May 4,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to announce

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is now ready to accept

proposals for funding of the demonstration projects that support the Province's

Strategic Social Plan. Members of the House will recall that when government

announced the release of our Strategic Social Plan, it reserved a $1.2 million

fund for this purpose.

This $1.2 million fund has been created to implement projects

that are consistent with the plan's directions, including an emphasis on

coordinated approaches on social and economic development, prevention, early

intervention programs, and community capacity building. Preference will be given

to projects that demonstrate innovative and effective ways of addressing social

issues, using partnership approaches among community-based groups. Information

gathered from these projects will be used to help improve social programs and

services in the Province.

Projects can be proposed at a community, regional or

provincial level. Funding will be provided up to March 31, 2000, with maximum

funding per project not normally exceeding $25,000. Consideration will be given

to a higher award, if the project is Province-wide in scope.

The Strategic Social Plan is an important initiative that

affirms the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's commitment to

strengthening our social policies, programs and services. Today's announcement

is the latest initiative in supporting the plan and government's desire to work

cooperatively with community groups in achieving a prosperous future for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Along with today's announcement, I would like to take the

opportunity to also update members of the House on other initiatives associated

with the plan. During the past eight months since the plan was released, we have

made considerable progress in two key areas - regional implementation and the

social audit.

Regional implementation has begun with the central region. On

April 23 there was a very successful planning session held in Gander, and it was

attended by approximately 100 delegates from all parts of the region. The

purpose of the session was to begin the collaborative process between government

and all of the boards and institutions - education, economic development. This

early process will lay the foundation for a coordinated regional approach to

social and economic development.

The session also provided an opportunity for participants to

share information, develop ideas for community partnerships, and begin work on a

regional vision and options for coordination. This session brought together

boards members and executives of the regional board, members of the Premier's

Advisory Council, as well as representatives from the provincial and federal

governments.

Mr. Speaker, over the next few weeks the geographical

boundaries for the other regions of the Province will be established so that we

can begin implementation in these areas as well.

The second key area that I would like to speak about is the

social audit. The entire process of the Strategic Social Plan is supported by

the development of a public process for reporting on our social audit. This is

to be completed at a five-year interval and will be a record of achievements and

specific outcomes identified in the plan. Work on the development of indicators

to measure progress is being done in conjunction with the Newfoundland

Statistics Agency.

In the near future, we propose to make available on a pilot

basis, initially in the central region, web site access to an information system

of key social and economical indicators. Currently, this information system

contains approximately 7,500 tables with information from a variety of sources,

including Statistics Canada and provincial resources. This information will

provide valuable information on economic and social trends both at the

provincial and the regional level. Ultimately, 400 of the Province's communities

will have access to research data concerning their local areas. No other

jurisdiction has been able to do what we are now proposing.

This information system can provide regions and communities

with an important planning tool to support evidence based decision-making. It

will also form an important part of an information base required to build a

social audit. In addition to statistical research, work continues on developing

other approaches to assess our progress. The Premier's Council on Social

Development is instrumental in advising on this.

Mr. Speaker, last week's session in the central region and

today's announcement of support for demonstration projects indicates that the

Strategic Social Plan strongly supports the development of new and collaborative

approaches in addressing the needs and concerns of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. I look forward to continually updating everyone on the progress of

our Strategic Social Plan in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her

statement. I see terms in this like "early intervention programs", "sharing

information", "access to information", "sources including Statistic Canada and

provincial sources", and "new and collaborative approaches in addressing the

needs and concerns of Newfoundlanders".

I can give you some statistics: 27,000 children in

Newfoundland live in poverty - we already know that; these things have been

studied to death - 72.1 per cent of the children living in single parent

families live in poverty. That is the highest in the country. That is how we are

assessing the program. This data is already available. We have had the Select

Committee on Children's Interests, and we have ignored things in that like the

children's advocate. We have had the Williams Report, and we have ignored things

in that. We have had the Inkpen Report, which lay on a shelf for eighteen months

while it gathered dust, while children were in trouble in Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: We are talking about early intervention. I

can give you a couple of examples. I had a person call me yesterday whose child

was approved by the social worker and the psychologist and recommended for

one-on-one daycare. That money that was announced last spring, I am sorry, is

not available to that child. That child was put in daycare and kicked out, so to

speak, because of his behaviour. He needs one-on-one. That is where early

intervention becomes...

I have another person: a seventeen-year-old son who, after

his mom has all the bills paid, has $29.88 per week. That is for everything.

Early intervention is when a boy, seventeen years old, has enough money to

participate in high school so that he is encouraged not to drop out.

These are the statistics. I think that things have been

studied long enough and it is time for us to take action.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's statement is full of lots of jargon like

demonstration projects, regional vision, social audit, just like the Strategic

Social Plan itself. When we have a situation with increasing stress on families

with inadequate housing, single parents struggling to get an education, being

forced to borrow money by this government, middle-aged women being forced to

live in boarding houses as their children leave home, 30,000 children going to

school hungry every day, according to the Chairman of the School of Trustees

Association, and the vast numbers of people living in poverty, what we need is

not demonstration projects. What we need is for this government to take the

problems of people seriously and start doing something about them, not getting

involved in these highfalutin types of investigations and have more reports to

sit on shelves while people still suffer without having their problems

adequately addressed by this government.

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

Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May 2 to May 8, 1999 is North American Drinking Water Week.

The theme for this year is "Celebrate Water" with the focus on the universality

of water.

To mark this week, representatives of the Provincial Girl

Guides, the City of St. John's and officials from my Department join me in a

ceremony to officially proclaim May 2 to May 8 as Drinking Water Week in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want at this time to acknowledge the special efforts of the

Provincial Girl Guides Association in promoting the importance of safe, clean

and reliable sources of drinking water. Last night, I attended on Open House

sponsored by the Girl Guides of Pouch Cove to celebrate water week. I believe

the involvement of the Girl Guides organization contributes greatly to the

success of this initiative and certainly it speaks to the importance of this

special week.

I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of local

municipalities. The City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, the Town of

Paradise and the Town of Conception Bay South have jointly sponsored a contest

for grade IV children in the region. This initiative will promote the importance

of safe and clean drinking water among our youth. In this regard, I have written

to all mayors around the Province encouraging them to undertake activities which

support and promote water week.

My Department is working hard with municipalities and

stakeholders to protect our water supplies. The events and activities planned

for this week will further promote public awareness of the need for safe, clean

and reliable sources of drinking water. I ask that all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians reflect on the fact that the responsibility of protecting our

drinking water supplies is a responsibility borne by all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to commend the Girl Guides because they are

doing far more than government are doing to protect our drinking water supplies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: The minister says he has been working

hard to protect our water supplies, that it is a responsibility borne by all in

the Province. Yet the only reason this government has not given away our water

from Gisborne Lake, Mr. Speaker, is because the federal government put a ban on

it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is time we started to protect our

water supplies in this Province. The World Trade Organization and the

international banks say that it is the commodity of the next century. When are

the people in this House going to realize that our water supplies have to last

for the people of tomorrow, not only to give it away today? Another resource

given away for very little. We have to protect our natural resources to give

maximum benefit to the people of this Province, and it is time that we started

to do that. Jobs and royalties, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. I obviously support the need for safe, reliable, clean drinking

water. I did not hear a word in the minister's speech about conserving water,

about protecting the sources of water, about ensuring that we in this Province

do not get into a situation where our water is being tanked away to other

places. I did not hear anything about protecting the environment so that the

water -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - is clean and continues to be available for

all of us forever in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call Oral Questions I would like to

welcome to the gallery today the Mayor of Twillingate, Mr. Harry Cooper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Yesterday in Question Period the Minister of Education, in

response to questions from the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, indicated she

was not aware that her decision to cut 182 teachers from the system this year

will have any impacts on programs and choices for students. In fact she said:

"The decisions that were taken should have no impact on programming. She also

said that "it certainly was not government's intention either, so if it is

happening it certainly was not because of any direction taken by this

government."

Isn't it the real truth Minister that you already met with

school boards prior to the allocation formula? That the Newfoundland and

Labrador School Boards Association made a presentation to the Social Policy

Committee of Cabinet prior to the Budget coming down, talking about program

reductions as a result of teacher allocations this year and what the impact

would be? The truth is that you were aware, that you have been aware for some

time. Why did you say in this House yesterday that you were not when clearly,

Minister, you were?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that if

government had to follow the teacher allocation formula we would have removed

over 400 teachers from the system. We chose not to do that. In fact, we kept in

236 of those 400 teachers trying to ensure again that there would be no

detrimental impact on programming in the system. So every decision we have taken

has been with a conscious effort to try and make sure there has not been an

impact on programming, because at the end of the day that is what our concern

will be as well for government.

Yes, I will admit that if we had removed over 400 teachers

there may very well have been an impact on it, but when you look at declining

student enrolment, when you look at losing 4,000 students out of the system,

when you look at the consolidation that has taken place throughout this Province

in terms of restructuring, there should be enough teachers in the system to deal

with the programming needs.

If there are not - I reiterate, and I can say it time and

time again for the hon. member opposite - we are meeting with the education

directors to find out the impact, because of concerns that are now being

expressed by parents who are being asked by principals and teachers to come out

and talk about the impact of the reduction in teachers on programming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if it only was the truth. The

minister was already informed. I can demonstrate it clearly here today; what is

taking place now is a shameless exercise in public relations.

Let me ask her this. She was aware, for example, in

discussions with the department officials - your department officials - prior to

allocations being made for the upcoming school year: Director, Domino Wilkins

and Assistant Director, Dennis Fewer, emphasized to your officials that the

school board could not absorb in District 5 a loss of more than ten to twelve

teaching units without a reduction - they emphasized to your officials - without

a reduction in programs and other services to schools. Yet this minister, with

that knowledge and her officials' knowledge, went ahead and made allocations,

took away allocations of thirty teaching units, with the full knowledge that in

doing so programs would be impacted.

The question is, Minister: Why did you not admit that

yesterday? You were fully aware of it before the issue was brought to this

House, fully aware of it before the Budget was brought down and before you made

you decisions. Why won't you admit to that today, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, when you look at the declining

student enrolment in that particular district, we could have removed sixty

teachers from the system. In fact, we chose not to do that.

It is one thing for a board to come in and tell us the impact

if you remove ten or twelve teachers from the system; it is another for us to

have a discussion with the board about how they are, in fact, allocating the

teachers that the department is giving to the boards. That is what we want to

find out: whether or not teachers out there are maybe getting three hours of

preparation time a week versus five hours of preparation time a week. Those are

the kinds the things we want to talk about with the boards.

I commend the particular board that the Leader of the

Opposition has referenced. They have put in place a very good policy and we want

to speak to them even further, and they have agreed to do that because they are

as interested as we are in ensuring that at the end of the day we work as

partners in this exercise to make sure that we have the best possible program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: I am not finished, if you do not mind. Mr.

Speaker will tell me when to sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are very interested in working

with all of the directors of education throughout the Province to again make

sure that we do what is in the best interest of the students of this Province,

and we are going to continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Which is it? If you are truly interested in

it, when you are asked questions in this House, at least what is deserving is a

straightforward, forthright answer.

Let me ask you the question very simply, so you can answer

it: Were you aware that presentation was made to your officials, that removing

thirty teachers from this district would impact on programming, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that if we had

followed the formula that exists, we would have removed sixty teachers from the

system. We chose not to do that.

Let me say as well that anyone who is coming to this

government looking for money, looking for additional resources, that has to be

tempered with our ability to pay. It is very well and good for the member

opposite to stand up and talk about promising because they do not have to

deliver at the end of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: For those of us who have to deliver it is a

different story, so we work and we try and compromise. We could have removed

sixty teachers from the system based on the formula - we could have done that -

we chose not to do that because we did not want to see it impact on programming.

What we had hoped to be able to do with the numbers that have

been removed is to work with the boards to see, in fact, how best those teachers

could be allocated to not impact on programming. There are a number of factors

that come into account here: Teacher preparation time is one of them; how much

time the principal spends in their classroom teaching; how much time the

vice-principal spends in a classroom teaching. All of these issues come into

play -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - when you are trying to determine how teachers

are allocated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference in what

occurred in this House yesterday in the minister's statements and what her

statements are saying today. Yesterday, the decisions that were taken should

have no impact on programming. Now, it is based upon ability to pay.

I will ask you the same question again: Were you aware that

the school board met with your officials and indicated to you and your officials

that if you removed more than ten or twelve that it would have an impact on

programming? Were you aware of this, Minister, yes or no?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of all meetings that my

officials have with board members. I am also aware of what takes place in the

discussions.

Again - and the board will tell you - if we are to work as

partners, you cannot have it all. We have to work to try and make sure that the

decisions that we make are taken in the context of our ability to pay, and we

have done just that.

Now we are hearing back from parents - again, I say,

principals and teachers are telling them that programs are going to be cut. What

we are saying is: Show us if that is, in fact, reality. Show us how the boards

are allocating those teachers through the system so that there will be an impact

on programming. If that is the case, we have to look at it. The boards know

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yesterday, there would be no impact on

programming. Today, the minister admits that she was aware that there would be

an impact on programming. Did you purposely mislead the House yesterday,

Minister? Is that what went on?

Let me ask you this question: In terms of what is happening

with school boards across the Province - you can sit and laugh all you want, but

the reality is that prior to the teacher allocation being assigned, two

documents right here demonstrate clearly that the minister and her officials

were informed of what her cuts to teachers in the Province would mean to

programming. Yesterday, she would not admit it. I will give the minister an

example.

The Baie Verte/Central/Connaigre Board: 758 teachers there in

1996-1997 and 620 in 1999-2000, a loss of 138 teachers. Translated, it means

this: That has been a 20 per cent cut in teachers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

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

- while there has only been a 10 per cent decline in

students. Why did you tell the House yesterday, Minister, that there would be no

impact on programming when you knew full well that the decisions that you took

on teacher allocations would seriously and adversely affect the type of

programming offered to our students in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me for the

record state that I would never come into this House and intentionally mislead

the House. If the hon. member wants to suggest that, he can; but I certainly

would not do that.

Again, let me say that when any board comes into the

department looking for a certain allocation of teachers, we have to take that in

the context of our ability to pay. Having said that, we also have to look at the

programming needs out there and try and ensure that there will not be an adverse

impact on the programming.

What I said yesterday was that, given the student enrolment

in this Province - and we are down to 97,000 students - and the teacher

allocation, there should not be an impact on programming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: But, if there is an impact on programming we

will certainly look at that.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: You can twist the facts, you can squirm;

the reality is that the decisions that have taken have impacted seriously the

programming offered to students.

Dorset Collegiate, for example, Minister, under the Baie

Verte/Central/Connaigre School Board, has suffered a reduction in programming

choices for students by twenty credits in the high school system. The board has

declared a moratorium on Computer Technology all because of this government's

cut to teacher allocations. They told you that this would happen weeks ago. You

cannot stand in the House one day and say you do not know and then the next day

stand in the House and say you did, and it is based upon your ability to pay.

The question is this: In the presentation made to you by the

Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association, they presented to you, the

Social Policy Committee, a recommendation to change the teacher allocation

formula because it does not reflect the current needs of today, because all of

the schools that will be closed have been closed. There are no more schools to

be closed, essentially.

Minister, wouldn't you agree that the basis of this

presentation on teacher allocations should have been followed by your

department, and had you followed them we would not be looking at the severe

reduction in programming, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree.

Furthermore, the hon. member opposite knows I have agreed to review the formula

for allocating teachers in this Province.

When the request came in from the School Boards Association

we had already gone down the path of allocating teachers and determining, based

on student enrolment, following the formula, how many teachers will be taken out

of the system. We could not follow that formula because we did not feel it was

the right thing to do as a government. We wanted to make sure that there would

not be an adverse impact on programming which is why, Mr. Speaker, we chose to

invest another $11.8 million back into the system by adding back 236 teachers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, however, I have agreed, at the

request of the School Boards Association and working with the NLTA, to look at

how teachers are allocated throughout the Province. In doing that, we may very

well do away with the formula that presently exists, but you have to bear in

mind that today, as a province, we spend more on education, given our ability to

pay, than any other province in this country. Mr. Speaker, I think that speaks

well of this government's commitment to education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will allow the hon. member one more supplementary. There

are others who want to get up. There are others who want to ask questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

supplementary.

The minister asked for examples yesterday. I will give her

another one. Central West School Board has decided that because of your cut to

teacher allocations they will have to alternate chemistry and physics, one

course one year, the other course the next year. There will be no continuity in

basic programming.

Minister, is this how you describe, as you did yesterday and

as you did again today, that the teacher allocation formula they are using will

have no impact on programming? Isn't it a fact, and won't you tell the people of

the Province today, that the allocations that you have made for teachers this

year will have a serious and adverse affect on programming for their children in

the classroom, and that the type of reform that you and your government promised

is not in fact the type of reform that the people of this Province are getting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if you want to give examples we

can all give examples. For instance, let's take student access to Biology 3201.

In urban parts of this Province it was 99.7 per cent access in 1996-1997, today

it is 99.9 per cent access; in rural Newfoundland it has gone from 86.8 per cent

access to 90.8 per cent access. That is Biology 3201. Physics 3204 has gone in

the urban areas from 98.8 per cent up to 98.9 per cent. Mr. Speaker, we are

seeing more access to programming in this Province than ever before. Now I can

only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Of course, if he does not want the facts there

is nothing I can do about that. All I can do is give them as they are, but you

can choose to ignore facts, Mr. Speaker. Yes, some of these courses are being

offered via distance education and there is nothing wrong with that. It may not

mean for the NLTA that they have a teacher in the system but it is being offered

through distance education.

Let me say again, as I said yesterday, that if there is a

detrimental impact on programming we will have to look at that and that is

precisely what we are doing. We have given the commitment to work with the

boards, to meet with the education directors, to try and determine the impact on

programming. Mr. Speaker, we will have to deal with that if there is a negative

impact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are about priorities. We know that

government has a considerable staff allocation - for instance, welfare cops - to

investigate potential abuse in the social assistance system, such as

investigating the personal relationship of clients.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community

Services. It has come to my attention that child protection, because of lack of

personnel, were unable to monitor a situation recently where a two-year old

child was exposed to a person who had allegedly sexually assaulted the child. In

fact, the court records show that the child was not to be in the presence of

this person. Child protection did not have the personnel available to monitor

the situation.

Why does the minister's department not have the personnel on

staff to carry out this child protection duty? Why does this government have its

priorities backwards by designating personnel for welfare policing but not for

child protection?

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

Community Services.

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

I am shocked and overwhelmed that an issue about a child's

safety would be raised in the House of Assembly without me as minister being

made aware of it.

I know this member is referring to an individual case. I am

quite overwhelmed that an issue around child safety would be brought up in the

context of a question in the House of Assembly - forget the courtesy, Mr.

Speaker - but without having the importance and the responsibility to report

that kind of incident to me as minister. I cannot answer. I am overwhelmed with

this type of questioning when a child is involved. I would urge the member

opposite to please bring forward the information so that we can act on this

immediately.

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I brought the matter to the attention of

the people at child protection again and again, and then I reported the incident

to the RNC. I am happy to report that the child has been moved out of the

situation to prevent it from happening again. There were repeated calls to your

department. If it is so important your department should have filtered the

information up to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: There were repeated calls to your

department reporting that the alleged perpetrator was in the presence of this

two-year old child.

I was in conference with the social worker several times. I

said to her: Why can't we monitor this? She said: We do not have the personnel.

Does the minister not think something is wrong when the department responsible

for child welfare and ultimately for child protection is unable because of lack

of resources to protect our children? Is the minister really telling us that we

should be satisfied with this state of affairs? Will the minister indicate what

improvement has been made in the child protection-social worker ratio in the

past year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Community Services.

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

I am happy to hear the member opposite did report it and

follow up, because I know the basis of these questions is around the safety of

children. I have to be very honest, I am not aware when all of the boards get

calls about issues of concern around children. They do not call me and let me

know about every call they receive. I do have the confidence that they are

following through on their process. If someone did not act upon that I would

like to know more details about that. If you are telling me they had not acted

upon it and she had to therefore go to the police to have it acted upon, I would

like to have that information. I cannot speak to that specific case, and nor

would I in any case.

We have moved forward in the last year with our Strategic

Social Plan and with child welfare legislation. The member opposite knows we are

still in the process of working with the staff about their new responsibilities.

That is why it has not received royal assent as yet. Mr. Speaker, we have moved

forward with a whole new process of prevention and early intervention on the

recommendation of our front line staff. We are working with them to achieve

those kinds of changes in the system.

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I can think of very little that would be

more frightening than a child being left vulnerable to a potential predator.

My question is: Why doesn't the child protection department

have these investigators, the same as the Department of Human Resources has

investigators who check on the personal lives of their clients? Why doesn't the

department of child protection have the same investigators that can go out and

investigate what is happening with the child? The social worker clearly told me

she had neither the time nor the personnel to dispatch.

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I really take exception

again to information that I am receiving, that a social worker would not choose

to follow up on a complaint that a child was in danger and somehow

re-prioritized her work to do something else. I find that very hard to believe.

I have to say that if the staff of one of the boards has made

that kind of judgement then I think I need to be aware of it so that we can

follow up, so I can deal with that through the community health boards. I need

the information. I would ask the member opposite to give me the information

concerning that particular issue. This is about protecting the children. If what

I am hearing, what you are saying is that you have given me an example where a

social worker, in your explanation, has chosen not to follow up on a child

welfare matter but have re-prioritized something else.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very serious commentary. I

think it is one that really does need to be looked in to. I really think it is

important that I get the information -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - and that I am able to follow up on it

with the appropriate people. This is a very serious piece of information, and I

would like the information, Mr. Speaker, to properly follow up on it.

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

for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Minister, I would like to make it very

clear. The social worker did not have the time because of her caseload. Each of

the clients in her caseload was probably as important as this one. What she was

saying when I said to her -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: All of the people in her -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

West. I ask the hon. member to get to her question.

MS S. OSBORNE: I asked the social worker did she have

somebody who could go out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to her question.

MS S. OSBORNE: The social worker informed me they did not

have investigators. Obviously a social worker cannot sit in front of a house all

day to see if this perpetrator goes in and out. That would be impossible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to her question.

MS S. OSBORNE: What I am asking the minister is this. Why

is it that there are not special investigators for child protection as there are

special investigators to check on the personal lives of clients in social

services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: I will repeat the question. I am asking:

Why doesn't the child protection department have investigators, the same as

social services has investigators, to go out and check the private lives and the

personal lives of their clients? Why doesn't child protection have special

investigators to monitor what is happening in the lives of children in danger?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Community Services.

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

I think it is important to know the process that is involved

when a social worker or some other official receives a complaint about a child

in danger. A social worker will go and do an assessment. They will identify the

level of risk to the child. They will make a professional decision based on what

is in the best interest of the child, whether it is some form of intervention in

the home or whether the child is best removed from the home.

I have confidence in the social workers. I do not believe

they would sit outside the homes of a family. That is not their role. Their role

is to make a professional judgement and then make the necessary course of

recommendation so that that can be implemented.

There are children removed every day from homes where they

are deemed to be in an unsafe environment. There are children every day that

receive extra help, and families that receive extra help to keep those children

in the home to preserve the family environment, if that is what is deemed to be

in the best interest of the child, in the recommendation and the professional

decision of the social worker.

That is the role, that is what they do. To try to give some

impression that we need to have social workers parked outside people's houses.

You have to use the resources you have and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think it is very important that

whatever the ulterior motive of the question is, the real issue is child safety.

I have full confidence in the social workers and I have full confidence in the

system, that they are moving forward and doing what they are able to do in the

best interest of the child to maintain their safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education. It concerns the

issue of school busing in the City of St. John's which has special rules

associated with it in that they do not normally get provision of school busing.

I want to ask the minister - as a result of the school

reorganization in St. John's, where students now have to travel farther - what

provision has she made for school busing in St. John's for children? Is she

prepared to guarantee that those who had received school busing, who now have to

travel to different or farther schools, will continue to receive school busing?

Will she initiate an effort to remove the discrimination against parents of

children in St. John's who currently do not get school busing where they would

otherwise qualify for it if they lived in Mt. Pearl, C.B.S. or Grand Falls?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of school busing

there has been representation made by the Avalon East School Board with respect

to those areas where they have closed schools. There are schools that exist in

some parts of this city where the public transit system does not run. That is

obviously an issue of concern. By and large, the students in St. John's have

access to a very good public transit system. Such is not the case in rural parts

of this Province.

Having said that, what we have undertaken to do, especially

for safety reasons, where students who may have to cross a lane of traffic, or

four lanes of traffic, to get to a school, that is certainly something we are

willing to take a look at. I have agreed to meet with the Chair of the Avalon

East School Board to pursue that further.

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

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not talking about crossing four lanes of traffic. I am

talking about five-year-old and six-year-old children being expected to travel

on the public transportation system at the cost of their parents

whereas,

outside of St. John's and other places, children have the right to be

transported to school at public expense by the Department of Education.

What is the minister prepared to do to ensure that parents of

children in St. John's are treated fairly with respect to the cost of school bus

transportation? Because, many parents cannot afford to either send their

children on the school buses or, if they are young children, accompany them on a

school bus to ensure that they get to school in safety.

Is the minister prepared to end the discrimination against

St. John's children and parents with respect to school bus transportation?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this policy was put in place a

couple of years ago in terms of the school busing issue. The same thing exists

in Corner Brook, for example. There is no school busing provided in Corner

Brook. It is not just in St. John's.

Where there is a very good public transit system in place,

that is what the government is taking into consideration when it looks at its

school busing policy.

In rural Newfoundland we have children who have to ride a

school bus for half an hour to get from one community to the next to get to

school. My concern would be in those areas where schools have closed and there

is a safety issue, or where there isn't any Metrobus available for them to get.

That is certainly the area on which I will be focusing.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition was asking

some questions about the Immigration Investment Fund, and I said I would find

some information for him. I did not obtain a copy of Hansard but with his leave

I will answer them as I recall them.

At present - just to go over some details of the program -

the Province originally raised $35 million. As my colleague, the Minister of

ITT, said, it was fully subscribed. In fact, it was oversubscribed. The total

subscription for the $35 million, for $250,000 each, would normally be 140

people. We take 160 because not everybody need be eligible, and this is common

practice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, I do not have it in table form but it

would be on the record. I am just referring to some notes as we go.

It was oversubscribed at 160 but we would only sell 140. It

is administered by the Hong Kong Bank of Canada. As my hon. colleague said

yesterday, and I believe she might have said in the press release today, that

was the group that was hired to really sell the fund in the Far East. As it

turned out, they were slow for subscriptions early on and then when they had

some deterioration in the eastern markets and a lot of capital was (inaudible),

it sold out very quickly.

There was no problem initially with the subscription for the

fund. The problem was that the fund had the following criteria - it seemed to be

a single criteria - and that is that the money had to be used to, and I quote:

establish, expand, purchase, maintain or revitalize businesses or commercial

ventures, and that investment would be directed to government infrastructure

programs with the privatization component.

The problem was that all the governments across the country -

provincial governments who raised money - found it almost impossible to identify

businesses that could essentially go into partnerships (inaudible) to provide

public infrastructure.

We had some two years of discussions with Ottawa to find ways

to develop and meet the criteria. The other provinces actually had a similar

problem and frankly this Province, at one point, was the furthest advanced as of

last December in moving some of the money out to potential projects.

We went out for some quotes. There was a tender last

December, I believe. The hon. member raised questions in the House on a Monday

and we met on it by Friday. We still did not believed that it had been done in a

proper way so that we could have the necessary certainty with respect to what

the cost and criteria would be.

Since then we have refined the process, we have consulted

again with Ottawa, and we are at the point of calling tenders on some of these

projects.

The project that was initially going to be funded in this was

the Harbour Breton Hospital. Because of the necessity to continue construction,

we decided to pay for that construction in the regular way. So, that is under

the normal government capital works program.

At present, where we now stand with it is - and I can detail

the process we will follow. What we need to be able to do in order to assess the

relative merits of competitive bids is first of all to design the projects. What

we expect to be able to do with the $25 million we have is to probably pay for

the hospitals at Fogo - if and when the site is selected - Bonne Bay and Grand

Bank. We expect that will take the majority of the $25 million.

What we are doing is the following: We have to identify,

first of all - we have to do the functional program and the engineering so we

know exactly what is going to be constructed in each location; then what we will

do is call for tenders on it. What we will do is, we will identify an amount of

money to flow out of the fund. We will take an example. Let's suppose -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Since Neil Windsor.

What we will do is, we will identify a certain amount. Let's

suppose, for example, we would say, going out to tender, that we want this

hospital built at a cost of $8 million. We would flow the funds from it because

we can identify pretty much what the cost will be. We will then ask any private

sector company who is prepared to bid on it, to build a hospital, we will

provide the money - we will specify what the interest rate would be and that

would be equivalent to something close to the Province's borrowing cost at about

$6 million or so; the fund is a little bit lower.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Maybe not. It might even be lower because the

cost of the funds is about 5 per cent. The actual express interest rate is about

2 per cent and there are some offsets because, in the meantime, we have the

money we have invested and so on.

What we will do is, we will go out to tender with a defined

project that has certain criteria. We will advance the monies to pay for the

construction from the fund. What we will then require is for the group or person

who is going to build it to give us a quote on the monthly amount that they will

charge us for the operation of the facility and they will have to pay all of

their own costs - servicing the debt and everything else - and also have to

provide some minimal servicing that does not conflict with our collective

agreement that we will identify. In some cases it may be cleaning, it may be

heating, lighting, and this kind of thing. Where we will get - certainly we did

not have the last time - is that at the end of a specified period, probably five

years, we will specify that the Province will repurchase, say, for $7.5 million.

In other words, we will take the amount of - we will amortize

it over a fixed period, have a concept as to what we would be prepared to

repurchase it. The only variable in going to tender, so that we can meet the

criteria, is what the monthly lease payments will be. The problem last time was

that when we went out to tender they came in and they had variable repurchase

options.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes. What we do not want to do is leave it out

there so that we have three or four different bids, having three or four

different monthly lease payments, three or four different construction costs,

three or four different demands for money to flow from the fund, and three or

four different repurchase options with government buying or not buying at the

end of fifteen or twenty years.

So if we tied down all those elements so that the only

variable is the monthly lease payment, then we say with certainty that this is

the lowest tender. The members opposite know the difficulties in trying to do

these things in trying to use this money. That is going to be our approach.

The three hospitals I have mentioned (inaudible) because of

the time limit of this, the Harbour Breton Hospital went ahead as a regular

capital works project. What is happening right now is the engineering and

functional plans are being completed on these hospitals. As you know, in Fogo

there is some controversy about the location. As and when that is straightened

away we will then put these out for tender, and we expect that we will be

flowing monies from the fund hopefully sometime over this construction season

when these go through the necessary engineering -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, I (inaudible). If there are any further

questions I will try to get some more detail.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the

information requested yesterday in the member opposite's question.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to the House of Assembly. It is a petition

that is brought forward by students, this time, from Matthew Elementary. You can

tell by the way they have their names signed and the careful way that they print

that they are students in a very early grade. It reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador,

in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Bonavista South, pupils and staff of Matthew Elementary School.

The condition of the road, Route 235, between Birchy Cove and

Bonavista, has deteriorated to the point that it is a safety hazard for our

school buses and our families who travel this road. In recent weeks this road

has gotten much worse. Pupils travelling on the bus have hit their heads on the

bus roof because of the bus bouncing on the bad sections of this road. As well,

the buses have had several springs broken. Several of our families have had

their cars damaged.

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave Route 235 between Birchy Cove and

Bonavista in order to bring it up to an acceptable standard.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here is a petition signed by forty-five students

of Matthew Elementary School, forty-five students who travel regularly on a bus

between Birchy Cove, Middle, Upper, and Lower Amherst Cove, Newmans Cove, down

to Bonavista, to attend school on a daily basis.

Those are the students who I have spoken about here in other

petitions that I've presented. They have now started their own petition. They

circulated it in their school and asked the people travelling on the bus to sign

the petition whereby I might bring it to the attention of the House of Assembly

again, to put forward the plea to ask the government of the day, and to ask the

minister if he would kindly look at the five kilometres of roads between Birchy

Cove and Bonavista, and to have it upgraded and paved.

The parents have asked that if the five kilometres of road

cannot be completed then maybe the two-and-one-half kilometres of road might be

completed. They are not asking for anything out of the ordinary. They are asking

for a decent road to drive over. Those students a few years ago would not have

to drive over this particular road on a daily basis because they were attending

schools in their own communities. The parents agreed to have their schools

closed. The parents agreed to have the children bused to Bonavista, five

kilometres from Birchy Cove.

The least we can do, after having them give up their school,

give up their right to attend school in their own community, and have them

travel into another community, is to provide a decent road for the buses to go

over. Some of those students live in a community known as Upper Amherst Cove. I

might add that it is not uncommon in the wintertime for those roads through

Upper Amherst Cove to be not ploughed for sometimes up to a period of three or

four days. There is a steep hill going down into the community. The highways

cannot plough it with a truck. They have to wait for a loader to do its work and

then come out and go down over the hill.

It is not uncommon for those students to have to walk from

their house, some of them for almost a kilometre, up to the top of a hill in

order to connect with the school bus. They are not complaining about that. They

are not saying: We want a loader with a plough on it stationed in our community.

They are not saying: We do not want to walk to the bus. They are willing to do

all those things, but what they are asking for is that once they get on the bus

to have a decent road to travel over while they are going to and from the

school.

The parents have raised their concerns. The business people

in the area have raised their concerns. The school teachers have raised their

concerns. The bus operators have come forward and said: We are not happy with

this road situation because of the cost of repairs to our buses. Now the

students are speaking out. They are asking and pleading with government to come

forward and upgrade at least the worst

section of Route 235 between Bonavista

and Birchy Cove.

The parents are continually having regular meetings. They are

starting a letter writing campaign now, I understand. They are starting to send

letters to the minister's office, doing it very quietly. They are not going out

and blocking the roads -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - not obstructing traffic, Mr. Speaker,

but putting forward their plea in a sensible, rational way.

I ask the minister if he would take this petition and

seriously consider having this road upgraded and paved, and hopefully provide

those people with a decent road to travel over on a daily basis.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, he is back, is he? I would not

want to start this unless he was there.

Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Waterford Valley

adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to rise today for the fourth day to continue my

comments relative to the Budget. Now I hope that before this day is out I may be

able to conclude. There are only two hours and three minutes left in the

afternoon session. If I use the condensed version I may be able to get through

it.

Mr. Speaker, I note that -

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

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Government House

Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: When he talks about concluding, Mr. Speaker, is

he talking about concluding his speech or his introduction? Because I pray it is

his introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I admit to the hon.

Government House Leader I am nearer to the end of the beginning than I was

yesterday. I admit that the end of the beginning is now coming into focus, and I

admit I still have some lengthy pages of outlined notes here. What I have said

thus far is merely a prelude to what I shall be saying before this Budget debate

is finished.

Yesterday in the House I was drawing some reference to the

shipyard in Marystown. On tomorrow this House will be debating a motion put

forward by my friend the Member for St. John's West. Or that is my

understanding, that we shall be doing that, although I have not had that

confirmed by the Government House Leader, but I know it is on the Order Paper.

Because both she and I will be out of the House tomorrow on a personal family

matter I wanted to -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I am sure the hon. member does not want the

record to be inaccurate. I believe he intended to refer to the Member for

Burin-Placentia West and he inadvertently said the Member for St. John's West. I

think you are referring to the ship building resolution of the Member for

Burin-Placentia West, are you not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I did not hear the member.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if I inadvertently used the

word St. John's when I should have been referring to Burin-Placentia West, it is

because I was thinking about St. John's in terms of other matters and their ship

building policies and that kind of thing. Also, of course, sometimes in the

House we do say things, our mind just slips.

I want to get back to the issue and that is to talk about the

shipyard in Marystown. The shipyard in Marystown was the concept of the Liberal

premier of the day, Joey Smallwood. The whole idea of development of Marystown

has a fairly lengthy history. As a matter of fact, in the 1930s a gentleman by

the name of Thompson had done a great deal of work promoting a free port in

Marystown.

Mortier Bay has probably some of the deepest waters. It is by

far one of the best natural harbours in all Newfoundland and Labrador. That has

been well researched. That particular harbour has tremendous potential. One of

the first people to promote that potential was in the 1930s, a gentleman by the

name of Thompson, who unfortunately on a trip to England during the Second World

War died when the boat he was travelling on was torpedoed.

In the 1950s and 1960s Joey Smallwood came up with the idea

that he would like to have a shipbuilding facility built in Marystown. It

followed upon the former shipyards that had been in that particular part of the

Province. There was one there built in the 1920s and that one unfortunately

burned. One was built there in the late 1930s, and they built mine sweepers for

use in the British Navy during World War II. Some of the leading boat builders

in that particular enterprise came from the Monroe part of the Province. As I am

saying to the Speaker at the moment, Henry Stone was one of the leading people

in that ship building enterprise at that time.

Millions of dollars have been invested. Joey Smallwood, when

he got the shipyard going, the steel facility that is there now, when we went to

look for workers we had to go to all parts of the world. As a matter of fact,

the great majority of workers in the 1960s and the early 1970s were not

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they were people from England and Scotland.

Because after we had the shipyard designed and constructed we

found out we did not have the skilled labour force in Newfoundland and Labrador

required to be able to build the kind of ships that we envisaged would be built

at Marystown. So in the 1960s and 1970s most of the work force there, a good

many of them, of the leaders in that work force, were not people who had grown

up in Newfoundland and Labrador. They were people from England and Scotland who

came to Newfoundland, brought their expertise, and over time they trained the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to learn the skills that would be

required to make the Yard a success.

Last year the government sold the Marystown Shipyard for $1.

That was what Friede Goldman paid for the Marystown Shipyard. A few weeks ago

the owners of the shipyard, Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited, announced that

they were going to be closing up the Yard and they would be moving the facility

to Cow Head. That has caused great concern for the people in the Marystown

region and for all those people who depend on that Yard for a living.

This consolidation of operations has caused great anxiety to

the people who live in that region. The union president, Jerome Walsh, who also

serves as the Mayor of Marystown, has called it a move that is causing anxiety

and fear, it is causing apprehension, causing concerns about the very future of

the Marystown Shipyard.

Probably very few people can speak as well, and with such

authority, for the shipyard and for the people of Marystown as Jerome Walsh. He

was born in the area, he has worked in the area all of his life, he has been a

dedicated community volunteer, and he certainly has a great deal to offer to

this government when it comes to giving them advice on the community of

Marystown and also on the shipyard itself. At the moment Jerome Walsh serves as

the president of the union local in that area.

Jerome Walsh says that the move to Cow Head will all but make

the original shipyard facility a repair operation at best. Of course, it also

brings into question the long-term commitment of Friede Goldman Newfoundland to

the ship building industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt that

the Cow Head facility is the primary interest of Friede Goldman Newfoundland

Limited. That is their primary concern. They make no question about their

primary interest; it is indeed the Cow Head facility.

In the interest of trying to get the issue addressed the

union president and others in the Marystown area ask for a meeting with the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and also with the other government

representatives from that part of the Province. It certainly was of great

concern to Jerome Walsh and to the union membership that they felt that the hon.

the minister did not seem to understand how serious this particular move from

the present location to the Cow Head facility would be on the Marystown labour

force and on the future of the shipyard in general.

While Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited are saying that

this move is a temporary measure, certainly that is not the opinion shared by

the workers, by the union, or by the community. While we take at his word the

company president Bob Shepherd, when he says that the original purpose of the

Yard will still be served, there is great concern that this might be the

beginning of the end for the Marystown Shipyard. It is a case of where we

acknowledge that these short-term measures are the opinion of the management

down there, but we also know that if we are going to attract industry and we are

going to attract new buildings of ships at Marystown we have to make sure we

have a trained workforce in place.

Again I quote the former union president, Wayne Butler, who

is now the Friede Goldman Newfoundland employee heading up a union committee

lobbying for a national ship building policy. He said: It is a very serious

situation that they are facing in Marystown.

One of the concerns that the union has is that the Terra Nova

offshore development project (inaudible) full speed. The workers in Marystown

are asking the very serious question: What is the benefit of Terra Nova and its

development to the people in Marystown? It is a case of where a lot of the work

for Terra Nova is being completed in Korea, in Scotland, and some of it is also

being completed in Bull Arm, but there is very little that has come to Marystown

because of the Terra Nova development. So Wayne Butler and others who are trying

to encourage the federal government to develop a solid ship building policy are

expressing concern about this government's commitment to Marystown.

This government has to acknowledge that when you have a

workforce that dropped from 1,000 down to around 300, when you have trained

workers leaving the shipyard - some of them are leaving because they have lost

their jobs, some more are leaving because they are anticipating the closure and

they want to leave now while the writing is on the wall, as they would say -

that these people are very concerned about the commitment of this government to

the ship building industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We acknowledge that if

the Yard is allowed to close, and if this temporary move to the Cow Head

facility is allowed to go ahead, we will lose a great deal of expertise, and

that is the threat to Marystown.

I bring this matter to the attention of the House because

this is a very serious issue affecting one of the primary sources of employment

on the entire Burin Peninsula. Now we know as well that the federal Government

of Canada has been asked by the unions represented in this Province, by the

Canadian Auto Workers Union, by all of the other locals - as a matter of fact,

on this very day there are meetings taking place in other parts of this country

encouraging the federal government to become more proactive in their ship

building policies.

We know as well that the Premier of this Province has been

written to by the union representatives and has been written to by others

connected to the ship building industry. He has been asked if he would intercede

with the federal government to make sure that some of the commitments that were

made by the federal government to the ship building industry of Canada would be

acted upon by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

I want to review for a few moments some of the alternatives

want to make a point that there are things that can be done to help Marystown.

There are things that can be done to help the ship building industry in all of

Atlantic Canada. There are things that the federal government has said it would

do. We know that the federal government has made commitments. For example, in

said that funds would be accorded to the Canadian ship building industries to

help with the upgrading of the military components and with the military boats.

We want to ask the question: Why haven't the provisional funds been accorded to

the Canadian shipbuilding industries to help passage from the military industry

to the private sector as promised in the Red Book in 1993?

There were commitments to the ship building industry in the

federal Liberal Red Book in 1993 and we ask why they have not been acted upon.

We want to say to the federal Liberal Government as well, and I say to the

government opposite, that these messages have been delivered to the Premier of

this Province. We are asking him to also act on behalf of Newfoundland and

the national shipbuilding policies.

In fact, in 1993 there was a commitment to have a summit led

by Ottawa on the future of the shipbuilding industry in Canada; that summit

bringing together labour, industry, the military, whomever was interested. That

summit on a national shipbuilding policy has never been held.

We ask the government opposite to talk to their federal

cousins, to say to them that in 1993 the federal government gave a commitment

that they would have a summit on shipbuilding policies in Canada. That has never

ever been lived up to, never been acted upon. That is the kind of thing calling

upon this Premier who was in that Cabinet back in 1993 that gave that commitment

that they would have a summit on a shipbuilding policy for Canada and it has not

been acted upon at all, and we are saying, why not?

Then we can jump to 1997. In 1997, the Premiers of all of

Canada met at St. Andrews in New Brunswick. We note that at that conference

there was a unanimous recommendation of the provincial Premiers to help the

Canadian shipbuilding industry to become more competitive on the international

scene.

That was important enough in 1997, in August of that year,

for all of the provincial Premiers of this country to put on the agenda of the

St. Andrews Premiers' Conference. I believe that the Premier of this Province in

1997 would have been a person who would have wanted to have that particular

issue placed on the agenda.

There was a unanimous recommendation from the Premiers to

encourage the federal government to help the Canadian shipbuilding industry

become more competitive in the international scene. That has not, to date,

received any action from the federal government. The Premier of this Province

has a responsibility to follow up on the commitments that he made and that he

encouraged the federal government to make in August of 1997.

We know as well that there are other things that can be done.

We know that in some other areas there have been differences in the way in which

some governments are acting. We know, for example, that there is a difference in

the way in which the United States treats its shipbuilding industry and the way

that we treat them in Canada. We know that the Americans are a lot more

aggressive when it comes to looking after their own interests, when it comes to

the shipbuilding policy, than are the Canadians.

We say on this side as well that there are alternatives and

some of them have been well-known, or should be well-known, to members of

Cabinet. They would be well-known to my colleague from Burin-Placentia West.

Some of the issues are well-known to my colleague from Burin-Placentia West

because she probably has much of the same correspondence that I have on this

issue.

There are some strategies. There can be loan guarantees given

to the shipbuilding industry. For example, internationally some of the loan

guarantees will guarantee up to 87.5 per cent of a project's total cost. If we

are going to be competitive, we have to do what others are doing; and most every

single yard of any size in this world today operates on some kind of government

guarantees.

In Canada, we had intended to go away from that but that

means our industries are not able to compete with the others in the world. So,

while we do not have an aggressive policy in Canada we find out that the yards

in Korea, the yards in Scotland and other parts of the world, are going ahead

and doing better than we are doing.

Canada has to match the loan guarantees that are offered to

other yards that compete with the Canadian yards. We have to get into, as well,

refundable tax credits. There are a great variety of measures that can be taken,

and we are calling upon the government to look at these matters, to try to make

sure that the Canadian shipyards are able to compete internationally, and that

the Marystown Shipyard is able to be the yard it was intended to be, it can

continue to be a proud resource of employment for residents who live on the

Burin Peninsula, and that we can look forward to some of the other spinoffs that

come from employment in this kind of industry.

If I could, just for one moment, I just wanted to note that

in 1990 there were 12,000 workers working in the shipyard industries in Canada.

That has now dwindled to less than 5,000 workers. That is a drastic reduction.

In other words, a few years ago - eight or nine years ago - we had 12,000

skilled workers working in the shipyards in Canada, but because of things that

happened, some of it due to free trade... Of course, we have the argument that

NAFTA has not treated Canadian yards well. Why is it that the Americans are able

to exempt their shipyards from the NAFTA agreement but in Canada we did not make

the same provisions?

We have to look at the loss of those thousands of relatively

well-paying jobs, most of them concentrated in the hard-pressed areas of Canada,

the Atlantic Canada area, the areas in the Quebec part of the province. We have

to go as well and look at what the impact, the loss of these jobs, has on these

areas. We know that for every lost job in shipbuilding there is a loss of two or

three other jobs in spinoff industries.

It is not that just in Marystown where we have a reduction of

about 700 jobs lost in the last two or three years, but it is a fact that for

every one of those jobs there are other spinoff jobs that are being lost as

well.

We on this side of the House want to join the government, we

want to join the Member for Burin-Placentia West, we want to join her and to say

to her that we want this government to take seriously the loss of jobs in the

shipbuilding industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We want this government to

impress upon the federal government the fact that these industries, the loss of

these skills, not only just affects the Burin Peninsula part of the Province but

has an indirect effect on the whole economy of our Province.

Nationally we have to say as well that when you are losing

these kinds of jobs - because the average wage in a skilled shipbuilding trade

is well above the average for the Canadian society - these are very highly

skilled jobs. Even the loss of the tax revenue can be significant to the

Province and to the federal government.

We want to say to the government opposite that there is a

great reason for this government to go back to its basics when it comes to its

shipbuilding policies. It is a case of where they should examine again what they

should be doing. We ask them, when the motion is brought forward, hopefully on

tomorrow, that the comments that I have made here will be seen to be part of the

package that will be agreed upon by this House and will encourage this

government to look again at its policies, and hopefully we will do more to make

sure that the Terra Nova project has more spinoff positive effects on the

shipyard in Marystown.

We certainly want to encourage the government to work with

the federal government to adopt a very aggressive shipbuilding policy for all of

Canada, because in Atlantic Canada that is the core of many of the skills that

we have in many of our communities.

If we look at Marystown, it is basically from a rural part of

the Province. The shipyard in Marystown is the core of what makes that part of

the Province work.

I speak as a person who has had some background, through my

family, in shipbuilding over the years. I suppose it is fair to say that I am

perhaps the first one in my generation of Newfoundlanders - it goes back 150

years - who has not worked in the shipbuilding industry. I want to encourage the

government to be very proactive on this matter.

Before I move along, I want to as well make a few comments on

a couple of other topics. I want to make a few comments relative to the

Churchill Falls development. We, on this side of the House, have listened

carefully to the Churchill Falls debate.

Certainly, I do know that the leader of this party has had a

great deal of interest in the entire Churchill Falls proposal and has prided

himself -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Well, I do not want to go down that far.

There is a limit.

I want to say that the leader of this party has encouraged

all of the caucus to become very familiar with the Churchill Falls development.

We have had many a discussion on that matter.

We want to say as well that we believe that all of the

Churchill Falls proposals should be thoroughly and completely analyzed by

experts. The development of the Lower Churchill is an integral part of this

Province's hope for financial security in the years to come. We do not want to

spend useless time casting blame as to what happened to the original agreement.

That has been well spoken about and researched, and it does not lead us

anywhere.

Every Newfoundlander and Labradorians, of every political

stripe, wants to see the potential benefits of the Lower Churchill Falls filling

our own Treasury in Newfoundland and Labrador rather than the Treasury of any

other province.

We want the Lower Churchill Falls development to benefit this

Province primarily and we encourage the government, in their negotiations with

the Province of Quebec, to always keep that foremost in their mind.

Mr. Speaker, we admit that the inequities of the Upper

Churchill agreement came about as a consequence of the failure of the federal

government to secure for this Province wielding rights across Quebec so that

Churchill Falls power could be sold in the United States marketplace.

We know that the federal government at the time did have and

should have used a different strategy. Newfoundland and Labrador was not strong

enough then, in the 1960s, to guarantee the required finances to go it alone. We

know that today the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not strong enough

financially to be able to finance the development of the Lower Churchill Falls

agreement.

These two facts, the wielding rights and our poor financial

pace, forced us to deal with Quebec in the 1960s and in many ways it is forcing

us to deal with Quebec in the 1990s.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I get more information from him than any

other constituent.

MR. TULK: Are you telling me that (inaudible) are living

in the same district?

MR. E. BYRNE: I said, you are my constituent. The

constituent in the Goulds and Kilbride area that causes me the most grief and

looks for the most help is the Government House Leader, all the time.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the Government House Leader that,

when the former Government House Leader was redesigning the boundaries, one of

his priorities was to make sure that you and I would be separated.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: True. I should say to the Government House

Leader, he also redesigned the boundaries so that where I live in Mount Pearl

would not be in my district as well.

MR. E. BYRNE: It didn't work, though, did it?

MR. H. HODDER: That did not do him much good. I cannot

get off my street without going into my district, but my own house is not

located within my own district.

Mr. Speaker, returning to the Churchill Falls agreement, we

on this side of the House say that we have to get the best deal we can out of

the Churchill Falls negotiations. We also say that this process has to become

more transparent.

MR. E. BYRNE: Open, that is all.

MR. H. HODDER: Open it up.

Our policy on this side of the Legislature is to say that the

whole process of Churchill Falls has to become more open, more transparent, so

that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can participate in the

decision-making.

Thus far, we must ask that the government improve its

communications with the people on the negotiations with Quebec and the federal

government on the development of the Lower Churchill. Full disclosure of the

final contract is important. A complete and independent analysis of the final

contract are vital aspects of the Lower Churchill Falls negotiations. We do not

want to make the mistakes of the past.

The multi-million public relations fiasco that happened last

March does not bode well for the Churchill Falls agreement. It causes us all

concern when we have information coming out, like was in the paper recently, of

a major disagreement between Lawrence O'Brien, the federal representative, and

our Minister of Mines and Energy. As you know, there was a major public

discussion of the differences between these two representatives, most of them

representing the same brand of political persuasion.

There are many more aspects that I will get a chance to

debate. I have other things that I would like to talk about. I wanted to have a

discussion about the minimum wage, and the fact that you have increased the

minimum wage from $5.25 to $5.50. I wanted to have a comment on that. I also

wanted to talk about the Low Income Seniors' Benefit which is announced in this

Budget. I wanted to talk about municipal operating grants which got very little

attention in the Budget. Also, things with the tax climate and the commitment to

change the payroll tax. We want to talk about rural renewal. I want to talk

about the mining industry. I want to talk about the IOC in Labrador City. I want

to talk about the pelletizing plant decision. We could talk about health care

for a while.

I do have a lot of information that I want to share, but I do

understand that my colleague the Member for Baie Verte is ready. He wants to get

a chance to get in some discussion before the day is out. So with these few

comments I am going to conclude my introductory comments because throughout this

process all of us on this side will have a chance to rise again and to

participate. All my colleagues here will be using their maximum time because we

want to offer the government constructive suggestions on how to run a province.

We want to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know

that when the time comes we on this side will be ready and prepared to move to

the government's side of the House. We know that will occur at the very earliest

opportunity when the people of this Province get once again a chance to vote. We

introduce measures that will make sure we live within our means and make sure we

stop measures that essentially subsidize corporations at the expense, in some

cases, of small business people. We want to make real change happen.

With these few comments, Mr. Speaker, I will yield to another

speaker who I am sure will bring further enlightenment to the government on this

particular matter.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, on behalf of all people on this side of the

House, including my friends to the right, I thank the member for an exemplary

job, a stellar performance. So far. I took notes as I listened to him. He gave -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister. I

was taking very good notes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let me see your notes.

MR. SHELLEY: Right here, look.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell me one thing he said.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it made a lot of sense,

including this whole Budget Speech, of the fraudulent Budget that we saw before

us. He gave examples after examples. It was a stellar performance from the

Member for Waterford Valley. He talked about the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) one thing he said.

MR. SHELLEY: I just told you.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SHELLEY: I said the government had a fraudulent

budget, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, he did. Didn't he?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you made that up.

MR. SHELLEY: He gave example after example of

incompetence, of whitewashing the Budget, Mr. Speaker. He went on and on. Don't

forget, I say to the minister, that he gave us a condensed version. He is going

to stand again in this House of Assembly. That was a condensed version of the

introduction to the points that the Member for Waterford Valley is going to make

on this particular Budget. That is what he is going to do.

All members on this side, including my colleagues to the

right, have taken notes on the points that our hon. colleague has raised here

today on this Budget. He made some very good points. He is a man who follows it

very closely and can give you detail at any given moment on any part of the

Budget because he knows it so well. I congratulate my colleague on getting us

started and giving us a platform to build on as we make our comments on this

particular Budget, as we head into the next few hours and few days of debate

that is going to go on about this particular Budget.

We all take opportunities when the Budget debate is on to

zone in on a few of the issues that we think are important to the Province as a

whole and also to our districts. That is what I like about the Budget Speech, it

gives you a chance to zone in on particular issues that are a concern to your

own district, but in fact a concern to the entire Province.

I have just written down several of the issues I am going to

hit on over the next twenty or twenty-five minutes and try to make the best use

of my time, such issues, of course, as the education issue, the health issue,

the Budget overall, resources in the Province, and such things as the forestry,

the fishery and the seal industry. I am certainly going to take some time to

speak on the seal industry, something that we have heard a lot about as of late,

and basically give my report of what I think should happen to that particular

industry and what happened in Ottawa.

Another very important issue that a lot of us, especially the

rural members in this House of Assembly, on both sides of the House, hold very

dear to them is out-migration and the problems in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. I did say to some constituents just a few days ago that when I did get

a chance to speak on the Budget, which is a far ranging debate, that you can

take that time to talk about some issues that affect your district, affect the

Province as a whole, and affect people in this Province.

What is happening for the rural members - even in the last

days and weeks; I am not talking about over the last two or three years - is

that if you have good, wholehearted conversations with people in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador it seems like the time is drawing near. I mean by the

time of what the questions that must be answered as they respect rural

Newfoundland and Labrador and where we are going to see ourselves in the next

few months, in the next few years.

As we speak, even my district last month, in one community

alone - Ming's Bight, a population of some 300 to 400 people - thirty-eight

people up and left that small community. That is just one example. I know there

are members in this House, on both sides, for rural communities who can tell you

the same thing. They have talked to people in some of the small communities that

have made a decision to leave the Province. One time we could get up in this

House and say that the young people are leaving, the brain drain and so on. That

is true. There are a lot of young people leaving, but there is a new aspect to

this now.

I've talked to an older gentleman in the District of St.

Barbe. It was a few months back now. We always talked about the young people

that are leaving but I will give the minister this example. I will not use the

person's name because I did not ask him if I could.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I always do. I talk to many people in

St. Barbe, Mr. Speaker. That elderly gentleman said he was about to leave the

Province. We are not talking about a younger person but an elderly person. I was

curious to find out about why he would be leaving the Province.

This type of person is a person who has been in this Province

for years. He is from a fishing community, was a fisherman himself. He said he

is leaving for the simple fact that all his family has left. The main love of

his life now is his grandchildren. His two grandchildren had just left the

Province with his son and his wife and gone to Fort McMurray. He said he never

thought he would see the day when he would say he would be leaving. He figured

he would be here till the lights were turned off. That is what he thought.

I know there are people in this House that can relate to what

I am talking about, anybody with grandchildren. I do not have grandchildren yet,

but if anybody has grandchildren they can relate to what I am talking about.

This man said he never thought he would see the day when he said: I am leaving

this Province.

He is leaving because the love of his life that are left now,

his grandchildren, are leaving with his son. They are moving to Fort McMurray

and he says: I have to go. He said: I cannot see myself living here. His wife

was dead, and his son was moving with his two children, his only grandchildren.

I do not know if the member or the House Leader have

grandchildren or not. Do you have grandchildren?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I do not have any grandchildren. Not

yet, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if the minister knows how young I am, I say to

the minister. No, I do not have grandchildren, but I am sure there are lots of

members in this House who have grandchildren.

The point is that we have said for years that it is the brain

drain, the young people are leaving this Province, but in fact we are at a stage

now where the elderly people who have family, the only family they have left,

are about to leave the Province. They are not going to stay in this Province as

long as their family are moving away, so they have had to make that heartfelt

decision of having to leave this Province.

His quote was: I thought I would leave when the lights were

turned out but I have to go. I do not know to date if he has left, that is some

three or three-and-a-half months ago that I spoke to him. I do not know if he

has left. The point I am making about rural Newfoundland, and any member in this

House can make it - I am not holding monopoly on what people in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador feel - but I am telling you now that thirty-eight

people left a small community in my district last month.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, you see it happening all the

time and it is a real sad time, but the time is drawing near. It is not

something that is going to be dragged over the next two or three years even. It

is not even something that is going to be dragged over the next year. I am

hoping I am wrong, but I'm predicting that next year's out-migration number is

going to higher than it has been during the last three consecutive years.

I do not have the numbers in front of me again today but I am

sure many members here have seen it. I think it is something in the range of

40,000 to 42,000 people who left this Province since 1991. That is the

population of Corner Brook wiped off the map, gone, wiped off the map, the

equivalent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It could be, I said, with the number of

people that have left.

Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? The difference when you do

the calculation on the transfer payments - is it right, I ask the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi? - is $7,000 per person in transfer payments. I think I

am in the right area, $7,000 to $8,000 per person. That is 41,000 people left

this Province since 1991. That is the statistic. I can be corrected on that

maybe, but it is in that ballpark. That is $7,000 per person.

I just had a recent visit to Ottawa where I've talked to

several Liberal MPs and got some more information. I found out that when the

Premier jumped up and lambasted the federal government on their Budget, on their

transfers, and of course their equations for allocating the transfers to this

Province, that the Premier, in his former life as the federal MP who sat around

the Cabinet representing this Province, in those years when they came up with

this formula, that this Premier now, in his former life as an MP, was one of the

people who sat around the Cabinet table.

Sure enough, when he publicly lambasted the federal

government for their Budget and their transfer allocations and so on, within

days the Prime Minister, the boss himself, comes to the Province, takes the

Premier aside, and you know what he said to him? He passed him a text, and the

text was a speech that he made as a federal MP supporting the allocations,

supporting the cuts. That is what he did. The Prime Minister, the boss - this is

what I was told - passed our Premier the text and he said: Now, Mr. Tobin, read

that and be quiet. Read it and be quite, that is what he said to him.

Lo and behold, if you think back - because it is not that

long ago when the Premier got up, and then the next day the Minister of Finance

said it was laughable, and all the criticism came flying from the provincial

government - within one trip and half an hour after the Prime Minister arrived,

there was not one more sound from the Premier. Because we know what was

happening. They call it the woodshed.

That is exactly what happened. He passed him a speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: What happens in the woodshed?

(Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: What happens in the woodshed, Mr. Speaker?

We can understand what happens at the woodshed. You know when you come back out

of the woodshed you have a different attitude than when you go in.

MR. HARRIS: I'm a townie. Tell (inaudible) what goes on

in the woodshed (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: What happens in the woodshed, Mr. Speaker,

is this. The philosophy behind the woodshed is that once you go into the

woodshed and you are taught a lesson your attitude changes when you come out. It

is as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, as a matter of fact, I probably even

agree with the minister. I do not think he made it to the woodshed. I think it

happened before he got there. He was on his way to the woodshed when it

happened.

The truth is the MP - I will not use the MP's name because he

told me not to say it and I won't, I won't even hint at it - said the Prime

Minister passed the Premier his own text of supporting these same transfer

equations, what he supported when he sat around the federal Cabinet in Ottawa.

He said: Brian, read that and be quiet.

Sure enough, lo and behold, it was the last word you heard.

You would not find it on a bulletin board, not in an R and B paper in this

Province, no radio station. Nothing was ever said after that. We know what

happened. The truth is that this particular Budget that was brought down, that

had a standing ovation, that everything was wonderful in it - this is what

people in this Province are asking today. People in this Province are saying:

Hold on a second now. Two months ago we had a standing ovation for a budget in

the House of Assembly and today, this very day, we have a crisis in health care

and we have a crisis in education.

They are crises. The reality of what is happening in the

education system is fast coming upon us. Every single person in this House of

Assembly will stand, if they were asked the pointed question: Why did you vote

for education reform?, would answer as simple as this: So that my son or

daughter, or your son or daughter, could have a better education. It is as

simple as that. It was not complicated. There was nothing to it.

Even the people who did not vote for education reform were

saying, once they lost the referendum and when the referendum went for

educational reform, with the changes, people who even voted against it will at

least get a better education system.

I listen to the minister when she answers questions here in

the House using statistics and, she says, using facts. That is fair enough - we

all have to use facts - but then we have to come down to the reality of it. The

minister and the government of the day have to be able to look at each parent of

this Province and say that your child will get a better education because of

this pain.

Mr. Speaker, I will give you this simply analogy that was

used by a gentleman in my district just a few days ago. He said: Everybody hates

to go to the dentist, but you do not mind going to see the dentist and getting

your tooth pulled if you know the toothache will not be there afterwards. You

would put up with the pain for an hour in the dentist chair and a little while

after. You do not mind putting up with that as long as you know the pain will be

gone after. The people in my district and around this Province have put up with

a lot of pain in the past little while.

In the community of Seal Cove for the last several months, or

a year, they have been lobbying and putting forward to the board their reasons

why their small school in their small community should stay open.

A board member told me today, upstairs in this building, that

it tore the heart out of that community. It was not just a building. When that

school closed down, it was not just the school that was gone, it was a centre

for their community.

Anybody who has been around small-town Newfoundland knows

what I am talking about. They know that right now if you go into a community of

300 or 400 people, and there is a school building there with a gymnasium and an

auditorium, there are functions - Christmas concerts - everything happens in

that school. That is the centre of that community.

Mr. Speaker, he said to us today that it tore the heart out

of him to have to vote to close that school, and they had no other choice as a

board. Now, he says, he has to turn back to those same parents - he voted to

close the school - and say to them: By the way, the reason why we closed your

school, of course, was to better the education system. Well, I hate to tell you

this, but your little boy or little girl is not going to get a better education

system. After all the pain you have been through, it is not going to happen.

You can imagine a board member having to tell a parent that.

That district board office that we met with today is saying exactly that. They

are out there running front-line for the government of the day. They are out

there to tell people and point at them and say: We had to close your school, we

had to take the heart out of your community but, by the way, I forgot to tell

you something else: Your little girl or little boy is not going to get that

great education system that was promised.

That is what the argument is here today. That is why the

minister is going to give statistics and facts. I do not dispute the facts and

statistics that she has given, but what parents are asking me is: What is going

to happen next year? What is going to happen in September? Fourteen schools have

closed in that district; 138 teachers out of the system.

Another point on the teachers is that the morale of the

teachers in this Province is at an all-time low. If the morale of the teachers

is at an all-time low, how is that going to affect education in this Province?

How is it going to benefit children in this Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: As a former teacher, I can tell the members

opposite that if the teachers are not enthused, if morale is low, then the child

is the one who suffers. He is the one who suffers.

When I talk to principals these days, even as early as this

morning, who say: We are going to have to look at program cuts for next year.

When they talk about program cuts, they are talking about music, art, and

physical education.

I will tell you today, and I am sure there are a lot of

people involved in sports in this particular Chamber, if you touch physical

education in some schools you will see increased dropout rates in the schools.

If the programs deteriorate, you are going to see a bigger problem with

dropouts. I say that from a point of view of a former coach in school, a teacher

who took most evenings to coach teams, who took many weekends to go on school

trips. That is what education is.

Yes, we need the math and science and so on, but if you take

away those extracurricular, if you take away what a lot of children come to

school for, I can tell you - because you are looking at a student right now, and

it is the same with a lot of us - one of our biggest rewards for going to school

was being involved in the basketball teams, the hockey teams, the drama clubs

and the science fairs.

We are all kidding ourselves here today if you think our

children - and I have two children in school now - are going to go right through

school because they are going to be perfect boys and girls and they are going

there for math and science, you are kidding yourself. Yes, I hope that my

children are going to continue to be interested in math, science, history and

geography and so on. I know they will - I hope they will - but those extras, the

team sports, the science fairs, the drama clubs, the trips, the field trips,

that is what keeps children interested. It is not the fifty minutes you sit down

to a biology class. It is not the fifty minutes you sit down at math. It is

certainly not the fifty minutes you sit down in history. Some are interested in

history, I say to my colleague from Lewisporte, who was a former history

teacher, I know.

AN HON. MEMBER: And a good one.

MR. SHELLEY: And a good one at that; but I am sure, as a

former history teacher, he can tell you that the twenty or twenty-five students

he had sitting in front of him, fourteen, fifteen or sixteen years old, going

through those changes in their lives, were not that excited about sitting down

and listening to a history lesson for fifty minutes on world history, Egyptian

history. Yes, he may have held their attention for ten, fifteen or twenty

minutes, if you are a good teacher - and that is if you are interested. That is

going back to the other point I am making. If you have morale so low in the

school system these days that teachers are not into their job, they are not

enthused - and how can you blame them?

What teachers are being told in their staff room now is: By

the way, you are going to have more students in your classroom. You are going to

have a heavier workload. You are going to have less prep time.

How can you expect that teacher to get up from his desk at

3:00 p.m. and go out to the principal and say: Listen, I will coach the

basketball team for you, two days a week, and take them on four or five trips a

year. How can you expect that teacher to do that?

The blunt reality that it is coming down to in this Province

is that our education system is going to need a major boost. It is going to need

a major boost or we are going to tip on the other side and it is going to be a

negative trend in the coming years unless we act upon it.

The minister can use all the statistics and facts she wants.

The reality of it is that right now students in this Province are going to be

jammed into smaller classroom sizes, they are going to have less programs, and

they are going to have - the main tool of education, the main resource, is

teachers. You can talk about buildings and gymnasiums and computers as much as

you want. I thoroughly believe in computers and technology and how they are

going to progress. You can talk about all of them, but they come behind the

teacher. The teacher is the main resource. Like a leader of this country said to

me one time, Mr. Jean Charest: Imagine - also, as parents, we have all done it -

when you take your six-year-old...

The first day of kindergarten is a day we always remember. I

remember my two children, the first day of kindergarten. You bring them down to

that school, some of them do not want to stay in school, they are crying to go

home, and you take their little hand and you pass it to a teacher. That teacher

is going to influence that student, in a lot of cases, more than the parents

because they are with them six hours a day, seven hours a day. Sometimes it is

more if they start to coach them and do other things. That teacher in a lot of

aspects influences the child as much and sometimes more than the parents,

especially if they have working parents these days, two of the parents working,

which is the case all around this Province. That teacher has to have high

morale. He has to have enthusiasm. I suppose a simple line is: That teacher has

to want to do a good job.

Of course, we know statistically that most teachers now in

our system have been there anywhere from fifteen to twenty-five years. That is a

lot of time teaching. Imagine being in this House of Assembly that long. It is

hard to keep your enthusiasm up. It is hard enough as it is at that age to be

teaching and to try to have the enthusiasm to do the extra things that make

education what it is. It is hard enough to do that but now they are going to be

told, as a teacher, that you are here for twenty-five years. By the way, next

year all of your class sizes are going to increase. Next year your prep period

is gone. Why would he go out to the principal and venture to say: I will take

the students on a science fair, I will take the basketball team, I will take the

volleyball team. It is not going to happen.

I am telling you now, Mr. Speaker, and I know members in this

House - and if you have not done it you should do it - walk into a staff room in

the next little while, like I have done. Walk into a staff room and talk to the

teachers. They are almost too tired to talk to you, too tired to talk about the

issue. They sit there now and they do not know where they are coming from. They

do not know where they are teaching next year.

A good friend of mine is in a teaching position in La Scie

this year, well involved in extra-curricular, coaching teams and so on. As a

matter of fact he is preparing for a tournament this weekend. He has two young

children of his own, and it is hard to punch that type of time in. Next year he

does not know where he is teaching. He does not know if he has a job. We have

not even seen the worst of this whole effort yet.

The district that we spoke to today, District 5, the Baie

Verte/Central/Connaigre District, are on the lead end of the education reform.

They have 90 per cent of their physical reform done, the closing of schools. I

have been there in meetings with them. They have taken the heat. They have

closed down the schools. Like the school in Seal Cove, just a little while ago,

you had to feel for the people there.

I made comments in this House of Assembly with the minister

and the Premier present to tell them how I felt about it. I supported them on

keeping their school open, because it was not just for the sake of a school. It

was the good job that they had done and what they put forward. The board, just a

little while ago, called a meeting to let the public have another shot at it.

I say to those people and I say to this House of Assembly

that the truth is that the fate of that particular school was set the day the

education reform referendum was over. That was when it was set - a lot of

schools.

For those people in Seal Cove, it is only one example of many

places in districts across this Province - Seal Cove, White Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I say to the minister, in all different

ones. I am glad that the minister is here. I just make the point of it. I am

hoping that her facts are statistics are going to bear fruit at the end of the

day so that I can go back to the people in Seal Cove and say: You took a lot of

pain, your school is closed, you are looking up at windows that are barred up in

that small school down there.

We gave hundreds of examples of the good things they have

done over the years - Rickett's Elementary - we have given lots of examples.

What a good group to put forward the recommendations for keeping their school

open. But, I want to be able to tell people at the end of the day, in Seal Cove:

Yes, you have to bus your little six-year-old now fifteen kilometres to another

school. They could handle that if I could honestly look them in the eye and say

to them: Don't worry, because your child is now going to have more programs,

better resources, and they are going to have a better education. If I can do

that honestly, there is not going to be a problem; but we have to find out at

the end of the day that child is going to get the education system that was

promised.

Don't forget - we are always losing this fact - if we invest,

because it is an investment, we are not talking about spending. I do not refer

to spending in education. I am talking about investment in education. It is not

spending in education; it is called investment. Do you know why? It is for the

economy of this Province so that people are going to be educated and hopefully

stay here in this Province.

I know it is a new portfolio for the minister and it is a

learning education for the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) learning education.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, it is a learning and it is an education

for the minister of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Learning and education.

We will have to see if the Member from Bellevue wants to buy

a ticket on a hearing aide. He cannot hear very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is a learning and an

education for the new minister in her portfolio.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. Would you like for me to repeat that

once more, seeing it is only four times I have said it so far? I could say it

once more.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a slow learner, I believe.

MR. SHELLEY: You are a slow learner. The Member for

Bellevue is a slow learner, or he does not listen well or something. I am not

sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Repetition. I have done that before. I am a

teacher too, I say to the Member. I was a teacher - former Member for Bellevue -

and was lucky enough, by the way, in four years of teaching, to teach from

kindergarten, junior high, senior high, and adult education in four short years.

I dealt with people in Adult Basic Education at the College in Baie Verte who

did not do so well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I did not teach at university. I was

heading there until I got caught up in this. I was heading for that. I would

like to do that someday. I did like every aspect. Some people ask me: Which one

did you like teaching most? It is hard to judge that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: If you liked teaching, you would still be

at it.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I did not like teaching; I loved

teaching. Absolutely. I taught at all levels. If you had been listening, like a

good student, you would have heard what I was teaching. Like so many students in

the back row do not listen, the Member for Humber East was not listening. Now he

is going to have to get his notes from the person next to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You should not point. What the minister said

is right, you should not point.

Education has changed so much over the years, when you talk

about discipline and so on in the classroom. I did my student teaching here at

Brother Rice, a fairly big school, and Regina in Corner Brook.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Learning? Learning is always the same.

Yes, Sir, I did my student teaching at Regina and was offered

a job to come back and teach there, I say to the Member for Humber East. I was

offered a job in Plum Point that I had to turn down, and ended up in Baie Verte

teaching.

The point that I am making, for anybody who has been a

teacher, if you covered all realms of teaching from primary to secondary and

right on up into adult education, you get a good view of the whole process. I

went right from starting kids in school to teaching people at adult education

where you find out why the system failed them or why they did not make it

through the system. You learn a lot from them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Tom was a teacher. Yes, the Member for

Lewisporte was a former history teacher, a vice-principal. It is quite an

experience.

MR. RIDEOUT: Did I teach you?

MR. SHELLEY: No, you did not teach me. I was too young. I

was in elementary school, so you did not teach me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He was not there long enough. I do not think

you can make it after two years of teaching. I think that you have to teach a

little bit longer.

Mr. Speaker, I did enjoy it. I say to the Member for

Twillingate in all honesty, whether he believes it or not, I loved it. As a

matter of fact, my job that I had was the ultimate of teaching. The school where

I was teaching was across the street from my house. I had just moved back to

Baie Verte, and my wife was teaching in the high school. My two young girls, six

and nine years old, were in the elementary school, so it was a perfect

situation. Great staff, good student teacher ratio, excellent principal, all the

conditions were perfect.

I just happened to look at the political horizon at the time

when the Small brothers were in competition for the seat and had been there for

two years. Let me just say this: I was not satisfied with the representation

that we were getting, and neither were the people.

Very simply put, I used a small amount of money, which any

member can find for themselves, to run a very simple campaign. I lost a lot of

weight, like I know a lot of people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) simple person, right?

MR. SHELLEY: Why, who is a simple person? Are you making

accusations or what?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) simple campaign.

MR. SHELLEY: A simple campaign, I said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Is my time up?

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to say a few words on the 1999 Budget. It is

unbelievable when you see -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, a point of clarification. The hon.

member, my colleague, stood up on this side of the House before the member stood

up over there, and it is understood it is back and forth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On that point of order, the Speaker looked to the left and

the only person standing at the time was the person to the right. I recognize

the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. EFFORD: So you are not going to allow back and forth;

you are going to take your position?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You can give leave.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minster of Fisheries and Aquaculture that I am

not the one who decides who speaks in this House. I only stand in my turn. There

will be lots of time. We are here for awhile, I say to the minister, take your

time. We are going to be here for awhile.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take another seal capsule.

MR. FITZGERALD: Take another seal capsule. Rub a little

bit of salve on your elbows, I say to the minister. Take it easy. You will have

lots of time to speak.

I say to the Member for Humber East that he will certainly

have time to stand in his place and speak. All I can do is stand in my place, go

by the rules of the House. He has as much right to speak in this House as me or

anybody else, but he has to be recognized by the Chair, I say to members

opposite.

I stand today to say a few words on the 1999 Budget. When it

was delivered back a few weeks ago, three months or so ago, when the Budget was

delivered it was a great celebration. People ran over to the Minister of Finance

and shook his hand. One of the authors of the Budget, I would assume, sits at

the far left of the Premier, down at the other end. One of the authors of the

Budget was the first to run up and shake the minister's hand and talk about what

a wonderful Budget it was.

We now have a surplus, the second time since 1955, I think

the minister said. It was a great day. All of a sudden, when somebody comes

looking for something, when you see petitions presented here in this House, or

when you see members rise to ask that dollars be put back in health care, or

when you rise and see members rise and ask that dollars be put back in

education, members opposite, including the President of Treasury Board, stand

and respond almost like we are living in a Third World country. We are down at

debt's door; we do not have any money. We cannot respond to that, we have to be

responsible.

What a difference a day makes. When the Budget was delivered,

we had lots of money. We were in wonderful shape; we were leading the country;

we were setting the pace here in this Province. We were the envy of every other

province on Budget day. The next day after, we were the poorest province in

Canada. We had no money. There was nothing we could to do to respond to the

commitments that were made during the election.

There was one good thing about the election. When the

election was called, it caught a lot of people by surprise and we were all

wondering how we would ever go out and knock on doors and campaign right in the

middle of winter. We know what the weather can be like in certain areas of this

Province in January, February and March month. We were all very apprehensive on

what would happen if the weather got bad and how we would communicate with

people.

I went out and carried out a campaign of knocking on doors.

It was the only way I knew to campaign. In fact, I knocked on just about every

door in my district. The doors that I did not knock on, my wife knocked on, I

say to the members opposite. Every door was touched. The sudden shock that I got

- and I am a member who spends a lot of time in the district. I am a member who

at least -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I am sure you do, I say to the

President of the Treasury Board. That is why you got reelected back into the

House, because people knew what kind of a member you were and they knew what

commitment you brought. I think we all do that.

I was not prepared for the shock that I got when I saw the

number of homes closed up in my district. I was not quite prepared for it. It

was unbelievable when you go to places like King's Cove and Duntara and Plate

Cove and see the number of houses that were vacant, the number of windows

boarded up, the number of meter bases pulled from the sockets, people moved

away. It is a sad story when you see people having to leave their homes, leave

their life inheritance behind, and move to other places on the mainland in order

to access jobs and earn an living.

A lot of those people are middle-aged people. It is not like

it was years ago. Part of our heritage, I think, part of our culture as

Newfoundlanders, is that - I think there is a little bit of gypsy in us - we all

had to travel. I