November

18, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 35

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to provide hon. members with the midyear

update on our financial position for the 1996-97 fiscal year.

In the 1996 Budget speech of May 16 we stated, "Midyear

budget corrections in recent years have created uncertainty in both the public

and private sectors and diverted efforts from the real job of planning and

providing services". In preparing the budget, one of our objectives was to

minimize the opportunity for a disruptive midyear correction to arise this year.

Part of our budget plan was the inclusion of a $30 million contingency reserve

in the budget to assist in ensuring our budget targets would be met.

I am pleased to report to hon. members today that no midyear

correction will be required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: There have been variances in some revenue and

expenditure items, as there is with any budget, but overall we are meeting the

financial targets we set for this year. In fact, both revenues and expenditures

show favourable developments that could lead to a net improvement in our

financial position from the budget forecast. The most significant expenditure

variance is projected savings in debt servicing costs. On the revenue side,

federal transfer payments could end the year above forecast because of

re-estimates of entitlements from prior years. I would note, however, that even

if there are no interest savings and no gains in transfer payments, we still

would be on target with our budget forecast. We have controlled expenditures. We

have accurately projected revenues. We have been realistic. We have been

fiscally prudent. We have been competent managers of the Province's finances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Because we are on target, and there are no

major items which would cause us to materially restate our financial position at

this time, we are not issuing a revised budget or a new forecast of our

budgetary position at midyear. Sound planning and good management have left our

original budget in tact. If the current trend continues, and some factors, such

as lower interest rates, reap financial benefits for us, we could realize some

improvement over budget in our fiscal performance at year end.

The provincial economy also is performing somewhat better

than forecast at budget. This results primarily from the slowdown in Hibernia

construction taking place later in the year than initially expected and some

positive developments in the fishery. This year we had a capelin fishery that

was not anticipated at budget and the shellfishery has been more successful.

There will still be a decline in GDP, but in magnitude it will not be as great

as initially anticipated.

Mr. Speaker, while our financial performance is showing some

improvement over budget at midyear, this will not permit us to be any less

vigilant in our fiscal management. There are still risks to the budget in the

second half of this year that could reverse some of the improvements that are

developing at midyear. This is particularly true of federal transfers which are

subject to further federal re-estimates before year end. A budget is simply a

financial forecast utilizing the best information available at any given point

in time. It is subject always to unforeseen and unforeseeable events.

While we remain confident that we will achieve our fiscal

targets this year, the Province still faces significant fiscal challenges over

the next several years. Our performance to date indicates that our budget

planning has been prudent and responsible and it is imperative that we maintain

a sound fiscal position to ensure that we can continue to provide essential and

sustainable public services.

I would remind honourable members that the budget plan for

this fiscal year is not simply government's plan. It was put in place only after

extensive pre-budget consultation with the people of the Province. The first

such consultations in our -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. DICKS: The result is a strategy that was built on a

consensus and common sense. Its elements are simple, protecting essential public

services by more efficient delivery, while maintaining a sound financial

position. It is our objective to operate more efficiently and at a lower cost

through better management. It is clear that this is what the people of the

Province want. It is equally clear that they do not want increased taxes on

average families and irresponsible increases in the public debt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we must spend

less in the coming fiscal years. This is inevitable, given the declining federal

transfers and present economic conditions. Spending less means that we must

spend smarter. In the budget we announced a process that was established to

review all expenditures and programs of government. This program review process

is now well underway. A select committee of ministers is reviewing detailed

submissions made by all government departments and agencies. It will make

recommendations to rationalize our spending and to restructure government. The

results of program review will be put before the people for their views and

suggestions as part of the 1997-98 pre-budget consultations, before any of the

recommendations are implemented.

With the results of the pre-budget consultation process and

program review, it is our objective to introduce a three year fiscal plan in the

1997-98 budget. This will permit more effective budget planning throughout

government. With the longer planning horizon, departments, agencies and all

those funded by government will be better able to focus on their most important

task, delivering essential and necessary public services. The three year plan is

another example of how this government is addressing the considerable challenge

of ongoing fiscal restraint in a managed, consistent and responsible manner. All

those who rely on government funding need and deserve a stable, predictable and

clear financial basis on which to conduct their service planning. This cannot be

done in a fiscal environment that lurches from year to year, interspersed with

financial shocks brought on by mid-year corrections.

A key component of our financial plan is to set reasonable

fiscal targets and either meet or exceed them. The people of the Province can be

assured that this government remains committed to responsible fiscal management.

If we are to sustain and over time enhance successful and essential public

services, there is no other effective course of action. Our performance this

year demonstrates this government's commitment to prudent budget planning,

responsible fiscal management and the maintenance of a sound financial position.

I must caution and emphasize, however, that this performance

does not signal a reversal of our financial fortunes. The challenge lies ahead,

not behind us. We are facing a period of significant adjustment to the size and

structure of government. Our commitment to the people of the Province is that we

will meet this challenge in a planned, responsible and consistent manner, one

that will yield the same possible results in the future that we report to you

today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did not clarify this here - he certainly may do

that later - whether his projections are as they are, because he has dipped into

the $30 million contingency reserve or whether we are still not going to have to

borrow that amount of money; he has not made that point clear. In fact, the

Premier of this Province stated - and I asked that question last spring in the

House and the Premier said: I can assure you, I would be glad to make him and

not only him, the people of the Province aware if that necessity arises.

He goes on to say that he is prepared to undertake here and

now, in the name of Budget transparency, that the Minister of Finance, I say to

the Leader of the Opposition, will stand in the House and indicate when those

borrowings become necessary and indicate the detail in which they are necessary.

He has not indicated if the $30 million have been dipped into one of these

budgets, whether he is assuming the expenditure is on line without this $30

million. If the minister is stating that, and we do reach it without touching

the $30 million, then I compliment the minister if that is the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: But I can assure the minister - The

minister avoided addressing the contingency reserve because the Premier said he

would come back to this House if we needed to dip into that, and he would have -

PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the

Opposition is an hon. man, and I know he would not want to mislead the House;

and because I accept he is an hon. man I want to make clear to the Leader of the

Opposition, if he had waited a few more minutes for Question Period, so far we

haven't borrowed a nickel of the $30 million contingency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are several

months left in the fiscal year, I say to the Premier, and the Premier has many,

many roads to travel.

I am glad, I will say to the Minister of Finance, he took my

advice last spring in the Budget. I said what we want to see in this Province is

a long-term fiscal plan for this Province. I am glad to see he has at least

indicated we are going to see it. I am not sure if it is going to be delivered.

In fact, I would say to the minister, many of the areas in which your

projections might seem to be what you are seeing is because you made other cuts

beyond those budgeted.

In the Budget you indicated there would be no cuts and

increases in Social Services. We have had a 10 per cent cut this summer. We have

had cutbacks in health care that were not indicated in this Budget. Have you

reached your expectations because of cuts that were not set forth in the Budget,

and other cuts that have been initiated since the Budget was presented last

spring?

The minister said: We must operate in a fiscal environment

that doesn't lurch from year to year; in other words, interspersed with

financial shocks. Is the minister stating that is what we have been getting for

the last number of years? The minister should be standing in his place and not

stating he is proud we don't have a midyear correction. In fact, he is admitting

that because we don't have a midyear budget there is something wrong. We should

never have a midyear budget. Our budget should be realistic. We have missed it

six of the last seven years, I say to the minister. I hope it is on target this

year, and I hope it is not because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I hope the reason it could be on target is

not because you went deeper than the Budget allowed, and made those cuts upon

the backs of the people here in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have

leave to respond to the ministerial statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Leader of the Opposition

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has asked the hon. members. The decision is that

there is no leave for the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: In 1990, the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador established a Royal Commission to examine all aspects of education in

the Province. Government released the Royal Commission Report entitled "Our

Children Our Future" in 1992 and, subsequently, established an

Implementation Secretariat to guide the implementation of the recommendations in

that report.

At that time the Royal Commission indicated that it could not

complete a review of special education within the context of the overall review

and recommended that a separate, comprehensive review of special education be

conducted. Consequently, in March of 1995, Dr. Patricia Canning of Memorial

University was contracted, through the Royal Commission Implementation

Secretariat, to complete the review of special education. A draft of the report

entitled "Special Matters: The Report of the Review of Special Education"

was presented to me on July 23, 1996. As a follow-up to this meeting, Dr.

Canning was requested to prepare a

summary report and invited to make a

presentation to the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet. The report was presented

to the Social Policy Committee on October 30, 1996. Following that meeting, I

requested the printing of l,000 copies for public distribution and these copies

are available today.

The report provides a broad review of all aspects of special

education and support services for children and youth. It contains 226

recommendations which highlight the need to reformulate strategies from both the

prevention and intervention perspectives. In general, early intervention

services for at-risk populations and specialized interventions for students with

special educational needs are contained and commented on within this report.

Mr. Speaker, the report is being released today and will be

distributed as broadly as possible, including to all the major stakeholders in

education. Within this context, government will establish a three-stage response

to the report that will include the following components:

First of all a detailed internal analysis of all 226

recommendations;

An invitation to the public, including the major

stakeholders, to provide responses to the issues and recommendations contained

in the report;

And thirdly, an integration of the internal analysis and

public response to provide a decision-making framework for government with

respect to the full content of the report.

A careful analysis is required in order to develop a

well-reasoned response over time. In addition, government will need to consider

aspects of this report along with the report of the Select Committee on

Children's Interests and the report of the Social Policy Advisory Committee. An

implementation plan will be prepared to address the issues and recommendations

contained in the report, in concert with the other two reports.

The copies are available to members of the Legislature today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly

about time that there has been some response to this report, because it seems to

me the only person in this Province who has not responded to this report,

entitled "Special Matters: The Report of the Review of Special Education" ,

has indeed been the Minister of Education himself.

The issue of time is what concerns me with respect to this

particular issue. We have in 1990 the establishment of a royal commission,

almost seven years ago; 1992, the releasing of the royal commission report;

1995, the contracting out in preparation of this report; the presentation of

this report in July 1996 to the hon. minister; and here today, November 18 1996,

the release of this report. The issue of time is what is of great concern to me.

What we require right now is crisis intervention. Upon

careful review of this report it is clear that the young people of this Province

and their families require assistance, require immediate attention, with respect

to the issue of their needs, and with respect to the issue of special education

in our schools. We need immediate response, we need attention immediately, and

the issue of time is clearly what the hon. minister is requesting. Time has run

out, and when we see -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - language such as the establishment of

"a three-stage response," a "detailed internal analysis...," an "integration

of... internal analysis...," a "careful analysis is required in order to develop

a well-reasoned response over time." Time is of the essence. The children of

this Province demand attention immediately. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

are to the Premier. Will the Premier commit to spending a couple of months in

this Province to deal with health, education, unemployment, child poverty and

child protection, out-migration, regressive taxation and a lack of consumer

confidence, all created by the incompetency of your Cabinet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I commit to spending many

years in this Province dealing with all of those issues with a very confident

Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Has the Premier reached a negotiated deal

with Inco yet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are working away and this

development and many other developments, both in the resource sector and the

manufacturing sector, in the IT sector and as we reach agreements in each of

these sectors we will certainly be making the Leader of the Opposition and the

people of the Province aware of the progress that is ensuing.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier, in delaying action on the mineral and mining tax

act, may be subjecting this Province to another horrendous deal equalled only by

Churchill Falls. Now why is the Premier refusing to act on mineral royalties for

Voisey's Bay and risking legal consequences for the people of this Province once

again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, these questions are beginning

to sound like they came from VOCM. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition

that notwithstanding the high level of research that is now being done for the

Leader of the Opposition in preparing these probing and penetrating questions,

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, this Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, will ensure that the people of the Province get a

full and fair share from the benefits and resources from the Voisey's Bay

development.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants the government

to ensure that there are substantial benefits for the people of Labrador in the

first instance, both in direct jobs from this development and in other

infrastructure development which must occur in Labrador to assist Labradorians

but also benefits for the whole of the Province. The Leader of the Opposition

knows that this mine and for that matter the mine, mill and the smelter and the

refinery are not going to come on stream for a number of additional years and it

is important that we get it right. We will take a number of months to make sure

we get it right and I think the Leader of the Opposition will even, himself, be

able to stand in this House at one point and say that it is a deal, a good deal

and one that benefits the whole of the Province, both in Labrador and on the

island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have not seen anything yet I say to the Premier. Is the

Premier waiting for Inco to tell him what he is allowed to get for the people of

this Province? I ask the Premier, who is in control?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask who is writing these

questions?

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, in all

honesty, the Leader of the Opposition knows that any time you are developing

resource industries, be it the offshore or be it mineral deposits on land, that

these are long and these are complex negotiations and discussions if you are

trying to make sure that we maximize, to the greatest extent possible, job

opportunities for the people of the Province, job opportunities for small

business and construction companies and those that provide services in the

Province and finally revenue over the long term for the provincial government.

The Leader of the Opposition knows that this is not the kind of issue that is

going to be resolved by simply standing up and asking rhetorical questions, `Who

is in control? Who is going to dictate to who and so on?' The reality is, it is

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Newfoundland and

development. That is as it should be and we will take the time necessary to get

it done right and if there is some useful and constructive suggestion that the

Leader of the Opposition or members of his party want to make, we will certainly

take those aboard when they are made in a useful and constructive fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was legislation in this House a year ago and you

Premier, when you became Premier you scuttled that legislation that would give

revenues back to this Province.

Now the co-discoverer of this massive resource, Al Chislett,

has warned government that a long-term deal with Inco is essential to protect

the people of this Province from a short and a sweet deal from Inco, neglecting

the long-term commitment that is needed by the people of this Province.

Now, will the Premier guarantee that at least a twenty-year

deal for Newfoundland and Labrador will occur?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Leader

of the Opposition wants to settle for a mere twenty years. We want something

that will last a couple of generations given the nature of this deposit, and I

am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition is willing to sign off on the

development with the expectation that it might last a mere nineteen years.

The fact of the matter is, a year ago we were talking about a

deposit that had an estimated reserve of some thirty-five million tons and, Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should be paying attention because we are

now talking about a reserve that has an estimated total reserve value there of

150 million tons. A year ago we were talking about an annual production of 130

million pounds; this year we are looking at 270 million pounds. The Leader of

the Opposition should know that the size and scope of this project grows as more

and more reserve is found, and so we are not prepared to say that we will settle

for a mere five or ten or twenty years.

We want something like Sudbury, where they began a

development over 100 years ago. They had one find initially; they now have

sixteen mines, two refineries, tens of thousands of people directly and

indirectly employed. That is the kind of thinking we are doing and, yes, we

would like to see nickel manufactured right here in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition should catch up with the government

in its optimism and its confidence of turning this into a major development for

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I need a fast jet, I say to the Premier, a very fast jet.

The Premier does not hear very well either; I said at least a

twenty-year. At least it is twenty more than you have now, Premier.

Will you stand in your place now and commit that you will

sign with Inco a deal that is at least twenty years for this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is displaying an abysmal lack of understanding, a totally abysmal lack of

understanding of the process that is now under way, when he gets up and asks

those kinds of questions.

We want to create an environment where, until the end of the

useful life of that mine - and we believe that could be quite substantial, in

fact may well be far beyond twenty years - there is a development that creates

jobs in the Province, that gives an opportunity for the provision of goods and

services by small business people in the Province, and that gives us a long-term

cash flow as a provincial government so we can meet our financial obligations,

our more fundamental obligations in the area of social policy. For example, for

education, for health care, for those who require a measure of assistance

because they are unemployed, or those who are on welfare, trying to retrain and

come back into the work force, these are the kinds of things that we are

concerned about; and for the Leader of the Opposition to stand and try and see

the negative in every positive development in the Province, really, is not

worthy of the role, the important role, that the Leader of the Opposition must

play in this Chamber.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is not prepared to give that commitment. He is

not prepared to give that commitment. All he is prepared to give is rhetoric,

not commitment.

Now, why have all the other stakeholders in Voisey's Bay made

millions while people of this Province are left with nothing but promises of

hope? Now, why do you continue to hide your negotiations from the people of this

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is really talking, with great respect, without any kind of substance whatsoever

here today. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the government

should nationalize Voisey's Bay? I think he owes the people of the Province an

answer. Is he saying that we should have de-listed it by taking an effort to

nationalize it, that we should pull a Castro or something? Does he think this is

Cuba? Is he seeing palm trees on the front lawn? What is the Leader of the

Opposition saying?

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I just asked the Premier one simple

question: Will you give a commitment that a deal for this Province will be a

long-term deal, at least twenty years in duration? Will you give that

commitment, Premier, if you have so much optimism and confidence on the future

of Voisey's Bay, or will you be dictated to by Inco?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, why does the Leader of the

Opposition insist on standing up without making any kind of case, without laying

before the people of the Province any kind of premise, without giving us any

foundation for the kind of concerns that he is raising? Why does he insist on

trying to portray INCO as some kind of monolith dictating to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? Why doesn't he have the kind of confidence in

Newfoundland and Labrador that we members on this side have? We happen to

believe that it is possible for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take control

of their own fate. We think it is possible for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

to fasten their own sail. We think it is possible for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to chart their own course; and we know it is possible for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to change our circumstance and deliver a better

day for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has just released a

special education report that has found some 38,000 children in our Province

living below the poverty line, and that while the relationship between poverty,

illiteracy and achievement has been recognized in a number of previous reports,

including the 1992 Royal Commission on Education, there has been no overall plan

to address these problems in a comprehensive manner. That comes directly from

page 39 of the report released today.

Is the minister now telling us that we will have to go

through yet another three stages before we see any actions on these

recommendations and, if so, how long will these stages take?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to any report that is commissioned and done on

behalf of the government, I think the honourable members opposite would

understand that while there are some 226 recommendations in this report today

specifically relating to special matters, special education needs in the schools

on behalf of the children and students of our Province, that there are some

issues in there, after he takes time to read the full report, that are not cut

and dried and do not have unanimous support.

While a particular group looked at the issues and made

recommendations, there are constituencies who lobby on behalf of poor children,

on behalf of children with learning disabilities, on behalf of children with all

kinds of special needs, who will in fact, after they see this report and study

it, take some exception and will debate some of the recommendations made in this

report which came from a particular group that studied it from a point of view

and have made exactly that, just recommendations.

The recommendations, Mr. Speaker, if they are in fact to be

actioned, have to be studied carefully by the government itself as to what it

means in terms of implementing any or all of them in the school system, what

impact that would have, what policy changes might be required with respect to

current practise, and any alterations that might be needed to go along with the

type of information and the suggestion that is put forward in this report. I

think it would be only prudent to wait to hear from parents and advocates of

those most directly affected and impacted by these recommendations as to whether

or not they think this is the right approach to take in 226 separate incidents.

So there will be some time, Mr. Speaker, as there is with any

report - you do not accept reports and carte blanche say that ends the debate,

no one else has a point of view, and we now go ahead and implement. There are

other groups and people, including the students directly impacted, who, once

they see this report, might have some differing points of view with respect to

some of these issues, and we will try to implement those that can be implemented

at the earliest opportunity.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The ministerial statement earlier today indicates that the

hon. minister has had a copy of the draft of this report since July of this

year, some two months ago. Mr. Speaker, the report indicates that there is a

high number of students in need of remedial or reading assistance, and that this

is the most significant problem of general education in our Province, page 285,

Mr. Speaker.

The report faults the department in this Province with the

lowest reading achievement rate in Canada, for not even having a reading

specialist on staff, and for neither recognizing or addressing the remedial

needs of children.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The honourable member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get

to his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, these matters need

immediate attention and I ask the honourable minister, what will the minister do

in the short term?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to one

of the key issues in the report - and I will address the reading matter shortly

- the whole notion of poverty, the links between poverty, lack of food, poor

children going to school without proper nutrition and so on, while there is a

recommendation in this particular report that deals with that, since we did have

this report in July - as I indicated in the statement as well, we invited the

author of the report, on behalf of those who crafted the report and presented

it, to come to a meeting of the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet. We have been

working with the Minister of Social Services and the Minister of Health with

respect to trying to look at a shorter term, a more immediate response that

government might be able to implement even in this fiscal year if it is at all

possible, and we will be trying to deal with that issue on a more timely basis,

but there are many issues in the education system, particularly with respect to

issues like reading.

Once we have deployed the professionals within the system for

a start of the school year, and once they are actually assigned to certain tasks

by their school boards, and by the school administrations, it is very difficult

sometimes to make adjustments in their assignments and their allocations during

a school year that is already in progress. There may be opportunities at a break

in the session, such as at Christmas or Easter where you might make some

reallocations or reassignments, but everybody has to understand that once you

have a system in place for a school year, in most instances it is difficult, if

not impossible, to make major changes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - until you get to an appropriate juncture in

that year or in the next school year.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report makes it clear that there are probably more than

7000 learning disabled students in this Province, more than 7000, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the number of recommendations, and there are many, in view of the

recommendations as found in this report, what immediate direction will the hon.

minister give to the present school boards and the newly constructed school

boards in order to place the needs of special education students as a priority

in this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are some issues raised in the report Special Matters

with respect to the allocations of units that are currently provided from the

Department of Education to school boards to deal with special education and

learning disability matters in the schools. One of the points raised in the

report is that some allocations that are provided to school boards for those

purposes are being utilized for other purposes. We have encouraged the school

boards all along to maximize the use of teachers that are provided, and other

professionals within the system, for special education, special learning needs,

to use them for those purposes instead of for other purposes. However, decisions

with respect to the final deployment of those educational professionals lie with

the boards, and they sit and have their meetings as to where the priorities are

in their school boards with respect to their listing of them, not the government

making a decision in every school in the Province, but the local school boards

trying to make sure they have considered all the needs and have deployed the

professional educators to meet the needs on a priority basis as they have deemed

them for that school year.

We have indicated to the ten new school boards, Mr. Speaker,

that when they have their five program implementation specialists in place for

next year that we expect that one of those five will be dedicated to the area of

special education and special needs, and would co-ordinate all the efforts of

the school boards through the head office function, and that would give it the

priority it needs from that point of view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today, of course, are for the Minister of

Health, especially with no new cuts to health care. I would like to ask the

Minister of Health if he can remember back to this House on May 24, and if he

does not he can certainly review Hansard, when the Minister of Health told this

House that $100 million, plus or minus, should take care of the capital

adjustment that was going to be made both at St. Clare's and the Health Sciences

Centre to accommodate the Janeway? At that time the minister told us, again

recorded in Hansard, that the saving would be some $25 to $30 million on

operational savings a year.

Inside the space of five years that would be more than

sufficient to take care of the capital expenditure that would have to be made,

but Sister Elizabeth Davis, in her November 12 update - and if the minister does

not have a copy I will see that he gets one - said that only $10 million a year

would be used to pay off any loan for construction. The minister heard that the

same as I heard that. Isn't Sister Elizabeth Davis saving that we will end up

spending not $100 million but closer to $200 million, counting the interest, of

course, to replace this hospital, and that it will be done not over five or six

years but closer to probably twenty years? I ask today, who is telling the truth

here, Sister Davis or the minister?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the latter part of his question let me answer it first; we

are both telling the truth. What else would you expect? We would not tell you

anything else but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Nothing has changed, Mr. Speaker, in terms

of the proposition that the member puts forward. The projected cost of the new

construction will be about $100 million, give or take. The annualized savings,

once the restructuring is done, will be about $25 million. We can choose, as he

says, as a government, to take the $25 million and in five years or four years

pay off $100 million. We can choose to pay it off at a rate that will be less

than that, let's say $10 million a year as he propositions. That means that we

will have $15 million left to spend, possibly on other things in health care. We

will decide at what point we have that money available to us, how we will

amortize the new construction, and how we will spend most effectively the

savings that we will achieve as a result of this very prudent restructuring

proposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, might I say that somewhere

between $20 million a year and $30 million a year there is a fair difference. So

the question again, of course, is not answered, but that is typical of the

Minister of Health.

Sister Davis' update goes on to say: As our budget becomes

more constrained the challenge will be to ensure that the savings are realized

to protect the amount needed for repaying the loan. Isn't she acknowledging now

that most of the money to relocate these facilities will come from realizing

savings or, in other words, health spending restraint? Isn't she warning that

the government stands poised to gut what is left of the health care system?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I appreciate the

opportunity to answer but, I can tell you, the simplistic questions that are

coming forward, anybody over here could answer with great ease and intelligence.

The fact of the matter is -

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible) between $20 million and $30

million, you don't know the difference!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I agree, Mr. Speaker, with the proposition

that he puts forward, that there is a big difference between $20 million and $30

million. It is $10 million, if you haven't calculated it out.

The fact of the matter is that the Health Care Corporation

has been mandated by this government to carry out a restructuring within the St.

John's health care system. There will be savings of $100 million. The basis on

which we repay the amortization will follow after we know exactly what the cost

is and when we decide how much of that savings we want to spend in other areas

of the Province, as well as in the St. John's system, in terms of the health

care budget that we have.

Nothing that we have said in the past has changed. The

question is really not a question. It is a contemplation in the mind of the

critic of health who really has not taken the time to sit down and analyze the

information that he already has and put together some serious questions. I say,

poor job for five months of work writing questions.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Oh my, Mr. Speaker. Too much time in the sun.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he get all the news (inaudible)?

MR. FRENCH: No, he didn't get all the news. He didn't get

the same news. Although he attended the same meeting I attended, he wasn't

listening.

Sister Davis warned the government Social Policy Advisory

Committee on October 25, Minister, that further cuts to health care will yield

diminishing returns - yield diminishing returns - that laying off low-income

health care workers who have to go on social assistance doesn't help the

Province one iota, and in fact can end up costing more. The Premier may have

told the public servants not to worry about their jobs, but that was just days

before another 143 health care workers were laid off.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I ask the same question that Sister Davis asked on October

26. Has our government fully understood the cost to the public coffers of doing

this? In other words, does this government really know what it is doing in

slashing away at our health care system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The simple answer to the question is yes,

this government does know what it is doing in terms of structuring the health

care budget. We, as we have already indicated to the Province, as a government,

have made a three-year commitment to health care in the Province. We have made a

commitment to an increased budget, but in the same context we have made a

commitment to spending the considerable budget that we have committed to health

care in as prudent and in as wise and in as efficient a manner as possible. We

will continue to do that and I think the hon. member on the other side, if he

were to admit to the truth that he knows in his heart, would admit that that is

exactly what is happening in the health care system.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are

for the Minister of Social Services.

In view of the failure of the legal system and the Department

of Social Services to protect the best interest of Jamie Batten, will the

minister now admit the bureaucracy charged under law with the responsibility of

safeguarding interests of children and the legal system under which the child

welfare system operates have failed absolutely in their mandates to the youngest

and most vulnerable of our citizens, our young children? I ask the minister what

measures she is taking to restore confidence in the child welfare system,

particularly as it relates to child protection services?

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

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

I would like to start off answering the question by saying

that I have every confidence in our front-line staff, every confidence in our

child welfare workers and the system that they are working with. I also have to

say that, as you know, as I have stated here in the House of Assembly, we are

looking at a complete review of our child welfare legislation. We are also

looking at our social policy advisory committee and the information that will be

coming forward within that. We are very open to hearing what the public has to

say. We have responded to the public's issues here and the children who are in

our care are safe and in particular, the child that you refer to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

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

The legal system of our Province is not deemed to be child

focused or child sensitive. I quote Dr. Kathleen Kufelt: The welfare of the

child is lost in the battle between parents over custody. The minister has a

responsibility to act now. I say to the minister, what we have seen is a lot of

study, a lot of political procrastination. Will the minister not move today to

appoint a child advocate for children and youth in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As the minister responsible for the implementation of the

Select Committee on Children's Interests, we are well aware of the

recommendations. We will be studying the advocate issue as well as a number of

other issues as it relates to child care in this Province. We are still in the

process of listening to the people's comments through our Social Policy Advisory

Committee and we will take the appropriate action at the appropriate time.

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

House Leader.

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

We have had more studies than I could name in the time that

is left in Question Period. A Royal Commission on education, a report the

Minister of Education tabled today, Child Welfare League of America Report, the

multiplicity of reports emanating from the Mount Cashel scandal, the report on

Children's Interest and it goes on and on and on. As Tom Moores says in his

book: the children are crying, Mr. Minister, they are crying for action. They

are crying for resolution. We know what needs to be done. We know why it needs

to be done. We know where it needs to be done. It is your job to answer the

questions of how it needs to be done and when. I will ask the question again,

when are you going to do something and not rely on more studies, more paperwork

and move from talk to action?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I did not, at any point, say we would not act on any of the

recommendations that are in these reports. I said we will do it in a timely way.

We are still in the process of listening to people and I want to reiterate that

the children in care are safe and I think you need to look at every case

individually. We will take the appropriate action at the appropriate time.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation. On the eve of the Cabot 500th celebrations the Province is

privatizing the printing and distribution of the official provincial road map.

My question is: is this a good time to privatize the road map before the most

important tourism event in our provincial history? Is there sufficient time for

a private company to undertake this project before the next tourism season and

is the Province ready for any possible mistakes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, this certainly is one of the

initiatives that we have been working on for several years and have had a lot of

advice from private industry and they have been advising us to proceed with

this. This is something that would be a very minor privatization and one that we

are very happy to make in particular because of the Cabot celebrations that are

upcoming.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

Before we continue with the routine business of the day, I

want to draw members' attention again to some of our Standing Orders dealing

with the oral question period. Standing Order No. 31 of course deals with the

manner in which Question Period should proceed. I want to draw in particular the

members' attention to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Standing Order 31.

Paragraph 3 says: "In putting any oral question, no argument

or opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated except so far as may be

necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question, the Minister

is not to debate the matter to which it refers."

Paragraph 4 says: "Oral questions must not be prefaced by the

reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or

preambles of any kind."

I ask members to bear these in mind when putting questions

and when answering questions.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow, according to the rules - but I believe that I have leave also of the

House to put the motion today, but we will have to ask that as we go along. The

motion is:

That the terms of reference of the Select Committee on

No-fault Insurance be repealed and the following substituted:

That the Select Committee be renamed the Select Committee to

Review the Property and Casualty Insurance Industry in Newfoundland and Labrador

and that this Committee inquire into and report upon the property and casualty

insurance industry in the Province in general, and specifically with respect to

consumer concerns about the cost of insurance and availability of insurance, and

address the following issues, among others:

the practicability, the utility and the desirability of

introducing a system of no-fault insurance to compensate persons who suffer

damages as a result of the operation of motor vehicles in Newfoundland and

Labrador and to address the following issues among others:

the relative merits in respect of Newfoundland and Labrador

of a pure no-fault model, a threshold no-fault model, and a choice system;

whether the present tort system can be improved; the estimated cost of each

plan, and in particular whether it will cause any rise in insurance premiums

beyond that anticipated under the present tort system; in the case of a

threshold no-fault model, the appropriate threshold; the financial implications

for Government, including the recovery of hospital and medical care costs; the

potential of a no-fault plan to reduce the burden on the courts; and generally

the effect of the adoption of a new regime on those who own and operate motor

vehicles, the insurance industry and the legal system;

the present rating territories for automobile insurance and

whether these territories are appropriate in today's marketplace;

whether regulation of automobile insurance rates by the

Public Utilities Board provides for an effective mechanism to ensure reasonable

rates and healthy competition among insurers;

whether

Section B Accident Benefits Coverage should be

mandatory, or voluntary as is now the case;

the appropriate capital requirements for insurance companies

to ensure that policy holders are protected and to provide for a strong property

and casualty insurance industry in the Province;

underwriting practices that may have questionable validity;

claims practices that may not be in the consumers' best

interests;

adjusting and appraisal practices that may have questionable

validity.

Those are the areas among others that are to be covered, Mr.

Speaker, by the new role that has been assigned to the Select Committee. It was

formerly known as the Select Committee on No-fault Insurance. Further:

That the Committee be authorised to send for persons and

papers, to sit in Session and out, and to sit from place to place throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador;

And that the Committee report to the House by 30 November,

Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition would like

to say a word, and maybe the Leader of the NDP. I'm prepared to give them both

leave before we put the motion to have this Committee struck as read into the

record.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, is it the wish for us to

participate in the discussion now, or shall we wait till you call it later?

MR. TULK: Let's put the motion now.

MR. H. HODDER: That is okay with us. That would be okay

with us, yes.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SPEAKER: So by leave we are moving on to this

discussion?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We on this side in

this Party concur with the appointment of this Committee. Really it is an

extension of the mandate that has already been granted to the Committee. It had

been authorized in the prior sitting of the House to examine into the automobile

industry and the insurance system pertinent to that. We agree with it and expand

it now to include property and other aspects of it as the minister has outlined.

We do have a couple other things I would like to note, and

that is, that in this time of restraint we note that the size of the committee -

I think there are five members - that gives us some concern. We note that most

members or most committees of the House have three members and - I know there is

provision for it to go up to seven members. The select committee on Children's

Interest was three members. We note that in any time of restraint, it would be

more appropriate, particularly since there is a lot of travel involved and that

kind of thing, if we could have reduced the number of members to be more

appropriate to the economic realities of the Province.

However, having said that -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: To the hon. gentleman, let me just say to him

that I wish he had raised this because we could have done it without getting it

into the House, but if the hon. gentleman wants to restrict travel to three

members of the committee even though the committee is five members in size, I am

sure that all members who sat on the committee would agree that we should send,

maybe only three members at a time, to any meeting to which they go?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Not a problem -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is really not a point of order. It is just a point of

clarification I guess, by the hon. minister.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

We make the point that the cost of operating the various

committees of the House, and we agree committees are necessary, but believe the

members of the House should be serving in these kinds of committees and we just

make the point that we would like to see it as being a little conscious of

budget, and with that said, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House in this

party, we agree with extending the mandate to the select committee as named by

the minister.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising to give leave to have the matter voted on today

and in doing so, want to make a few comments about the expanded mandate of the

committee.

I was initially concerned about the original committee

because it seemed to me that it was driven by the desires of the insurance

industry and not by the needs of the people and to them I think, `no fault'

really means `no pay' for most people who have accidents. But the expanded

mandate of the committee seems to allow for more public participation in dealing

with problems that face the insurance industry or face people who need

insurance, in order to cover their vehicles but also in particular, I have a

concern about people not being able to get insurance to cover their houses, and

that is a problem that people in my constituency encounter, Mr. Speaker, when

insurance companies are turning them down, one after the other after the other,

turning them down for fire insurance on a house, preventing them from getting

mortgages, preventing houses from being sold because insurance companies say

that their quota for St. John's houses are filled up. So that issue is one that

needs to be addressed and it may in fact need to be addressed prior to the

report of this committee because it is a very important concern that people

whose houses are at risk or whose property is at risk are unprotected at this

time, so I am pleased to see that as part of the expanded mandate, and I have

received assurances that the committee Chair will be dealing with those issues

as they are brought to it by members of the public and certainly MHAs.

I am also pleased to see the question as to whether or not

the

Section B accident coverages should be mandatory or voluntary, included in

the mandate of the committee. This is something that is sort of little known,

but many vehicles are uninsured for what is called

Section B coverage, which

provides for immediate medical needs such as physiotherapy and other medical and

in fact wage-loss provisions being available in cases where there is an

accident. That is something as well that needs to be looked at and I am pleased

to support the expanded mandate of the committee. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I

would grant leave to have the matter debated now or voted on now.

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

Aquaculture.

Order, please!

MR. TULK: We have leave to put this motion now. I wonder

if we could do that and then return to Notices of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, 'aye'. Carried. Further Notices of Motion. The hon. the

Minister of Fisheries.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fish

Inspection Act".

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notice of Motion. The hon. the

Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a Bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act".

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

MR. EFFORD: I am pleased to introduce a Bill entitled "An

Act To Amend The Jury Act".

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government

Services.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Lands Act"

Bill No. 22. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled "An Act To Amend The

Expropriation Act".

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Portability

of Pensions Act" Bill No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices. The hon. the Minister of

Provincial and Municipal Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a Bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning

Act". I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill

entitled "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act".

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Opposition House Leader.

MR. TULK: If we are finished with Notices of Motion -

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we are not finished with Notices of

Motion. The chair has recognized the honourable Opposition House Leader.

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following private members motion:

"WHEREAS Wednesday November 20, 1996 has been declared

National Child Day in Canada;

AND

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is

charged with safe guarding the interests and safety of all children in our

province;

AND

WHEREAS it is the mandate of the House of Assembly to

ensure that the legal rights and social interests of children are an integral

and functional part of our approach to governance;

AND

WHEREAS government has the responsibility to assure that

the viewpoints, rights and interests of children and youth are carefully

considered and fairly represented in all matters that affect them;

AND

WHEREAS the Select Committee of the House of Assembly on

Children's Interests recommended the establishment of a child and youth

advocate;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the government immediately

establish the office of child and youth advocate to:

a) ensure the rights and

interests of children, youth and their families relating to designated services

are protected and advanced and that their voices are heard and considered in the

establishment of government policies and

b) to ensure that children, youth and

their families have access to fair, responsive and appropriate complaint and

review processes at all stages in the provision of designated services and

c) to

provide information and advice to the government and communities about the

availability, effectiveness, responsiveness and relevance of designated services

to children, youth and their families and

d) to promote and coordinate in

communities the establishment of advocacy services for children, youth and their

families;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the office of child and youth

advocate function as an independent officer of the Legislature with a clear and

unimpeded mandate to review and comment upon the operations, programs and

mandates of all provincial government departments and agencies.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion. Is the honourable

member standing on a point of order?

MR. TULK: We are not finished with Notices of Motion,

okay go ahead.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. TULK: Before we move to Answers to Questions For

Which Notice has been Given, I understand that the leader of the NDP has agreed

that we would have leave to read the Bills a first time in order that we might

proceed with the second reading tomorrow and I know that there was one person

who was going to object on the Opposition side, according to the Opposition

House Leader, and I respect that, but I am just wondering if that person has

changed his or her mind so that we can proceed with the business of the House

and get on with it. I wonder if we have leave of the House to now proceed with

first reading of those bills?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the House have leave to proceed as the

hon. Government House Leader has requested?

No leave.

Petitions

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

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

I rise to present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly on

behalf of some residents of my constituency in the City of Mount Pearl. It reads

as follows; we the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of

Education to legislate paid adult bus monitor programs for all school buses in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We find that students are presently

unsupervised and their safety is at risk when going to and from school on school

buses. The safety of our children is being compromised. The petition continues,

we ask the hon. minister and his government to show compassion, leadership and

understanding to ensure the safe transportation of our children.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more sacred than the safety of

our children. We know that as adults we have to make sure that all practices are

in place to assure that young children can go to and from school in a safe

manner. Every year there are accidents in this Province involving school buses.

We have probably the oldest buses that are able to operate anywhere in this

country. Most members of the House may not know that many of the buses that

operate in our school system are indeed buses that have run out of their

lifespan in other provinces. We therefore need changes that make sure that bus

safety starts with the bus itself.

Mr. Speaker, the parents who signed this petition are asking

this House, and asking the Minister of Education if he would take it upon

himself to assure that bus monitors are provided. We all know the tragedy that

occurred a few weeks ago in the town of Paradise. We are shocked and we are

saddened by these kinds of events. I have had the sad experience of being there

when a young child was run over by a bus at Mount Pearl Central High School in

1976. I know what it is to be on the parking lot. I have been there and I can

tell you that there is nothing more tragic that can occur in a community to a

family or to a school system than to find that you have right in front of you a

helpless child who is going through, shall we say, a great deal of pain, and in

this particular case the child died on the way to hospital.

We want this House to acknowledge the responsibility it has

for children's safety and we also want the House to assure that we can have bus

monitors. When you look at the issue of safety we know there are training

programs for bus drivers, and we know there is a safety program operating in

every school, but still we find there are young children who need help getting

across the street. In the wintertime we find that bus drivers cannot do

everything. We cannot blame the drivers who have thirty, forty, up to

seventy-two students in a bus. I tell you that the bus driver cannot drive the

bus, cannot monitor the safety of the children when they get out, and do all of

those jobs at once. It is not possible for it to be done so sometimes things

happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House if they would

accept the prayer of the petition as placed before the House?

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad today to stand and support my colleague on this

particular petition. Mr. Speaker, I might have a petition on the food fishery

later but today we are talking about a very serious matter I say to my

colleague. This petition, and a lot of concerned parents in this Province,

especially in light of the latest accident in Paradise a little while ago and of

course as my colleague also pointed out, in 1976 he had the unfortunate

experience to see an accident himself. There was one just a few years before

that, a few years after in Petty Harbour, the same circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, from being a former teacher, I have also seen it

myself where kids are getting out of school, the inadequate parking for the

buses and the crowds of kids that come out, the icy conditions that are in the

parking lots, the children playing games and so on. I have experienced it

myself, although I have not seen an actual accident but I have seen some close

calls in parking lots of schools around the Province myself. We all know that

the drivers of these buses - you are talking about kids coming out and running

into the bus. You are talking about a Friday evening where kids are excited

about getting out for the weekend and so on. All of these things are going on

and, Mr. Speaker, there is no way that the driver or a student prefect some

schools use, can actually monitor those situations. What you need is somebody to

look around the bus, behind the bus and in front of the bus. The only way to do

that, Mr. Speaker, is through this resolution as suggested by these parents.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when we find out that a

situation arises in this Province where a child's life is at stake and that it

can be corrected if the right emphasis is put on the situation. Very clearly of

course, the parents of a child who finds himself in this circumstance are the

people that you should talk to first. They are the people who will say to you

that their child's life, through this process, through a monitoring process

could have been saved. Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious issue that the Minister

of Education and his government should look at, should take into consideration.

We all know the budget restraints and so on, Mr. Speaker, but we also know of

parents who have experienced this type of disaster. We also know of parents who

have had close calls with children in buses, in parking lots and so on and yes,

it always comes down to dollars and cents but it also comes to the human side of

this. It also comes to the human side.

The Minister of Fisheries should not make light of this at

all. He should not make light of it, not one little bit. It is a very serious

petition. It is serious from the names on that paper, Mr. Speaker, I can tell

you that they are serious parents who have some serious concerns about this.

When a child's life is at hand, Mr. Speaker, we don't make light of it. We don't

look at budget and dollar signs as the last point that we do look at, it is the

overall, Mr. Speaker. Are we taking chances that we don't need to be taking?

That is why these parents got together and took the time to present a petition,

to ask to have a petition presented in this House of Assembly where their

elected members - and there are many more coming - where the elected members of

this Province, the government at hand, the government of the day, can take it

seriously. That is why some people say they make light of petitions sometimes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you come to an issue like this it is something serious.

It is something that the government, the Cabinet and the Premier should take

very seriously, bring back and discuss it with the parents who have experienced

these types of things.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, the Premier and the Cabinet,

that as we continue to present these petitions on behalf of these people who

have basically taken the time to organize themselves and to put this forward as

a serious issue, should take it very seriously and should do the right thing and

implement the monitors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just briefly with respect to the petition. I understand

shortly after we had the most unfortunate accident earlier in this school year

that the Opposition critic for Education, on behalf of the Opposition party,

indicated publicly that he thought there was a need and probably a response that

all of us could get involved in that did not cost money. I am pretty certain

that the public record would indicate that the Opposition critis, the solution

that he offered on behalf of his party the next day, was that we could have

adult monitors on the bus but it could be volunteer, that it did not need to be

paid positions. It is an issue that we are taking very seriously and I am, as a

matter of fact, meeting with a group of parents from the Paradise area tomorrow

morning who were involved with the school where we had the tragedy earlier in

the school year. They are coming forward with some suggestions and we are

looking at the situation.

By the way, just so people would know, there is as much as,

if not a greater effort with respect to school bus monitoring in Newfoundland

and Labrador today than in most other jurisdictions in the country. It is an

issue which has been studied across the country over the years. We are dealing

with a parent group tomorrow and we will be making some further public decisions

with respect to school bus monitors in the not-too-distant future.

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

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

today to present a petition to the House of Assembly.

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to

petition the House of Assembly to voice opposition to the change in the Crown

lands fees.

The Minister of Finance was on his feet today, patting

himself on the back, saying what a grand job he has done with respect to the

Budget this year. When he brought down the Budget back in the spring he talked

about no tax increases this year, but what did we see in the Budget? We saw a

lot of hidden tax increases. As far as I am concerned they are tax increases.

We saw every license, fee, permit, that is issued by the

Province increased, doubled, tripled, quadrupled, or what have you. We saw a

policy put in place by the Minister of Government Services and Lands to

basically help rape the pockets of the people of this Province when he brought

in a policy to require people to make application by October 31 to apply to have

their leases converted to grants. They were put in a position where they had no

choice but to do it, because if they did not make application by October 31 they

would have to pay much more money in the long haul to obtain a grant; so we have

to say from that perspective that it was an dishonest Budget, a dishonest move.

What happened this summer in this Province with respect to this very issue by

the Department of Environment and Lands was nothing less than ridiculous and

unfair to the people of this Province.

The minister attended a meeting last June of over 300 people

at the Holiday Inn here in St. John's and, as far as I am concerned, he made

promises to the people in attendance at that meeting that he could not keep.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking about?

MR. J. BYRNE: If you would pay attention you would know,

so I suggest that you pay attention and stop talking to people over there.

Listen and pay attention and I am sure you will have no problem in hearing me.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader tried to distract

and protect the Minister of Government Services and Lands. As a matter of fact I

would have to say that I protected the Minister of Government Services and Lands

at the meeting last June, and I think the member sitting next to the Minister of

Government Services and Lands will agree. He will agree that I protected the

Minister of Government Services and Lands at that meeting because the people

were prepared to string him up, and I tried to keep the meeting in control,

which I did, because I wanted to stick to the issue. I did not want to have the

lynching of a new minister on my hands.

MR. TULK: The unmerciful.

MR. J. BYRNE: Merciful, that is the word, and you guys

are unmerciful I say to the Government House Leader.

What had happened was that the minister promised there would

be changes to this policy, and in June I checked with the department and nothing

happened. In July I checked with the department and nothing happened. In August

I checked with the department and I checked with the minister and nothing

happened. In September I had a meeting with the minister on this very issue and

asked: What are the changes? When are the changes coming? He promised me - I

believe that was on a Thursday in September - that by Monday he would have an

announcement on it, but there was no announcement, none.

The deadline for the applications was October 31 and I

believe, and I stand to be corrected on this date, but I think it was October 10

or 11, sometime in that general area, that the minister made a statement that

there would be no changes to the policy. Now, the minister stated they were

going to take in $6.2 million in revenues. I stated at the time, when I did some

calculations, that the figure would be closer to $20 million. Now, on November

14 the minister puts out a statement, cottage leases, applications received,

3,561; residence, l,l26; commercial, 423, and that was not the full potential of

the applications to be received. In actual fact, if you work out the figures,

multiply it by an approximate figure for cottage leases of - the bottom line is

$2,500, the top is $3,000 you would charge if it was on a lake, so average it

out to - (inaudible) $2,750, almost $10 million right there for cottage leases

alone, and there was only 87 per cent of the applications received. The

potential -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you figure it out yourself or did

somebody help you with it?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I got the Minister of Education -

yourself. But he couldn't help me so I had to do it myself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

say that the Minister of Government Services and Lands -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. J. BYRNE: - was not up front with the people of this

Province!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

Is the hon. member wishing to speak to the petition that

is...?

MR. WISEMAN: No, a new petition.

MR. SPEAKER: A new petition, okay.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition presented by my hon.

colleague. I, as well, attended the meeting on Crown lands and I think the

minister for Crown lands is shameful. He promised the people at that meeting

that within two to three weeks he would get back to them on whether or not he

was going to consider changes to the proposed Crown land fee increases, and he

didn't. That time lapsed.

He came back in August and again promised a delegation of

Crown land owners that he would get back to them within a two- or three-week

period, and he didn't. That time lapsed, and he let the time lapse right up

until the point that people had to make application to purchase their Crown

lands.

I think it is absolutely shameful that he allowed the Crown

land owners to wait in anticipation and hope that they would be allowed to have

extra time as opposed to coming up with the immediate funding to purchase their

Crown lands. I think it is shameful that those people were left in anticipation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, if there is any member of this House who should make fun of the way

another person speaks, it is probably not the member.

MR. EFFORD: I didn't make fun, I was complimenting

(inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: He is absolutely right. I think I am

probably the last person to let a member of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador down where, on the other hand, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture and his caucus colleagues have probably done nothing but let the

people of our Province down since the promise of a better tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: To get back to the petition, as I said, I

think it is absolutely shameful that the minister for Crown lands let the time

lapse and expire without even getting back to the Crown land owners to let them

know that there were going to be no changes. They, out of fear of losing their

Crown lands, made application to purchase their land, and the ones who did not

make application are still in the fear that they are going to lose their Crown

land.

He has also made a promise of helping people, the hardship

cases, the people who could not afford to purchase their land. I hope that

promise will hold more water than the promises of getting back to the people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise

today in this hon. House to present a petition on behalf of some 800 residents

of the Province with regard to bus safety. The petition reads:

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

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

Province of Newfoundland asks the House of Assembly to accept the following

prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of the Province, do hereby

petition the House of Assembly to support the view that an investigation into

the safety regulations on all buses should be made. Particular focus should be

specifically directed on installation and enforcement of seat-belt use. As in

duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, many petitions are presented in this House every

session, but I believe that this one is of utmost importance as it deals with a

subject that is very important to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and that

is the safety of our children.

How many of us are parents, Mr. Speaker? We know how

important the safety of children is, and if we could I suppose we would watch

over them all the time; but that is not an option that would be very practical.

So, as parents and elected officials, we must find ways to not only keep our

children but all the children of Newfoundland and Labrador from harm wherever it

is practical.

I did some checking on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and most of

us already know that bus safety is divided between the federal and provincial

governments. Without getting into specific details we know, of course, that the

federal government sets the guidelines for the manufacturing of school buses

while the individual provinces regulate the maintenance and the roadworthiness.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be remiss in our duties to ensure

the proper levels of safety are met for school buses, whether it be better

driver training, an improved monitoring system, or the use of a three-point

style seat-belt; and I, along with other members, should take it upon ourselves

to look into this matter and make a concerted effort to come up with a plausible

solution. The concept of passenger seat-belts on school buses is no more

far-fetched than bicycle helmets or even regular car seat-belts. Safety tests

show that passenger seats facing towards the rear of a bus with seat-belts are

much safer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that I wholeheartedly

support this petition, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate

the efforts made by its organizer, Ms Ann Marie Lane. I would also like to say

to Ms Lane and her supporters that I, as the Member for Topsail and a member of

a government caucus, support her efforts, and I offer to her any assistance that

I can give. Ms Lane is in an unfortunate situation of trying to determine

responsibility for the placement of seat-belts in school buses. It appears to

me, Mr. Speaker, that while we have the responsibility to ensure buses are

maintained, it is the federal government that must change its legislation to

make the manufacturers of school buses put three-point belts on all school

buses. If the federal government was to enact this legislation I am sure the

Province, the provincial administration, can enact retroactive legislation to

ensure all existing buses are equipped with proper safety belts.

Again, Mr. Speaker, let me thank Ms Lane for casting some

light on what should be a most serious issue, and let me encourage her not to

give up her struggle to ensure that safety measures are improved and applied to

school buses.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support the spirit of the petition which has

been presented by the hon. member opposite. The wording of the petition is such

that it recognizes that the needs of our young children in this Province must

always be paramount. All levels of government, whether it be federal, as has

been suggested by the wording of the petition, or provincial, which of course

has jurisdiction in this Province, or municipal, all levels of government must

ensure at all times that the protection and interest of young people are taken

into account. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no difficulty in

supporting the spirit of the petition as has been presented.

In dealing with busing we are reminded all too often that

there are serious concerns with respect to the transportation of our young

people having to do with behaviourial problems aboard buses, having to do with

poor road conditions upon which the buses must travel, the issue of school

monitoring or bus monitoring as has been suggested in the past and again present

in this House today. We have a whole host of problems with respect to the

protection of young people on the issue of transportation of these young people

throughout our schools in our Province. So it is certainly an issue that

requires priority, it requires attention - I notice the minister is listening

and I am sure has listened to the spirit of the wording of the petition - and it

seems to me that it is an issue that requires some further review.

I understand there may well be some discrepancy with respect

to some provincial jurisdictions as to what, in fact, the the long-term benefits

of seat-belt use on school buses may be. I would be interested in knowing, and I

am sure the honourable minister may have the statistics and some of the details

with respect to that. If I am not mistaken the Province of Ontario, as has been

discussed with my colleague in front of me who indicated that there may well be

a study in Ontario which suggests that the interests of students are not best

protected by the use of school bus belts - however, the minister may wish to

comment on that; but it seems to me the spirit of the petition is such that we

must always recognize what is in the best interest of our young people when

dealing with transportation of our young people to and from our provincial

schools.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a few

brief comments with respect to the petition again.

There are a number of matters as have been pointed out, I

think, with respect to both petitions today involving school bus safety and the

safe transportation of students to and from school. They range from vehicle

operational matters, how old a vehicle can actually be and still be inspected

and licensed for use in a province; that changes and varies across the country;

the issue of monitors, whether they be student monitors or adult monitors; the

issue of levels of training for drivers of school buses who have to handle the

vehicle themselves and also be responsible for some of the conduct of students

on the buses. The issue of first aid, CPR training for school bus drivers and

any other adults who might be involved as monitors in those situations, and the

point just raised in this petition by my hon. colleague, the Member for Topsail,

with respect to potential seat-belt usage in buses. We are dealing with a number

of those issues and, as I indicated, there will be a meeting with a parent group

tomorrow as we continue to explore some of these particular initiatives.

The hon. Opposition critic is correct that in some work that

was done a decade or so ago that involved the Teachers' Association, the school

boards and others in the Province, there was some research that was predominant

at the time that indicated that if the seat-belts were to be just lap-belts and

could not be rigged to have some kind of shoulder harness that, in fact, as they

were found to be with passenger vehicles, there might be more harm and damage

done sometime, and injury, due to just lap-belts rather than proper seat-belts,

and all the seat-belt mechanisms for vehicles have been changed as a result of

some of that study, which was over a decade ago.

As the hon. member pointed out in his petition, I think the

plea and the prayer of the petition, as he explained it, was to try to find some

way to rig buses in the future, that the manufacturers themselves might put the

appropriate shoulder harness seat-belts into a school bus system if they can

find a way to physically do that, and that is an issue for the manufactures and

the government of the country as a whole to deal with and is being studied as we

speak.

We are trying to deal with the issues and, as I indicated, we

will have a meeting tomorrow with one of the parent interest groups. There will

be other meetings and we will be trying to deal with a refined and renewed

policy with respect to school bus safety in the not-too-distant future.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call Order No. 1, Address in

Reply. I understand that we are going to be, first of all, treated to about

eight more minutes of eloquence from the Member for Baie Verte, so have at it,

boy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 1, the hon. Member for Baie Verte.

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

First of all, I say to the Government House Leader that I

have eight minutes left way back from April when we left the House, was it? I

had twenty-two minutes at that time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: And we were waiting with bated breath.

MR. SHELLEY: I know you have, so I decided to jump right

into it and have a few words on Address in Reply. Hopefully the Government House

Leader will give me leave and I can continue it. You never know; we will see

what happens.

Mr. Speaker it has been a long break. It has been an extended

long break, more then usual, that we sit now so late into the fall and all of a

sudden thirty to forty pieces of legislation - is that right, thirty? - between

thirty and forty pieces of legislation between here and Christmas, and it is the

same old tactic again, Mr. Speaker. Come in late into the House of Assembly,

bring in the pieces of legislation, do it quickly so no one can notice what is

going on; ram it through the House.

Mr. Speaker, look at the last session of the House of

Assembly. We are starting to catch on, in only eight month of this

administration, catching on to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Government House Leader, the

same old tactic the people of the Province have caught onto in a short eight

months. In a short eight months this government has taken on the tactics which

it used before, and that is to sneak in the legislation, get it through the

House of Assembly, get it passed, sneak it through before anybody can figure out

what is going on. It is a perfect analogy of what happened in the election of

February, 1996. Rush it through, get it done quickly before anybody catches on

to the real issue. Let's put on the big road show. Let's take the hero down from

Ottawa. Let's run through the Province. Let's get it all done, Mr. Speaker,

before anybody catches on. Don't do the UI; don't worry about Voisey's Bay.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, today the Premier got up on Voisey's

Bay. I don't know if he has been around the Province. Yesterday we arrived in

the airport at the same time. I was coming in from Baie Verte, my district,

where I visited thirty-three communities in seven weeks. Mr. Speaker, I said I

was tired because we had been going around having meetings, and I had been

listening to people, and the Premier said: I'm tired too. He said: I have been

travelling, too. I said: Yes, you went from Ireland to Vancouver, while I went

from Snook's Arm to Nipper's Harbour to Brent's Cove to Fleur-de-Lys and so on.

I never went from Ireland to Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, out in the real world.

Then we hear this rosy picture by the Finance Minister today

of how everything is so great, how everything is on line. What a joke, Mr.

Speaker. What a difference in this Chamber than when you go outside the door and

go out into the real world, what a difference. You go out in the real world,

which is outside this Chamber, out past the overpass and out into the real

Province, outside the Chamber basically, and live in the real world. Then people

come in here with the rosy picture that our finances are on target, there are

not going to be any cuts to health care; the joke of all jokes, no cuts to

health care. You tell one person in the health care sector that there are no

health care cuts and they will laugh at you. They will laugh in your face. Go

talk to the workers in the hospital in Baie Verte or out in Bonavista; but there

are no health care cuts; we were told. It is a joke. Then we sit down and tap

our desks because he paints a rosy picture of the finances. What it is is a

quick tax grab.

We can see already a trend that is developing with the

philosophy of this government, this quick grab of money, HST, the ferry service

for the South Coast, the Crown lands tax grab, the fees have gone up triple,

double and quadruple. It has all been done in a sly way, Mr. Speaker. There is

no other word to use, sly. It is done underhanded. The fees are increased. You

go get a rabbit license now and it is gone triple or quadruple, every license

you can name, Mr. Speaker. I even talked to a radio dispatcher the other day

with a trucking company who said their fees tripled, nothing said about it in

the budget. All it was - there were no taxes increased, but watch out now; we

are going to do what we can do under the table. That is what happened, Mr.

Speaker. This HST - hard sell tax is what it should be called.

AN HON. MEMBER: Horrible sales tax.

MR. SHELLEY: Horrible sales tax is another name for it.

Each and every member in this House should give it very

serious thought and very serious study before they support that.

We have the Premier of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and our

Premier now who are going to have their big press conference in a couple of days

in Toronto, or tomorrow, talking about what a great deal it is. How come Ontario

never bought into it? How come Quebec never bought into it? How come Alberta

didn't buy into it? Why didn't Manitoba buy into it? It is simple; $348 million

that this government is going to get quickly to scam over because they figure in

two years or three years Voisey's Bay is going to save us all again, just like

Hibernia saved us all. Well, Mr. Speaker, what about it does not happen? Where

are we left in three years from now? Where is this Province left in three years

from now? What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is betting again on the future like we

have done so often in this Province.

When the Premier gets up today, and with all due respect to

the Premier because I know he is an honourable man, like he says to us all the

time - with all due respect to the Premier - the truth is that just by standing

in the House, any of us as members, any politician, anywhere, federal or

provincial, to stand up and say: Oh, don't worry about it, trust me. We are just

going to get a fair share.

That is not enough for people any more, Mr. Speaker. Whether

you are a Tory, Liberal, NDP or whatever you are, it is not enough. The Premier

has to lay the facts on the table. Where has the government been involved? The

smelter is about to be announced in two weeks, the one that should go on wheels

because it was promised to every district during the election. That is the

answer to the smelter; put the smelter on wheels and roll it around. It was

promised out in Baie Verte; it was promised in Stephenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I didn't promise a smelter out anywhere, I

can tell you that, but your colleague certainly did, I can tell you that.

The Minister of Fisheries then gets on the TV to say that we

don't want anybody to find out that there may be a tapeworm problem with the

fish in Bay d'Espoir. So why was he saying it on television? Would the minister

answer that? I couldn't believe it. The minister said: We don't want this to get

out; and here he was in front of a CBC television camera. I couldn't figure that

one out. Maybe the minister will respond to that. Maybe that is how you cover up

the other things.

Mr. Speaker, the trend of the government to date with only,

what, nine months into this mandate, is simple and straightforward: quick tax

grabs, (inaudible) rolls everything over; hopefully Voisey Bay is going to save

us in a few years from now. Then I wonder where the Premier is going after that.

Do you think he is going to stick around here for eight years and watch all this

unfold? Or is he going to be the hero across Canada again? With the picture in

Saturday's Globe and Mail across Canada, a big picture of the Premier.

One was there with the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and so on,

the big pictures.

In the area close to - I will get the exact figures; maybe we

will find out somewhere in the House - $25,000, an ad in The Globe and Mail .

I have seen it at least three times, so that is $75,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: So it has been in there eight times now, Mr.

Speaker, maybe ten; $250,000 dollars so the Premier can have his picture in

The Globe and Mail . Now, if the Premier can come back and tell us that since

he put that ad in the paper we have all kinds of businesses coming from Toronto,

Montreal and Vancouver, and there are jobs being created, power to him; but I

have yet to see one job. I can tell you, if the Premier wouldn't mind cancelling

that for the next few months and give me the $250,000, I will create a few jobs.

I can guarantee you right fast I will have a few jobs created, cutting brush

along the highway and getting people back to work.

A big picture of the Premier, Think Again, a half-page in

The Globe and Mail , $25,000. That is the priority. Then, of course, the

government always gets up and says: We have to be prudent, we have to be

fiscally responsible, the Minister of Finance says. Then they cut out rubber

gloves for people who change disabled people - social services. So where is the

priority, the picture in The Globe and Mail of the Premier, or to cut the

rubber gloves for disabled people in social services?

That is the whole gist of the entire problem when you aren't

galavanting across the country, when you go out and talk to people in your

district. I know I am saying what the other members on the opposite side of the

House are hearing, that in their districts people are frustrated. They are sick

and tired of seeing the priority of spending go down the drain again. That is

what they are sick and tired of. Year after year they see it. They saw the waste

in the Hydro privatization, $10 million down the tubes for something we had to

chalk up.

Then just look very quickly at the record. First of all,

during the election the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology go down to Marystown; a big announcement, press all over the place.

Going to bring in the big petro-chemical, or whatever they were (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SHELLEY: No leave? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: I am glad to see at least one person is awake.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today just to have a few

brief remarks in this debate. The nature of the debate that we engage in this

afternoon is such that it is wide-ranging, as has already been evidenced. In the

short time that the House has been reconvened, I can't imagine how I managed to

sustain myself for the last number of months living on the West Coast of the

Province, but I have managed to survive. It is good to be back here again in the

people's Chamber and doing the business of the people of the Province.

If I might, I would like to focus on some of the issues that

are of concern in the District of Port au Port that I have the privilege to

represent. Over the last little while, as all of the hon. members in this House

are aware, there has been a great deal of activity and a great deal of

excitement in that area of the Province as it relates to oil exploration, and

the activity that has been ongoing both onshore and offshore related to

exploration. Many people in that area of the Province have lived in hope and

expectation of a major oil find. Since the area has been economically depressed

for so long, there is certainly no one any more so than myself who would love to

see a major oil find and the economic benefits that could possibly bring to that

region and to the people who live there.

There was some disappointment in the last number of weeks

when we have heard of the offshore drill rig packing up and moving out, and more

recently the drill rig that had been operating onshore for the last couple of

years has packed up and left the area, but the interesting thing, Mr. Speaker

and hon. members, is the fact that there is still quite a bit of activity in the

area, both onshore and offshore, primarily at this point in time seismic work.

We have, as we speak, a number of ships operating in the offshore doing seismic

work, laying cable, doing some extensive and comprehensive seismic work, and

onshore some seismic work ongoing as well, a clear indication that the companies

that have holdings in that area are still very much interested in the potential,

and committed to follow through with the exploration to try to determine whether

in fact the oil or natural gas does exist there in commercial quantities.

Certainly I guess for myself, as the representative for that

area, and I am sure for all hon. members in this House, that we hope that they

do in fact, in time, find what they are looking for because it can only benefit

economically the whole of this Province and in particular, l guess, the

possibilities of natural gas or of extreme interest because as we all know this

would be a cheap form of fuel that could be used to run industry, and industry

is what we need in order to create jobs in that area.

I am also pleased to report to the House one industry that we

have been successful in creating in that area in the last couple of years, and

one which has shown tremendous promise, and while it is now confined to that

area of the Province I personally feel that it has possibilities for the whole

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course I speak of Piccadilly

Plastics. The hon. members in this House would be aware that this is an industry

that we originally started up in a fish plant that was no longer being used. It

was a building that was lying idle and going to ruin, and through a combination

of the Local Development Association and an entrepreneur we were able to put

together a funding package which eventually saw the creation of a plastics

manufacturing plant producing creamer cups. The plant in very short time proved

to be very successful, produced a top-notch product and one which was very well

received in the marketplace.

Now, this was quite encouraging, particularly since in that

particular industry the product, while it seems quite simple when one looks at a

small creamer cup, the standards are very, very high and there is pretty well

zero tolerance in the marketplace since these have to be used in putting in a

perishable product. The company that Piccadilly Plastics had contracted with out

of Ontario felt it would probably take about six months for this plant to

produce a product that would be acceptable in the marketplace, but indeed the

workers of that area, many of them who had previously been fish plant workers,

demonstrated once again the ingenuity and the skills of our Newfoundland

workers, and indeed were producing in less than a month a product which was

recognized as top-notch and was accepted in all areas of the marketplace.

Unfortunately last Easter we had the misfortune of a tragic

fire at the plant which resulted in total destruction of the plant and all its

contents and at that point in time it was a real downer to the people in the

area and particularly to those who had lost their work and wondered if in fact

the plant would be rebuilt. Well, I am pleased to say that a new modern building

now sits on that site and we will be in production again before the end of this

calendar year.

The interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that what was a tragic

occurrence and certainly very negative in terms of the development of that area

has turned into a very positive story, because in the interim while the plant

was being rebuilt the president of the company has engaged in a very spirited

and energetic search for new markets and new products, and has in fact been

successful in touching base with a number of American firms who have expressed

an interest in doing some partnerships with the Piccadilly Plastics with a view

that the plant, once it is opened, will be a larger operation than that which

existed there prior to the fire, and indeed will be producing many products

beyond that which was taking place in the old plant prior to the fire.

This is certainly a good news story and certainly, I think,

with this particular industry in our area it shows tremendous promise

and, Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting things that as part

of the - I reference the fact that the president of the company had travelled to

the States searching out new markets and I had occasion to accompany him on one

of those trips and spent some five days down in the New England area talking to

a number of prospective companies - and the interesting thing for me, was the

fact of the amount of interest that companies had shown and also the tremendous

potential that was there particularly aside from the sorts of things that we are

doing and propose to do in the Piccadilly area at the present time, it also

became quite evident that there were possibilities for a number of many other

types of things as well, and one of these was actually the assembly of some of

these products.

On that particular trip we had occasion to speak with a

number of companies, but two in particular were involved with assembling small,

electrical appliances, and with these electrical appliances, just a very small

part is an electrical component, the rest of the construction is primarily

moulded plastic. Most of that product right now, at the present time, is being

produced in China, and despite what we often hear about the work ethic and the

Far East, when we hear people compare the work ethic and the Far East compared

to our own workforce, we are not always compared favourably in terms of the

media reports and these sorts of things.

But it was kind of interesting in talking with these

companies to learn two things. First of all, with one company alone, the

representative indicated to us at the meeting that on any given day between the

U. S. and China, they could have anywhere up to $10 million of products

somewhere on the ocean. That gives us some idea as to the volume of this

business but also beyond that, Mr. Speaker, the thing that was reported to us by

both of these companies and which came as quite a surprise to me, was that,

there was some concern that there was not complete satisfaction with the quality

of the work that was being produced and in fact, with some products, the

rejection rate was quite high.

The figures that Piccadilly Plastics had produced and

presented to these companies indicated that our plant could be competitive with

the work that is presently being done in China, and of course, this then points

out that the possibilities are pretty well unlimited because of the nature of

the volume of business that is being done with that particular product. So I

look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the re-opening of that plant. The plan right now

is to have the plant as I said, operational before Christmas with the original

workforce being employed before that time and then in the new year I look

forward to a major expansion, so that we will have many more jobs employing

people in that area.

Mr. Speaker, the fishery continues in my district as

elsewhere in this Province, to be a very important part of the economy and

indeed the backbone of the economy. The Sentinel Fishery in my district has been

very encouraging; the stocks are showing good signs of returning and we all look

forward to the day when the groundfishery will be re-opened; but in the

meantime, Mr. Speaker, there is a concern in that the mainstay of the fishery in

the District of Port au Port, for the last number of years has been the lobster

fishery and for the last couple of years, this particular species is showing, I

think, some of the pressures of the kind of effort that has been exerted on that

particular resource over the last number of years.

Understandably, at a time when the groundfishery has

collapsed, a tremendous pressure has been exerted on those stocks that remain

and lobster in particular in my area, has been one that has really shown the

strain of the pressure that is on the resource. The catches had been going down,

had been declining steadily; the price has been holding fairly well and that has

been keeping the fishermen at it and of course, that, and the fact that they

have nothing else to turn to is forcing them to stay at it. But I think, Mr.

Speaker, and I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who is here

this afternoon, that I think it is something that we do have to take a hard look

at. I have talked with the fishermen in my area, also representatives of the

FFAW and they have a concern that the lobster resource is of tremendous

importance to this Province. We have to make sure that we manage it properly so

that the same fate does not befall this species as has befallen the cod fishery.

Also, Mr. Speaker, if I might, with regards to the fishery.

One other species that is causing a bit of concern, and that is with regards to

the lump fishery, which as hon. members in this House would know, is a roe

fishery. The fish itself, nothing is done with it, it is just discarded. It is

just the roe that is used. Of course, the animal is actually destroyed. I think

it is pretty obvious that this doesn't seem a very productive use of the

resource. I'm personally amazed that this fishery has been able to sustain

itself at the levels that it has for the last number of years, considering the

number of animals that have been destroyed during that point in time, but I

think it is something that we need to revisit.

It has been mentioned in this House on previous occasions

that in certain areas of the country, and in particular in Scandinavia, and more

specifically Norway, they have been experimenting with the idea of being able to

extract roe from the fish without destroying it. Maybe that is something that we

have to take a hard look at here in this Province since this has become a very

valuable fishery. At the present time, I know in my own area, the lump roe

fishery this past year, and for the past couple of years, is what has made the

difference for the fishermen in my area. Because on lobsters alone they would

have great difficulty in making it, but that combined with the lump roe fishery,

they have been able to survive.

A couple of weeks ago I had a very distinct privilege to

participate at Cape St. George at a ceremony commemorating the 25th anniversary

of the establishment of the first organization dedicated to the promotion and

preservation of the french language and culture in this Province, Les

Terre-Neuviens Franais, which was established at Cape St. George, as I said,

twenty-five years ago, at a time when the french-speaking people in that area of

the Province saw their survival as a people, and certainly in terms of their

language and culture, being seriously threatened.

and particularly at a time when the strains that were brought on by the arrival

of the Americans and the establishment of the american base. It is a credit to

the leadership in that area, and it is a credit to the french-speaking people of

the area, that they have in fact endured today to the point where they now have

in that area a school where french first language, the first of its kind in this

Province, french immersion programs exist throughout the area. It is now

possible for the francophones of that area of the Province to live and work in

their native tongue. I think I would like at this time to again extend

congratulations to the leadership of the francophone movement who have made this

possible.

We are all very much aware that the rural areas of this

Province, and certainly the area that I have the privilege to represent is very

much a rural area, are coming under tremendous strains, especially in recent

years with the closure of the fishery. As I travel throughout my district more

and more I see buildings, homes that have been closed up, boards on the windows,

many families that have left. Where one time they would be gone just on a

seasonal basis, now many of them have made the hard decision to leave

permanently.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: It is still continuing. It is certainly very

tragic as I travel the district. The real tragedy I guess that if you look at

the rural areas of the Province is that - and the real challenge - and it is

certainly something that we are well aware of as the government of this Province

- is to find ways to keep our young people in this Province.

In my former career as an educator I had occasion to work

with and to see many bright young men and women come through our school system

with tremendous talents, talents and skills that we so desperately need now in

the rural areas of the Province. The ability to lead that we so desperately need

now in the rural areas of the Province, but unfortunately in most cases, in

pretty well all cases, these young men and women are leaving to pursue careers

elsewhere in this Province in some cases, but in the main elsewhere in this

country. While I am pleased to see that we are able to assist this country in

providing for them the skilled and talented work force, I think it would serve

us much better Mr. Speaker, if a larger percentage of these young men and women

could find some reason to remain behind and try to make a living for themselves

here in Newfoundland. Trying to respond to that challenge while I was still in

the school system one of the things that we tried to do in the Port Au Port area

was to emphasize the entrepreneurship courses and this whole idea of trying to

get our young men and women thinking in terms of once they left school of going

out and creating a job. For most of us, I can certainly speak for myself, I came

through a school system where it was my ambition once I left school to go out

and find a job. I never thought in terms of being able to go out and create a

job. I think now more and more the emphasis is to our young people, use your

skills, go out, opportunities are there. If you have the drive and the

initiative, we know you have the smarts, but if you have the drive and the

initiative and the wherewithal that hopefully the entrepreneurship courses will

provide, that many of these young people will be able to go out and create jobs

and once they have created jobs for themselves and grow businesses, they will in

turn be able to create many worthwhile jobs for their colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, at the present time in the rural areas of the

Province we are seeing the zonal board structure coming into place. I think now

all of these boards have been struck and indeed are in place. One of the things

that I would like to mention, and it is something that I am particularly

interested in and indeed at this point in time concerned about, and that is the

future of the rural development associations. One of the things that I am

seeing, I am certainly seeing it in my own area of the Province that these

development associations are having it tough sledding. There is no longer a

funding agreement in place that provides administrative funding to them. The

agreement that they do have access to the SRDA is proving for many of them to be

very restrictive and as a result they are having great difficultly in accessing

funding. I think this is a cause for concern Mr. Speaker because I would submit

to this honourable house that the continuance of these development associations

are critical to ensure the success of the zonal board structure.

I have been involved with the development associations for in

excess of twenty-five years and I have seen them function at both the local and

at the provincial level, so I have some sense as to what they can contribute and

the thing about them Mr. Speaker that we must never lose sight of, they are the

only thing that I know of that have been grass roots driven. This is something

that grew up within the Province, it grew up in the rural areas in response to a

formalized resettlement program and as a result I do not think we should be

prepared to lose it that quickly because I think once it is lost at some point

in time I would predict that in the future, if in fact that it does disappear at

this point in time, then somebody will be out trying to restrict it because it

will be necessary to the rural areas of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in connection with that I think it is rather

interesting that one of the initiatives ongoing in my area of the Province at

this particular time is an initiative that is entitled Communication For

Survival and it is an initiative that involves high tech in a sense, if you

consider I guess the television being high tech, but the interesting thing is

that it has brought together communities from my own district, Lourdes, my home

town and the community of Mainland and also the communities of Ramea and Burgeo.

The idea behind the project is to twin these communities, bring them together

and through sharing, try to benefit, to learn from one another and maybe be able

to apply things that are proving successful in one area of the Province to

another area.

Mr. Speaker, the first meeting that I attended where I was

briefed on this particular program, the significance of what was being proposed

here, I had to say it was really striking to me because we were talking about

communication for survival. When I looked at the communities that we were

talking about, at that point in time Ramea and Burgeo, I know from talking to

the people from that area who attended these meetings they were very, very

concerned as to whether in fact there was going to be a future for them or if in

fact their fate would be to be resettled to other areas of the Province. Mr.

Speaker, it really struck me because one of the communities they were twinned

with, the community of Lourdes where