May 28,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the proceedings for the day I would like to

welcome, on behalf of all members, a group to the gallery; it is the 300th

Anniversary Committee from Greenspond, with Chairperson Ivy Fong, committee

member Bob Granter, and Councillor Bob Thistle. I am sure all members would want

me to wish them every success on their 300th Anniversary celebrations this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today

is for the acting Premier - I believe it is the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology - in lieu of the fact that the Premier is not here. Last week I asked

the Minister of Education: Did he think that the decrease in Memorial

post-secondary programs and to a post-secondary education to the students of the

Province and did he believe there would be a dramatic rise in tuition fees?

The minister responded no to both. Does the Deputy Premier,

speaking on behalf of the government, support the minister's statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister gave quite a

long answer. His answers are usually short but, as I recall, that was a pretty

long and detailed answer, and I thought it was quite satisfactory.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity.

Last week the minister, in the House, in debating the Private

Member's resolution dealing with this, stated that: We do not think it is true

at all that this will force the Newfoundland and Labrador students to go

elsewhere for a university education, dealing with the proposed increases. Can

the minister confirm that Memorial University is looking at an increase in

tuition fees from anywhere from 42 to 98 per cent beginning in the fall semester

of 1996?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: I cannot confirm that, Mr. Speaker. I can tell

you that we will certainly have the minister review it and report back to the

House. I cannot confirm that just standing here today; I have no idea what

Memorial is looking at. I am sure they are looking at creative ways of dealing

with a very difficult situation.

We had a $3.4 billion budget, and a very difficult set of

circumstances. It was about choices. We had pre-budgetary consultations by the

Minister of Finance all across the Island. We listened. We attempted not to

raise taxes and we didn't, with the exception of the surtax. We attempted to cut

as little as possible, and that was part of it. We attempted to keep our

borrowing in line with what we thought would satisfy the bond markets, so we

were in difficult circumstances. We had tough choices and tough decisions and we

went about doing that. I think the minister presented an exceptional Budget

under difficult circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology saying that due to the $8 million cut in Memorial

University's operating grant this year, and due to the $1 million that was

funded to the Department of Health, is he saying that post-secondary education

in this Province will still be accessible to all students who wish to go? Is

that what the minister is saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do not put words in the hon.

member's mouth nor do I prepare and articulate his questions, so I ask him not

to say what I am saying. I ask him to listen rather to what I am saying rather

than to say what I am saying.

Mr. Speaker, what I said is that we had some difficult

choices, and everybody knows that. We made it quite clear through the

pre-budgetary consultations. The minister made it quite clear in his speech to

the House. These were not easy decisions, they were very difficult decisions.

Nobody wants to see education become non-accessible to people, and nobody wants

to see rates rise. That is not what we are about. We think education is very

important but we have to live within our means.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss because on the

one hand what we hear when we ask questions in the House on limiting the

dramatic increases in tuition, basically we have been accused of smoke and

mirrors. Let me ask the minister this; I have in my possession a document

prepared by the comptroller of the University sent to the vice-president of

finance and administration which outlines this: the anticipated reduction in the

provincial government grant required the exploration of all available options to

endeavour to generate a balanced Budget. Regardless of the opportunities that

may be identified and implemented by the University through this process an

increase in tuition fees was identified as one of the options which had to be

exercised.

In that memo, Mr. Speaker, it clearly outlines that those

people who are involved in the faculties of education, pharmacy, nursing, and

fine arts will experience tuition increases of 42 per cent, up this year from

$1156 to $1653.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind the hon. member that he is on a

supplementary and ask him to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, people in the faculty of

engineering will experience a 70 per cent increase in tuition fees, and finally

the students involved in the medical school will see an increase in tuition fees

of 98 per cent. Surely the minister must see that this is not an option for

university students.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. TULK: The member gets up and reads from a document

which is suspect in itself as to whether he should be doing it on a

supplementary or even, indeed, on a question, but then he goes on to give a

speech, Mr. Speaker, that would be more appropriate, I say to him, for the

Budget debate that is coming up.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not sticking to the rules

of this House, he is abusing them, and I ask Your Honour to bring him to order.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, our Standing Order is

quite clear that Oral Questions must not be prefaced by reading of letters,

telegrams, newspaper extracts or

preambles of any kind. So I ask the hon. member

to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question before I

sat down, and I apologize to the House, but it is clear that Memorial

University, in dealing with the Budget cut -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Has the hon. member asked his question?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: So we will give the minister an opportunity

MR. E. BYRNE: Does the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology agree that such dramatic increases in university post-secondary

elite of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask the hon.

member to table the document, because when you read from a document in the House

at such length, it is common courtesy to table it so that we can read from it

and send it over.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not allowed to table it but I will

send it over to you.

MR. FUREY: Of course, you are allowed to table it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. FUREY: Of course, you are allowed to table it. You

can table any document in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. members of the House again that we

have had this issue of tabling documents by private members before. It has been

ruled consistently in this House that a private member neither has the

obligation nor the right to table any documents.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that he will

send it over to me. I would like to look at the memo; I don't distrust him but I

would like to see if in fact it is a legitimate memo and I will have the

Minister of Education get a copy of it and review it. But I have to tell him

that lots of memos went around during the Budget consultations. I mean, I recall

a memo in my own department looking for major savings in communications, in

purchases of furniture and purchased services, reduction in purchases that we

would normally make as high as 40 per cent. So this is not something new that

all of a sudden, the Opposition has discovered. The government had a significant

problem. We were all instructed to look inside our own direct departments and

Crowns which respond to us and find the necessary savings. Heaven help us if we

did not find the savings, what the cost of education would be!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer

the question so I will put it, straightforward, again.

Does he support, does he acknowledge that such dramatic,

proposed increases in Memorial University's tuition will limit education to the

all students, regardless of financial status, will be denied? Does he

acknowledge that and support that that is what this Budget will do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, twenty years ago, or was it

fifteen years ago, when I went to university, I can tell you, tuition seemed out

of touch for me, too. My family did not have the necessary funds to provide me

with it. I exercised my rights, I found summer jobs, I got student loans, I made

my way through the system, Mr. Speaker. I did, on my own, and I am thankful that

the taxpayers of the Province gave me that opportunity. I am sure there are lots

of opportunities for people as well.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

I am raising another issue today, Mr. Minister, that proves

that this government's tall talk about open budgeting and public consultation is

nothing but a sham. Why did this minister not consult with the pharmacist, with

the Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association and with other affected groups and

individuals before cutting, virtually in half, dispensing fees for pharmacies

under the indigent drug program? Why did the minister bring the axe down so

carelessly before conducting a thorough study of this proposal, a study that

would have told him how close to bankruptcy this policy is going to force many

of the front line pharmacies in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Budget was constructed on the basis partly of a reduction

in the dispensing fee from $6.50 to $3.50 for pharmacists in the Province who

dispense prescriptions for social services recipients only. Seniors of this

Province at the moment still pay and always have paid their own dispensing fees.

So we are only dealing with the social services population.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of principles and

bases on which we made our judgement, in relative terms. First of all, we have a

situation in the Province where there are pharmacies, particularly in the large

urban areas, who are filling prescriptions for as low as $1.99. That means that

a senior or you and I can walk up to a counter in a pharmacy in some areas and

have our prescription filled for $1.99. I ask the hon. member the question: Is

he proposing that the taxpayers of this Province should pay more to get a

prescription filled on behalf of the social services recipients in this Province

or should we do what is right and proper and meet what is the market's lowest

cost?

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that in

areas where we do not have pharmacies to fill prescriptions in the Province, we

fill them through our hospital systems, as we used to do to a larger degree in

the past. Where we have to provide a means for Social Services or for anybody to

get prescriptions filled because of no pharmaceutical outlets, we do it at a

cost in-house, if you like, as government, for a cost of $3.65. I ask him again,

is he suggesting that we pay $6.50 to get a job done that we can get done

somewhere between $1.99 and $3.65. I have to tell the hon. member that we are,

on balance, wise stewards of the taxpayers' dollars of this Province, so we will

continue to do what is right and proper in terms of the taxpayers and in terms

of the seniors and the Social Services recipient.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not so sure where the Minister of Health gets his

prescriptions filled. Anyway, after the flood of faxes and mail he is likely to

have received in the past week, the minister probably knows that the pharmacists

cannot add a mark-up to prescriptions costing less than $30, and that their only

source of revenue on such a prescription has been the $6.50 dispensing fee, the

one that he so thoroughly slashed in half. Is the minister now finally going to

start consulting, start paying attention to the many pharmacists who are telling

him that they had overhead costs which are well above the $3.50 dispensing fee,

and depending on the fee to survive? Why did the minister not give a moment's

thought to rural and urban parts of Newfoundland when he brought the axe down on

this program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the government had choices in terms of constructing

its Budget. We could have done what four or five other provinces have done. We

could have done like New Brunswick and added a $2 co-pay to all the seniors in

the Province and to the Social Services recipients up to an annual cost to the

Social Services recipients of $250. We could have added a $3 co-pay like Ontario

has done. We could have added a $2 co-pay like Saskatchewan has done. We made

choices. We decided that, on balance, it was better not to put an extra expense

of $2 or $3 per prescription on the 70,000 people who are on the caseload of

Social Services and the other 30,000 who have drug cards in the Province, as

opposed to putting it where we felt it would be a better adjustment made.

I also point out to the hon. member that, on balance, the

pharmaceutical industry, or the drugstores in the Province generally, tell me

that about 30 per cent of their business is dispensing pharmaceutical products.

Of that 30 per cent probably 30 per cent of the 30 per cent is Social Services

recipient work. So we are really not talking about a very significant volume of

their particular business. A drug store once was a drug store. It dispensed

drugs, period. At the moment pharmaceutical outlets do 1,000 other things, sell

1,000 other products along with dispensing drugs. While we acknowledge their

great value to the health care system and the services they provide, we also

acknowledge reality in the marketplace today.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, that is not the

answer that either the minister or officials in his department gave the

pharmacists the day before the Budget came down in this House, and nowhere near

the answer that either the minister or his officials gave the association.

There is already a mail order prescription service located

outside the Province doing a limited business within the Province. Is that the

minister's plan now for rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that why he is

forcing pharmacists to subsidize the government and to go out of business in the

process, so that people can order their drugs by mail from outside the Province,

and let the money and business help create jobs outside Newfoundland and

Labrador?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I don't mind the hon. Government House Leader

because he is full of it again today. Doesn't the minister realize his assault

on local independent pharmacies and our people who have limited access to

pharmacies will likely result in a substantial increase in mail order

prescriptions filled outside this Province? Will the minister reverse this cut

and give some hope for a better tomorrow to our local pharmacists, to these

small business operators and communities that depend on them?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have to

equate the hon. member's question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

The Chair can't hear the hon. minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: I would have to equate, Mr. Speaker, the

hon. member's question in terms of substance to the concept of much sizzle but

no steak. Because there is very little substance to what the question contained.

Clearly we are not contemplating a mail order purchase

outside the Province situation for anybody who is receiving prescriptions as a

result of being on social services. We acknowledge that as a result of the

action we have taken we have taken $3.6 million to $4 million out of the

pharmaceutical pharma-care prescription drug budget for this year. We don't deny

that. We had to make decisions and choices in building the Budget and we had to

make them on relative balance as to what the best way would be in the difficult

circumstances we face to meet the objectives that we had to meet.

We acknowledge the value of the pharmaceutical industry, the

pharmacists in terms of the services they provide. We acknowledge all of that.

But we also acknowledge that there has been a financial impact on some of them

as a result of this. We will undertake to ensure that if there is one instance

where a drug store either cannot or will not fill prescriptions for the $3.50

for Social Services we will undertake to ensure that the people of the Province

are not deprived of pharmaceutical products, but we will do it in-house for

$3.50 to $3.65. I think that is good value for the taxpayer, good service for

the people who need it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Government Services and Lands regarding the Crown lands new

value pricing policy.

Mr. Minister, your statements to clarify the new pricing

policy only confused the public even more. I believe further clarification is in

order. Yesterday I asked the question regarding the rate increase which you

could not answer. Twenty-four hours later I am sure you would have the answer

today. I will ask the question once again. Can the minister indicate to the

House what the increased average cost would be for a residential grant and/or

cottage grant? Also, the increased cost to the residential and cottage leases.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly promised the hon.

Member for Cape St. Francis yesterday that I would table today the answers to

the questions that he asked yesterday. I have the questions here and I could

read them out, but I will table them following the oral session for his

satisfaction.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why could he not answer them, instead of

having to table them? I gave him the opportunity just a minute ago, Mr. Speaker.

This new policy is based on 20 per cent of the assessed

market value, meaning people will pay different rates in different locations to

enjoy their summer cabins. Many people will have to pay substantially more. Mr.

Minister, can you confirm or agree that a person with a cottage lease in Deer

Park, Ocean Pond or similar locations throughout the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, would see their lands conservatively assessed at $10,000 or more,

and if they cannot afford to convert to a grant by October 31, 1996, will see

their rental go to $2,000 or more per year, based on the assessed value, up from

$75 they are presently paying?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions

involved in that particular question. For me to try to respond to all of those

questions right now, I would have to get information.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes or no?

MR. McLEAN: We have to take every case on a different

basis. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis because every area is different

in the Province. There are six different components to this particular policy.

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

a supplementary.

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

The minister announced this new policy without the

consultation promised in the red book. The only recreation many people can

afford to enjoy in the Province is going to their summer cabins. The purpose of

the October 31, 1996 deadline to convert to a grant is nothing short of a money

grab and a major hidden tax in the Budget, which highlights government's crisis

management process.

Mr. Minister, many people cannot afford these sudden changes

in increases in fees by -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I am just getting to it, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, many people cannot afford these sudden changes in

increases in fees by October, 1996. To give cabin owners time to prepare for

such outrageous increases, will the minister agree to a three-year extension to

the deadline date of October 31, 1996, or will we see properties being seized?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, we will take it on a

case-by-case basis. We will not see anybody lose their cabins or cottages or

leases by the end of October. I would suggest to the hon. member that he suggest

to any lease holder out there that they certainly apply to the department, and

when we get all of the notifications out I think most people will be satisfied.

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

a final supplementary.

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

Will the minister confirm: If, after October 31, 1996, people

cannot afford to pay the increased cost, they will not see their cabins being

seized or lost, and if a person does not pay there will be no penalty? Is that

what you are saying?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member

that when everybody gets the correspondence from the department, and looks

through the correspondence that they do get, I am sure most cabin owners will be

satisfied with the possibilities that they have.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I know the minister is aware -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this question has been

prepared for awhile, but I had to wait for the Premier to be out of the House

because I didn't want him to get up and answer it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I know the minister is aware of the new

cost recovery initiative for the fish processing industry recently brought about

by DFO, so I ask the minister if his department was consulted to have input into

this new fee structure, and if he agrees with the new fee schedules as brought

forward by the federal government?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: My first question to the hon. member would

be: Who wrote the question for him? The Premier is not here, and I will answer

the question very clearly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I am fully aware of the new fee structure

imposed by the federal government. I have written the minister, and I have asked

the minister to put the fees on hold until we have had time to have further

consultation on the impact on the industry.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not the

information that was provided to processors when they met with the minister a

short time ago.

In light of the minister's actions, could I ask the minister

if he would table, here in this House, the correspondence that he had with the

federal government so we could see for ourselves what his intentions are and

what his department is suggesting?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of

a meeting that I had with processors where we discussed that. I discussed it

with an individual processor in the corridor of these Chambers just last week. I

suspect the processor that the hon. member is talking about is an individual

from his own district who I arranged a meeting with today to go down and talk to

DFO to discuss and express their concerns and the impact on small operations,

the exorbitant fees charged and the impact on small operations around the

Province. I clearly told those people that.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question once

more, the minister didn't answer the question. I asked if he would table his

correspondence to the federal minister. In light of what is happening with the

processing sector here, where we see small processors employing less than eight

and ten people, having to pay processing rates in excess of what the giants like

FPI and National Sea have to pay, some of them have gone up over 4,000 per cent.

I asked the minister if he would table this correspondence between the federal

minister and his office here in this House, please?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Probably what I should be doing, Mr. Speaker,

is ask the hon. member why his constituents had to come to me for me to arrange

a meeting with them down at DFO? They simply wanted a meeting to discuss a

federal issue. They had to drive from Princeton, Bonavista Bay into the Chambers

to have a meeting arranged with the federal minister's office downtown. I did

that, I expressed my concern. I told them exactly what I had been doing with the

federal minister and they were aware of that. They reported back to the hon.

member and that puts an end to that particular subject.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have one question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Mines

and Energy. Will the minister comment on any implications for Voisey's Bay

development of the decision announced by Inco and Diamond Fields today that they

do not expect to complete the acquisition of Diamond Fields by Inco by the

previously announced date of May 29?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, none at all. The companies

have said that they are going to work together and close the deal on a timely

basis. In their initial announcement they said that they would hope to close by

tomorrow, May 29, but that the deal is open and on the table until some time in

August. In the meantime, they said today that they don't expect to close

tomorrow but they are going to work together to close in the near future as soon

as they can have everything ready.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Just one more question, Mr. Speaker, to the

minister. Does the minister have any reason to be concerned about the impact of

the lawsuit by the Texas based company in the Voisey's Bay development?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. That's a private

matter between private parties and it is, in my view, not going to have any

significant affect on what we see as a major long-term development at Voisey's

Bay that is going to be a mine/mill/ smelter refinery, a major industry that is

going to last at least a quarter, if not half a century in this Province. So

this to me is just a pimple on the back of an elephant.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My

questions are to the Minister of Social Services.

In the election campaign the Liberal Party was committed to a

new strategic social plan that was first announced on March 4, 1993. It has been

talked about for some time and there have been new commitments that have been

made. I want to ask the minister, when will the social plan be released, in view

of the fact that it was committed to be released in sixty days, it has now been

ninety-one days since the election?

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

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

is committed to putting forward a document that reflects the views of many

groups in a consultation paper. While we did commit to the sixty days we were

more focused on providing a document that will be as encompassing as possible to

set out a framework to begin the discussions. It will not be a plan; it will be

a consultation document. As I stated yesterday in the committee meetings, it

will be released within days. We are now in the final stage of trying to secure

printing and trying to get it completed so that it will be into the system,

hopefully within the next seven to ten days.

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

Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask

the minister if in their review process of the consultation document, who will

be leading the review - that I think has been publicly stated - but who will be

assisting? I want to ask the minister, will there be representations of the

injured workers, the single parents and those people who are on social

assistance? What will be the nature of the review team and what kind of a time

frame are we looking at for the completion of the review?

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

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

I think the hon. member yesterday stood and referred to

specific pages in the Red Book. I would now refer my colleague to the Red Book

again, to refer to the

section on the Strategic Social Plan and underneath that

section you will see the various groups that have been outlined in the Red Book

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - so, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to

having representation from the various groups outlined and in fact, plan to

broaden that representation to truly get a representative group to give us the

types of views and recommendations we are looking forward to as we implement the

plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to table Answers to

Questions asked by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis yesterday, concerning

the new Crown lands pricing policy.

Petitions

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to rise today to present another petition, Mr.

Speaker, and I will, for the sake of the Minister of Education who is not here

today who is going to worry about technicalities, I will read the entire

petition, Mr. Speaker.

To the Honourable House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative Session convened, the petition of the

undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, known as The

Fighting Newfoundlanders, ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following

prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador,

do hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support our

petition to do one of the following: Open a food and recreational fishery to all

Newfoundland families or be a closed food and recreation fishery to all other

Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, this is a continuation of the petitions I plan

to present day after day in this House of Assembly from a long way back dated

and, Mr. Speaker, I am also delighted that the other day the Premier of the

Province who was then the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time, who made

this decision on the recreation food fishery in this Province, got up and

responded and I hope he will get up again in this House, Mr. Speaker, and

respond again because he didn't answer any of the questions, and said that I put

forward falsehoods as it pertains to the food fishery in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, for a long time now I have been listening to

people on both sides of the argument, and the Premier used the example that the

majority of people in the Province believe that we are doing the right thing for

conservation and so on. I don't know what polls say or surveys say about who

supports the food fishery or who does not support it. I have always said in this

House, I stand on this issue of the recreational food fishery on its principle,

and, Mr. Speaker, I have also looked and asked people in the know, as a matter

of fact, the Premier keeps referring to the scientists of DFO in Newfoundland,

in Ottawa, wherever, Mr. Speaker, and I have asked for information about the

fish stocks and so on.

DFO scientists and officials, to whom I have spoken, cannot

give me scientific research on the difference between the biomasses on the Grand

Banks and so on and why we have a moratorium in this Province. Mr. Speaker, we

all know that because of the biomasses and the large masses of fish offshore on

the Grand Banks and so on in the different regions of the Province, is the

reason why we have a moratorium; but what we are talking about with a food

fishery, Mr. Speaker, is bay stocks. There is no scientific word for it, they

are talking about bay stocks and fishermen who argue for a food fishery, and I

will say it in all sincerity: would you please give us the scientific research

that relates in bay stocks to the offshore biomasses which is the reason for the

moratorium, and, Mr. Speaker, to date, the scientific research is not completed

on really, what the connections are.

There is also, Mr. Speaker, the scientific research - if you

want to refer to that again - that fish that were caught off the

South Coast of Newfoundland that were tagged, were then

tracked to the Barents Strait. In other words, cod fish swim around, they just

don't stay in one place, and even stocks break off and some fish go in other

directions, they don't always stay together. Now that is what scientific

research tells us so there are two questions. First of all: what is the

difference between bay stock and offshore biomasses, and, Mr. Speaker, the

second part of the scientific research asks: how far do fish swim? What are the

patterns of fish stocks, the ones that break away?

Mr. Speaker, until that is proven, then I would support a

food fishery in this Province. And I say that I would not support a food fishery

if somebody, Ottawa, Newfoundland, scientists, whoever they are, can tell me

that the amount of fish caught in a food fishery would hurt the recovering

stocks in this Province, that would in any way endanger the recovering of the

fish stocks.

Mr. Speaker, it is ludicrous to believe that 1500 tons, which

is the guesstimate, because it was not an accurate count - but the last guess

was that 1500 tons were caught. Seals eat twice that much in a day. A dragger

pulls up that much in less than a couple of hours. The truth is that the amount

of fish caught by the food fishery when it was open was insignificant, and if it

were to open again it would still be insignificant to the recovery of the fish

stocks.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that this whole sham was all about

an image and a perception. It had nothing to do with the hard facts of

scientists who say there is a difference in the in-bay stocks and the offshore

biomasses. The truth is, with the hard times we are having in this Province,

point one, they could jig a fish to eat, and point two, if anybody is going to

be stopped from fishing in this Province, the fisherman with the hand line

should have been the last one stopped.

I do not believe for one minute, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the

Premier again to show me the scientific research that says the in-bay stocks and

the offshore biomasses are related.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support the petition so capably put forward

by my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries

will stand in his place and get on with the tiresome old story of telling us we

do not believe in conserving stocks and that is the reason why the plants have

been closed down, and that members should not be standing up speaking out for a

food fishery while thousands of people are unemployed. Mr. Speaker, we all know

that those tired old statements are very untrue and unfounded. And I, for one,

would never stand here today and ask for a food fishery if I thought it was

going to completely wipe out or destroy the cod stocks in this Province of ours.

It was only today I got a call from a fisherman who had put

out twelve lump nets. I ask the minister: What is a lump net -

ten-and-a-half-inch mesh? He had out twelve lump nets and when he went to haul

them today, he had seventy pounds of lump roe and 1200 pounds of cod fish. I

mean, that is unheard of. Normally, when you are having a good fishery and you

haul lump nets, the most you would get would be a couple of hundred pounds of

fish, because with the ten-inch mesh the fish would go right through and it

would only be the odd one that got tangled up in the web.

Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example of the amount of cod

that is there today and is able to support a food fish. All the scientific

evidence that the minister continues to bring forward, evidence that a few years

ago he did not believe in, he thought it was hogwash. He would not listen to

them. They were people that should not be heard of, and now, all of a sudden, he

is singing their tune, singing from the same book.

I call on the minister to listen to the true people, the true

scientists out there today, listen to the fishermen, and I can assure you, the

amount of cod fish caught to support a food fishery in this Province will have

nothing to do with destroying the cod fishery as we know it. It would have

nothing to do with the plant opening in Port Union, have nothing to do with the

plant opening in Bonavista, but it would have a lot to do with putting food on

the table of many people out there today who always enjoyed a meal of cod fish.

It would have a lot to do with that, and I believe as responsible people, as

people duly elected to serve our constituents, that we should be here today

trying to do exactly that.

I hear the Member for Baie Verte talk about the stories he

has heard from people calling in from his district, and if the minister were

truthful and would like to tell the stories from his own district, he could get

up and go on with the same thing as well. When the fishery was closed down, we

talked about one of the reasons why it was closed down, being because of the

people dealing on the black market, because of the fish that was sold under the

table. But the only people that you stopped fishing, I say to the minister, were

the people who were out there doing it sincerely. The person who was going out,

catching his ten fish, coming ashore and putting it away for the winter. The

people who are going out selling on the black market, the people who are going

out in darkness to catch fish, are still taking

part in that particular activity

and they have not been stopped. I know of Newfoundlanders who have lost their

skidoos through ice-fishing, lost their boats and motors in going out to jig a

meal of codfish, something that was always there for them.

The minister continues to talk about conservation, continues

to talk about the bad, negative things that would happen if we had a food

fishery. I don't know of anything that will happen if we allowed people to go

out and catch a meal of codfish that they have always been able to do. If he

really wants to deal with conservation he might do as I suggested a couple of

days ago. Go up and go for a trip on some of the shrimp draggers up off Northern

Labrador and up off Greenland, where I understand, when they make one drag and

pull back their nets, they spend as long as two hours shovelling juvenile fish

off the decks of the boats. Codfish, halibut, turbot, redfish, two inches long.

Then the minister sits here and says: We can't support a food fishery because it

would destroy the cod stocks of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: Shame, I say, to the minister. Speak up

and support the people!

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

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The shame of all of

the comments by the hon. member is exactly this. The hon. member is saying, or

both members are saying, there is sufficient fish in the ocean or in the bays to

have a food fishery, that when you put a net over the side of the boat, a lump

net or whatever, an indication of crab pots or lobster pots, I'm hearing, there

is an abundance of fish out there. If that is the case, and we are totally

confident that the bays are full of fish, and the ocean is full of fish, then

why don't we have petitions in the House of Assembly to start a commercial hook

and line fishery? so that people who are being cut off TAGS, people who are not

working, people who are devastated financially and have to go to Social Services

- why they cannot go out and catch fish and sell them commercially if the fish

are that plentiful in the bays.

If I were being responsible as the members are trying to put

across this House of Assembly, you would think they would be speaking on behalf

of all the people out there who are suffering because there is no fish.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, on a point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I presented a petition. I know

what is in the prayer of the petition. He is misleading the House if he is

saying that we are supporting a commercial fishery. We certainly are not. The

petition's intent was to support a food fishery, not what the minister said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let me try to put this together. There aren't enough

fish to fish commercially, but there are enough fish that we can go out and fish

recreationally. In other words, we are not going to go out there and catch the

fish, because there is not enough to fish commercially. But we will allow people

to go out there and catch for a food fishery, knowing full well if the stocks

are not rebuilt to a commercial standard, and if we go and take more fish out of

the oceans, it will take that much longer to rebuild, and it will take that much

longer for people to get back to working in this industry.

That is what the hon. members are saying. You cannot have it

both ways. There is either enough fish out there or there is not enough fish.

Now, make up your minds, and when you are ready to come to a decent conclusion

come and talk to me.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I presented a petition yesterday on the school busing in Shea

Heights. I stand today to present a second petition on that. The prayer of the

petition reads as follows:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the House

of Assembly to oppose the discontinuation of school busing services to the

community of Shea Heights, as we believe the cost of the Metrobus service can be

burdensome on a family already trying to live within a limited financial budget.

There would be very little cost to the Province in having a school bus stop in

the community of Shea Heights on its way to or from the community of Blackhead

to pick up these students. The Metrobus

schedule in some cases does not coincide

with school hours, and the students would have to make a stop on Water Street to

get a transfer, take a second bus under the Metrobus system, to get to their

destination.

I ask the House if they would accept this petition in support

of the residents of Shea Heights and their school busing system.

Thank you.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise in my

place to support the petition presented by the Member for St. John's South

concerning the school busing problems in the Shea Heights area.

On May 22, the Member for St. John's South asked a question

of the minister with respect to the discontinuance of school busing in the Shea

Heights area, and he made a comment with respect that the yellow school bus now

goes up over the hill and goes out to Blackhead, and basically will be passing

through the community empty and not picking up twenty or twenty-five students in

that area. He just made a comment and noted that there would be very little cost

involved, and I agree that there would be very little cost involved, especially

seeing that the bus is passing through the community.

He also mentioned that there would be a problem now with the

existing Metrobus schedule, with the students coming down the hill having to

transfer to the Metrobus, and there would be problems arise there, I suppose,

with the very young children; that would be a problem.

Mr. Speaker, also with respect to this situation in Shea

Heights, families with two and three children could run up quite a monthly bill

for paying to have their children transported by the Metrobus to the schools. A

note was made here, I believe it was $10 a week, or $40 or $50 a month for every

child; so if you have three children that could be anywhere from $120 to $150

per month.

Now, if you compare this to other areas in and around St.

John's, Wedgwood Park and East Meadows had the school busing system which is

going to be discontinued - and I expected, actually, the Member for Virginia

Waters to be making a comment on this, and he has not to this point in time -

you have to question: Would it be reasonable to have some areas serviced and

other areas not serviced with the school bus system? I want to be careful in

trying not to have one group pitted against another group type of thing, which

seems to be the hallmark of this administration, to pit one group against

another group and then finally discontinue it and say the problem is solved, and

I say that with respect to the education reform itself. When the referendum was

coming down, I made comments that it was going to be very divisive, and that is

certainly proving to be true, that it is being very divisive.

With respect to the school busing in Shea Heights, again I

think it was only reasonable to expect that a bus going through the area would

pick up the students, especially when it is returning and going to basically the

same areas.

Another point that I would like to make with respect to the

discontinuance of school busing in and around St. John's - and this may not be a

very popular point of view, I suppose, but I think someone should mention it -

how many jobs are going to be lost because of the discontinuance of the bus

service in and around St. John's? It seems to me that a lot of policies that are

being put forth by this administration over the past few years always seem to be

geared at destroying jobs instead of creating jobs.

I know of one bus operation that will be possibly laying off

as many as five bus drivers because of this policy. I know this person

personally, and I know of other bus operators, or owners I suppose, who will be

laying off drivers themselves. Again, we have to wonder what the bottom line

would be, or the end result would be. Are we going beyond the point of

diminishing returns with respect to this? If we have the government saving on

one hand with respect to the busing, will we actually lose, if you have say

five, ten, fifteen or twenty bus drivers laid off? I don't have the actual

number. Then you are going to be losing revenues with respect to income tax,

GST, and provincial sales tax, or what have you.

Then to push that even further, if these people don't get

jobs for themselves or are unemployed for any length of time and their UI runs

out then they could very easily end up on the social services network. So then

in the long haul it could be costing the government money to discontinue the bus

service. So I just wonder what kind of an assessment was done and what kind of a

study was done when they decided to discontinue the bus service in and around

St. John's?

Another point too I suppose, to unload it onto the Metrobus

system itself with respect to the City of St. John's, certain individuals are

saying now that it could cost upwards of $1 million to the people of the City of

St. John's to put this busing

schedule in place. Again, you have to wonder is

that fair to the people of the City of St. John's if you compare it to other

areas within the Province. Now I know the Minister of Education was on his feet

the other day and said that if Mount Pearl gets the Metrobus - same service in

Mount Pearl with respect to Metrobus they would discontinue it in Mount Pearl.

So then that would lend one to believe - what would be the point of Metrobus

expanding into Mount Pearl? Why would Mount Pearl even want to encourage

Metrobus to expand into the service in Mount Pearl if it is going to end up

costing the taxpayers of Mount Pearl money?

Back to the Shea Heights issue, members presented a couple of

petitions to ask questions on that very issue and I would just like to say that

I support his petition with respect to having the busing continued in the Shea

Heights area. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I just want to acknowledge, for

our side of the House, the presentation of the petition. I think a similar

petition was presented yesterday and the minister responded but we will take a

look at the remarks by both members and ensure that the Minister of Education

receives it. We don't doubt the sincerity of the presentation from the Member

for St. John's South, my member and a good member.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A petition to the House of Assembly: To the hon. the House of

Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened. The petition of the

undersigned students of Mount Pearl Senior High that:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

eliminated the public exam marking board and cancelled public exams; and

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

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

reinstate public exams and the public exam marking board.

I stand today, Mr. Speaker, to present this petition

specifically on behalf of a particular group of students but I might add, Mr.

Speaker, that this petition echoes the thoughts and sentiments of literally

thousands of students and thousands of parents and teachers throughout this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to the attention of the

Minister of Education and the government throughout the announcement last Friday

of the cancellation of public exams, that this particular decision is not a

popular one. There are indeed, as indicated, thousands of students who have

voiced their objection to the cancellation of public exams, have voiced their

objection, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the fact, prior to that particular

announcement, that if examinations were in fact going to be written that they

would not have been marked by a provincially appointed public exam marking

board.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when this issue was brought up during

Question Period I asked the Minister of Education if he would reconsider his

decision and in fact give some consideration to reversing the decision with

respect to the cancellation of public exams. The Minister of Education responded

by saying absolutely, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing wrong when reversing any

decision that deserves or requires reversing. Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister

and I say to the hon. members opposite that this is indeed an issue that

requires attention. It requires immediate redress, it requires a reconsideration

and why, Mr. Speaker?... because there is a movement afoot by active students

and concerned students in this Province to bring this particular matter to the

attention of the members and to the attention of the members opposite in a very

real way.

Tomorrow a group referred to as Student Education Alliance

will be marching on Confederation Hill during the noon hour. Hundreds, and I

would submit potentially thousands, of students from this region who will speak

with respect to their disapproval to the announcement that has been made by this

government in the cancellation of public exams. As indicated yesterday when this

issue was raised, all of the regional high schools - and in fact there will be

participation from students outside this particular region who will be joining

in this movement and who will be participating in a demonstration and

presentation in front of Confederation Building.

The Minister of Education indicates that he will not reverse

or reconsider a decision when there is no worth in reconsidering or reviewing a

decision. I say to the minister and I say to the members opposite that this is

indeed a critical issue. Time is of the essence. We cannot afford to wait for

days and indeed weeks before there is reconsideration. It needs immediate

attention; it needs to be brought to the fore of this House. The Minister of

Education has an obligation to reconsider this very important decision that has

been made with respect to the cancellation of public exams.

I'm sure members opposite have received faxes, letters and

phone calls from concerned parents and students on this particular issue. We

have a memo from the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association simply

headed: The government did not consult. That says it all. There was no prior

discussion, there has been no plan, there was no attempt to consult with the

powers that be with respect to this important issue. Therein lies the problem.

That is why we have a crisis in education today. This government has failed to

consult adequately with stakeholders, has failed to consult adequately with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, with school boards, and perhaps

most importantly with the very students that this decision would directly

affect.

In closing I would ask the minister, and again his colleagues

in Cabinet, to reconsider this issue, to listen to what students are saying in

this Province, and to reverse the decision that was made on Friday of last week

with respect to the cancellation of public exams. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very

delighted today to rise and to support the petition put forward by my colleague,

and to say that for the last several days we have witnessed in this House a

reversal of leadership. We have seen a case of where for many years the former

Minister of Education and Training stood in his place and said he was very

concerned about standards in the educational system. He went to some conferences

in which he lambasted the students of the Province, he lambasted the teachers

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and talked about the fact that our

children couldn't measure up to the students in other parts of Canada and

throughout North America, and indeed throughout the world. He said he was going

to take aggressive action to make sure that our students measured up.

To do that we have to measure our students against not only

themselves but against the scholastic achievements of others in other parts of

this country. Then, in the last little while, we see the Minister of Education

say: It is okay, you don't need to have a standard evaluation at the end of

Grade XII, you don't need to have that. We can do away with standards.

Now we have leadership from the students. The students of

Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in the St. John's region, have now taken

over leadership roles in the standards that are expected from them, because they

know they are the ones who have to meet the challenges when they get into the

post-secondary institutions. They know that they are the ones who have to be in

their places and they want to know that an 80 per cent that you receive in a

course in St. John's is equal to an 80 per cent anywhere else in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, leadership in education has now reversed itself. Leadership is

now with the students and so, Mr. Speaker, we say to the government: listen to

the voice of your children.

We talked about education, Our Children Our Future ,

and that was the big thing we talked about. We talked about making sure that we

could measure up. I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, if he

would listen to the young people in his district, they might give him a few

ideas as to what this change means to them, so when you have tomorrow, an

example of leadership that my colleagues mention here, Sir, maybe 1,000 young

people will march here tomorrow and say: Don't do away with Public Examinations.

There may be up to a 1,000 young people tomorrow marching on this building and

saying: We want standards; we want to have a quality education; we want the

government to listen to us and we want to be consulted, it is our future. And we

said in the Royal Commission, it was their future.

Tomorrow, they are coming here to tell us that they want to

be part of the decision-making process. I say to the ministry opposite, don't

just say: Boys, we will tough it out; don't just take the attitude that you

can't reverse your decision. Any decision can be reversed, and what the young

people are saying to us is that the wrong decision has been made, particularly

at this time of the year when they had expectations of a process to be followed.

We say to the minister opposite that he should take the

advice of the young people, do the right thing, admit that what has been done

has been an injustice, and when these young people arrive here tomorrow, don't

bar the doors, don't go, as the minister did just a few days ago, lock up the

place, put guards outside, do all these things; don't close down the elevators,

don't make this into a fortress. Listen to the young people. They are not a

bunch of hooligans, they are the good, young people, our future, and treat them

with decency because their voice is important, and I say to all hon. members

that if there is one decision that this government should reflect on and change,

is the decision about this year's marking board. It is $650,000 but you have to

ask yourselves, who really is going to pay the price. Is it going to be the

young people? Well, they think it is, therefore you need to convince them. They

are saying to you that they are not very happy with the whole decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his petition. Again, we will

ensure that the Minister of Education, who is in Ottawa travelling with the

Leaders of the three parties with respect to Term 17, is made aware of it, and

he, too, the Member for St. John's East is indeed a good member; at least, my

mother, who is one of his constituents tells me he is, and I never argue with my

mother.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly in

Legislative session convened, petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador that:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS many Newfoundlanders who do not use Newfoundland

Power delivered electricity to heat their homes, instead use wood furnaces

because they cannot afford to do otherwise; and

WHEREAS not having had a rate increase since 1992 is no

justification for a rate increase in 1996;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador do

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates.

Mr. Speaker, back in March, we debated, the entire House, a

resolution that was put before this Assembly calling upon the government to do

exactly that, do whatever is required to prevent an increase in electricity

rates. And there was an amendment passed to that private member's resolution

that saw all members present in the House that day, support and vote for it, and

saw the government to give whatever resources necessary to the Public Utilities

Board and in particular, Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Advocate, to ensure that the

consumers in the Province had the best representation possible, to ensure that

Newfoundland Power rate increases would not take place. But since that time,

things have changed; things have been added to it. Newfoundland Power is not now

looking for a rate increase of 4.9 per cent, they are looking for a rate

increase of 2.9 per cent, and since that time government has announced its

intention to harmonize the provincial sales tax, the PST with the goods and

services tax, the federal tax, GST.

What this harmonization has done, in particular, to the home

heating industry, not only electricity rates but home heating fuels as well, is

that we will see an automatic increase in the electricity rates in this Province

of somewhere between 7.7 and 8 per cent. Now, government has it within its power

to stop the rate increase. It has it within its power to stop the impact of the

GST and the PST harmonization. While we let the Public Utilities Board, a

quasi-judicial board take its route and operate arm's length of government, and

we provide the Consumer Advocate with all the necessary resources, financial,

human, and otherwise, to ensure that consumers in the Province get the best

representation at the Public Utilities Board possible, that process will work

itself through and will rectify itself, and at the end of the day we will find

out if the Public Utilities Board, based upon the representations of the

Consumer Advocate, will allow an increase of 2.9 per cent.

However, Mr. Speaker, government today, Cabinet - members of

the Opposition, but, in particular, the Cabinet and government members have an

opportunity to take the impact of the GST and PST harmonization on electricity

rates and to exempt it. All government has to do, and all Cabinet has to do, is

say to the Department of Finance in particular, all home heating fuels,

electricity and home heating oil will be exempt, and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, will

be exempt from the broadening of the tax base as it relates to, and as a result

of the GST and PST harmonization. In effect, by doing that, government will say

to the people of this Province: We believe you are taxed enough when it comes to

basic commodities such as electric heat and oil, and that as a result of that we

will not let this tax impose upon the people of the Province an additional

burden of between 7.7 and 8 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf

of the constituents of my district and ask the House, and in particular the

government, to give it serious consideration.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, again today I stand in my

place to support the petition presented by the Member for Kilbride. As stated

previously there have been many, many petitions presented in this House by

members on this side of the House with respect to the proposed rate increase by

Newfoundland Power. I have yet to see a petition presented from the other side

of the House. There may have been but I do not remember seeing any petition

presented to oppose the rate increase by Newfoundland Power.

The Public Utilities Board have the wherewithal to say yes or

no to the proposed rate increase. As stated earlier, the first request by

Newfoundland Power for this year was 4.9 per cent but we saw that decreased to

3.9 per cent after the Consumer Advocate was appointed. Since then, actually, we

have seen it being decreased even further. I believe the Consumer Advocate is

planning on asking for a reduction in rates. Now, would that not be ironic, Mr.

Speaker, if Newfoundland Power actually got a reduction in rates. If the

Consumer Advocate was successful in getting a reduction, I wonder would it be

possible for the people of the Province who receive their energy, or their

heating in particular, I suppose, because that is the biggest bill, would

actually get a refund from Newfoundland Power. Talking about something coming

back on them, Mr. Speaker!

As I stated before in the House, Newfoundland Power's

credibility is coming into question here now because, of course, they went from

4.9 per cent. I am not sure if - the last one was 2.9 per cent, I believe, and

that is a fair decrease. It is 50 per cent less than what they originally

requested. So now you have to ask the question if indeed the proper planning

procedures were in place with Newfoundland Power when they put their brief to

the PUB to request a rate increase.

Mr. Speaker, there are many people in this Province who

cannot afford to pay any more money to Newfoundland Power for their energy,

especially in light of the fact that it is getting more and more difficult all

the time for people in rural Newfoundland to actually go in the woods and cut

wood to heat their homes with wood. We have permits that are required now, and

there are only certain places that you can cut, and there are only certain times

of the year that you can cut wood and bring it out and utilize that for heating

your home. So there are many factors involved with respect to this Newfoundland

Power rate increase.

Many people on social assistance are finding it very, very

difficult to pay the bill to Newfoundland Power each month. I know I get many

calls, and over the past number of years, I have only been here three years, I

could go to Newfoundland Power and Social Services and work out some sort of an

agreement whereby people who are in arrears to Newfoundland Power - and normally

their arrears grow during the winter months, of course, when they utilize more

energy to heat their homes - I could usually work out an agreement between

Social Services and Newfoundland Power. But that is becoming more difficult,

especially in light of this Budget now that has come down, and the strict

conditions that are being put on the people with Social Services, and the

funding cuts.

The Minister of Finance, in his Budget Speech, announced, I

think, that there was a 2 per cent increase in funds for Social Services but,

again, that was more of a smoke screen because, in actual fact, the people on

social assistance are being hit quite hard, are being cut. We have had people in

this House, and the critic for Social Services on his feet a number of times

asking the Minister of Social Services questions with respect to the cuts to

Social Services, and the answers that we are getting are certainly not what we

would be expecting to get, or would like to get, of course. I know times are

hard, and everybody has to pay their dues to a certain extent, but the people in

the Province who are hard put, I suppose, or in a harder situation to foot these

bills, should not be put in a situation where they would have to skip a meal or

turn off their heat. I know people in this Province today who, during the winter

months, actually will not turn their heat on because they cannot afford to pay

Newfoundland Power. They go around their house with their coats and sweaters on

in the wintertime, and really it is quite sad to see that these people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

Just in conclusion I would like to say again that I support

the petition presented by the Member for Kilbride, and expect to see many more

in the days to come.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 - commonly known as the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

We do not have any need to present further evidence that the

government was asleep at the wheel over there. We were waiting over here,

waiting and waiting, and while the ministers were consulting, not with the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they were just chatting with each other. Of

course, that is the extent of their consultation. Then, to add to this scenario,

one of my colleagues on this side of the House was over there trying to give

them a bit of advice, and trying to shed some light in this world of darkness.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) long, long time.

MR. H. HODDER: Well, I am glad the Government House

Leader admits that the advice that gets from this side is sincere, it is genuine

and, of course, it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: From my member.

MR. H. HODDER: From your member? Well, I am sure that the

Member for Kilbride will give any of his constituents lots of advice any time at

all.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a Budget presented to this

Legislature by the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board that, of

course, indicates that real GDP and employment and incomes will decline from

last year's levels. In fact, in the booklet called The Economy , it is

estimated that the real GDP for this Province will contract by 4.3 per cent.

That is $344 million. The number of people employed will decline by 9,000

persons, and personal income will drop by 4.5 per cent. It also says that retail

sales is also anticipated to decline by 4.7 per cent, with decreases in capital

investment of 17.7 per cent. The labour force is predicted to decline by 3.7 per

cent. Housing starts will be down by 8 per cent.

This is certainly not a happy budget. Based on these poor

economic projections, total provincial revenue is expected to decline by 3.4 per

cent, or by $58,343,000. We know that the government has adopted some strategies

to try to overcome that. While we applaud some of them, most of them reflect a

lack of commitment to really deal with the fundamental problems of the structure

of the Newfoundland economy.

We certainly have seen examples in the last few days of where

the Premier, in the Budget Speech - and I guess he approved of it, is in direct

contrast to what he said during the election. We heard the Premier say during

the election on television that you cannot cut, cut, cut your way to prosperity.

But as soon as the election is over, what does the Premier do? He starts chop,

chop, chop, and he starts chopping out jobs in the civil service. On Budget Day

there were people running around with layoff notices. The Premier on t.v. during

the election said he couldn't cut, cut, cut his way to prosperity, and then when

the Budget came down we have people running all over the building here giving

out layoff notices and that kind of thing. A thousand people were laid off, on

top of the 450 people laid off in December 1995. If that is the way we are going

to get this economy back on track, then I would say to all hon. members there

must be some kind of a direct contrast between the advice the Premier got during

the election and what he got after the election.

We also wanted to note the closure of some of the colleges. I

have made note of this on several occasions. It would mean that people in rural

Newfoundland will not have an opportunity to pursue an education to the same

extent that they have enjoyed prior to this. I made note the other day in the

House of the commitments made in 1989. I made note of the election promises made

in 1993. Then we faced the reality of 1996. Reductions in the operating grant at

Memorial of $8 million, which was talked about by my colleague, the Member for

the District of Kilbride on many occasions, will mean, of course, a severe

hardship for the University. We heard today in this House how the University has

circulated a document to the members of the Board of Regents for the University,

in which they have anticipated some possible strategies, and the impact it is

going to have on tuition fees. Some tuition fees will be doubling, and, of

course, that causes great concern.

Because one of the fundamental things that we learned in this

Province and which was given to us by our former premiers, including Liberal and

growing up on the Burin Peninsula in the 1950s, graduating from high school in

1960, I was told that if you went to university it was a way in which you could

improve yourself and get ahead in the world. I completed my first year of

university in the old campus on Parade Street. Not many people in the House here

can say that, but I did do some studies on the old campus.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at that time we prided ourselves in making

opportunities available for people from rural Newfoundland. I came from a little

one-room school where in Grade IX and Grade X I was the only student. Therefore,

I can tell you, the school was rather small, but there were opportunities for

people with my kind of background to get ahead; that is not true anymore.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that the year they had the

(inaudible)?

MR. H. HODDER: No, that was the year when they had the

100 per cent passes, I say to the hon. minister. They had public examinations in

those years, too. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members: What has happened to the

philosophy? What has happened to our sense of responsibility towards our young

people in rural Newfoundland? We know today that if they complete their

university, complete their post-secondary, there is not always a great

predictability of a career job. That is bad enough but now we are telling them

that you really don't have an opportunity to get to university if you live

outside the overpass or within driving distance of it.

So, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying to all hon. members is that

we have to examine our philosophy, because if you don't have the right

philosophy, you are not going to make the right decisions. And I sense in this

government a retrenchment of a philosophy. I sense a philosophy that is more

akin to Preston Manning's Reform Party than it is to the true principles of

Liberalism. I see the group on this side of the House over here have deviated

from the very principles on which that party was founded, and that is equal

opportunity, equal access and the rights of all citizens to enjoy the benefits

of being a Canadian and a Newfoundlander.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to all members, when we start closing

down access to educational opportunities, then we are denying the future to our

young people, and while we can smugly sit in our places and pretend that it does

not exist, in doing that we ignore the realities that young people face every

day in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we saw a case just a few days ago where the

young people in this Province - I made mention of it earlier today - where they

have said that they want to have a quality education. No young person wants to

graduate from high school and have somebody say to him that his education does

not measure up. They demand that they have a quality and standard of education.

I can say to all hon. members, as a former high school teacher and principal, I

remember on many occasions parents saying to me, make sure that the standards of

your school stay very high. Some hon. members here sit in this House, they have

had their children attend schools where I have been the administrator, and I can

say to them today, that parents want high standards. They want to know that

their children have a high quality education. When you know that young people in

this region are saying to the government, on the issue of public examinations,

they want to write those exams, that gives the government a message. Certainly,

I think that some hon. members opposite, although they pretend to be cool,

calculating and indifferent and they pretend to be uninvolved and not moved by

the pleas of these young people, I know that in their hearts they must be,

because these members opposite on the government side, they, too, are parents.

They know that they want to have a quality education in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want just to refer again to the general

principles outlined in this Budget. It certainly isn't a budget that we can be

proud of; it certainly doesn't do a great deal to address the fundamental needs

in our communities. While we have such things as the elimination of twenty-six

boards and commissions, that kind of thing, that is only just the tip of the

iceberg. We eliminate twenty-six boards. So what? Most of them haven't met for

the last quarter of a century.

We say to all hon. members, it is one thing for us to present

a budget as we have seen here, but we have to say to the government: Your Budget

doesn't have a vision; it doesn't tell us where we are going in terms of our

fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, with these words, and since my time is up, and

you are pushing your hand on the time clock over there, I will yield. I do

believe my colleague for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair is going to speak next.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse

au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have to

apologize for the unclarity in my voice, but since the Budget came down I've

been overworked and had so many calls from my district that I haven't had time

to take care of myself, so -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I wanted to no doubt have some comments on the

Budget. It has had devastating affects on my district, especially with regard to

the RCMP detachment at Cartwright. I rose a couple of days ago and mentioned

what affects that would have on rural communities in that particular area. That

situation remains the same. We have also had to contend with the closing of an

airport in Paradise River. The closing of this airport could possibly mean the

total non-existence of the community. There will not be any transportation

system in or out of that particular area and therefore people will be forced to

be reserved to an area of the Province where they will have no access to the

outside.

I guess more importantly there have been ongoing protests and

outrage across my district over the Budget and a number of concerns that have

come down. I'm sure you have all heard the media this morning and what happened

in Paradise River and Cartwright. We had a woman who was a commercial salmon

fisher on the Eagle River all of her life. She was charged in 1993 for

exercising her right in the food fishery as an aboriginal person. This morning

the RCMP went into that community and took that woman out for exercising what

she believed was her right. Yet it was only a few weeks ago that this government

issued a licence to an outfitter in this Province to go into the Eagle River and

to exploit the resource that was there.

The Eagle River situation has been an ongoing situation in my

district for a number of years. It was an area that was monopolized by local

people in a commercial salmon fishery, but due to outfitters outside in the

recreational fishery they have been pushed out, and it has been taken over by

outside forces. No doubt the LMA has been involved in the protest of this

particular fishery on the Eagle River. It has had response from DFO and refusals

that permitted them for subsistence fishing. In response to continued licensing

by the Province of outfitters to operate commercial sports fishing camps, I just

want to read from an

article that was put out here that explains the case in

full.

But protests in previous years have led to the closure of the

DND fishing camp that was operated on the Eagle River, and it was because there

were no economic gains for the local people and that area was being monopolized

by outside forces. In some instances they were not even permitted on the river

where they had once lived and grew up and raised their families. There has been

intervention from the Native Council of Canada, its president Ron George, and he

protested also in the protest fishery back in 1993 on the Eagle River. A lot of

the people at that time were arrested, including the president of the LMA, Kirby

Lethbridge. After negotiations with DFO and the fisheries minister at the time

the charges against him were dropped, with the exception of Ms Brown.

Her trial was held in Goose Bay in February of 1995. She

pleaded not guilty, and defended herself on two grounds:

a) that as a Metis she

had a right to fish for food and subsistence, and

b) that she had a commercial

licence for the Eagle River and that she was not in breach of any valid

licensing restrictions. Therefore the issue in the case boiled down to whether

or not the fishing she was engaged in constituted a food fishery or not, and

whether she was in fact fishing outside of her licensed commercial fishing area.

The court ruled on April 3 that Ms Brown was a Metis, and

that Metis have the right to fish for food as an Aboriginal right, protected

under

Section 35.(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, the court ruled her

guilty of illegally fishing for commercial purposes without a permit, yet there

was no evidence at the trial that suggested Ms Brown was fishing in a restricted

area; after all, she did have a commercial licence for that area.

Ms Brown's lawyer filed a motion of appeal in 1995 and argued

that she was a subsistence fisherperson within the meaning of the Supreme

Court's ruling in the Sparrow case and other cases across Canada, and the salmon

caught were eaten and the only dollar value attained from it was somewhere

around $400. The Fisheries Act, the sections under which Ms Brown was charged

were not consistent with Aboriginal rights and the Crown had failed to justify

the provisions concerned.

I guess the ironic thing about all this is that, throughout

the case of what has been happening on the Eagle River, with regard to the

Province allowing people from outside to go in there and set up outfitting camps

and not giving the local people the opportunity to do so, the LMA have been

lobbying to have camps of their own on the Eagle River and they have been

refused. DFO has also refused to negotiate with them on the food harvest

arrangement despite the court rulings which supported the Metis food fisheries

rights and despite negotiating food-fishing arrangements with both the LIA and

the Innu Nation.

The real pressure we feel on DFO is coming from the Province

and the outfitters to take action against the Metis. I guess, as we all know,

and as I said earlier a month ago, the Province awarded another group, a

non-resident, a license to operate a commercial sports camp on the Eagle River,

and I guess the ironic thing about this is that, one of the individuals who was

awarded the contract, it was her husband who was the lawyer who prosecuted Ms

Violet Brown. So, because of all of these things, the LMA and the people across

my district find it very difficult to see this not just being as coincidence but

being something that is certainly intended.

People of my district in this case, feel that this case is

one of wrongful and even malicious prosecution in order to suppress the Labrador

Metis fishing rights while opening up the lucrative sports fishing rivers in

Labrador to, as they say: friends of the government. It appears very clear as a

result of the recent decision of the Province to charge three Cartwright area

Metis residents for food fishing in 1994 despite the clear court rulings to date

that such cases which did not involve sale of fish at all, are clearly valid.

The people of my district, especially the Metis people will

also be protesting the discrimination against Metis in the federal funding of

Aboriginal test cases. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Metis

rights are equally protected to those of Indians or Inuit and the Indian Act has

nothing to do with Aboriginal rights in the Constitution. An urgent meeting on

this matter has already been decided upon between the Minister Ron Irwin and

Justice Minister Allan Rock and that will be taking place soon.

The Metis Association has been mandated under the interim

measures pending land claims to ensure that these communities have control of

river scheduling and development, and that is what they are trying to do. They

feel that there have to be mechanisms of community control in place to insure

maximum community participation and benefits, but in the situation of Violet

Brown and other Metis prosecutions, it is the result of the outfitters lobby to

shut down the commercial salmon fishery and get people out of the waterways,

that is, the local people.

The Metis Association, in conjunction with other Labrador

people, will be consulting within their own communities to lay strategies about

existing outfitting operations and what they will do. The whole industry of

outfitting in the food fishery has been an ongoing one since 1993 in my

district. It is a combination of regulations that have been set out by the

Province that have people upset and discontent. For example, when you look at

the guiding regulations for rivers in Labrador, it does not fall in line with

the guiding regulations for that of the Island part of the Province. We feel

again that this is because of the outside influence of outfitters in our area,

and they want to control and protect what they claim is theirs.

Ms Violet Brown is unlike any other individual. She lives on

a river, she raised her family there; yet she sees people come in from all over

the country and fish that river and take the resource away, a resource to which

she is not entitled, a resource on which she is charged if she so much as tries

to exercise her right to feed her family.

There is no justice in situations like this. If she is a

licensed guide, she cannot even take those people onto the river and guide them

herself because the regulations of this Province do not allow it, but if that

was a river on the Island she would be allowed to do that. There is no fairness.

The only people who can guide in Labrador and across my district are outfitters,

and the bulk of them are from the Newfoundland part of the Province or outside

the Province altogether, and it is the combination of these factors that have

gotten people in Labrador to the point where they are today.

We saw three protests this morning, one in Paradise River

when the RCMP took Ms Brown out, one in Cartwright when the plane landed at the

airport, and another one in Goose Bay when they got there. This is not an issue

that is going to go away. This is an issue that has to be addressed by this

Province, and the regulations have to be put in place to treat all people

fairly, whether you live in Labrador or you live on the Island, and that is what

the people in my district are asking and what the Labrador Metis Association is

asking, and in the coming days you will see more protests regarding this issue

until something can be rectified for the benefit and equality of all people

involved.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

today to make a few comments, I guess, on the Budget Debate.

First of all, I congratulate the member for getting up and

expressing her views on a very important topic in her area. I think that we are

going to see a lot of further developments with that particular issue in the

very near future, and this gives the member a chance to get up and speak on

behalf of the people in her district. I am sure that she is hearing a lot from

them on that particular issue, and also on the issue of the Budget itself, that

the member will hopefully get another chance to speak more on that, but I know

that in her part of this Province, in southern Labrador, which I have had

occasion to visit, and met a lot of people in that area, and made some very good

friends there, that they have some very serious concerns with this particular

Budget and how it is going to affect them. I think one of the words she used was

to `devastate' people of her area. We are talking about the real people who are

going to be really hurt by this particular Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shelley, your wife just called; she had a

baby boy.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, my colleague informs me that I

am on call right now and I could have to leave very soon, but I think that was

the boy who cried wolf a few times.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have been on call (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I have been on call for awhile now, Mr.

Speaker, but I could very well be called today to attend to much more important

business, and there is not a lot more important than the House of Assembly, but

when it comes to family...

Mr. Speaker, as far as the Budget goes, I think that the

member is right when she says especially rural Newfoundland - all of the

Province indeed, but there are special implications for rural Newfoundland which

this Budget, on the front, you don't see, and if there was ever a well crafted

Budget, and if there ever was a set-up for a Budget, it was never done better

than this one. For weeks on end leading up to the Budget, what did we hear? We

heard of how terrible this Budget could be. The whole thing was set from the

beginning. Let's put out those feelers now and tell people how bad the Budget is

going to be. Let's set them up for the worst of all. Then, on top of that, they

took the Budget - once they had everybody scared to death about what was going

to come down in the Budget - and did a little bit, I was going to say, Mr.

Speaker, but actually they did a lot of window dressing, a lot of smoke and

mirrors, that we are starting to see day by day in this House and in the public.

I have never seen so many demonstrations and petitions in such a short time on

so many different issues, but when the Budget first came out the media and

everybody said: Oh, thank God, it's not as bad as what we thought it would be.

But the real story behind the Budget of 1996 is about to unfold, it is yet to be

told, and so goes the same story of the election of 1996; the winter election in

Newfoundland in 1996 is about to be told.

The Budget was just a first page, Mr. Speaker, but it was all

set because everybody in the Province was saying: Oh we are going to be killed.

It is going to be the worse Budget in the history of the Province. Mr. Speaker,

but then it was window dressed and set up so perfectly that they said first of

all; health care not touched; no problem with health care, Mr. Speaker. They

said social services not touched, no problem with social services, everything is

just fine. Then, Mr. Speaker, the thing that drives us - the thing that every

politician, provincial and federal, every single politician in the land and

probably the United States also, all repeat the same thing that the key, the

answer to the recovery of any developed country is education and that is what

took the hardest hit, Mr. Speaker.

The lead-up to the Budget is what is interesting, Mr.

Speaker. I remember reading a paper just a few days ago, looking through the

archives on papers during the election, in The Evening Telegram , I think

it was February 17, three or four days before the election, headlines of the now

Premier of the Province, four days before the election: We were off on our

numbers. Mr. Baker was wrong. We were wrong on our numbers we were getting from

Ottawa. It's not going to be so bad. Remember now this is four days before the

final vote in the Election of '96. It was not going to be so bad and then all of

a sudden, Mr. Speaker, the election takes place and what happens is we finally

see the real results of the Budget of '96 starting to unfold in front of us.

Yes, we are all set to believe that the worse is going to come and you are going

to be hit hard. The whole media was running around saying this is going to be

the worse Budget in history and get ready, fasten your seatbelts; the impact is

going to be hard.

Then of course, Mr. Speaker, the next step is the Minister of

Finance stands in this House and presents the Budget. What he does first is put

a lot of good things in front, you could say, a window dressing saying that the

health care was not going to be touched, social services is not going to be

touched and there will be no new taxes. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one for you,

to let you know what kind of Budget that this was going to be. There will be no

new taxes and on the other side of the House there was tapping of desks. When it

was all said and done, Mr. Speaker, what did we have in the House of Assembly

here with this Budget that truly will come down to pass as one of the worse

budgets ever passed in this Province? We had a standing ovation by every member

on the opposite side. That was a great budget, over shaking hands and tapping

them on the back. The Member for Bell Island was over shaking his hand. The day

before he was out in the lobby because his college was closed down. He said on

television that he was not told but he was over congratulating them for a budget

that hit his district harder - one of the hardest with the closure of colleges,

Mr. Speaker. So which is it? Is it a great Budget or is it really, when you take

the window dressing away and you find out the hidden fees - no taxes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's dig into that one for a minute. No

taxes in this Budget, tapping the desks, applause, shaking hands and no taxes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we find ambulance fees, we find if somebody has a cabin, which

is a great luxury, the government seems to think so in this Province, that if

you own a cabin we are going to get you. If you have to take an ambulance - and

talking about ambulance fees, Mr. Speaker, a woman in Shoe Cove called me, 3

kilometres from La Scie where she has to go - a woman with only one income, with

her husband on TAGS, three children in the family and she was at the minimum.

They were paying $40 for that fee to La Scie, 3 kilometres away and she found

that tough enough, $75 but no increased taxes. We are going to collect $12

million in fees but we cannot tell you exactly where we are going to get that

yet, you will find out soon enough.

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen so many petitions and phone

calls - which we were discussing a few minutes ago - phone calls doubling.

People calling you to come out to public meetings and not even in my own

district, Mr. Speaker, come out for a public meeting to discuss the ambulance

changes and discuss fees for cabin owners. Everything, Mr. Speaker, all at the

same time and then of course -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: Yes sir, Mr. Speaker, and I would not doubt

soon that I will be asked to the minister's district. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, I think I live in his district. No, I live in the Minister for St.

John's West - I am corrected by the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, I don't

live in his district. I live in the Minister of Mines and Energy's district, St.

John's West. The Minister of Health is in the district of the Minister of Mines

and Energy, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and you may have to be called to that

district, Mr. Speaker, to explain really what is the true story behind the

Budget of '96, this great budget that we had a standing ovation for in the House

of Assembly, this great budget that is not going to inflict any problems in

rural Newfoundland.

This great Budget that said: We are going to consult the

people that went across the Province. Oh, and by the way, when you came back

with all the consulting they stood up and said: By the way, when we were

consulting you and said that we were going to be $130 million short, we were

just off a little bit. Our calculators weren't working that day and we are off

by $290 million.

What a ridiculous way to consult, Mr. Speaker. That is like

going into a bank and they telling you, you were $100 in the hole when you went

in there, and then when you left they find out and tell you that you are $500 in

the hole. I mean, the truth is that the consultation process was a sham from the

start. What is the use of consulting if you don't give the facts up front? Then

we continue to say partnership and consulting. Ask the teachers of this

Province, who has a former president of the NLTA turn around and say not one

member of that executive was consulted on public exams. Ask students if they

were consulted. They would be the last to be consulted, by the sound of what has

been happening so far. Ask the teachers if they were consulted. Nobody was

consulted. That is the bottom line to this.

What we see here, and the best phrase I've heard of it yet,

are fire fighting measures. This Budget was fire fighting, that is what it was,

and it was quick fixes. My biggest fear is that the whole philosophy of the

government, not just from this particular Budget, is for their whole four-year

term. What I believe, although, and I will say this up front, and I've discussed

it with the Minister of Mines and Energy in the Estimates, in the House: I'm all

for the development of Voisey's Bay. We will all be there to ask questions

because it is a mammoth undertaking. It is one of the biggest developments this

Province will ever see. But it isn't the answer to our full economic recovery.

It is not. No mega-project ever will be.

I said it to the Minister responsible for Development and

Rural Renewal this morning. Voisey's Bay, the Hibernias, they are all great, but

what we really need to get this Province back on the right road to prosperity is

that rural Newfoundland has to survive. The small business and the small

entrepreneur and the small businessman are allowed to remain in rural

Newfoundland and make a living for themselves. That is how Newfoundland is going

to survive. St. John's only survives as does rural Newfoundland. I agree with

the minister for `R2D2,' they call it, Development and Rural Renewal. She agreed

too that anything outside of St. John's is rural Newfoundland. That is what the

minister had said. She also agreed that St. John's is only as good as rural

Newfoundland is. If rural Newfoundland fails so do St. John's, Corner Brook,

Gander and the bigger centres of this Province.

What we have to really see is put back into the people of

rural Newfoundland some real confidence. Not hope of aspirations and dreams, but

real confidence. Yes, we are going to let you develop, we are going to lend a

hand. We spoke this morning again about rural development, about the young

people in this Province. There isn't one thing ahead of the young people in our

Province as an answer, a key, to this Province's recovery. The young people in

this Province have to stay here; we have to give them a reason to stay here. It

is not the attack that this Budget put on the young people of this Province.

Day after day I get them - I know every member here does, I

know the members on the other side get them - young people who come in with

great ideas on business. I spoke to the minister about this this morning. Great

ideas that would employ two and three people. Small business, small ideas. Most

of the time - I don't know if I can put a number on it - but 80 per cent of the

time these young people are turned off because of the bureaucratic red tape and

the brick walls that they run into when they start to go through government to

find out where they can go to next. That is where our biggest mistake is in this

Province. If we are ever going to survive and recover we have to let our young

people grow and prosper and be their own providers. Not to depend on UI, not

depend on Social Services.

There is nothing more cruel in this Budget than the fact that

first-year university and college closures will happen around this Province. I

heard something that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology spoke on

today when he got up to speak with the questions from my colleague about the

university tuitions. The cruel thing is that people of low- to middle-income

families in this Province are now going to have more deterrents in the way to

send their young boy or girl to do first-year university so that they can go and

be productive members of society. I think that is the cruel part of this Budget.

Any time we take something as first-year courses around this

Province, or if we see an increase in tuitions - I hope for this House and for

this Province that my colleague today, when he raised the question on tuitions

with Memorial University, I hope that he is wrong. I hope that document he had

in his hand today is wrong, for everybody's sake. Because if he is right, if

that document is right, and tuitions in this Province rise up to 40 per cent, 15

per cent for some, all you will see in this Province is education for the elite.

I know the people in my district, somebody from Fleur de Lys

or Coachman's Cove, and low- and middle-income families, if they see this and it

comes to pass, that is the end of a chance for a lot of people in rural

Newfoundland to get an education. If those people decide to either leave the

Province or, worse again, they decide to stay in the Province and not be

productive and not get educated; our Province continues to spiral downward.

Because that is exactly what happened. We have young people who have given up

hope because they want to get an education, and we should provide them with

every opportunity.

The Minister of ITT spoke this morning and he talked about -

I don't know his particular background. I think he was talking about that he

didn't come from a rich family and that he had a hard time, and that he had to

put himself through university with initiatives and so on. Of course, tuitions

were much lower at that time. I can tell the minister I'm from a very similar

background of a large family with low income, and I went to university and put

myself through with a five-year course of conjoint degrees, and I am going to

tell you that if I had to turn around today and make that same decision, I may

make that decision that I will not be educated. And that is where the shame of

this entire Budget rests, that the key to our recovery is the education of our

young people, in keeping them in this Province, and the shame is that we have

young people sitting at home today, sixteen and seventeen, coming out of high

school, and as of today saying to their parents, or their parents saying to

them: I am sorry, Johnny or Mary, but we just cannot afford to send you to

university. What happens to those young people? They turn to UI, try to get

their twelve weeks' work, and even worse again, when that runs out the problem

is they turn to social assistance. So, instead of being productive members of

society, and being the answer to our problems, and helping us provide, and

probably turning out members in this House of Assembly, instead of all of that,

they are going to drain the system with social assistance and unemployment

insurance, and that is the real death knoll of this Budget. That is why I spoke

in this House two years ago when this provincial government, the last

administration under the Wells government, cancelled the grants, which were a

little incentive - not a lot, but it was a little incentive - for young people

of low income families in this Province to say: I am going to go and give

university a try - they were going to give it a shot - and you know what happens

to some people? They say: Well, the grant is there, there are some loans there,

I can be helped out; I am going to try Memorial University.

I will tell you why I say that, because I was one of those

people. If I had to rely on my parents to put me through university, through no

fault of their own, then I would not have gone to university. I lived off those

grants, and when the minister spoke today I could remember many days - and I

told it before in this House - of living off Kraft dinner, or Minute Rice, or

whatever you could scrounge up, that is what got us through, but when we got

that grant halfway through your term, when you were about to give up, quit and

go home, and when your mother was calling you and saying: Stay in there; we will

send you another goody bag of some home-made bread, or whatever they could send

you to keep you here, you got the grant, and it was like we won the 649.

I lived in an apartment with three other young fellows in the

same situation, and that kept us alive. There were days and days when you would

come home from class, and you were not doing so well, and you had nothing at

home to eat, pretty well; you weren't starving, but you were pretty well down

there. There were many days in my education career of five years, coming from a

low income family, that I almost gave up.

Nine years ago I graduated from Memorial University, and I

think about how tough it was then, and when I see this Budget I think about

people like myself, who are out there now, seventeen or eighteen years old, and

are saying, Well, we might as well forget it, forget an education.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to so many students, and their

parents who say: I am so delighted that Johnny is going to try first-year

university in Grand Falls, because it is only next door, and hopefully, he will

get turned on to education and go on. A lot of parents in Central Newfoundland

will tell you - and that is the area I know best - and I sure people on the West

Coast, in Labrador, and so on, will tell you: I am so glad that Johnny went and

did that first-year university, because he got turned on to education and got a

degree, and he now has a job and is doing well.

If we take away that advantage, Mr. Speaker, if we take away

a possibility - I just talked to a student a few days ago who asked me what I

thought the tuition was going to be next year, and I honestly said to him, I

think there is going to be an increase, but I don't think it is going to be too

much, so don't give up on it yet. But, Mr. Speaker, today when you see a

document that was put forward, obviously by officials in the know at Memorial

University, and if those suggestions are right, and if tuitions do go up that

far at Memorial University, two years from now, you will go to Memorial

University and you will see nothing but Porsches and Cadillacs parked, because

nobody in this Province, in rural Newfoundland from low or middle incomes will

be able to put their child through that University.

It will be a university for the elite in this Province, and

there goes our only chance at being able to stay and live in rural Newfoundland,

anywhere in Newfoundland, even in St. John's. It is hard enough that people in

rural Newfoundland have to come in here and put up with the added expenses of

going to school away from their homes, people who have to drive six or seven

hours. Even people right here in St. John's with low and middle income who do

not have the added expense of staying somewhere, and of transportation, they are

even going to be turned off by that, Mr. Speaker.

This Budget that we had a standing ovation on, where does it

lead us? Where does it lead us when colleges around this Province have closed?

Where are the priorities? We see renovations to buildings, renovations to this

building over the years, millions of dollars. We see travel by politicians all

over the country. We see the wastage on chauffeurs. It was cancelled, but now, I

think, they are using government cars to drive them around. What is the

difference? It is still waste.

There is not a person in this Province - I am after hearing

it so often - who says we are not in financial difficulty. The Federal

Government tells us every day and the Provincial Government tells us every day,

what a mess we are in, this is how much we owe, we are in a big debt. We know

that. That is why they elect governments. Then the Premier turns around and has

the audacity to ask: Well, what is your answer? Mr. Speaker, if we were there we

would be answering it. It is the responsibility of government and it is

incumbent on government to give the answer. What is your plan? A government

cannot tell me there was a plan to what we have just seen in this government.

Term 29, the $8 million we were supposed to get every year

from our federal counterparts - we just mortgaged it, Mr. Speaker. We just sold

it off, that is what we did, and I am afraid that this Budget is going to

reflect exactly the plans this government has for this Province over the next

four years, which is, let us get past these two or three years, boys, let us

sell out what we have, because hopefully, Voisey's Bay and everything is going

to make us all prosperous and we will be okay.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier of this Province on

this Budget is: what if it does not happen? What if Voisey's Bay and so on does

not come on stream? What do we do then? Where are we going to go then? There is

nowhere for us to go. That $8 million a year on Term 29, two years ago the Wells

Administration on the selling of the ferries to balance the Budget, looked good.

They sold the ferries because they were one year away from an election and they

would look good going into an election. Now, this government has done a similar

thing with Term 29 and so on.

I think the best description and analogy was used when we

said it was like pumping air into a flat tire that has no plug in it, it is just

going to keep going down. You haven't solved the problem. You just have enough

air in your tire to get up the road, but it is a long road, it is a long four

years, and if this is indicative of Budgets that are going to be brought down,

if this is indicative of what the four-year plan of this government is, we are

in big trouble.

When I spoke to the minister today on rural development, I

congratulated her on her portfolio and said that we have really got to put our

minds and thoughts together on rural Newfoundland and its survival. That is what

we have to put our hearts and minds on. And health care - to say that there were

no cuts to health care. Mr. Speaker, the biggest, single issue on which I ran

for politics the first time some three years ago now, was on health care. To

believe that I live in a district of some 10,000 people with a hospital where

you can't deliver a baby. We have to drive for two hours in order to have a baby

delivered - in 1996 we are sending people to the moon, but we have to drive for

two hours. I am in here now, Mr. Speaker, on that very same thing, that you have

to leave and drive for two hours - imagine, in Central Newfoundland. We are not

in the sticks anywhere, we are in Central Newfoundland, the heart of the

Province, and we have to drive for two hours, and people in La Scie have to

drive for three hours to have a child born, and you are telling us there is no

problem with health care and that the Budget is fine.

I mean, when are we going to hit reality and say that it is

not fine? The health care system in this Province is in a crisis situation and

is only going downwards. Where are the plans for the Janeway? Where are the

plans for the Grace and St. Clare's? I mean, how can you make practical sense in

saying: Yes, we are going to close down three hospitals but the health care is

not going to decline? Now, who, in his right mind, is going to believe that, Mr.

Speaker? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you close

three hospitals and you build one wing onto some other hospital, you are going

to have the same level of health care.

On the West Coast of the Province, a lot of the patients in

the Baie Verte area are sent to Corner Brook. So, you would think, or we were

told, by the way, that in Corner Brook, yes, the Western Memorial will take care

of all the influx now from the Baie Verte area, which has 10,000 people. But

what happens, Mr. Speaker, that the hospital, Western Memorial in Corner Brook

does not see any increases either. That is like this foolishness about there is

no decrease in social services, but guess what? There will be an increase in

clients. So, if you have the same amount budgeted for social services, how does

that meet the need, Mr. Speaker? I mean, simple, logical realities have not hit

home with this Budget, the Budget that everybody said was going to be terrible,

then they put the chocolate coating on the front and now, Mr. Speaker, every

single day, you have a new group saying: I didn't know this was in the Budget; I

didn't know I was going to pay for my cabin; I didn't know that I had to pay

that extra for ambulance fees; I didn't know that the community councils were

going to have another decrease in MOGs. We didn't know the school busing was

going to be cut, and so on, and then we say: consult. And the former President

of the NLTA has the gall, Mr. Speaker, to stand up, as a former NLTA president,

a former teacher, and say that he consulted with the people and he cut public

exams.

Ask the parents of this Province, were they consulted. Oh, by

the way, in the Budget, or take it back further, three months ago - by the way,

if we take over the government, we are going to cancel public exams. By the way,

in your `Better Tomorrow', there should have been a small print on the `Better

Tomorrow' on the front of the Red Book. Maybe the Red Book, Mr. Speaker, should

have had: A Better Tomorrow, but there are a lot of surprises. Because this was

the most dressed-up Budget in this Province's history. And it will all come out

in the wash. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was a very short honeymoon. As a matter of

fact, I had a call from a reporter, from a paper in Ottawa, Hill Times ,

who knows our illustrious Premier very well, Mr. Speaker, to say: We hear the

honeymoon is already over in Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be

asking for an annulment - the honeymoon is definitely over. What happened here,

Mr. Speaker, within three, short months?

I had a good Liberal supporter call me from my district -

there is not a lot there but there are a few, but it is a good Liberal supporter

who called me and said: Paul, I was wrong, and I asked: What do you mean? He

said: I said it was going to be six months before they really figured out what

was going on but it is only three. Three months, Mr. Speaker, saying: hold on,

is this the Better Tomorrow, is this what we were talking about?

Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa they say that he is slick - Teflon and

so on, it slides off; but sooner or later you scratch the Teflon and after a

while everything sticks to it. But the truth is that this Budget that came down

and looked so good - it had representatives on this side, although they say they

weren't consulted. I stood with the Member for Windsor - Springdale at a protest

in his district, with angry people standing in front of him. Imagine, I knew

about the college closure in Springdale before the member did. Well, Mr.

Speaker, how do you figure that?

Now, if you are not consulting with your own people sitting

around you, who were elected, where was the consultation process? There was no

consultation process. And what will happen in the best - I guess the best phrase

I have heard so far in talking about the Budget is `fire-fighting measures'. The

former President of NLTA, the Minister of Education would stand and say that he

consulted when not one person on that executive, Mr. Speaker, and I spoke with

them in their press conference over there, none of them knew about the public

exams changing. The government said, `Go ahead boy, as long you save $650,000

don't worry about the implications of it. Don't worry that it is going to ruin

the standards in this Province.' I don't know but they lined up the Minister of

Education and said, `Listen, can you take all of that?' That is what the Premier

said to the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: TNT, they forgot to tell them what they

are going to blow up.

MR. SHELLEY: TNT, Mr. Speaker, Tobin and Tulk. Now, you

know what happens to dynamite, don't you?

AN HON. MEMBER: It blows.

MR. SHELLEY: That's right, and you are about to blow. The

government is about to blow, because the real story behind, not just the Budget

of '96 - just three short months ago, the real story behind this surprise

Election of 1996 - right from day one, Mr. Speaker, I will always remember this

election and waiting for the election to be called, I will always remember Mr.

Tobin saying, `I am going to the mountain to have a talk. I have not made up my

mind. I have no plans to be the Premier of Newfoundland. I have no plans to be

the Premier of Newfoundland. I am going skiing. I am going to talk to the

mountain.' He came down from the mountain, having had a good ski. He must have

talked to a couple of people because eight days later - an eighty-three page Red

Book. Now, can he print fast or how fast can that man write? You think about it,

Mr. Speaker. So right from day one it was a falsehood. Right from day one i