing it today.

The federal government, when we were last in power, tried to

abandon the Newfoundland Dockyard in St. John's. The Peckford administration

came to the rescue of the dockyard, put in several million dollars to bring in a

synchrolift, a major ship lifting facility to give that shipyard a new breath of

life. The Trudeau administration of the day was quite willing to let the St.

John's dockyard die. The provincial government of the day, having failed to get

any sympathy from the Liberal Government of the day in Ottawa, came forward and

financed an improvement to the St. John's dockyard. Now we have the Liberal

Government in power in St. John's, still a Liberal Government in power in

Ottawa, and we have the government in Ottawa again wanting to abandon - which is

not unusual for Ottawa, regardless of the party in Ottawa, believe me - they

want to abandon the St. John's dockyard, and we have the Liberal Government now

in Newfoundland and Labrador basically being embarrassed into standing up to

fight for the St. John's dockyard. It is a situation where their sense of party

loyalty overrides their responsibility as the governing party. Their direct and

most predominant responsibility has to be the governing of the Province, the

well-being of the people of the Province, but it really hurts the Liberal Party

of Newfoundland and Labrador to take on the Liberal Party in Ottawa when the

people's interests are at stake.

I have never been able to understand that. It has been a

peculiar trait of the provincial Liberal Party, and one that I cannot fathom. I

worked for Premier Peckford when he was Premier for ten years, and in those days

we made war on Joe Clarke, we made war on Brian Mulroney, we made war on Pierre

Trudeau. Whoever in Ottawa was against the best interest of Newfoundland and

Labrador, we took them on four square. We were not afraid to stand up for the

people of the Province. Yet, we have a government here that will not stand up to

the Liberal Government in Ottawa.

I presume if the government in Ottawa were PC or NDP, or

Reform or Bloc Qubois, they might stand up and fight for the Province, but

one has to wonder if somehow this soft peddling of the provincial interest in

going up against the federal government is part of the deal that they may have

cut with the outgoing Premier, Mr. Wells, if the federal government are to take

the Premier off their hands, if the federal government are to salt him away

somewhere in some post in the judiciary, or in some significant ambassadorial

post, if they are to do that for you, to do that favour for you so that you can

go through a leadership convention process and thereby cleanse yourself to face

the people in the next election, the price that you have to pay, the price that

the people of the Province have to pay, for the federal government co-operating

with you in removing the Premier from the scene is that you have to kowtow to

the feds; you have to let them run roughshod over the St. John's dockyard; you

will have to stand around and applaud like mad when they gut the UI system.

I saw The Globe and Mail this morning. Mr. Axworthy is

not doing a two-tier system. He is not going to hit you smack in the face; he is

going to stab you in the back, because Mr. Axworthy's thing, as announced in

The Globe and Mail this morning, says that people who frequently use UI are

going to see their benefits gutted. They are doing a PR thing. They are not

going to call it a two-tier system because that is too wide open to attack, but

people in rural Canada, especially rural Atlantic Canada, are going to get the

shaft from Mr. Axworthy very soon because the nature of the changes that were

mentioned in The Globe and Mail this morning indicate that frequent and

seasonal users of UI are going to see their benefits significantly reduced. It

is not a rose by another name; it is a thorn. We never get the rose down here.

We never get the gold mine; we only get the shaft, and here we are going to get

the thorn, not the rose. It is a thorn by another name. It is not a two-tier

system. It is going to be a one-tier system, but we are going to get it

nonetheless. The Globe and Mail makes that very clear this morning.

So the agenda has not changed in Ottawa. The only thing that

has changed in this Province is that we have a Liberal Government in power at

the provincial level that refuses to stand up and fight for the Province in the

face of attacks from the federal government, in the face of our being, I

suppose, dismissed, for want of a better phrase, by the federal government.

I do not understand why, because the politically smart thing

to do, whatever you think of Brian Peckford and the ten years he spent as

Premier, he was politically smart on just about every project he took on, and

certainly when it came to fed bashing he was among the best that this Province

ever saw. Joey Smallwood had the science down pat. Mr. Peckford took on Joe

Clarke if it was necessary; he took on Pierre Trudeau, and he took on Brian

Mulroney. Whoever stood against the interest of this Province, he took on:

number one, because it was the right thing to do but number two, it was the

politically smart thing to do, and I do not understand why the Liberal

Government in this Province, given the political trouble that its in, is not

doing much politically smart. What have you people over there to lose by taking

the gloves off and standing up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? I

mean, the federal party under financing rules, these days the federal party

can't fund the provincial party so you don't owe your souls to them financially

to run in the next election campaign, what is it, what hold do they have over

you?

I think, Mr. Speaker, it's an attitude, no hold; like I said

when they took over in the Common Room up in the tower, when the Assembly

Chamber was up in the tower, they immediately redecorated their Common Room with

pictures of Pearson and St. Laurent, Federal Prime Ministers, all Liberal, no

picture of Joey, indeed, they even removed the picture of Joey that hung in the

Premier's Office on the eighth floor, one of the Premier's first moves was to

get rid of the portrait of Joey on the eighth floor.

I have been active in the PC Party since my early twenties,

Mr. Speaker, but you know, even I had the decency when we redid the Premier's

Office to hang a picture of Joey Smallwood. The Member for Port de Grave,

attacked what we did in the Premier's Office because I hung a picture of the

Queen in the lobby of the eighth floor and he came up with the phrase,

`Buckingham Porch'. Now I am not sure if the current Premier removed the picture

of the Queen, but also in that same porch, `Buckingham Porch' was a picture of

Joey Smallwood and it was one of the first things to go when the Liberal Party

took over. I am surprised they didn't put a picture of Lester Pearson in the

front lobby of the eighth floor, Mr. Speaker, because they had it in their

Common Room when they took over upstairs and moved to the government side of the

House of Assembly, so it must be attitudinal, it doesn't make any sense

politically.

No one in Newfoundland is impressed with the way they give in

to the federal government, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't make any sense. Their mandate

as a government is to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to

do things that are in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, yet we see them applauding Brian Tobin, a standing ovation in this

House and a few weeks later, he `sells the shop', to borrow a phrase with regard

to his treatment of the Spaniards and there is nobody in my district, everybody

with whom I speak on the street, nobody is fooled.

I spent a few days on the mainland a week or so ago, Mr.

Speaker, and Mr. Tobin, up there, he is like a god, same as the Premier was

after Meech Lake. They don't realize he sold the shop to the Spaniards.

Newfoundlanders know it and now we are letting them run rough shod over us on

St. John's Dockyard; the same dockyard that was saved by the Peckford

Administration, you guys are going to turn a blind eye to the Chretin

Administration putting the scuttles to it. It is simply not good enough, Mr.

Speaker, and one has to wonder, why. The built-in attitude of the Liberal Party

seems to put holding party ranks together more important than doing your duty as

a duly elected government.

One has to wonder if there is another motivation and is it,

Mr. Speaker, a deal between the Premier and the caucus to smooth things over, to

polish things off, to whitewash stuff so that he can make a tidy exit from

politics in Newfoundland because I think it is crucial from the point of view of

Prime Minister Chretin, if he wants to appoint Premier Wells, post politics to

something important be it a judgeship, or an ambassadorial position or some

position with the United Nations, something of stature, then obviously, he can't

have a Premier coming out of office and taking a post under a cloud of

suspicion, under a cloud of negativity, so obviously, the fix is in, we have to

dress things up, we have to make people look good, Mr. Speaker, and as I say,

Bill Clinton, he is haunted by the shadow of White Water and what we have around

here is whitewasher, Mr. Speaker. Everything is being whitewashed, the Trans

City scandal is now an instance of ineptitude on the part of the government.

We fumbled the ball, Mr. Speaker. What we should have done I

suppose is, we should have called a press conference and said: I would like to

give some contracts to some Liberals and I am not going to apply the Public

Tender Act in this particular case, I am going to give the contracts to the

Liberals.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: That was the way it was done, yes, by the

Smallwood Administration before the Public Tender Act came in. And if they had

done that, Mr. Speaker, they would have taken it on the chin for a week,

everybody would have said: They are terrible people, giving contracts to their

buddies,' but they wouldn't have broken the law to do it. They would have made

some sort of exception or passed

an act in the House, the Trans City Act, to

make a special case to give these people some contracts. But what they did was -

they wanted to give them the contracts but they still tried to use the Public

Tender Act as the vehicle. `Oh what a tangled web we weave,' Mr. Speaker, `when

first we practice to deceive.' They would have taken a hit on the chin for a

patronage job if they had given them the contracts. Now they are taking a hit on

the chin, a much bigger hit, for a full-scale scandal, Mr. Speaker. Last weekend

the editorial in The Evening Telegram , basically pronounced what the

press of the Province and what the public of the Province think of the Trans

City situation.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a situation where we have a Premier

ready to go and he wants to leave on a white horse, not a spotted horse and

certainly not a dark horse, and we have the Federal Government requiring a

shining bright new Premier leaving office. We have a caucus with major problems

with that Premier, now, all of a sudden buckling under, agreeing to anything

just to get rid of the man so that the Liberal Party can move on to a leadership

convention and I guess, hopefully, with a new leader at their helm, a hope to

hold on to power after the next election. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think the

fate for this Liberal Party is the same fate that awaited the Mulroney

Adminstration in Ottawa. The damage is done, changing leaders will not solve the

party's hold on power and whitewashing will not work, Mr. Speaker. Thank you

very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Don't be overly optimistic, my friend. It is

only because I don't say very much that you believe that when I say something it

might be worth listening to.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words today about

what I consider to be the schizophrenic economic environment existing in Canada

and to some extent in Newfoundland today, but first I would like to talk about a

kind of schizophrenia being generated in this House of Assembly. The previous

speaker criticizes members of our caucus when they speak out. When we have a

debate in our caucus about issues of today and some of our members speak out

publicly, and then we have some minor skirmishes among ourselves, we get

criticized for being a caucus falling apart, but if we don't speak out on

anything, then we are criticized for being a caucus of sheep. So I am having a

great deal of trouble knowing what I should do to please the hon. the Member for

Green Bay. But certainly I can't take much of a lesson from the other side

because the other side seems to have created this miraculous situation in which

they all agree on everything. When do we ever hear any difference of agreement,

publicly, at any rate, from the members of the Opposition?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Yes, it gets extended sometimes. I think there

have been a number of issues recently on which we should hear some disagreement

from members of the Opposition, particularly, I think, the recent crab issue

that has been in the news. But first I would like to speak a little more

generally about the state of the economy and what I mean when I talk about the

schizophrenic economic environment that seems to exist in this country.

You talk to some people and they would have you believe that

Canada is going the drain economically. The economy is coming apart, we have no

money to do anything and government has to cut back on services. The same thing

occurs in this Province. But what is the reality in the country today, Mr.

Speaker? The reality is that this year, Canadians will produce more wealth,

income and profits than the country has ever produced, ever on record, more

wealth and income and profits.

Now, what is the problem in the country? One of the problems

is that governments have been irresponsible in the past in the way they've

managed the public finances. They've borrowed and borrowed in order to keep

everybody happy, in order to maintain services at levels that they needed in

order to retain support of the public or to win elections. They've been hesitant

to prepare to properly finance their responsibilities. That can be done in the

country today and should be done. And it can be done in the Province today. We

have to look at finding new ways of generating revenues if we are to maintain a

reasonable level of services and income for all of the citizens that we

represent here.

What is happening in the country and what is happening in the

Province is we are witnessing increasing economic disparity. Some people are

ever better and better off, earning more and more income; more and more people,

unfortunately, are getting worse off all the time. There is an increasing

polarization in our society that to me is unacceptable, and it is clearly having

negative economic impacts. The people who are doing well and making more are

investing it, often in mutual funds or something like that, and where does it

end up? Over in China or down in Latin America trying to develop those

economies. Because they save. The more they earn each year the more they save

and invest, and it gets invested in other countries of the world.

But the people who are on the lower end of the income scale

who are finding that they are losing their jobs, that they are not getting

salary increases, the kinds of people who spend everything they make and who

would contribute more to the economy if they were able to earn more, are the

people being deprived of increased income either through salary increases or

increased income through jobs. People who are on welfare and had to take early

retirement and on TAGS and all that sort of thing. What we have to do to help

the economy here is try to put more money in the hands of those people. That

way, we will all be better off and the people at the top won't stand to have

their situation jeopardized, as it surely will be if we don't get this economy

in order. Because you can see discontent rising in this country and in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, what do we have to do in order to strengthen the

economy, in order to ensure that government has the finances it needs to carry

out its responsibilities, in order to create jobs and to raise incomes for

people who are living on low incomes today? Well, I think the recent crab

controversy is one illustration of the kind of thing that we can do. If you go

down and take a poll on Water Street or throughout this city or Province today,

or at least if you had, a week or two ago, and asked people how the fishery is

doing, I suppose 90-odd per cent of them would say the fishery is dead in

Newfoundland, the fishery is lost, nobody is working in it any more.

The reality is that the fishery is going to generate more

revenue than ever this year. The landed value of the fishery in the Province

this year is going to be a record number unless the catches and prices turn out

to be a lot different from what is anticipated now. The export value of the

entire fishery is going to be perhaps the fifth or sixth best year on record.

The primary reason for this is a result of the increased value of the crab

stock.

Now, the reality in the Province today is that we are going

to have as viable a fishery as ever this year but half as many people are going

to share in the benefits. Half or less than half as many people are going to

work in the fishery this year as in the best years. What has happened over the

past few years is that the people who are left in the industry, the processors,

the fishers, the traders and that sort of thing, are making more money than

ever, are making decent livings in many cases. They have a perfect right to that

and I'm happy for them and I will do anything that I can to help that continue

to be the case. There is no problem with the people who are making reasonable

incomes and reasonable returns on their investment and that sort of thing.

The problem is that there are excess profits being made in

the fishery these days, and are going to be made to an extreme degree this year.

The problem is also that half the people have been put out of the fishery and

been put on TAGS program and are now living on compensation programs that are

being financed by all taxpayers, the lucky ones who are on TAGS. Some other

people have been thrown out and have no jobs at all.

MR. E. BYRNE: Like the people at the St. John's Dockyard.

MR. NOEL: Like the people at the St. John's - the

Newfoundland Dockyard I think it is, sir. Government has a responsibility to

ensure our fishing resource is managed in a way that is going to provide maximum

benefits for the Province and equitable benefits for all Newfoundlanders.

Equitable benefits require that those who have licenses to harvest and licences

to process the fish get a reasonable return for their labours and for their

investment. But when the return becomes excessive, as it is going to in the crab

industry this year, then government has a responsibility to manage the industry

in a way to ensure that the rest of the Province shares in that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, if people don't be more quiet

while I'm speaking I will speak more often to make up for the unfairness. So

they can have their choice of the poison they prefer.

Government has a responsibility to take actions to ensure

that the revenues and profits generated are equitably shared. We've gotten into

a kind of complicated issue over what to do with the crab in particular for this

year. The solutions are not simple. I'm glad to see that the minister and the

government have paid attention to those of us who've raised concerns in recent

weeks and have agreed to put more pressure on the industry to ensure that they

create as many jobs as possible processing the product in the Province this

year. I think that is some progress. I'm happy to see that the federal

government has increased the number of licences to catch crab. I think that is a

reasonable and a progressive action to take.

I still have concerns about the proper sharing of the wealth

that the resource produces. I think too much of the debate has focused around

what is the best way to create processing jobs in the Province. We've had the

argument about whether it is through requiring the industry to process as much

as possible into meat form or into sections and the consumer packs and all that

kind of thing. It is very difficult to know what the best sort of way to proceed

would be. I think we have to be guided by one standard. We have to manage the

industry in a way that is going to produce maximum economic returns for the

product. If that would mean eliminating all processing jobs in the Province so

that we just take the fish out of the ocean and ship it out, if that is the way

you could get maximum economic return for the Province, then how could you

object to doing that.

I don't think that is the case. I think that the direction we

should move in is to try to create as many jobs as possible in our Province.

What is the point in catching crab here and doing very little with it and

sending it over to Japan, which in turn sends it over to China to have it

processed for minimum wage standards - people being paid a dollar an hour or

something like that - then have it canned over there and shipped back here, and

sold on our supermarket shelves as products made in Taiwan or China or something

like that? That doesn't seem to make very much sense. I guess it is conceivable

that the industry could be managed in that sort of way if it produced the

maximum economic benefits for the Province as a result of the price that we were

going to be paid for shipping it.

The debate has been complicated by all kinds of stories about

the state of the market. In my view the industry - and when I say the industry I

have in mind the unions and the fishermen and women, and the processors, because

they are all the industry - and insofar as I can see they are all in cahoots to

get as much as they can out of the industry for themselves. Now I don't blame

them for doing that. That is their business, to make as much as they can

themselves. But government has to make sure that the industry is managed in a

way so that the benefits are maximized and equalized throughout the Province.

What kind of stories do we hear this year? The industry has

been saying that - they have been making a very self-serving case - they have to

be permitted to export crab this year in a way that is going to make them the

most money for themselves. Not create the highest economic benefit for the

Province, but the way in which they will make the most money personally. I think

government has to look at this. We are being told, for instance - see, I think

the industry's real intention this year, and its real wish, is to ship as much

crab as they can in the so-called industrial packs. Which means that the

creature is just caught and cooked and frozen in fifty-pound boxes or something

and shipped over to Japan. I think that is the way they can make the quickest

profit for themselves. They turn over their money as quick as possible, avoid

the headaches of setting up processing operations and dealing with workers and

unions and all that kind of stuff, and enable them to pay the fishermen the

highest possible price for the product so that they can get as much product as

they can for themselves that they can sell and make the highest returns.

They are making a case on the basis of suggestions that the

meat market would collapse if we required excess processing into meat form.

Where is the evidence that the meat market is in danger? I would like to know.

We have the fisheries spokesman for the Opposition quoted in the Telegram

the other day as saying: If government rejects their request it could mean about

$100 million to the industry, a loss to the industry. I would like the Member

for Grand Bank to tell me where he got that $100 million figure. The industry is

telling us that if we processed and tried to sell more of the stock in meat form

we would kill the American market which is the primary market for crab meat. But

where is the evidence that we are about to kill that market when the meat price

in that market has doubled over the past two years from $6 to $12, and last year

alone it went up 50 per cent, from $8 the previous year to $12 last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) demand for product.

MR. NOEL: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is called demand for product.

MR. NOEL: That is right, and that is the point I'm

making. There is enough demand there to justify high prices.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Well, we don't know about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Well, I would ask the member if he would be

quiet for a little while until I make the case and then respond to it.

We don't know what the markets would be, but one basic lesson

and fact of economics is that if the markets are weak the price goes down. If

the price is going up the market is not weak. Whether or not an increased supply

of meat into the New England market would cause prices to go down very much is

to be seen. I understand that the price presently is maybe down around $10 a

pound or something like that, but this is probably the low season. When people

get out travelling around this summer and go into the fast-food places and buy

crab meals and things like that we might well see prices go up to $12 or $15 a

pound then this year.

Also, the American market is not our only market for meat. A

lot of crab meat is sold from this Province into the European market. The prices

there have been very good. On top of the prices that people are able to get they

are making a lot of money on the difference in exchange rates between the

Canadian dollar, and it is a result of the Canadian dollar being devalued in

comparison with the Japanese dollar and some of the European currencies. That is

a big factor, I think, in why the industry wants to ship as much as it can to

Japan this year, because in addition to the mark-up they can make on the product

itself they make a lot more on the difference in exchange rates. Because the

Japanese yen has appreciated so significantly in comparison with the Canadian

dollar over the past few years the price of the product being sold in Japan has

not gone up very much in Japanese yen prices, but the value of it in Canadian

dollars has gone up considerably.

Now, the industry has made a case to the Province that they

have to sell a relatively high amount unprocessed. They have promised to try and

process as much as they can