April 28, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 15

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to the National Day of

Mourning and to pay tribute to workers who have died as a result of workplace accidents

and illnesses. April 28 is recognized every year as the National Day of Mourning across

Canada. In keeping with this occasion, flags on Confederation Hill are being flown at half

mast today and an Annual Wreath Laying Ceremony was held at 12:00 noon.

Mr. Speaker, it is a disturbing reality, but every year workplace

fatalities occur across Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador. Most recently, we were

deeply saddened by the deaths of two workers at the Come By Chance Refinery who were

killed as a result of a fire at the refinery. Our hearts and prayers go out to their

families, friends and co-workers.

Mr. Speaker, government, employers and employees must work together to

not simply reduce the number of workplace fatalities but to create an accident- and

illness-free workplace environment everywhere in the Province. The underlying message is

that workplace accidents, illnesses and injuries can be prevented, but it takes a

concerted effort by all parties to reach this goal and we must continue our effort.

As Minister of Environment and Labour with responsibility for

occupational health and safety, I assure you that I will continue to work towards

providing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the best possible occupational health and

safety system that we can provide.

I ask that members take some time today to remember those who have lost

their lives, been injured or became ill, in workplace related incidents. I ask that you

reflect on the importance of safety and health. Together, let us pledge our wholehearted

support to making all our workplaces safe and healthy for all workers, thereby bringing an

end to illness and injury on the job.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, certainly recognize the importance of this National Day of

Mourning for people who have been unfortunate to lose their lives in the workplace. We

have seen many instances in this Province, particularly in the very recent past, to which

the minister alluded.

I think it is not only a time to grieve on a National Day of Mourning,

and to recognize and pay tribute to those; it is a wake-up call, really, to people who are

entrusted with the responsibility to ensure that the health and safety of people under

their care is enacted and the proper monitoring takes place.

I know the ministers, the department, has the responsibility to ensure

that under his particular areas of responsibility, whether on land or in the offshore. It

is not only the responsibility basically of companies to ensure that the proper safety is

in the workplace, but that governments - the minister in particular - ensure that the

proper mechanism is in place to monitor and ensure that compliance with regulations is

occurring; and, if they are not sufficient, to strengthen their legislation to ensure that

the proper monitoring is there so tragedies can be avoided in the future.

We have had far too many tragedies occur in the workplace today.

Hopefully, the minister will certainly take great note on this very important day to

ensure that we do not have any other occurrences in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in acknowledging the National Day of Mourning for

those killed or injured on the job. We have a serious problem in this country. As the Reader's

Digest of April, 1998, pointed out, we have half the population of the U.K. but yet

three times as many fatalities in Canada - some 700 per year.

In this Province, from the 103 people killed in the Bell Island mines

from 1898 to l965, to the 83 lost in the Ocean Ranger, to the two lost at Come By Chance

in the last couple to months, not to mention the countless hundreds, if not thousands, who

have lost their lives while working at sea over the last number of years, it is a very

serious problem. We have to honour those people in a very special way, and the best way to

honour those men and women killed or injured on the job is to make sure other workers stay

safe and healthy.

We have a situation now in the offshore where we are working in the

grey area of draft regulations that are of questionable enforcement. They should be

enforced by the Ministry of Labour, which is designed to do that, not by the department

that is designed to promote the offshore energy field. I would like to see that changed so

we could ensure that the same degree of scrutiny and enforcement that the Department of

Labour seeks to enforce on all industries is also enforced on the offshore, so we could

prevent the kind of tragedy that has occurred in the past.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, after much prodding and probing, the

Minister of Education yesterday released, finally, the Postsecondary Indicators '98 .

There are a number of obvious concerns that are contained within that report, but the

larger issue is a public policy issue and one about which I would like to ask the minister

today.

Obviously there is an imbalance that has occurred between both public

and private training institutions. As Minister of Education, and responding for the

government, what is the government's policy with respect to obtaining and ensuring that:

number one, the type of education system that is in the Province in the post-secondary

system is valid and provides opportunities for young people, number two, but also protects

them, but also provides an appropriate balance between what the public education system

delivers and what the private system delivers? Is there a policy by government? If there

is, could he articulate, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the government's position with respect to post-secondary options

that are available to students is very clear. Maybe members opposite do not know what it

is but most people in the Province would certainly understand what it is, and that is that

the people of the Province should fully expect that at the post-secondary level there

would be available to students in the Province a clear choice. There will be options

available that are publicly-funded, and there will be continuing options available that

are privately-funded, which exist today.

What the report shows, Mr. Speaker, that was released yesterday, is

that in the period that was under study and review and reported upon in this particular

circumstance, through that period of time we have finally come to the point in

Newfoundland and Labrador where for the first time in our history - rather than look at it

as a negative - it should be seen that we have a balance for the first time at the college

system between opportunities in the publicly-funded system and opportunities in the

privately-funded system. We fully expect, Mr. Speaker, that people of Newfoundland and

Labrador should, into the future, expect to have both options available to them on an

ongoing basis, publicly-funded and privately-funded.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what the public expect from the Minister

of Education is that if private training colleges are open, that they serve the interest

of the students; and this minister and this government has failed in that regard.

Let me ask the minister this. He announced yesterday that government

would conduct a full-scale review that would include the following: pay particular

attention to issues such as bonding of private institutions, which in one case was waived;

wind up provisions for institutions that encounter difficulties in access to student

loans.

The question is: Who will be conducting the review? Will it be the

Department of Education? Or will it be a group outside the department, within government,

to look at the issues? What will be the approach for the conducting of the review that he

announced yesterday? What will be the Terms of Reference and criteria under which the

group conducting the review will operate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, the government will be conducting the review. Since it is a

review of an education matter, it will be conducted by the department responsible, which

is the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the group opposite might like and wish

to be the government and might like and wish to do it. If they want to do their own

review, as a very eager member did before, Mr. Speaker, and suggested he was launching on

a Province-wide campaign with respect to the public tendering initiatives, and if they

want to do that themselves, by all means, do so.

The government will conduct a review, led by the Department of

Education, Mr. Speaker. In all likelihood, we would certainly invite an offer, an

opportunity for the Official Opposition. If they would like to do the same thing we are

going to do, which is to study in detail with the partners, the legislation, the

regulation and the policies, and ask the basic question: Is there any particular reason

why any part of the legislation, any of the regulations, or any of the policies should

legitimately be changed at this point in our history, particularly in light of the

unprecedented growth of the private sector training institute over the period that was

studied in this report?

If there is some reason for that that they would like to put forward to

us, we would gladly entertain the proposition, gladly consider it as part of the review

and see what the outcome is at the end of the piece.

MR. SULLIVAN: Authorize us to do the investigation.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Education has just

announced would equate to the fox taking care of the hen house.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker.

Because the review is to be conducted. Now, he talks about the Opposition's approach, and

it is distinctly different. The difference is this, that when problems occur, our members

and our critics are out talking to stakeholders. We do not float another poll from Bristol

or Corporate Research to find out what people are thinking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We talk to stakeholders in industry that are

concerned about what is happening in government and get their input. That is the

difference.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is this, that some days ago we learned, again,

in unprecedented action by the Department of Education which an answer has not been given

to yet, that a regulation was changed with respect to access to student aid with respect

to private training colleges. I have talked to past ministers, past deputy ministers,

people within the public service now, senior levels. Senior bureaucrats in the minister's

own department have said they cannot find who made such an approval, why the regulation

was changed, who ordered the change, or who asked student aid or told student aid to

change it. So, it is incumbent, I think, on the minister today to explain why there was no

paper trail on this important change in this regulation. Did he approve it himself? And,

if so, why did he not inform all the bureaucracy in the necessary way and create the paper

trail on such an important and fundamental policy and regulation change? Why not,

Minister?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue that the hon. member dealt with - I thought he was asking

another question at the beginning, because he was raising other issues, but if that is the

question he wants answered, I will gladly deal with it.

The issue with respect to the student loan policy and access of student

loans: We were approached shortly after I became minister, in the spring, I guess, of

1996, by a group in Grand Falls -Windsor, some people from the Badger area, who were

trying to set up, and had gone through the process that every institution has gone through

in the Province that has gotten a licence to operate, to establish a training institution

for heavy equipment operators. I think the name of the institution is DieTrac. I discussed

this openly and frequently and fully with the media as well.

The group came forward. They had approval from the department, they had

gone through the full process, had a licence to operate, had a potential student client

list. The only difficulty was that most of their students were not eligible for support

under EI or from HRD or from other sources, could not get personal bank loans, wanted to

do the training in a certified, licensed institution that was just beginning. They came to

the government and said: The only way we can do this training we want to do is if we can

access student loans.

As a result of their enquiry, one of the first things that came to my

attention after I became minister, I asked a question of our officials: Was there anything

in the Canada-Newfoundland student loan agreements that suggested or dictated that the

government had to have any particular waiting period for private institutions? The answer

was no. The policy had always been that there should be a waiting period of one year. When

asked why, the answer was: No particular reason, it is just that that is always the way it

has been, and that we think that is prudent, and we do not suggest that it be changed at

this point in time.

Again though, in following up with the officials as to was there any

legal reason, in terms of a contract between Canada and Newfoundland with the

Canada-Newfoundland student loans or elsewhere, that required any waiting period, the

answer was no. When I asked the same officials that the Leader of the Opposition refers to

as to where were the background papers, where was the paper chase that came to the

conclusion and convinced the government to have a one-year waiting period, there was none.

There was no reason.

The government at the time, which were the members opposite, or their

forerunners - they always disown them, by the way. They say: Oh no, we were not here. Any

time we talk about the Peckford Administration they say: Do not talk to us, we were not

here. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was a Progressive Conservative Administration, let me put it

that way, that instituted a policy of a one-year wait period for no reason other than that

they thought it was a good idea. When we asked: Is there any reason why it has to stay

there? the answer was no. I said: Well, rather than disadvantage a group of students who

have selected a private training institution of their own volition, who want to go, who

are registered and the only thing that is denying them their preferred training

opportunity is access to student loan, I directed them to change the policy. It was

changed, and the only paper trail, Mr. Speaker, is this one.

There used to be a line that said: In order to access student loans,

you have to wait one year. It has now been deleted - no paper trail necessary. That

policy, with an erasure, is now the policy of the government. It was given, Mr. Speaker,

to the people who needed to know, in students loans and others. It was communicated to all

those who asked about it. Mr. Speaker, the change was made appropriately.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: `Grimes', you are a political crook, you always use

cash.

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

I ask the hon. the Member for Bonavista South to withdraw that comment.

MR. FITZGERALD: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He says there was no reason for the one-year wait.

Had that policy remained in effect, the paralegal institute and the students who were

there would not have been impacted negatively, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The other question, the question that the minister

did not answer, is that: Even if one line was changed, nobody can find out who ordered the

change. Senior officials within the Department of Education do not know when it was

changed, why it was changed or who ordered it.

My understanding of the regulations or departmental guidelines, by the

minister himself, any minister of the Crown, is that should regulations change it should

go out under the signature of the minister, for a reason why the regulation was changed

obviously. But there was no indication when it was changed. Did the minister order it? It

did not go out under his signature.

So he has not answered the question. Why did he change it? If the

reasons he has outlined here today were the reasons why he changed it, then why is there

not some letter that indicates that this was the reason why it was changed and why it was

necessary? Why is there no indication from the minister on this issue for such a policy

change within the department?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I fail to recognize or understand the point that the Leader of the

Opposition is trying to make. He suggests he still does not know, or officials do not

know, who authorized the change. Well, Mr. Speaker, people in this Legislature understand

that the Leader of the Opposition could not authorize that change because he is not in a

position to do so. None of the members opposite could authorize that change, Mr. Speaker,

because they are not in a position to do so.

Mr. Speaker, in case he was so busy figuring out what he was going to

ask next, instead of listening, in answering the last question I stated clearly that the

minister made the change. And, Mr. Speaker, so that the Leader of the Opposition will

learn more about how government works, in case he ever gets the opportunity to be part of

it - I doubt it, but in case he ever does - we are not talking about a regulation. He

might know, and I might try to educate him a bit as the Education Minister, a regulation

is a subservient piece of legislation that has to go through a process and have Cabinet

approval. A policy statement, Mr. Speaker, states a particular view of the department at a

time that reflects the government's and the minister's view as to how it should operate at

that point in time.

The policy of this particular government, as articulated by this

particular minister, is that there was no basis for a one-year waiting period; it would no

longer be in effect. The one person who needed to know more than anybody else, the

Director of Student Aid, was notified by the assistant deputy minister of the day, who is

currently president of a private college in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, they knew so that anybody else who was applying - because

the only people to whom this applies are students who are clients and customers of private

institutions who would apply for Student Aid, who, a year before, two years before, and

when the previous administration would have been there, would have been told when they

applied in the first year: I am sorry, you cannot get a student loan to go to this school

until the school has been in operation for another year - what they find out when they

apply to Student Aid, as a result of an action taken by this government, is that if the

government has gone through a process and has licensed an institution, and they have met

all the criteria to have a proper licence to operate in the Province, then why should we

deny students who choose to go to that particular institution an opportunity to access

student loans?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the obvious question remains. If it is

good, and government's monitoring has been so good, why did the Minister of Education

yesterday stand in his place and announce a review? I mean, really, Mr. Speaker, this is

pathetic.

The minister knows full well, and he can blame it on a past assistant

deputy minister or defer responsibility that the past assistant deputy minister did it.

Someone had to tell him to do it, and there should be a letter - because the Director of

Student Aid would not go forward without it - indicating that this has been a policy

change by the department, it will take effect at a certain date. On that letter it would

indicate - and it would come from the minister. It would have to come from the minister.

It cannot come from his department officials; it has to come from the minister. So the

question is: Where is that letter from the minister that approved that regulation change

that was given to the Director of Student Aid? And, if there is a letter, can he table it

for the House to clear up the confusion, the public confusion I might add, on this matter?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I might suggest that I am trying to answer the

question. I do not know what the point is, in the meantime, but the issue is this: The

question was asked: Who authorized the policy change for the government? The answer was

given: The Minister of Education, who happens to be me. When was it done? It was done

almost two years ago, Mr. Speaker, with respect to an issue arising from inquiries made

that involved one member who is not in the House today, the Member for Grand Falls -

Buchans, because she was representing constituents of hers, who had a licence to operate a

private, training institution. It was already in place. They had prospective students who

wanted to go. The reason they could not go was because they could not afford to go,

because they could not get student loans. On a basis of the review, Mr. Speaker, we made

the change.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us make sure everybody understands: Since that

happened almost two years ago, any institution that came into place since then - and there

have been several - would have had their students able to access student loans right away

if that is what they needed and if that is what they chose. And, Mr. Speaker, the Director

of Student Loans has been authorizing and approving student loans for almost two years on

that basis, so whatever authorization the Director of Student Loans has needed, he got

through the process. He knows that the authority came from the minister. Whether he was

given a letter from an ADM or an e-mail or whatever, he knows what the difference is. The

policy has changed, Mr. Speaker, and has been changed for almost two years.

If it makes the Opposition Leader feel any better, and he would like to

see a letter with my name on it, I will make one up today and say the policy - because

this is how ridiculous it is, Mr. Speaker. If he wants me, for comfort for him, because

nobody else seems to need the comfort, to write a letter that says: By the way, Dear

Director of Student Services and Student Aid, would you please continue acting on the

policy that you have been acting on for the last two years? Signed: Loving, your friend,

Roger.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to clue up his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Now if that is what he wants to see on a file, I will

put that on a file if it gives him some sense of comfort.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear; Roger is not my friend.

I want that known for the public record. Let us be clear on that. He may be a professional

colleague but he is not my friend.

MR. SULLIVAN: Another Dear John letter.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, another Dear John letter.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of legitimate private training

institutions in this Province that have operated for a number of years, that have offered

legitimate courses, that are still offering legitimate courses; but, Mr. Speaker, when you

see a situation develop like we saw with the paralegal institute where the appropriate

checks and balances were not in place, where access to student loans was waived so that

students could go there, where the appropriate bonding was not put in place, it raises

larger questions. The minister obviously would have to agree with that.

Yesterday, I watched him on television being interviewed by CBC and

Here and Now where he said that he really has no jurisdiction or no power over the

paralegal institute reopening their doors. I want to ask him today: Is he convinced that

the paralegal institute opening again is in the best interest of the people of the

Province who are coming to expect a high quality of education from the department? Is he

convinced that the longevity of this school will continue? Can he answer that question?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that he asked the question because he wanted the

answer. I will try to give the answer. While I understand, and we do agree that the Leader

of the Opposition is misguided politically, our group, the members on this side, are more

open-minded and more open-hearted than he is. Just because he is misguided politically

does not mean that I would not consider him as a friend. I think he does have some

redeeming features and qualities, and if he ever were to cross over here and be a sensible

person we could be real good friends. I guess for whatever political reasons he has to

suggest that we are not friends. That is fine with me, but I will continue to be your

friend anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, I understand

that it might be politically better for the Leader of the Opposition if he suggests

publicly, and if it gets printed and so on, that he is not my friend. I understand that.

Mr. Speaker, in getting to the question that was asked, there needs to

be a correction of part of the

preamble, and it is very serious because it is not founded

on fact. The Leader of the Opposition, in asking a question about a particular training

institute, it being the paralegal training institute, suggested that there was some

impropriety with the bond. That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker, and I would like for him, if he

can somehow suggest that...

My officials have told me repeatedly that every single private training

institute that operates in Newfoundland and Labrador went through the same process,

including the posting of an appropriate bond. Now, if he has some different information...

It is unfair, Mr. Speaker, and improper to stand up and make that kind of a statement

without being able to back it up and justify it.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, because he picks up for his old buddy, `copper

top' over there, he suggests that the proper checks and balances have not been in place.

The proper checks and balances, Mr. Speaker, have been in place for all of the private

training institutions. There are 100 campuses, all of which are checked upon and made sure

Mr. Speaker, he suggested, I believe, if I heard him correctly, that

there was some kind of waiving of a student loan policy for this particular institution.

He referenced something about student loans and this institution. Mr. Speaker, again, they

have been continuing to make certain accusations or insinuations that are not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to clue up his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the direct question: Can I give any assurance that

there will be a long-lasting type of future for this particular institution? No, no more

than I can for any of the other 100 that are there. That is not the business that

government is in. We do not guarantee them. We do not back them with any cash grants or

any kind of subsidies, they are private businesses. Whether they have a long-term future,

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to clue up his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Whether or not that particular institution or any other has a long-term

future will depend solely upon their ability to attract students to the institution.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No

preamble.

MR. FRENCH: No

preamble! They should have a half hour.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is no trouble to know that he is the

Minister of Transportation, just take a look at him.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, since the House closed during Easter the federal

government announced a large number of Marine Atlantic headquarter jobs based in Moncton

to be relocated to Nova Scotia, even though the service exists to service Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Was the minister informed directly or indirectly, at any time prior to

that disgusting decision, that Ottawa was favouring Nova Scotia?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to the question is no.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) with respect to Port aux Basques, Mr.

Speaker. The Premier says he has a good relationship with his federal colleagues since

leaving Ottawa. So the Premier either did not think it was important enough to ask the

Transport Minister where the Marine Atlantic jobs were going, or he knew and he did not

tell the minister.

Does the minister regret not fighting for Newfoundland and Labrador and

the Marine Atlantic jobs, or was Port aux Basques not worth fighting for?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I concur with the first part of the

preamble to the hon. member's

question when he referred to the decision with respect to Marine Atlantic headquarters as

disgusting. It is more than disgusting, it is unconscionable, it is not sensible, it

defies logic and the decision, Mr. Speaker, actually misses the whole point.

The real issue is this, Mr. Speaker: As of January 1, 1998, Marine

Atlantic has only one reason to exist, just one reason. It no longer provides ferry

services in Nova Scotia, PEI or New Brunswick. It exist only to fulfil the federal

government's constitutional obligation to this Province as a result of our entering into

Confederation.

The main point of all of this, Mr. Speaker, is being missed by the

federal government and by Marine Atlantic and by all other people associated with that

decision, to the extent that they have missed the whole point completely.

Now, as far as making representation on behalf of government, to answer

the question specifically: We have made a lot of representation. I remember last Regatta

Day sitting in Ottawa with the minister directly talking about the Marine Atlantic issue.

I remember talking to him on the phone during the fall about it. I recall talking to him

on December 7 of last year with respect to the issue, when we became aware through the

grapevine, what the recommendations from Rod Morrison and Company were going to be to the

federal minister. I can tell you, it did not sit very well with us.

As a result of that, we got a commitment from the minister, I got a

commitment from him, that he would make no decision until we had a chance to meet again. I

met with the minister on February 6 with respect to the issue, I wrote him on February 11

with respect to the issue, I talked to him on February 13 and 14 with respect to the

issue, and on all of these occasions, in conjunction with conversation with our federal

minister in Ottawa, I was assured that before any decision would be handed down I would be

informed, as minister on behalf of this government, and that the Province would know what

was happening. That clearly did not happen. The events surrounding the announcement a

couple of weeks ago indicated that that did not happen, and I regret that it did not

happen because it was an unfulfilled commitment that was given to me directly and

personally by the federal minister. I hold him accountable for that type of announcement,

in the absence of fulfilling an obligation that he made by way of a commitment to me.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister: What did the President of

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador say a short time ago? By the way, you should not be

asking Rod Morrison, you should be telling him what to do with respect to Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: There has been much talk by the Premier, among

others, about the anti-Newfoundland arrogance of Rod Morrison, who has proven himself to

be no friend of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Why are the Premier and yourself not being more

critical of the Minister of Transport in Ottawa and the Prime Minister, who ultimately had

made this decision, and not Rod Morrison? Why are you not criticizing your colleagues in

Ottawa about the decision to treat Newfoundland as dirt?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member has not heard the expression of disgust and concern

as put forward, when I was away, by the acting minister on my behalf and others, if he has

not heard that, he had a good three weeks' nap over the Easter period. Because I can tell

you that this government through the acting minister, through the Premier, and through

myself, and through others, have made it abundantly clear that we do not accept the

decision of the federal government on the Marine Atlantic headquarters relocation issue.

We do not accept the premise on which it was based, we do not accept the outcome, we do

not accept the fact that Mr. Rod Morrison, the current acting functionary of that

organization, is trying to orchestrate this whole thing to suit the best purposes of the

people who live on the other side of the Gulf.

I say to Mr. Morrison that we are not finished with him yet. We are not

finished with the whole aspect of the decision. While we are happy with the progress that

our members have made, and that Minister Aylward made in Ottawa, with getting some

additional jobs in there, while we are grateful and happy to the extent that there is some

additional economic benefits going to come as a result of this restructuring, Rod Morrison

himself said in a meeting with my officials in Port aux Basques on Saturday: There are

warts in our system. He used the word "warts." He said there are warts in our

system, there are things that have to be corrected, but they will be corrected over the

next year once we get this re-organization done.

I say to Mr. Morrison that we are not done with him yet, and that the

warts that he is talking about, starting with himself maybe, will be eradicated or

significantly adjusted when we are done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have two Special Warrants to table. In accordance with

Section 26(4)

of the Financial Administration Act, I table six copies of two Orders in Council touching

on pre-commitments. One was a pre-commitment of $1 million made in December last year for

the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to enter into contracts for tourism

advertising. The second is for my hon. colleague, the Minister of Education, to purchase

textbooks in the amount of $3,119,100, and that was dated March 13 of this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the annual report

for 1996-1997 for the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This is as

required by the Status of Women's Advisory Council Act. It lists the equality-seeking

activities of the Provincial Advisory Council in a variety of areas over this period of

time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act."

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

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

introduce the following bills entitled, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act," and "An Act Respecting Co-operatives."

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow

ask leave to introduce the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy is due to expire in August and

many compensation recipients have been or are about to be dropped from the program in the

meantime; and

WHEREAS in the absence of an adequate successor program, the loss of

TAGS will have significant negative consequences for the entire Province, especially the

tens of thousands directly displaced from the program; and

WHEREAS the federal government has the responsibility, the jurisdiction

and the opportunity to provide adequate amounts and kinds of assistance to those its

mismanagement of the East Coast Fishery has displaced from the fishing industry,

especially in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS it is critical that the federal government waste no more time

before announcing a successor program to TAGS so individuals, families, communities and

our Province can make informed decisions about our future, therefore,

be it resolved that

successor program to TAGS that meets the different needs of all those who have a long-term

attachment to the groundfish industry.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education

Tax Act".

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

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

the granting of supplementary supply to Her Majesty.

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

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend the Financial Administration Act".

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

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to

the raising of loans by the Province and I give two further notices, one, that I will on

tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider

certain resolutions relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under

the Loan and Guarantee Act 1957; and the final notice is that I will on tomorrow move that

this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions

relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority Guarantee Act

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition.

The petition reads: To the hon. the House of Assembly, in Legislative

Session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the TAGS program, whereby the federal government compensates

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

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

off the program prior to that date;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

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

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

replacement, license buy-backs, early retirement and economic diversification, and to give

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

to be taken off the program. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here is a petition whereby fish plant workers and

fisherpeople in this Province are once again pleading to us, I suppose, as their local

representatives, to speak up loud and clear in order to convince Ottawa to take a look at

the hurt that is being bestowed here in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you look at the thousands of people who have been taken off this

program - many of them - not because of their long-term attachment to the fishery - many

of them have been taken off, thousands of them, I would suggest, have been taken off

because of the mere fact that they were probably on Workers' Compensation or missed a

year's employment at the fish plant by being sick or, Mr. Speaker, in the case of women,

the fact of a pregnancy, have been taken off the program without any other possible

sources of income or employment. Many of those people spent in excess of twenty years

directly involved in the fishery - got up every morning and went to work or got in a

fishing boat - and now have been denied access to this particular program.

Mr. Speaker, I had a call from a fisherman just a couple of days ago. I

suppose it hit home to me even more clearly than I have ever heard before. He has been

fishing for thirty-two years. One year he had a bad fishery. I think it was one of the

years that was brought forward for consideration, 1990 or 1989, I am not exactly sure. He

decided that he was going to tie up his boat and go to Alberta to try to feed his family.

He had the initiative to leave home, to leave his family, travel to Alberta, to a strange

province, and take another job, rather than wait around for a government program or go to

the office of Social Services. Because he had the initiative to go to another province,

because he had the initiative to pack up and leave and obtain a job up in Alberta, now he

has been denied access to this particular program.

What, I suppose, is even more shameful is if there is a successor

program to TAGS, which I hope and pray that there is, this gentleman now is going to find

himself unable to access that particular program as well. We are talking about a person

here who has been involved in this particular industry for over thirty years. We are

talking about a gentleman who is fifty-seven, fifty-eight years of age, who now probably

will not be able to avail himself of any program, whether it is licence buy-out or whether

it is early retirement, because of the mere fact that he was not entitled to TAGS, he was

not entitled to this compensation program for the full duration of time.

That is only one story. There are lots of other stories out there. I am

not the only one hearing them. Members opposite who represent rural areas, fishing

communities, must be hearing them every day.

Here is a situation where if we do not have a compensation program

brought down from Ottawa, who is responsible. There will be no argument over here about

who is responsible for what is happening in the fishery. There is no argument over here

about who should bring forward a financial answer to this particular program. There is no

question of who that should be. We cannot sit back and wait for that to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: You might ask: Where is this particular money going

to come from? You might ask: How are we going to access funding in order to provide

another compensation program? When you look at -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to get up today. I wish the

member had gotten some leave because he was making such good points on this. I think he

could have gone on the whole afternoon, and it would have made a lot more sense than what

we have heard, the rhetoric in the last few days in this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are all prepared. I think everybody in this House

of Assembly and every Party here is ready to support what people are saying on the

post-TAGS program. The big job that we have in front of us, and we started to talk about

it yesterday, was the mentality that is in Ottawa in the support for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians on this particular issue. Because they just do not understand it.

When we talk about playing politics or being partisan, yes, it is

simply there, because it is a reality that the Premier of the day, who left up there just

recently, has close relationships with the Prime Minister and so on. Then we get down to

the point of our representative at the table. What the reality is, and we saw it

first-hand last week - and like I said, when anybody asked me what happened with the

committee, I report it like it was.

We went up there, and the reality is this. A minister who sits at the

table who has no more clout - I do not think I can use the rest of it in the House of

Assembly. I will say he has little clout and we will leave it at that. At the same time we

have ninety-nine Liberal MPs from Ontario. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to convince all of

those, that psyche, that mentality up there in Ottawa, of the situation here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the challenge we are facing. They did not even have the

decency to show up at a presentation we were about to give.

Like I said yesterday, the Member for Torngat Mountains gave one of the

best presentations there over the day-and-a-half we were up there, and there were not

enough people to hear what he was saying, the real heart and soul stories of what comes

out of this Province that were told so well by the Member for Torngat Mountains. That type

of thing is the only way to get that message across.

The second part of what I am going to say in this dialogue with this

petition is about the sealing industry. Trying to describe to those people up there what

the sealing industry is all about, with how ignorant they are of the real situation in

Newfoundland when it comes to the sealing industry - all they see, Mr. Speaker, are the

advertisements by the IFAW that fly across the country, the clubbing and so on. That is

what they see. Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, we cannot blame the people across the

country and across North America for thinking as they do, when that is all they see and

they do not hear our side of it.

The Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, has done a credible job, but it

is not enough as he would be the first to admit, or I think he would anyway. We know that

is not enough. It is one by one, bit by bit, piece by piece we have to continue, not just

to Ottawa but right across this country. Because if we cannot convince our own country

that what we are doing is proper, Mr. Speaker, how are we going to convince the Asian

markets and the people in North America and the United States?

AN HON. MEMBER: They have to convince their own party.

MR. SHELLEY: They have to convince their own party. That is right,

Mr. Speaker.

We have to convince, first of all, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Then we have to convince -

MR. H. HODDER: What did the Member for Bellevue say yesterday?

MR. SHELLEY: I do not know what the Member for Bellevue said

yesterday, Mr. Speaker. What did he say yesterday?

MR. H. HODDER: Not our problem, he said. It is in Hansard.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I hope you do not have to do a poll to

see what kind of support you have in Newfoundland and Labrador for the seal industry. I

hope you do not have to do another poll for that, Mr. Speaker.

Getting back to the point, Mr. Speaker: I saw firsthand, when I spoke

to the Reform Party, the National Opposition of this country, when I sat across the table

from them, I saw firsthand ignorance in the way that they do not know. They did not know

the facts about the sealing industry. All they saw, the vision in their heads when we

brought up the sealing industry, was the clubbing of seals and the bad things you see.

They do not realize what went on in this Province for some 500 years and what that could

mean to this Province.

It is the biggest irony of all time when you think about it. If the

IFAW want to do something right, why do they not complain around the world about what

happened to our fish stocks? At the same time as they are talking about the sealing

industry, they are putting on the verge of extinction the fish stocks in this Province. It

is the biggest irony in the history of this country, probably, when we look at it.

Each and every one of us here, each and every person in the Legislature

in Ottawa, our National Assembly, has to be in full support of the sealing industry. We

cannot go up there and separate those two issues, the post-TAGS and the sealing industry.

They are tied closely together. Yes, we should have a post-TAGS program and yes, we should

address the seal stocks now, immediately, this year.

Here we have the hunt called off today and I had calls, as late as

today before I came in to my office, from inshore fishermen who have not even gotten out

yet to catch a seal. I have a plant in my district, Mr. Speaker, that is still asking for

another 50,000 seals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: That is what we have to put through. I think it has to

be a combined message of the post-TAGS and the sealing industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, listening to members opposite, listening to the speeches

and seeing the demonstrations in the last three or four days, or the last week, leads me

to wonder: When are we going to learn here in this Province? You would not know but the

TAGS issue, you would not know but the fisheries issue, just started a week ago.

In 1992, Mr. Speaker, a minister in Ottawa - I am not going to tell his

name, I am not going to talk politics - closed down the fishery. Why? Because after a

decade the message from the fishermen finally got through when the total cod stocks,

groundfish stocks, collapsed; in 1992.

Each and every year since 1992, 40,000 people have been reduced to

almost poverty level living in Newfoundland, or below poverty level, depending on handouts

from the central government or the taxpayers of Canada. Each and every year went by and

nobody did anything about it. Nobody has said anything about it. Nobody has tried to

correct the situation until now, six years later. We say now we are going to have

demonstrations because there is consideration being given to ending the TAGS program.

What about all of those people who have been coming up week after week,

month after month, year after year? What about reference, Mr. Speaker? In 1992 - here is a

cartoon out of The Evening Telegram that depicts the issue very clearly. It says:

Crosbie, fish and chips. And there is a gentleman walking up -

MR. J. BYRNE: You are not partisan now, are you? (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, I am making a point.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down and don't be so foolish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: No, it is not partisan; I am making a point. It has

nothing to do with partisan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what the cartoon shows is a gentleman

walking up and looking for - I am serious - fish and chips. Here is what the cartoon says

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Forget who is in the picture; that is not the issue:

You have to wait a couple of years for fish. Do you want a few chips in the meantime?

Now that was 1992, seriously. In 1992: Wait a couple of years for fish.

In 1998, the most recent scientific report given to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

by the FRCC says very clearly that the stocks today are worse than pre-1992. This did not

happen this year. This has been continuing to happen since 1992. What have we done about

it, collectively? Absolutely nothing. We are great grumblers and complainers after the

fact, but do not want to do anything in the meantime. We are great at getting political

attention, great making speeches, great going before the microphones after the fact.

What I am saying is that I have been at this for two years as Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture; I was at it prior to being Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture. The problem with the Newfoundland fishery today is the mismanagement of the

fishery since 1992 as much as it was mismanaged before 1992, and collectively everybody in

this Province should have recognized it day after day after day. Now the end of the TAGS

program is coming, there is no fish, and Ottawa is basically saying there is no money. We

should not have waited until the twelfth hour to address this problem.

I have been talking about 6 million seals in the ocean. It is not a

fictitious number, there are 6 million seals out there, and you cannot catch the fish

twice. If the seals take the fish, man cannot catch it. And collectively we should have

been saying to the rest of Canada and the rest of the world: To heck with your attitude

towards the seal hunt! We should have decreased the population of seals and we would not

be reduced to going to Ottawa begging for money.

Unless we address that problem, each and every community in this

Province will be doing the same thing a decade down the road. The problem is not going to

go away, Mr. Speaker, unless we address the problem and make it go away in this Province.

If you think or I think or anybody else thinks, that we are going to

get the rest of the world to agree and come down and say, `We are ready to help you', you

will be here for eternity living in poverty. So until we wake up in this Province, and

until we start to address our own problems here, it will never happen. The problem is that

the rest of Canada, the central governments, do not live here, and they do not recognize

the problems. And we are not addressing our own problem here in this Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

district pertaining to a very important transportation initiative for the area of the

Goulds bypass road. The prayer of the petition addresses - I say to the minister, you may

have heard many of these before. I received another few in the mail today, and they are

coming in every day from people in the area because they believe it is a very important

initiative in that particular area.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shows me an

article that goes

back to 1992, six years ago. Minister, you are six years out of tune.

MR. EFFORD: Did you read it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I have read it. I read it before. I have talked to

people. I did fifty phone calls at random four years ago to people in the Goulds part of

the district and not one opposed the Goulds bypass road. I have spoken to people in every

community. Every municipality met publicly since 1992. They met again just last month.

They met several times. They sat in the minister's office very recently, in the last two

months. They all sat in the office of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

and they will tell you where they stand on the Goulds bypass road. I have not received one

call to my office opposing it, and every single representation made to me has supported

it, I say to the minister, and there are very important reasons why.

It is for the very same reasons, Minister, that is important to have

the Conception Bay North bypass road, and the same reasons why, in spite of what people

said on an Outer Ring Road - I believe it is important to have an Outer Ring Road to speed

up movement around the city here, to help people in the east end from being land-locked,

for better movement of businesses and so on, to open up the east end to increased

residences by having a transportation system where they can move out of the city during,

especially, traffic congestion.

Here on the Southern Shore it is important. It says, it has been

identified as a priority under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative; it says,

it has not begun despite repeated promises from government; and

whereas significant

opportunities - you can forget that part, I say to the minister.

Come on up next time, I say to the minister, come on up and run up

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, yes. I said, come on down the Southern Shore;

but make sure you have good shocks or struts in your vehicle if you are going up there

because the road, actually, through the Goulds area is like a washboard. It has been cut

up through from water and sewage. It is congestion. It is people living on that highway.

Residents are right on a main thoroughfare. It is very important. And it is important to

the industrial base, the Town of Bay Bulls, the Goulds bypass road.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and the Town of Bay Bulls has recently been out

there indicating that it is important to the opening up of the port of Bay Bulls, that

there is tremendous work being done in the hope of landing work for an offshore supply

base there. It is a tremendous piece of property that is being developed. We need it to

move business, the industrial sector.

People saw on the news just last week, and in the Telegram, or on the

TV stations, boats coming into Bay Bulls to take away aluminum boats to ship down to South

America, creating dozens of jobs in the Town of Bay Bulls.

We need a transportation system that is going to be able to move

freight, goods, across these highways. People can commute, people having to spend

forty-five to fifty minutes driving from Bay Bulls to the Confederation Building when they

should be doing it in twenty minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, now, he is speaking to this petition. I think

one of the problems, I say to the Government House Leader, is, as I was driving through

the Goulds last year, I heard the Government House Leader say on radio in the morning: If

the people on the Southern Shore want to get into St. John's, they should get up earlier

in the morning and leave earlier to get to work.

I said, in response to that: How do you tell a mother with three kids,

who works in St. John's for a very low wage, who leaves home in the morning at 6:45, to

leave home at 6:00 a.m.? It should not have to be. That is what he said. I called it a

(inaudible) by the minister. He was the minister representing the people here who the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture passed over. He was representing those farmers then.

He did not want to rock the boat. He spoke out directly against his own government's

policy when he was a minister. And, I say to the Government House Leader, he was a

minister in the Cabinet that endorsed the Goulds bypass road, and I heard him on the radio

in the morning saying, `should not do it'. And the former Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation knows exactly what I am talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Mount Pearl is smiling there, knowing

exactly what I mean, because some people do not always get in the loop we understand. The

Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods at the time, oh, he was in the loop alright. He was

floating that (inaudible) balloon right from the centre of the loop, I would say, and the

balloon burst. That is what happened, the balloon burst. And we are going to see -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it was busted, we will say.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of

order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. gentleman that I did

not talk about the people of the Southern Shore. I said that I live in the Goulds, and if

I want to get to work fast, I have to get up ten minutes earlier and leave ten minutes

earlier in the morning. If you are going to do away with the farm land, I said, why do

that? I was representing farmers, right? I want to say to the hon. gentleman that today I

am a kinder, gentler man.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, just a bit to leave to the finish up a

few important things. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is not in his seat; he cannot withdraw leave when

he is not in his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure after the remark from the Member for Bellevue he does not

want to do anything wrong to upset the applecart here today.

Anyway, I will get back to that matter at hand, and that is the Goulds

bypass road. It is important, it is essential for people in the area and it is the only

avenue, I say to the minister, by which the people of the Southern Shore can get in here

to go to work, to buy things here in the City of St. John's, buy cars, buy clothing, even

buy food, buy any of the basic goods and commodities that are on sale here to support the

tax base of this part of the Province. It is the only avenue and it is only appropriate

that the tax dollars, under the transportation initiative of the federal government, a 100

per cent federally-funded structure, should be used and should be expedited. I feel it in

my heart that the minister is going to approve some funding.

If contracts come in a little under, we will find $1 million dollars

this year out of the pool of $108 million for roads, of which $96 million are federal

dollars. This year, out of the $108 million being spent on roads in the Province, a measly

1 per cent of federal spending to get a Goulds bypass road.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is Isla del Sol, I guess, but I cannot say

too much to him. He has given a commitment to it, he has put it in writing, but the

problem we have here is we need it now. We need to start now, we need to see some hope for

people, we need a better transportation system; because business development is a product

of the transportation system that is used in the moving of goods and services. It is a

part of doing business. We have to have infrastructure. It costs people today to drive

over bad roads. They pay personal expenses. It costs businesses money to transport goods.

Time is money today and it is important that we speed up and get some hope for the people

in the area, an area which has been devastated by the fishery.

So, Mr. Speaker, in case there is any doubt in the minister's mind, I

support this petition of the people in the district. No doubt I will over the next while,

as petitions keep coming in every day, be presenting them at every opportunity, to impress

upon this government how important it is to have a Goulds bypass road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Prior to the Government House Leader being appointed

to the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, which was prior to the last election, this member was in

support of the bypass road, and publicly, in campaign literature and otherwise, supported

it; because there is no question that the people in the area require it. They need it for

a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that in that area of the Goulds, the area

in which the Government House Leader lives, that transportation system for the amount of

traffic that goes over it can only be described as a cow path. That is all it can be

described as.

When traffic surveys were done in that area -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to get to that. When the traffic surveys

were done in that area, they indicated that the amount of traffic was over that demanded.

Now, Mr. Speaker, people in the area, businesses which had concerns

upfront and early - there were two options that could have been explored: To go with the

Goulds bypass road or to upgrade the existing route, what they call Route 10. A number of

people were interested in that, but, Mr. Speaker, today the former Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation from the District of Port de Grave said, and I quote: If there

is a place in the Province that is in need of a bypass road and should be our priority, it

is the Goulds bypass road. That is what he said.

MR. SULLIVAN: He was a minister too and did not do it.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the thing that we have to come to understand

clearly is that it is a question of the priority of the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation right there. This is a federally-funded bypass road, part of the Roads for

Rail Agreement, 100 per cent funded through that transportation initiative.

Now, I spoke to the present Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation and the reasoning that he provided to me with respect to the Goulds bypass

road was, what his department is attempting to do is clean up the existing initiatives,

such as the Outer Ring Road and some of the other initiatives that the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation have underway. He provided this caveat: It's not a

question of if the Goulds bypass road is going ahead, it's a question of when.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister of this department, that the

question of when has arrived and it is no longer a question of when, it is a question of

now. The minister has had representation from people within the area. Be assured that the

vast majority of the population in the area support it, because they know how necessary it

is, for a variety of reasons, as I said, not the least of which is safety.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and support my colleague for

Ferryland's petition today with respect to the Goulds bypass road, requesting that the

provincial Department of Works, Services and Transportation and the government move

immediately to begin the construction of the Goulds bypass road.

Thank you.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today.

AN HON. MEMBER: On (inaudible)?

MS S. OSBORNE: No, it is not, it is on Sunday shopping. You can

laugh at that if you like, but I continue.

As recently as yesterday I had a call from a woman and she asked: Do

you have any petitions on Sunday shopping?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You are not going to shop in a restaurant, boy. You

don't shop in a restaurant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Are you finished?

This legislation has a bit of history, and you guys are after using

this legislation. You used it in December 1995 when you wanted to deflect what the present

Premier was doing up in Ottawa, cutting the UI benefits. You used it then. You used it on

May 16, 1997, when you wanted to deflect from the bad health care. Then you brought it up

again in December of last year, and unfortunately it got through. There isn't a week goes

by that I don't get people calling my office and saying they want to protest this Sunday

shopping.

There has already been a weakness shown in it when you got a call from

the Anglican archbishop, when he asked that you close it on Easter Sunday. Then on that

same day -

MR. TULK: I heard you were up at the flea market on Sunday.

MS S. OSBORNE: The flea markets were always open on Sunday, sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MS S. OSBORNE: That is by choice! I'm talking about mothers and

fathers who have to go out and work for $5.25 a hour! That's what I'm talking about! I

don't care what you did. You closed it on Easter Sunday, and that same day we asked -

MR. TULK: What is the difference between a flea market and

supermarket?

MS S. OSBORNE: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.

When you passed that it would closed on Easter Sunday, we tried to get

it closed on Mother's Day and Father's Day, and the Member for Gander stood and said: I

respect my mother every day of the year. I said: I do too. I would think that a lot of

Newfoundlanders respect their mothers that much that they don't want them out working on

Sunday for $5.25 an hour, and their fathers as well. Five dollars and twenty-five cents an

hour, when you have to pay baby sitters to go out and work in retail on Sunday.

This petition will be put in today, and they will continue to come as

long as the people continue to call my office and ask me to represent them here in this

House.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this petition. On

the Sunday before last I went up to the Avalon Mall. I had to pick up a few items, so I

went up to Wal-Mart to do a bit of shopping. First thing, I had an awful job to find a

place to park. It was one of the busiest times ever I've seen at the Avalon Mall.

I spoke to some people about it, and I said: It seems like there is a

lot of interest in Sunday shopping. The reaction I got was that this is the way it is.

Every Sunday you can go to the Avalon Mall, or any of the shopping centres in this city,

and people want to shop.

MS S. OSBORNE: But who wants to work, for God's sake?

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have taken several visits out of the

country; I have been in other countries. It is quite common when I go down to Florida that

the shops are all open. I go in and meet people from this Province who are the most avid

opponents to Sunday shopping and are the first ones you will meet when you go out of the

country and do some shopping.

It is not a religious issue, Mr. Speaker, because religious issues are

a person's own conscience. If a person does not want to shop on Sunday he or she does not

have to, and fortunately, Mr. Speaker, if a person does not want to work, normally the

person does not - now the nurses and doctors have been working right from the time when

Christ said: It is not wrong to do a good deed on the sabbath day. Mr. Speaker, nobody is

forced to work on Sunday. The Labour Relations Act, one of the acts, protects people

against that.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that the overwhelming majority of the

people of this Province want to shop on Sunday. In a democracy we have to accept the will

of the majority. I believe that history will show this as probably among the more

progressive things that we have done. If on the other hand people do not want the shops

open on Sunday they will not be open on Sunday because it is the marketplace which will

dictate, not the hon. member who wants to get up and shout and try to make political

points. It is the marketplace which will decide. Anybody who wants to shop can shop and

anyone who does not want to shop does not have to shop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the sandbagger for Humber East, I have a copy of a petition

here signed by people who live here in this Province who have a concern with Sunday

shopping. They want to have the will of the people expressed here in the Legislature. I

will speak to it because when it arose in the House before I indicated that I found it

difficult to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is speaking to the petition raised by the Member for

St. John's West?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Because I felt at the time, and I still feel that way, that I don't

think we should be forcing people to work on Sundays, especially in major chains and so on

as we are seeing today. I think there is no need to further breakdown the family unit in

our society where the mother has to leave home on Sunday to go to work with young kids at

home; a mother who was probably working during the week, maybe the father is out of this

Province working because of the unemployment situation here or the employment situation

here, those concerns.

Just before Easter here in this House government saw fit to bring in

legislation that would change Sunday shopping for Easter Sunday. Government saw fit to say

that Easter Sunday is a day that we should not be allowed to shop. We moved an amendment

to that. We wanted to have Mother's Day and even Father's Day in our motion, as two other

days set aside. Why on Mother's Day, for example, should we have to turn that mother from

her house to report to work for four, five or six hours or whatever the case may be? I

don't think there is a need for that.

I understand there is a member on the government side of this House who

had a business that did not want mothers - wanted to stay home, was it, on Mother's Day?

You said they should stay home and did not allow them to work on Mother's Day. I think

that is a noble thing, that there should be an opportunity to be home. The very same

government now has forced that member and others to stand here unanimously and vote to

have mothers go to work on Mother's Day. We moved that little amendment. We figured that

at least if they were not going to ban it on fifty-two Sundays, only Easter Sunday, the

least they could do was have some consideration for the parents out there, the mothers out

there in society who are toiling with young children at home. Because we are under serious

attack today, I might add, on young people in our society, on children in our society; the

child abuse, child victims and so on, broken families and people not getting an

opportunity to spend as much time with their families.

I know in the part of the Province where I grew up, Sunday was a day in

which people could sit around at home, mill around. It had a certain family aspect,

whether it was a family drive or taking your kid to an arena, or taking your kid to an

event in a family setting. That was a tradition. I know society has changed but we do not

have to accelerate the rate at which society is breaking down the family unit today in

such a manner that over 50 per cent of the people in society who get married end up in

divorce. There are so many pressures out in society today, there are so many mechanisms

that pull the family apart. We do not have to be a party to speeding up that process.

We should try to preserve a certain amount of the basic principles in

our society that would be able to hold. The strongest unit in our society today that

dictates, really, the future of governments and where we are heading is the family unit.

Once we destroy that, once we further erode that cohesion, that unity out there, we create

ills in society today. That is part of our problem today in society. We have lost respect

for the value of private time, of family time. We are treating every day of the week - it

is like a Las Vegas, trying to make it like a Las Vegas seven days a week, twenty-four

hours a day, day and night, it does not make any difference. Society just cannot function

and maintain the same set of morals and values and principles that way, and we would like

to remove ourselves from that.

Why do we have to be like Toronto, Montreal, Las Vegas or any other

particular city? There is something unique about living in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There was something unique about living in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is being

eroded by policies like this, by forcing people to go to work on Sundays, by forcing

mothers to leave the home on Sundays. It is changing. We are condoning that, we are being

a part of it. I think we have to come back -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just for thirty seconds?

Nobody (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue to these people who put their

names, addresses, and phone numbers on this petition. People did it for a purpose because

they sincerely believe it. If government did a carefully worded poll that told them it is

okay to have Sunday shopping, if they did their carefully worded poll out there and said -

look, you have to stop governing by looking out the door and seeing what way the wind is

blowing, and start making decisions based on certain principles, morals and facts in our

society. Like the saying, if you follow the crowd you will likely get no further than the

crowd. That is basically it. If you walk alone in your own direction, you will probably go

to places where no one has ever been before.

We seem to be following the winds of movement here in our Province. It

is time we stood on some basic solid principles here and start making appropriate

decisions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am presenting a petition on behalf of the residents of St. John's.

The prayer of the petition reads:

"We, the residents of St. John's, wish to petition the hon. House

of Assembly giving particular attention to the Departments of Health and Environment

regarding emissions from the Grace Hospital stack.

"We request that the House of Assembly look into burning cleaner

fuel or upgrading emission standards at the stack.

There is considerable damage being done to cars, personal property,

clothes on clotheslines, as well as possible health risks due to emissions from the

stack."

Mr. Speaker, this is among the number of petitions that I have already

presented on this particular issue. The residents of the area came out in numbers to a

meeting I had. I am receiving letters and phone calls from the residents of that area

regarding the emissions at the Grace Hospital stack. It is an issue that concerns the

residents of that area. It is an issue that is creating damage to property belonging to

residents in the area. People who work in the area I have heard from as well; even though

they live outside of that particular area, they work in the area.

The government, while they have had many people approach them, and

approach the Grace Hospital, in particular, regarding damage to their property and to

their vehicles as a result of the Grace Hospital stack, these people have never been

reimbursed. In fact, they have been told to contact their insurance and indeed, the

residents of the area who own vehicles and have contacted their insurance because of paint

damage and rust and dulling residue on their paint, were told by their insurance that: no,

they have had too many claims already from that particular area for that same reason and

that they no longer consider it to be an insurable item. They will no longer cover it

under their insurance, Mr. Speaker, because it is a common occurrence, it is happening on

a regular basis in that area. So, Mr. Speaker, if the insurance companies are saying that

and they have had so many claims already that they are no longer willing to provide

insurance claims or reimbursement due to claims on insurance for vehicles in the area,

obviously, it is a problem.

It is not only property damage we are concerned about, it is health,

and when children go in after a summer evening of being outside playing street hockey or

whatever the case may be, and the parents actually wipe soot from their faces, there is a

definite problem and that may have serious repercussions to this government in years to

come. Because, if there is a problem in the area to health and property, then I see no way

out for the provincial government if these people are to go after the government saying:

We have told you so. We have asked you, we have informed you, we have begged you to

correct the problem. And if it has not been corrected, if government have, in fact,

refused to correct the problem, then the Province may be liable, but that is not the most

of my concern here.

My concern is for the health and well-being of the residents of that

area and for the well-being of their property. I think they have suffered enough in

property damage and while we do not know yet whether or not they have or will suffer

health problems, it is a very real possibility. This government refuses to answer the

concerns of the residents of the area, Mr. Speaker, and in my opinion, that is blatantly

wrong. It may only have been in the last four or five or ten years that residents have

come forward and there may be a number of reasons for that. Perhaps the stack at the

hospital is getting older; perhaps the burners are getting older; perhaps they are burning

a lower grade fuel than they have in the past; perhaps the combination of burning an even

lower grade fuel and the fact that the burners are getting older and the stack itself is

getting older and dirtier inside, may all be contributing to the fact that the problem is

getting worse, but, Mr. Speaker, more importantly, people are becoming more health

conscious today than they ever have been before, more environmentally conscious.

Governments are preaching that they are becoming more environmentally

conscious and they are more concerned with the health of the people living in their

regions, yet we see absolutely no action taken in this regard, no action at all. We are

told that the Health Care Corporation will only be utilizing the Grace facility for

another two or three years perhaps but, what are they going to do with that facility

thereafter? Will that facility be used by the government still? Are the government going

to sell it, or will they tear it down? At least, at least, Mr. Speaker, the government

should provide answers as to what they are going to do with that facility once the Health

Care Corporation of St. John's no longer needs to utilize that facility. Because, if they

are going to level the facility, if they are going to tear it down and put something else

back -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at least, if the residents of the area knew that it was

only going to be another two or three years before something was done with the Grace,

maybe, maybe, Mr. Speaker, they could force themselves to live with that. But not only are

the government not doing anything to correct the problem, they are not providing answers

on what that facility is going to contain or what will be conducted inside the walls of

that facility after the Health Care Corporation are done with the facility. It is a large

building, an expensive structure, and more than likely government will find some use for

it. Government now own that building and, if government are going to find some alternative

use for that structure, why not start now to upgrade the facility? Why not start now to

upgrade the burners? Why not start now making provisions so that they can start burning

cleaner fuel, instead of putting the residents off for two or three years by saying that

they are going to no longer have use for that facility - the Health Care Corporation - and

then, in two or three years time, find out that the government are going to use it for

office space, or they are they going to rent out the facility or turn it into a seniors

complex or what have you?

So, Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly, government will find an alternative use

for that facility, and when they do, undoubtedly, they will then be forced to clean up

their act environmentally and for the health of the people in the area. So, why not start

now?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I just want to rise to support the petition so well put forward by the

Member of St. John's South. It has been on several occasions now that the Member for St.

John's South has brought this matter to the attention of the government.

First of all, we want to acknowledge that this is a government-owned

building and this government-owned building, which was bought from the Salvation Army a

few years ago has, of course, a long history of service of Newfoundland and Labrador. It

has been, for many years, a model of health care. However, right now, that the government

of Newfoundland and Labrador own the building, you are not allowed to smoke within the

building, in fact, down behind the building, there is a place there where staff can go - a

sheltered place there, where staff or visitors are allowed to go and smoke - but, outside

the building, we have a situation, where the government, knowingly, lets smoke bellow out

of the smoke stacks and fall down around the neighbourhood and it is an absolute disgrace.

Therefore, the government, by their actions, are saying to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the people out in this part of St. John's that we are

condoning a double standard. On the one hand we are supposed to be promoting good health -

and I have stood in this House and supported the government's initiatives on smoking

regulations - but I think it is incumbent upon the minister - I think the Minister of

Environment - to say that they are going to do something about the situation at the Grace

Hospital.

It comes upon the St. John's Health Care Corporation to show some

initiative here. We cannot continue to let soot and smoke and other smoke residue to fall

on the people who live in that neighbourhood and say: we do not care. Yet the government

have had weeks and weeks of notice and we have not heard of one single initiative other

than to say to them: Wait a couple of years and we might do something about it then, when

we have a new owner, or a new operator or a new use for the facility. That is not

appropriate.

We know that there is a health hazard in and around the area of the

Grace Hospital; therefore, we are saying to the government, do something about it. It is

no good to talk about the health care that you provide by stopping smoking in restaurants,

or in lounges, or in bars, or in other public facilities. If you are not going to do

something to help the people who are victimized, in this particular case, by the actions

that are occurring in and around the Grace Hospital. It is an issue of health, it is an

issue of property, matters that are of financial returns of insurance costs. What company

is going to insure the houses in that area, knowing that there is already a hazard there?

What health care plan is going to insure the families for their health care in that area

if they know they are already hazards?

We have to be very much aware of this particular situation. We do not

hear tell of any initiatives coming forward from the government to address the problem,

and that is what causes us the most concern, so we cannot turn a blind eye to it. We

cannot operate with a double standard; yet, this government is operating with a double

standard. In other words, they promote good health and doing some good things in that

area, but when a hospital, of all places, is causing a hazardous situation to public

health to occur right in its own neighbourhood, we are saying, wait a couple of years and

we will try to look at it at that time. That is not good enough.

So, on behalf of the people who live in the neighbourhood and the

people who signed the petition - in this particular case from Casey Street and Pleasant

Street, from Hamilton Avenue, and from other parts of that neighbourhood - we are saying

we want the government to do something about it. Two or three years from now who knows

what health hazards will have occurred. We now have a chance to come to grips with the

problem, do what is right, stop the double standard, and then we will have happy people in

that neighbourhood; but, more importantly, we will have done our best to intervene

positively to prevent any future health hazards from occurring to the people who live in

the area of the Grace Hospital.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, Motion 1.

Motion 1, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to move

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider

the Raising of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, otherwise known as the Budget Speech.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in support of the motion. I would like to address my

concerns today on the Budget and some other things as I go through the time that I have

been allotted, Mr. Speaker, to speak on this matter today.

First of all, let me say that I will try and deal with some issues as I

go through what I have to say. I would like to probably touch on an issue that has been, I

guess, in front of all of our minds in the last few days, and that is the TAGS issue and

really what is going to go on with Ottawa, whether there is going to be any money

forthcoming to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am very pleased to say that we have a Select Committee of this House

who are going to Ottawa, I believe, again tomorrow to try and convince the federal Liberal

government that people in our Province are very, very deserving of TAGS money and that the

program should certainly be continued, Mr. Speaker, and not cancelled. It appals me to no

end to know that there are members who sit in the House of Commons who believe that we

should be a forgotten lot down here, and I certainly do not support that position.

I would just like to say that I am glad it is an All Party Committee of

this House that is going to Ottawa but, Mr. Speaker, the other morning I had the

opportunity to listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Let me tell you, after

listening to CBC Radio, if I was not a member of this House I never would have believed

that it was an All Party Committee, because outside of himself and another minister he

certainly did not mention anybody on this side of the House, and he certainly did not even

mention his own colleagues. He did not even mention his own colleagues, which I believe is

a utter disgrace.

Then, again, I guess yesterday he said to one of my colleagues on this

side that he was being political. I wonder just how political we were being the other

morning when the interview was heard from Ottawa, because there were certainly other

people who attended the meetings in Ottawa, members from his own side, I believe - the

Member for Torngat Mountains, I believe the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, along with

the Leader of the NDP and the Independent member, Ms. Jones. Mr. Speaker, hopefully the

next time he is doing that he will remember that there are other members of that committee

and not just himself. Hopefully, this time the committee will be successful. They will

certainly get the ear of committees in Ottawa, and they will take seriously the plight of

an awful lot of people in our Province.

Maybe some people are wondering why I would want to touch on that

issue. I have people in my district, Mr. Speaker, who are on the TAGS program, and who are

not on the TAGS program because they want to be there, and who would like nothing better

than tomorrow morning to be able to jump in their fishing boat and go back fishing.

Unfortunately, that is not possible. Therefore, they have to rely on this program to feed

their families, to pay their bills, and I shudder to think, if we do not come in with

another program, what is going to happen to communities in our Province. We have all seen

what has happened to our way of life, but I wonder what is going to happen if there is

nothing there in a post-TAGS program, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it will be devastating.

Mr. Speaker, as well today I would like to touch on students,

especially students who attend our university here, our university where the Public

Accounts Committee of this Province are not allowed. Well, they are allowed but they are

not allowed, if that makes sense. They are allowed but they are not allowed because

somebody feels it would interfere with academic freedom, which is a load of hogwash, Mr.

Speaker.

We have watched interest-free loans. We have watched students come out

of there $50,000 and $60,000 in debt; yet, we can find $50,000 to give somebody an

interest-free loan towards purchasing a house. I think that is terrible.

We can look at grass being imported - not the kind you smoke, either,

Mr. Speaker - the kind you lay out to walk over or lie on. I have seen that imported from

out of this Province and I have to wonder: What is going on with Memorial University? I

have watched tuition rise. I have spoken to students from within my own district and from

without, and I believe that it is criminal that the Auditor General of this Province

cannot go into Memorial University and do the type of investigation that the Auditor

General of this Province is capable of doing.

As well, Mr. Speaker, in my own district, I guess one of these days I

will have an opportunity to talk to the Minister of Finance concerning a proposal that has

come in from the Town of Conception Bay South since last fall, a program called Private

Partner Funding, where the town went out for public proposals - we will say it quite

clearly, nothing political - the town went out for proposals, and they reviewed the

proposals and sent a submission on to government. So far, Mr. Speaker, there has been no

answer back. It was a proposal which, over a number of years, would see the town fully

serviced in water and sewerage. Yet, nothing has gone back. I believe it is a proposal

somewhere to the tune of some $50 million. It involves, of course, government; it involves

the town and the taxpayers and the citizens of that town; and it involves the company who

made the proposal - the government. I believe that it has been in here long enough, and I

think it is time we took that proposal and really went out and had a look at it. I think

it is time we studied it. It has been in there long enough to be studied, and I believe it

has been, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is now time that this proposal went forward, and we

could do the Town of Conception Bay South with water and sewerage which it so desperately

needs.

I notice the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is here. I

would like to just say to him that they are talking about closing, in his department, the

fire station on the Salmonier Line. It is a little bit outside of my district, but I have

people within my own district who have cottages and so on in the Salmonier Line and the

Deer Park area. I believe that by laying off the three members who were still there from

the fire service will be a very bad mistake. I did have the figure at one time, and it

slips my mind now, there are a quite a few cabins in that area. To say we are going to

service that area from Whitbourne, I think, will probably be just a little bit too late.

I say to the minister, I understand that in his department they are

looking at ways, maybe, to find the money to keep this particular fire station open. I

would urge the minister to do just that, to make sure the fire station on Salmonier Line

does not close, but indeed still stays open. I would implore the minister, when he gets an

opportunity to maybe talk to one of his deputies, to talk to somebody in his fire service.

I believe it was a Mr. Blackmore I spoke to yesterday out in Gander, and I spoke to Mr.

Collins in at Paddys Pond yesterday as well. I would ask him to make sure that the fire

station in that area does not close, and at least can remain open for the summer season,

and probably up until maybe around the end of September.

As well, I had some need awhile ago to talk to the Minister of Human

Resources and Employment in this Province. Today, here in the House and publicly, I would

like to thank her for her assistance for a constituent of mine who was having a great deal

of problems with, I guess you would call her a very young adult, a young person who is not

of legal age. I am sure she knows what I am talking about. The only reason I raise the

issue here today is that we do not have facilities in this Province today to look after

people in the situation in which this family found themselves.

I would implore the minister, if it is humanly possible in this Budget,

to make sure that funding is provided for young people in this Province who can avail of

the treatment that is necessary within our own Province. I do not know if that has been

corrected yet but it has been ongoing. I know the minister's department was more than

helpful to a constituent of mine in this very serious matter, and I want to thank her for

that. Hopefully it is on the way to becoming a suitable resolution for the family and for

the child who was involved.

We have to look at, of course, our health care that, in my opinion, is

still lacking. It is certainly lacking in sensitivity. Maybe we should offer somebody a

course in how to win friends and influence people. When you receive a call from somebody

in your own district who has had a death in their family, only to find on the night the

family is waking their father in a funeral home in Kelligrews, somebody strolls in with

the father's clothes in a garbage bag and planks it on the floor and says: Here you go,

here are the clothes.

The only reason that one was let go was because of a request from the

family, that they were grieving enough as it was and they really did not want any amount

of publicity on this. But I say it today so that the message can get back to the minister,

to make sure that this type of thing is never allowed to happen again in this Province, to

any family, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that was nothing short of disgraceful.

Then you have a call from another family who has a father in hospital

who is capable of going to the washroom with some assistance, and the family are told:

Well, let him stay in bed with diapers on. Rather than help him get out of bed to go to

the washroom, let him stay there, because we don't have enough staff to help the father

get out and get to the washroom; we don't have enough staff. For a man who has his own

mind and his own dignity, and for his family, that is very sad. That, Mr. Speaker,

happened to a constituent of mine, and that is wrong, that is terribly wrong, that we

would put somebody through such an injustice; terribly wrong, Mr. Speaker, that we would

do that, that we would even think of doing that to people in our Province, to our senior

citizens.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on homes for special care,

probably one of the cheapest forms of health care in this Province. It is the cheapest

form of health care. I have some fifteen to twenty personal care homes surrounding my

district; a group of people who have been neglected for far too long and deserve more

money than they are receiving. It is an industry, Mr. Speaker, which has been studied to

death. I think every time we turn around we are going to run off and do another study and

another study and another study of what we should be doing.

I was talking to the people who own these homes, and that is study

enough. The last two that I know that have been done have recommended increases for the

homes in this Province. Of course, that has not happened. They have not received anything.

Absolutely nothing has happened. That is wrong, because these people work, they work hard

and they give great care to the people who they look after. They give great care, Mr.

Speaker, to the people who they look after. I believe that these people are certainly

deserving of an increase. These people certainly should have been given one and they

should have been given it a long time ago.

If anybody has any of these homes in their district I am sure that a

quick phone call to those people will certainly answer any questions as to what I am

saying, and will certainly back up what I am saying, Mr. Speaker; that these people need

help and they need it now, they don't need it in six months time or in six years time.

They could use a little bit of help right now, and I call upon the government to do that

and to do that fairly quickly.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in the area of Rural Renewal, the boards have been

set up throughout the Province. I trust that we are going to use these boards. I trust we

are going to use these boards properly, although I hear some rumblings that maybe we are

not. I trust that all proposals from areas will go through these boards and that something

will not be done without the approval of some of these rural boards. I hope we will not go

around them for political purposes, but indeed will work with them and through them to

accomplish things that will go on in various districts throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador.

As well, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of social assistance, and of course,

the area of claw-backs to social assistance recipients; another area, Mr. Speaker, where I

believe we should be looking, and we should be looking rather quickly. We should not be

clawing back money on child tax benefits and so on. We should not be doing that. We

should, Mr. Speaker, put a stop to it; we should certainly put a stop to it.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I wait, along with

others, to see exactly what is going to come of the Churchill Falls deal. I anxiously

await - well, if and when it becomes a deal I certainly await the results of that, because

I believe if it is done and done properly it can be a tremendous benefit to our citizens

and to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador; if it is done and if it is done in the

proper manner.

Let's not play PR games as we saw the other day with our announcement

now, that it will be easier to work in Quebec. Why should it have been any harder in the

first place? Why should it have been any harder, Mr. Speaker, in the first place? It

should not have been. It will be interesting to see what the labour agreement will be when

the time comes to do that; very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see exactly what is going to

happen. After all, we cannot keep borrowing money on our future and other programs that

are coming from Ottawa.

I guess this Budget was more like a Throne Speech than a Budget; not,

in my opinion, a lot of substance.

As well, over the last few days we have watched and we have listened

and heard the reports of the private schools in this Province, and how certain things were

allowed to happen is a mystery, not only to me but to a lot of other people in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is certainly a mystery how things got approved,

by whom and why. I guess the biggest question is why they got approved without going

through, what I would consider to be, proper channels.

Mr. Speaker, again to touch on the infrastructure sector, as I

mentioned a bit earlier: Especially for my own district today and the proposal that is now

before government which should see the servicing of my town or part of my town and part of

the Member for Topsail's district, I believe it is time that we put this plan in action. I

believe we should try it. We should look at it, we should monitor it and we should study

it once it starts and maybe it is a way of the future. We talk about changes in the

fishery and some of our resources. Maybe it is a way that we could look at doing not only

my town but a lot of other towns in this Province, if of course the town can prove that

they can certainly meet the needs, financially, of carrying their share of the load in

that regard. If it can't happen, then it should not happen but I believe in this case, the

town has clearly shown that it can do this, it can carry the load. I would urge government

today, this year, 1998, to move forward in this particular direction. It is an area that

certainly needs addressing.

I am sure every member in this House, I can take you to my own district

or you could take me to yours and show me areas where there are problems with water and

sewer. It is probably one of the largest problems that we have in this Province of ours,

within Newfoundland and Labrador. It is probably one of the largest problems that we have,

where in 1998 we can still look at sewage - I know I can in my district - running into

ditches on the side of the road and running into rivers. It should not be allowed to

happen in 1998. It should not be allowed to happen. I believe that the government should

certainly introduce the program that it has had since before Christmas of 1997, that we

should move on it and move on it fairly quickly.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like for a couple of minutes to talk

about injured workers in this Province. Again, I am sure members on the other side of the

House, the same as myself - I have talked to some of them about it - have certainly

attended meetings with the appeal board for Workers' Compensation. We have all gone to

them and we have all watched the deeming process in this Province. We have all watched and

we have all seen, Mr. Speaker, sometimes what happens to deeming. If ever there was a part

of government that somebody should take by the neck and shake it and turn it inside out

and upside down and probably boot half of them out, it has to be the Workers' Compensation

Commission in this Province.

I don't know that we solved any problems by now giving them the job of

doing the inspections, because I am not so sure they can handle what they have now. When I

read some of the things that I read, then it really makes me wonder.

A week or so ago I did an appeal for a constituent of mine, and

everybody had signed off on the appeal, my constituent worker's compensation, but it was

not finished. They had sent out for more information. Yet, they sent it off to the chief

review commissioner to make a decision. They signed off, my constituent signed off, and

today we are in limbo because they did not get the information back. The day after the

hearing somebody wrote my constituent a letter and said: Hey, here is this information.

Now we have to send this back for another review. For this one fellow, if it has to go

back for another review, it will make the third separate appeal for one man. The third

separate appeal that that man has had to make on Workers' Compensation for an injury that

almost killed him, and today the man is still disabled. We are now going back again, and

we may have to do it for the third time. Three separate items in his appeal.

Should we really put Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through that? A

family man with two growing children and a wife, and a house to look after. Is that what

we should do? Because that is what Workers' Compensation in this Province is doing to

injured workers, and we should no longer allow them to get away with it. When they deem a

man capable of being a salesperson because he can lie on his back and use the phone, or a

man can be a car salesman because he can sit down, take you and show you the car and then

go over and sit down, and if you want to buy the car you can run around the shop and find

him - what a pack of nonsense to do that to somebody in Newfoundland and Labrador, and do

it in 1998.

We should buy twenty or twenty-five books of How to Win Friends and

Influence People and send them down there. We should probably send them down a heart

each, because some of them down there certainly do not have a heart, and it is time that

we did something about them. I do not intend, as critic for that, to let them go, because

I think they have gone on long enough. I know, in certain areas even the minister would

agree - we may not agree on everything, but there are things in there that I am sure he

and I would agree on - that this crowd down there have gone on far too long.

We as legislators in this Province have to put a stop to what they are

doing to people in our Province who through no fault of their own are today suffering.

Instead of helping these people and trying to make some of their lives a little bit

easier, we are doing our utmost to make their lives a living hell. We are doing that to

people in this Province and we should not be doing it, and we should not be allowing it to

happen. The quicker we can get inside this crowd down here and shake the leaves, and shake

some of them out the door - because I believe that is where some of them should be.

I am all for employment, but I tell you, this is one area where we

should be shaking them out the door and we should be using the royal order of the boot.

Because some of the crowd that are making some of these decisions - and I am not talking

about them all - but some of this crowd really and truly have no heart at all, and are not

understanding of people in our Province who have suffered through injury, as I said,

through no fault of their own. We, in this House of Assembly, are today allowing that to

happen.

The review is done. It is in, it has been in for eighteen months.

Hopefully very soon, hopefully in this session of the House, we are going to deal with

Workers' Compensation, because the time has come for us to deal with it. The time is past

for us to deal with it. We should have been dealing with it a long time ago. The time is

here, the time has come, that we should do something to change and put a heart into an

organization that has a place in this Province. In certain areas of it, it has to find a

heart.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: Could I have five seconds to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Go ahead.

MR. FRENCH: So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence today,

Sir. On that note, I will sit down and turn it over to somebody else.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to stand in response to the Budget Speech. This

was my first Throne Speech and my first Budget Speech. When the Throne Speech was read on

March 18, it spoke, under Social Policy, of new ideas and innovative measures that are

needed to bring meaningful change. If I were to believe this rhetoric, I would feel that

the government was repenting for spending the last two years ignoring social issues and

was now going to right the wrongs of the past by making social reform a priority.

Let me tell you about meaningful change. In this Budget the government

announced that monthly allowances for families on social assistance would be increased by

7 per cent over the next three years, with a 2 per cent increase effective May 1. Social

service recipients, it said, will receive the same rate of increase as the public sector

unions. That is supposed to justify this small increase.

I have the payment chart right here before me, Mr. Speaker, and the

payment chart of the Department of Human Resources and Employment clearly states that a

single employable person not living with a relative is entitled to $130 a month before the

increase. Two per cent of $130 is $2.60. A change of $2.60 to a person on social

assistance is certainly a meaningful change. That is a fact.

With this improvement in the social services allowance, and all the

good it is supposed to do for our social service recipients, I wonder to what extent will

that $2.60 enhance the living conditions of a person living in squalor in a bedsitting

room in downtown St. John's, at the mercy of slum landlords?

I related the following incident before, but this is a very profound

incident and I would like to repeat it. A short time ago there was a show on the evening

news which featured slum bedsitting rooms in St. John's. It showed the squalor some of our

people are living in. Right there on the t.v. screen for all to see was a room which was

beyond condemned. There was a table, a few chairs, a bit of food on the table, a bed and a

pail. The person living in that room used that pail for a toilet, probably because the

house was so overcrowded and there was one bathroom and he needed to.

The Minister of Human Resources was interviewed and featured on that

program, and they asked her about people living in those conditions. She said: We do not

dictate where our people choose to live. This government does not dictate where our people

choose to live. You certainly dictate where they do not live and where they cannot live

with that kind of an allowance. They cannot choose where to live either, no matter if you

dictate where they live or not. With an allowance of $130 a month, now $132.60 a month,

you do not dictate where these people live but you dictate where they do not live, because

they can only live in the squalor that was featured there.

It is very interesting: When I was first elected last July, a young

couple came into my office about a week into my being elected and they sat in front of me

and said: Mrs. Osborne, we are living with my wife's grandmother and we are getting $183 a

month. I said: $183 a month? and she said: Yes, that is what we get, and I said: That

$183, that is after your room and board are paid, is it? and they said: No, no, that is

all we get and it was such an unbelievable amount that I said: This is twice a month, is

it? No, this is what we get, $183 is all we receive, that is to pay my grandmother the

room and board, that is to buy our toiletries, that is to buy our shampoo, that is for our

entertainment and God forbid, that is if we could ever afford to go to bingo. That is all

we get.

I could not believe my ears. How can the grandmother buy groceries for

them for $183 a month? But it is on the chart here and I can verify that; I can give names

of those people who came and sat before me. It is totally unbelievable and now we are

insulting them with an increase of 2 per cent.

Another example on this allowance chart is the payment allowed to a

couple with two children. The chart says they should receive $1,070 a month and with that

2 per cent increase, they will now get $21.40, that is an increase of five dollars and

thirty-two dollars a month each. There are children in this Province if you offered them

five dollars a month increase in allowance they would be insulted.

Before the House adjourned, I stood and asked a question about this 2

per cent but the Minister of Human Resources and Employment was not here so I posed the

question to the Premier, and his reply to me was, and I quote: I have to assume that the

member is confused because I would have to otherwise come to the assumption that the

member is deliberately misleading people, and of course, I know the member would never do

that, so I will say the member is confused.

If one were to check Hansard, or if one were to go back and check any

taped responses from the Premier, when he is asked a question that he does not want to

answer, one will find the same condescending rhetoric. Mr. Premier, I was not confused

then, and I am not confused now. These numbers are from the chart from the Department of

Human Resources and Employment and you do not need the attributes of a mathematical genius

to compute 2 per cent of $130, and 2 per cent is what the increase is for 1997.

On page 2 of this Budget, Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister refers to

the introduction of the HST as, and I quote: The single largest tax cut in the Province

since we joined Confederation. Tax cut for whom? Mr. Speaker, when your family with a

couple of children and you are receiving $1,000 a month or less as total income, there is

no tax cut, there is a tax hike. In lower income families, their income must be expended

on essentials like heat, light and children's clothing and taxes were hiked on heat, light

and children's clothing when the HST was placed on these items when this government sold

out. They called it a tax cut but, Mr. Speaker, it is not likely that a family with two

parents and two children or a single mother with four children living on less than $1,000

a month will be in a position to take advantage of an HST by making major purchases like

4-wheel drives or any of the other things that people in the higher income bracket are

able to take advantage of.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier's former colleague in Ottawa, Premier

MacLellan from Nova Scotia, has recently lashed out at the HST. He wants amendments to it.

Premier MacLellan has stated that the HST is posing too much hardship for the residents of

Nova Scotia who are on low income. He is fighting Ottawa on behalf of his people, an

action, I anticipate is not a likely one by our Premier who aspires to higher places in

Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the National Child Benefit. The

Minister of Finance says, and I will read from the Budget: Let us clearly understand how

the National Child Benefit works. The federal government will provide low-income families

with an increase in the Canada Child Tax Benefit. This increase called the National Child

Benefit will provide an additional $605 annually for the first child, $405 for the second

child and $330 for each additional child. Provincial social assistance benefits to

families with children will decrease by the same amount.

The Minister of Finance says: Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize, there will

be no lose of income for social assistance families. They will receive the same amount.

This amount will free up $10.15 million annually in provincial social assistance funds and

the money will be reinvested in programs such as family resource centres, improvement and

expansion of child care services, the introduction of family home child care, the

introduction of licensed infant child care and there will be youth service networks. There

will be work incentives, the child care expense deduction will be increased and full drug

card benefits will be extended for a period of time while people who have found work are

no longer eligible for social assistance. All that is very commendable. I agree with these

programs. They are long overdue. As a matter of fact, one of the recommendations in this

report of the Select Committee on Children's Interests was that family resources be set

up.

This report was submitted to this government in June, 1