May 26, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 32

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, it is with sadness that I

advise hon. members of the sudden death yesterday of Mrs. Elva Clarke. Mrs. Elva Clarke

had been an employee of the House of Assembly for the past twenty-one years. She started

as a Transcriber in the Hansard office, and more recently she was the Senior Editor. For

those of you who knew Mrs. Clarke, she was a cheerful, hard-working and loyal employee of

this institution.

On behalf of all members, I look to the House Leaders to move the

appropriate motion so that we can send condolences on behalf of all members to the Clarke

family.

I also wish, of course, to acknowledge the grief and sadness

experienced by the employees of Hansard office, by the Clerk's office, and in our library,

of her colleagues who will certainly miss her from her work. We want to as well share

their experiences.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the members, those of us

who have known Mrs. Clarke for a number of years, I am sure we would all want to move that

a letter of condolence be sent to Mrs. Clarke's family, and I would so move.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, in the Official Opposition, wish to endorse the motion to send

condolences to the family and certainly send our deepest regrets from the Official

Opposition.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with sadness that I learned earlier today of the passing of Mrs.

Clarke. I know she has been a long-standing and dedicated employee of Hansard who enjoyed

her job very much and was particularly proud of her interest in translating our sometimes

difficult oral language into the written word. I would like to join in expressing the

condolences of the members of the House to her family and to those who worked closely with

her.

Statements by

Ministers

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, managing our finances is a tough challenge

at any age. This is especially true for our youth. Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

tell all Members of the House of Assembly about an exciting new information package for

the youth of our Province.

Earlier today I had the opportunity to visit students at O'Donel High

School in Mount Pearl. We were there to introduce a new information kit entitled `Money

Smarts'.

Mr. Speaker, Money Smarts is a two-part financial awareness package

designed for young people, the teachers, and community leaders. The information provided

in this learning resource kit will encourage young people to look at all of the financial

options available to them so they can make informed decisions and wise money choices for

the future. The program specifically addresses the unique challenges facing young women

when they are planning their financial future. Money Smarts was developed by the

Government of British Columbia in consultation with other jurisdictions, and we want to

thank them for their permission to reprint this material.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, and as

the minister responsible for the Status of Women, I appreciate the importance and the

significance of this program. Research indicates today that young people generally lack

information about financial matters; and while it is important for everyone to plan for

their financial futures, young women face unique challenges. For example, a major gap

remains between men and women's income in Newfoundland and Labrador. On average, Mr.

Speaker, women earn 60 per cent less than men in the labour market.

Recent studies show that women are more likely to live in poverty, with

single parent families having the highest incidence of low income in all family types in

the Province. In addition, women live longer than men so planning a retirement income is

important.

I should make a correction to one earlier statement there, Mr. Speaker.

On average, women earn sixty-four cents to every dollar that men earn, not 64 per cent

less than. That would be quite a disparity.

Mr. Speaker, the Money Smarts information kit addresses these issues by

exploring the myths and realities of money management. Through this kit, our youth will be

provided with detailed information on resources, including banks, credit unions and trust

companies. It also includes a learning resource for teachers and community educators.

Using case studies, this gives the students an opportunity to make the link between life

choices and financial security, and it is designed for both use in the schools and in

community settings.

Mr. Speaker, our communities recognize the challenges that our youth

face, and I believe that Money Smarts provide some much needed solutions to these

challenges. We will have copies available for all members of the House, and if anyone

would like additional information I encourage them to contact the Women's Policy office.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the

statement which on the surface looks pretty positive. Anything that will help young people

better plan financially is welcome, but there is something disturbing in this statement.

That is reference to the studies that show that women in this Province, particularly

single parents, are living in poverty. This is the statistic that I have been referring to

for months, and it is appalling.

I resent the implication that programs to help these women and other

young people plan financially will get to the root of the problem of poverty. The problem

is not that they are wasting their money; it is that there are no jobs for them, and those

on social assistance or in low income jobs are barely scraping by. The implication that

young people are responsible for their own poverty because of lack of financial planning

skills is one that I cannot and will not accept.

We have heard the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House on many

occasions, in fact this week, describing the hard-hearted policies of this government and

your federal cousins toward post-secondary students. Funding cuts and student loan

policies are forcing tuition fees through the roof and crushing our young people under

mountains of debt. Now Ottawa is preparing to pass anti-bankruptcy legislation. Ottawa's

solution earlier was to let students borrow from the retirement money to finance their

education. How out of touch are the policy makers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quid Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her

statement. It is obvious that this minister has recognized a good program when she sees

one, from the Government of British Columbia, and is prepared to acknowledge that in the

House here today.

I question, Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments on the situation of

poverty for women. Women are not poor because of a lack of financial planning. Women are

poor, particularly single women, because of inadequate child care and child support

payments, and an ongoing and continuing inequality of opportunity and inequality between

men and women in our society. I do not know the connection between the two. We need to

tackle the root causes of poverty and inequality in our society.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: This might inform some people but will not solve the

problems.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, in its continual efforts to

maximize the utilization of their timber supply, has introduced steep slope cable logging

practices in Western Newfoundland. Two cable logging systems will be used on steep slopes

previously inaccessible under traditional logging methods.

The move toward cable logging systems is a positive step toward

addressing the Island's wood supply deficit. The additional volumes harvested by cable

logging from stands previously not available due to terrain such as steep slopes will

supplement the Island's wood supply in the forest sector.

Cable logging is a labour intensive process. All felling of timber is

done with chain-saw operators. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper has informed me today that they

will be hiring approximately twenty-five people in the harvesting sector to be created

with this process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Trees will be processed at the roadside for

pulpwood and sawlogs. The higher allotment of previously unusable timber allows a greater

flow of logs to the sawmills, thereby increasing additional employment opportunities in

the sawmill and harvesting sectors.

Mr. Speaker, initiatives such the cable logging and the recent

multi-million dollar silviculture projects that we have just announced and being

undertaken this year show a continued effort by the industry and the government to create

a stable supply of timber resource in the future. Many of these projects are two-thirds

funded by the pulp and paper industry in a multi-year agreement between the mills and the

provincial government.

The recent silviculture projects and the cable logging projects,

provided by the industry, will provide employment opportunities in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. We applaud the efforts of the industry as they work toward these goals.

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement. Of

course, anything where you are going to provide one more job or twenty-five jobs or 100

jobs is a positive thing, I say to the minister. There is no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they are real.

MR. SHELLEY: And they are real.

AN HON. MEMBER: And will lead to a lot more.

MR. SHELLEY: Hopefully they will lead to a lot more, I say to the

minister.

The real good news in this, I guess, is sort of a hidden good news.

They will have to use the traditional logger to do it. The mechanical harvesters won't be

able to go up the side of the mountain. I am glad to see that, because it is something we

have to address. I mentioned it to the minister on many occasions, mechanical harvesters,

at the rate they progress... We are all for positive technology in the Province, there is

no problem with that, but at the same time we have to realize that a lot of loggers in

this Province are being displaced by mechanical harvesters, something we have to control,

something we have to balance. We have to be able to put these people to work in the

industry, we hope.

This is one move in the right direction, a small step. Hopefully they

will do more down the road -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - but anything that addresses that situation in the

Province is welcome news.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This certainly is a move in the right direction, but in perspective it

must be remembered that twenty to twenty-five jobs is the number of jobs displaced by one

mechanical harvester. The minister could increase jobs in the industry if he insisted that

the paper companies cut their total allowable cut before they are importing logs in this

Province. There would be 2,000 more person weeks of work in the woods, Mr. Speaker, if

they did that.

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Member for St. John's

South for not getting him a copy of the statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I have said from day one that our first

priority since the closure of BPS Imaging Partnership is to see that the employees get

paid for the work they have done. Mr. Speaker, we have been working diligently to see this

accomplished.

The discussions that both NewTel and I have had over the past week with

the company, indicate that the money owing to the employees will be forthcoming from two

sources; from the company and from the sale of assets. Mr. Speaker, because this is taking

more time than either the employees or government would like, government has decided that

if the money from the company is not forthcoming tomorrow, it will request of the

employees that in return for them assigning their right of claim in this matter over to

the government, government will flow the money owing to them and collect from the company

and from the sale of assets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The employees have waited long enough, Mr. Speaker. This

government has no intention of seeing them wait any longer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last week it was the ice storm and the

dissolving of a partnership that caused the break up. After a full week of questioning,

government has finally taken an initiative to take care of the employees and it is because

of the pressure brought on by this House, Mr. Speaker, and by the employees themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we await with much interest what the

audit will bring, the audit that was conducted by HRD themselves to see where the rest of

the public money went and what accountability this government put forward in handing out

$1 million cheques.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill -Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A good move on the part of the government. By ensuring that the

employees get paid, the government has finally realized, and the minister has finally

admitted, that the funding of PBS was in fact a bad call and government is taking

responsibility for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The T'Railway Provincial Park has become one of our Province's most

popular outdoor recreational venues, and today I am announcing the conditional approval

for the T'Railway to remain a multi-use recreational park between Octagon Pond and

Holyrood.

Provincial legislation covering the park allows the use of ATVs and

snowmobiles in this area beyond Octagon Pond, through the rest of the T'Railway right

across the Province.

Given some local concerns about the use of ATVs on the portion of the

T'Railway which runs from Octagon Pond to Holyrood, a review was undertaken to determine

whether or not ATVs should continue operating in this area.

Following consultations with users, various associations and area

municipalities, the decision has been taken to permit the continued operation of such

motorized recreational vehicles between Octagon Pond and Holyrood.

Mr. Speaker, the T'Railway is a 900 kilometre linear provincial park

which has been positioned as a cross-Island recreational tourism opportunity, and

significant support for continued multi-use in the Paradise-C.B.S. area has come from the

town of Paradise, area ATV associations, and others.

ATV users and other groups have expressed interest in helping the

Newfoundland T'Railway Council and my department oversee the Octagon Pond to Holyrood

section of the T'Railway, to help ensure a safe and enjoyable experience in the park.

Government does not have the necessary resources to completely upgrade

signage, install barriers and other infrastructure on the T'Railway at this time. This

remains a long-term important objective of my department and the T'Railway Council.

Therefore, ATV and snowmobile users, indeed all users, are responsible

for safe and cautious behaviour throughout the entire T'Railway, as government, under its

legislation, does not assume liability for its use by any group or individual.

This policy will be regularly reviewed and the approval to operate ATVs

or snowmobiles in the Paradise-C.B.S. areas of the T'Railway will be revoked if major

concerns arise. In future years, we hope to incorporate alternate trails or loops through

busy or built up areas, but for now the onus is on the users of the T'Railway to exercise

caution to ensure a safe recreational experience.

There is no question the appeal of the T'Railway continues to grow,

right across the Island.

In the meantime, I look forward to working with local groups and the

Newfoundland T'Railway Council, to ensure the T'Railway remains a safe and popular

recreational venue for outdoor enthusiasts.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to, first of all, thank the minister for providing me with

a copy of her statement before she came in today. I want to compliment the minister

because I've -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: - been a supporter of this particular T'Railway, and my

colleague for Topsail. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker - and I will try to do this fairly

quickly - I had three phone calls opposing the use of the rail bed in Conception Bay

South. One from a gentleman who said the only reason he called me to complain was because

I put a statement in the paper and said I hadn't received any calls, and he wanted to make

sure I got one. I got a second call from a gentleman who didn't live in my district, who

lived in the district of my colleague for Topsail. When I was finished I'm not sure if he

wanted me to go down and blow up the crossing in Manuels River or if he didn't. The third

one, the only problem that gentleman had was he didn't want any trucks or cars on the rail

bed.

Minister, I compliment you today for doing this. You will certainly

make a lot of people in my district very happy today. We may have some people a little bit

upset, but I know the t'railways and the people involved in t'railways in my district will

certainly be very happy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

I will see if I can put a stop to government providing the Opposition

with leave now in a few seconds.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

announced the development of condominium units at the base of Marble Mountain. Given that

it seems to be the public policy of government to discontinue to be involved in the

private housing business or private housing matters, what are the public policy reasons

for becoming involved in this essentially private enterprise venue?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government has an obligation to foster economic development in the

Province. It can do it by supporting the private sector in worthwhile ventures; it can

also do it directly itself. There are numerous examples of where this occurs productively:

Churchill Falls in the 1960s, Churchill Falls in the 1990s and after the year 2000.

Marble Mountain is the single largest tourist draw to the Province.

What we need to attract a larger spectrum of skiers is to have a resident base at the

bottom of the hill and to have the services there. Interestingly enough, I had an inquiry

lately from someone else who is interested in doing development there as well.

Unless we are prepared to provide support, and for government to take

the initiative, simply put, a lot of these initiatives will not occur. There would not be

a $30 million development at Marble Mountain now if it were left to the private sector to

do, as there now is.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that government has twice

walked down this road before in terms of condominiums, or building condominiums

(inaudible), what other options did government look at intensively before making the

decision itself to get into the construction of condominiums at the base of the mountain?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, since Finance took responsibility I have

said repeatedly publicly that we invited the private sector to develop at Marble Mountain.

No one came forward, with one exception that at that point was unviable.

What we indicated to the public when we did this was that we need to

build a condominium development there to get it started, we need to establish a standard,

and I am quite confident that it will be successful.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is a

$40 million private sector proposal that requires no government money that has been before

the Minister of Finance for the last twelve to fourteen months, and recently, as of March,

1998, it was reconfirmed to the minister that there was still interest there.

The question is: Why has the minister not responded to the proponents

with respect to the possible private sector development that would require no government

money? Also, it should be noted that the proposal indicates that government would maintain

ownership of the hill and the ski facilities, but the development around it is what is

interesting in this private proposal.

Why has the minister not taken a serious look at this proposal? And why

has he not responded to the proponents who have forwarded it to him? I know that proposal

is on his desk right now.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government did in fact respond. We have a Chairman of

the Marble Mountain Development Corporation who responded to it. I will file in the House

the sequence of correspondence. There were three or four letters over the course of last

summer, I believe it was. Now the group that were interested in doing this, that came

forward most recently, was one of the groups that made a bid originally when it was

supposed to be privatized.

The essence of their bid at the time was that they would pay $1.2

million for it out of profits. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, there would have been no money

paid for a government asset that was worth in the vicinity of approximately $30 million.

What we indicated at the time was, we had correspondence back and

forth, and because government had not privatized, we consulted with Treasury Board. Our

officials came to the conclusion that if we were to go with what they suggested, we would

have to do another public call for proposals. When we told them that in order to accept it

we would have to do a public call for proposals, they said to us in writing that they

would not - they withdrew their offer. They were not prepared to go ahead if we made it

subject to a public call.

Frankly put, Mr. Speaker, government is in a position that if we are

going to have any development, or if someone wants to do a comprehensive development of

that sort, we have to give all people an opportunity. That was the advice from the

officials, which I believe is correct, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that government did

look for private sector proposals and the only serious one coming forward was the one that

I just mentioned. Is the minister saying now that they looked for private developers of

the mountain, and that as a result of only one group coming forward they did not want to

deal with that particular proposal?

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

MR. DICKS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. What I said - and the record

will show - is that government made a call for proposals, I believe it was in 1995 or 1996

it was finally completed, over a course of about a year-and-a-half or so. What that called

for was the sale of the hill. The consultants that were engaged negotiated a lease

arrangement over a longer period of time, eventually resulting in a sale.

Last year what we indicated when the people came forward with this

proposal was that we could not rely on the earlier proposal because this was not a sale of

the ski hill. So we indicated to them that if we could go ahead with development we would

have to do another public call for proposals. They indicated at the time that if we did a

public call they were not interested in leaving their proposal there, and that ended the

matter. It was not us; it was them. I will file the correspondence in the House today.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can confirm this,

then. As a result of what he has just indicated in terms of the privatization initiatives

that began or were ongoing in 1995, that involved privatization of the hill - I do not

need to repeat what he has indicated - let me ask him this: In view of the fact that he

has on his desk today a private sector proposal for the development of Marble Mountain,

that does not require ownership of the hill or its facilities being passed to the private

sector but the Province maintaining ownership, why hasn't he responded to that proposal

that would involve significant funding, an eighteen-hole golf course, a 120-room hotel,

and further development without any public money?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I intend to meet within the next several

weeks with a group that has come back with a proposal to us to build a hotel at the base

of Marble Mountain. Now what I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, is that we have an obligation

to the public. There is a Public Tender Act. In the case of the disposal of government

assets, government has always followed the practice that we call for proposals. If people

meet the terms of the proposal, we can go forward with it. When they cannot and when their

offer does not meet the terms of proposal we call for, we have to go back and recall for

proposals.

When I suggested that to them, when we said it in writing, when the

Chairman of the Board said that, they said they were not interested in going ahead with

it; end of matter. It was not us, it was them who withdrew, and I will file the

correspondence within ten days.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously what is needed, if what the

minister is saying is true, and what the people that I have spoken to on the West Coast

are saying is true, then what seems to be required is a facilitator between the private

developers of the proposal that is before the minister for this development.

Let me ask the minister this; I will move to another area: What is the

nature of the financial arrangements? What is the nature of the financial arrangements

with respect to government building the units? I believe it is around $2 million to $2.5

million. Obviously there are some financial arrangements that are put in place. If the

minister could take some time just to explain what government's role is with respect to

the Marble Mountain Corporation.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Marble Mountain Development Corporation has secured a loan from a

chartered bank without a government guarantee to do this development.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Without any guarantee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible) guarantee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would not get too up in arms yet, I say to the

members opposite. Don't get too excited yet.

Mr. Speaker, this must be a new initiative that banks - I would like to

know the name of the bank that is providing an unsecured loan to build thirty-one condo

units so that we can provide it to every entrepreneur in the Province. If government

cannot sell any of the thirty-one condominiums -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: If government cannot sell -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I would say to the Premier, if you would like to ask

a question, stand up and I will give you leave to ask me one. Otherwise, I am asking the

Minister of Finance a few questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in all of the public releases that the

minister has put out on the issue, certainly in the Province, he has indicated that with

the Marble Mountain Corporation there is no guarantee necessary. So is he saying that the

provincial government is providing enough funding to Marble Mountain Corporation so that

no guarantees are required? What is the basis on which somebody is lending $2.5 million

without any guarantee whatsoever?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what principle the hon. Leader

of the Opposition is espousing. If he is espousing the notion that government should not

do anything that the private sector could do then we are going to have to abandon a lot of

things. We are going to have to abandon Newfoundland Hydro, so let's get the private

sector to develop the Lower Churchill. Let's abandon NLHC because it builds houses. The

private sector can do that.

I think any person who understands public policy will realize that

there is an appropriate role for the government: to do, to build and to manage things.

There are ski hills around this Province. The tourist industry is heavily supported by

government, and to good advantage.

Now I say to the hon. member that Marble Mountain is a corporation. It

has a substantial cash flow in the range of $1.2 million to $1.5 million per year. The

bank has reviewed its cash statements, it has reviewed its assets, and it has come to the

conclusion that it is a viable project. It is prepared to advance the approximately $2.5

million to build. They have confidence in the project that the proceeds will be sufficient

to retire the debt. It is a commercial arrangement, Mr. Speaker, and it makes a lot of

sense from the bank's point of view as much as it does from the government's.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let's be clear. The principle the hon. member is

espousing is - it is my understanding - that there is a $40 million proposal before

government from the private sector that does not require any government funding whatsoever

that could develop the economy in a far greater way on the West Coast than any other

initiative the government has announced.

What I also understand is that government has proceeded down this path

of construction of condominiums for Marble Mountain on two separate occasions and they

have not been able to fill it.

Mr. Speaker, all I am asking from a public policy point of view is that

if we have a significant proposal by private sector interests on the table, that we look

at it seriously. I am not convinced yet that the minister has done that.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have done so. I will point out to the hon. member, that offer was

withdrawn when we said that it would be subject to a public call for proposals, because

the one before was not appropriate to what these people were proposing.

What I have indicated to the public since that time is that we are

interested in private people coming forward to develop the base of Marble Mountain. Does

the hon. member know how many have come forward since? Nobody.

Since we have started this condominium development, one of the groups

has come back to us, and I plan to meet with them in the next couple of weeks, indicating

that they want to look at building a 120-odd unit hotel at the base of Marble Mountain. I

can tell you, that would not have happened if government had not had the confidence to

itself go forward and build a condominium development at the base.

I forget, the hon. member had another question. I will be prepared to

reply to that, it just escapes me right now.

The other point was: We did not neglect the offer; the proponents

withdrew it. There is a critical and clear difference. If they had left it on the table,

if they were prepared to allow us to go forward to make sure it was subject to and

satisfied public expectations and scrutiny, and if they had the money and we could have

satisfied ourselves on those arrangements, we probably would have done some or all of it.

We just cannot take things on faith, particularly when there is nothing

to back it up at that stage and when the proponents say: If you have to make it subject to

a public proposal call, we withdraw.

Once it is withdrawn, if the hon. member understand law at all, there

is nothing to consider. If they want to come back and are prepared to allow the public to

have reasonable scrutiny of what they propose, then we may ever well do it.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the private sector

proposal has come forward to the minister. If a public proposal call is all that is

holding it up, why does the Minister not move today to call a public proposal?

I have talked to the proponents of the private sector development and

they have indicated to me today that they are ready to proceed with this development, but

they have received no response from the Minister of Finance.

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

MR. DICKS: I do not know with whom the hon. member was speaking. I

spoke with the Chairman of Marble Mountain Development Corporation within the last couple

of days. He indicated -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. DICKS: Mr. White. I am curious to see who you were speaking to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: One has to understand, every church has a sexton; every

Crown corporation has a chairperson.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you like to tell me (inaudible)?

MR. DICKS: Yes, I would. I can tell the hon. member that I have

indicated to Mr. White that I am prepared to meet with a certain individual to discuss a

hotel development. Now, if you are prepared to say what the name is, I will tell you

whether or not it is the same individual. Does the first name start with an `N'?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible)?

MR. DICKS: With an `N'?

AN HON. MEMBER: Give me an `N'.

MR. DICKS: Give me an `N', give me an `F', (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of

Finance is probably waiting for Vanna White to show up and turn the letters, but I do not

think it is going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, if he wants to know clearly, it

begins with an `M'. Next after that is an `A', then it is an `R'. It is called Marblewood

Village. I can gladly provide or table the documents here, or give them to the Minister of

Finance. He knows full well that he already has the documents, but if he would like for me

to give them to him again, that is not a problem.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now know where the hon. member gets his questions, by watching TV at

night and Ms White supplies him with the questions. However, in my case, the Chairman of

Marble Mountain Development Corporation, Greg White, supplies me with the answers and they

are much more reliable than the hon. member's questions.

Yes, that is a group. I indicated to Mr. White we would be quite

prepared and delighted to meet with him. I indicated, in fact, that I could meet with him

on Tuesday if they could come to St. John's. Other than that, I may meet them in Halifax

or Corner Brook when I am next there.

Mr. Speaker, if they have a proposal that makes economic sense, if they

have the money to back it up, then we can negotiate it here in the House of Assembly. If

that is the way the gentlemen choose to do it, that is fine with me.

The other thing, too, is that it may be subject to a proposal call by

government. When I said that, this individual - the same group last year - withdraw the

proposal. I should have the letter here in a few minutes. I will file it before the House,

and I will read it if I get it here in the next ten or fifteen minutes.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources

and Employment.

Citizens in this Province, at age sixty, have the option of taking

their CPP at that time and locking themselves into a reduced rate, or they can wait until

age sixty-five and take it at the higher rate. But the department has removed the choice

for citizens on social assistance and forces all who reach the age of sixty to take their

CPP then and to lock themselves into a reduced rate for the rest of their lives, a rate

they are stuck with.

Does the minister think it is fair to take away that choice from our

seniors and lock them into a decision that will have consequences for the rest of their

lives?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, income support for people in this Province

is really support that is in the nature of the last resort. It is a time when people come

to government to look for public assistance because they have no other means with which to

support themselves.

In the case of access to other funds, including Canada Pension

payments, we require that people draw down on those resources when they are available to

them before they can receive full entitlement to other supports to bring them up to a

required level. Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Canada Pension Plan entitlements, I

realize that when the person reaches sixty-five, they are also able to access the Old Age

Supplement or the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and this offsets, for the most part, any

loss that they would have by drawing down early.

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

supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: Years ago, government stopped putting social

assistance recipients through the humiliation of food stamps and gave them cheques so they

would have independency to make decisions of their own.

Now, why are you removing from seniors the right to make a decision

whether they should take their CPP at age sixty or at age sixty-five?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in the nature of providing public

assistance, social assistance, a factor that we have to keep in mind is that there is a

considerable cost to the public treasury.

At the present time, our allocation for income support is approximately

$230 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, in order to even keep our income support budgets at those

kinds of figures, we require that people access other avenues of assistance if they are

available to them. The Canada Pension funds to which people are entitled at age sixty,

fall into this category. We think it is reasonable that people draw down this other money

that is available to them before considering what they can access from the provincial

government.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the key here is that, in terms of the

long-term impact on the individual, this is, for the most part, offset when the person

reaches age sixty-five. They will have had five years of receiving Canada Pension plan

payments to which they are entitled, and at age sixty-five, if they do not have a level of

income that exceeds the basic requirements, they are then entitled to the Guaranteed

Income Supplement.

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

supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Many senior people who could be fifty-nine-and-a-half and ready to turn

sixty and only receiving social assistance for six months - and there are many seniors out

there who take their CPP early, even at a reduced rate, so they can invest it. But seniors

on social assistance do not have that luxury. They have no money in the bank. So you are

forcing them to do with less.

Why are you being so hard-hearted to our seniors, many of whom have

spent a lifetime paying into CPP and were probably laid off at the age of fifty-eight or

fifty-nine, and are now being robbed of what they paid into and should be earning back?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again: Social assistance

recipients must apply for and receive all other sources of income for which they are

eligible, before we determine the nature and the level of support that the provincial

government supplies in the form of income support. We apply this in all cases. We think it

is a reasonable policy. It helps to keep our finances in terms of the amount of money that

we have to spend on income support within the level of affordability on the provincial

treasury. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a reasonable approach to take in the

instance of Canada Pension plan entitlements at age sixty as well.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

Yesterday I raised the issue of your department allowing medical

radiation technologist jobs, basically, to be changed by taking laboratory technologists,

cross-training them for a reduced period of time with short clinical experience to be able

to do X-ray procedures.

Now, Minister, each time a radiograph is repeated it increases and

exposes people to potential ionizing radiation. A radiation technologist would have a

sound understanding of the affects of that ionizing radiation. Individuals cross-trained

are not going to be covered for liability under the Canadian Association of Medical

Radiation Technologists, and I believe not covered under the Canadian Society of

Laboratory Technologists, which means that responsibility is going to rest with the

employer. The potential for hospital boards in this Province to face very large law suits

and so on is highly likely, so much so that the radiologists, the experts out there,

expressed this concern in writing, I say to the minister.

I ask the minister: Has she considered this factor in allowing

cross-trained laboratory technologists to do X-ray work?

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

Services.

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

As I said yesterday - and I think it is important for the member

opposite to understand - the question is around the issues concerning multi-training and

multi-skilled workers as it relates to this particular role.

I will say again, we do not have a brain surgeon on standby in

Bonavista, but we do do brain surgery as it is required in St. John's in the tertiary care

centre. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will agree, that you do increase the uptake of radioisotopes

when you increase the number of X-rays that are taken. However, X-rays are ordered by

physicians or by nurse practitioners as the need will be dictated through the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, these people are doing angiography or very hi-tech types of treatment. We

have to remember, and it's important to remember, on one hand this particular individual

wants rural Newfoundland to have access to services; on the other hand, he wants skilled

practitioners, to the point where they aren't able to maintain the skills they have.

We believe on this side, Mr. Speaker, that for the purposes of primary

health care, which is the first contact with the health care system which will allow early

diagnosis and prevention, that those particular workers, working within their regulations,

can meet their requirements and can provide solid primary health care services to rural

Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It scares me, I say, to know that the minister would make a decision

showing that she knows so little about this particular aspect in her answer. That is

puzzling.

Minister, on October 15 you indicated in writing that officials in your

department will be meeting shortly with the Department of Environment and Labour, with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Health Care Association, and with the association representing

technologists, to discuss this issue.

I ask you, minister: Why, after repeated requests since that time, have

you and your department refused to meet with the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation

Technologists?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, there has been ongoing work with all

of the various health professionals about the whole issue of changing regulations and

scope of practice. We deal with it every single day. We, on this side of the House, are

focused through projects like our multi-disciplinary health and teaching units, and with

providing other types of services, to maintain health care services in Newfoundland. That

is our focus.

We have spoken with the boards, we have worked with other

practitioners, and, Mr. Speaker, this is not a new concept. This is not something that

hasn't existed in this Province before. We have used these services quite effectively. Our

goal is to maintain and sustain health care in rural Newfoundland as well as urban

Newfoundland, and we stand by those types of decisions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You stated in writing, Minister, you would meet with them. I met with

them, and your department refused to meet with them.

I have to ask the question to the Minister of Environment and Labour on

this topic.

Section 10(1) of the Newfoundland Radiation Health and Safety Act states that

no person shall use radiation equipment for the irradiation of human subjects unless that

person is authorized to do so by the Act of the Legislature.

Section 10(2) of that act

defines a person who is capable of using radiation equipment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Minister, is it your intention to

give graduates of this shortened program in cross-training the same scope to use radiation

equipment that you are now providing to full-fledged members of the Canadian Association

of Medical Radiation Technologists?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are presently negotiating with that group. They are having a meeting

with us over the next few days to address these concerns that we are addressing in

consultation with the Department of Health and Community Services.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

Minister, the government took responsibility for the Marine Atlantic in

Lewisporte some time ago. Can the minister tell the House what process was put in place

for the awarding of various contracts for the Lewisporte terminal while under the

provincial jurisdiction?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was one primary contract that we went to tender for and that was

the provision of services on the coast. If the hon. member is referring to something other

than that major contract then I -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Marine Atlantic, Mr. Speaker, terminated their

involvement in Lewisporte, December 31. In the interim period we put in place, Mr.

Speaker, caretaker capacity to ensure that the facilities, the wharfage, the vessels, the

terminal and all the facilities were maintained safely and kept in a condition so that

when we got a prime contractor they could take it over without any difficulty. We did that

around January 1st, we went to tender in February, we awarded a contract in March and we

are now providing a service out of Lewisporte.

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

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Marine

Atlantic were operating it under the responsibility of the provincial government for a

year pervious to that. So the question was: What was the process for awarding various

contracts while it was under the provincial jurisdiction, even though Marine Atlantic was

doing it as a contract to the Province?

Next question: I have been informed that a number of contracts were

awarded to the former terminal manager; contracts for security, a contract for snow

clearing, a contract for sandblasting of twenty-three containers, without a tender. Can

the minister confirm it and if so, explain why that was so?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be happy to address those two questions. To the first question,

Marine Atlantic continued to operate on behalf of and in the name of the Newfoundland

Government from April 1, 1997 until December 31, 1998. They carried on business as though

they were the operators themselves within our name and for our benefit. So I think that is

straightforward. Any tendering or any purchasing or any procurement they would have done

in that period of time, they would have done as they would otherwise have done in pervious

years, doing their normal business.

In the second instance, on December 31, we had to put in place -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) had nothing to do with it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well if it has nothing to do with that, what has it

got to do with?

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

quick supplementary.

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

While the Lewisporte terminal was under the jurisdiction of the

Province, even though Marine Atlantic was doing it as a subcontract for the Province, can

the minister tell us what the process was for disposing of vehicles? Will he confirm that

a vehicle, an 1987 Chev Blazer, was transferred on December 12 to the former general

manager of the coastal services and transferred twice on the same day? Will he confirm

that there was money spent on that vehicle shortly beforehand? Can he tell the House if

proper procedure was followed in disposing of that vehicle to the former general manager

of coastal services?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whose head is thick, if it

is mine or the hon. members. I would be happy to subject myself to measurement if he is

happy to offer up his head. We could see whose head is the thickest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to get to his answer quickly.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Marine Atlantic organization -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I give the hon. minister a few minutes to complete his

answer if he so desires.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I move that both members quit while

they are ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Community Services.

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

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

entitled, "An Act To Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act", and I further give

notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To

Amend The Medical Act."

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to bring to the attention of the House that Private

Members' Day tomorrow will be the private member's resolution submitted by my colleague

from Conception Bay South.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from the District 2 School Board

area from the community of Williams Harbour -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could just take her seat for a few minutes.

The Chair ruled yesterday on the process of petitions being presented

to the House, and the Chair indicated that members ought to and must, before they present

petitions to the House, clear it and have it certified by the Clerk at the Table. It is my

understanding that this petition has not been presented to the people at the Table, the

Clerk.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: If I could, Mr. Speaker, rather than pushing to have the

petition ruling out of order, I wonder if we could have the Table look at this and maybe

revert to petitions a little later?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to suggest, Mr. Speaker: We have some petitions here that

we could move in the meantime and then we could come back to the petition of the Member

for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MR. TULK: That is no problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. So if the hon. member could present her petition

to the Clerk at the Table, then we will allow her to present her petition if it is in

order, after we have heard some other petitions here.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Today, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and I are working

together on some petitions, and I want to present a petition on behalf of the residents of

Red Bay. The prayer of the petition, although quite lengthy, I wish to read in its detail.

It has been cleared by the Clerk of the House.

It reads: To the honourable House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly showeth.

WHEREAS the government through their Small Necessarily Existing School

Policy has reduced teacher allocations from 5.81 regular units to 5.50 regular units in

Basque Memorial, All Grade School in Red Bay Labrador, suffering a loss of .31 teaching

units for a 5 per cent reduction which will result in an increase in triple grading and no

variety in senior high school programs; and

WHEREAS this school will have to contribute .70 units of its Small

Necessarily Existing School allocations to Distance Education, Special Education, and

Guidance Administration thus reducing the number of regular teachers in the classrooms;

and

WHEREAS less courses can be offered and Level III courses have to be

offered to Level I and Level II students in order to accommodate them; and

WHEREAS almost no one-on-one assistance will occur because of too many

grades in one classroom; and

WHEREAS all students from K to XII will be at a disadvantage to become

involved in a very competitive society because of lower quality of education for which we

have situations in our school compared to that of the 1950s and 1960s; and

WHEREAS we feel that the provincial curriculum is not geared to these

types of classroom situations; and

WHEREAS in the House of Assembly, on May 14, 1998, Mr. Grimes, the

Minister of Education, stated that there is a guaranteed opportunity for students in

Newfoundland and Labrador, whether they are in St. John's, Corner Brook, Gander, St.

Anthony or Red Bay, and it is simply this: That having gone through the K to XII system,

regardless of where you have completed grade XII, you will have been exposed to enough

course offerings that you can meet the post-secondary entrance requirements for any

institution in this Province.

WHEREAS this statement, the petition says, is totally false, for we

have students graduating from grade XII this year who have been refused entrance to

post-secondary schools of their choice because they were not successful in meeting the

required course offerings to allow them entrance; and

WHEREAS we feel that you do not fully understand our predicament, and

have not been aware of the burdens placed upon the shoulders of our children in their not

choosing; and

WHEREAS Basques Memorial all grade school is not deemed a viable

school;

We the undersigned citizens of the town of Red Bay, petition the House

of Assembly to direct the government to undo these injustices and increase our number of

regular teaching units to seven full regular units, whereby students can receive the

quality of education that is desperately needed if they are to graduate and become active

members of society.

If by September, 1998 our regular teaching units have not increased to

seven, that is 1.5 more regular units than allocated, we guarantee that Basque Memorial

all grade school will not open in September, 1998. As citizens of this town we cannot

stand by and adhere to this form of abuse to our children. We sincerely hope the

government can see our need. We also realize that hope is not the conviction that

something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense regardless of

how it turns out.

Mr. Speaker, that petition is signed by approximately 150 of the

residents of the town of Red Bay, Labrador. We have in the last number of days brought to

the attention of the Ministry the difficulties that have been encountered in teacher

allocations in this particular school district, District No. 2, of the Great Northern

Peninsula and the Coastal Labrador part of the Province.

We know, we have said here before, that this particular district has

the highest use of distance education programs of any district in the Province. We also

know that there is not one single art program offered in any of the schools in that

district. We also know that only two of the schools have any music programs, and that does

not include a single school in the Labrador part of the district. We know that physical

education courses now have to be offered by regular classroom teachers. Eighty per cent of

the classes next year in this school district will be doubled, tripled, or other forms of

multi-grade classrooms.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, with leave to continue, if I could.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, have it known that the Minister of

Education denies leave to the residents of Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member doesn't have leave. I ask the hon. member to take his

seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

Is the hon. member speaking to the petition just presented?

MS JONES: Yes I am.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and support the petition that has been presented my

colleague representing the people of Red Bay in District 2 school board area. I was up

there in the last week, on Thursday, and met with the parents in this community, and heard

first-hand what the concerns were regarding their school, the curriculum, the program that

would be offered, and how this down sizing in teaching units is going to affect them

directly in the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, we had quite a number of people there. They talked about

their school and how it has changed over the years. There were people in that room who had

gone to school there twenty years ago when the system was being restructured and funds

were tight and so on, but they believed they had received a better education within the

classroom than their children are going to be receiving in the next year.

Mr. Speaker, I talked to kids in this school who are graduating on

Friday, who are going to walk up and get their diploma, who have been refused by

institutions in this Province for post-secondary education because they do not have the

courses to meet what their entrance requirements are, and that concerns me. It concerns me

that we are delivering a graduate high school program whereby a student can apply to a

Nautical Science Course at the Marine Institute and be refused because in the community in

which he grew up the school could not provide the adequate curriculum for him to be able

to enter into that program.

We have students, Mr. Speaker, in this community who have applied to

the Coast Guard but have not been accepted because they have not been equipped with the

proper courses in order to meet their entrance requirements.

I have to say, that when the small school allocations came into effect

we were hopeful that these would increase the number of units and would enhance the

program of delivery in the small schools around rural Newfoundland and Labrador. In a lot

of cases, Mr. Speaker, they have succeeded in doing that, but there are cases where they

have eluded doing that; and this, Mr. Speaker is one of those cases. It is one

circumstance, whereby the loss of this partial position is going to impact on the program

delivery of all the grades within the school.

Mr. Speaker, I have walked into many classrooms in my district where we

have had dual classes, dual grades in a classroom. I have walked into schools where a

teacher has had one class in a gymnasium doing phys ed and another class in the classroom

doing geography. I can just imagine how unmanageable that most be and the amount of stress

and the amount of time that it takes on behalf of the teacher to be able to deliver an

adequate program to these children, operating under those circumstance.

Well, what we are going to have now, Mr. Speaker, at Basque Memorial is

not dual grading, but triple and quadruple grading. We are not only going to have one

class in the gym and one in the classroom and one teacher, we are going to have four and

five classes in the one classroom, all doing a different course and the teacher trying to

provide what is necessary to equip these kids for post-secondary education.

It cannot be done, and these students are going to be the losers. They

are going to come out of rural communities in this Province, they are going to be refused

by post-secondary institutions, and they are not going to have the adequate curriculum to

be able to make the courses and set the career choices that they want, Mr. Speaker. This

is what we have to deal with.

As I said,

whereas the allocation may have sufficed to add units to

some schools and deliver a better program, it has eluded other schools, and I think these

are the schools that we have to work with, Mr. Speaker.

In District 2 there is a unique situation. We have small communities

with schools that are totally isolated from one another. That board, Mr. Speaker, has done

a remarkable job. They closed eight schools last year, they are closing three schools this

year, and they are busing children from one end of the Northern Peninsula to the other,

from one end of Labrador to the other, wherever they could possibly do it, Mr. Speaker.

They cannot do anymore than what they are doing. They cannot.

We have these kids in schools in communities right now who are leaving

at the age of thirteen and fourteen and moving, paying board and getting educated in other

communities. We can do no more to provide an adequate education to the children in this

part of the district, Mr. Speaker. It is up to the minister, it is up to the department,

right now, to see what is happening and to make the increase in allocations to give these

schools the additional units that they require-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MS JONES: - so that these children do not have to undergo any

harder circumstances then what they already are.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond very briefly to the petition

that was presented.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things by way of clarification,

because no matter how eloquent people try to be in presentation of the petition, and no

matter how convicted and convinced that are of the arguments, you cannot make something

that is not true, true, just by repeating it with some vehemence and some energy. Mr.

Speaker, that is just not what happens.

The fact is this, Mr. Speaker: In no school in Newfoundland and

Labrador are there this year, or will there be next year, students who will not meet the

entrance requirements to the post-secondary institutions in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some examples have been given of very specific

courses at the Marine Institute which is a part of Memorial University. But every single

student in Red Bay who applies for acceptance to Memorial University in general studies

can be accepted. If they want to get into a speciality course, Mr. Speaker, at the Marine

Institute - I have news for the member opposite who represents parts of Mount Pearl, there

are students from Mt. Pearl Central High who did not meet the qualifications of that

program because of the courses that they chose during their high school time in Mt. Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, when the people in Red Bay are so sincere in their

petition, for it to be twisted and hinged upon a couple of examples, where it applies to

the people in the biggest schools in the Province, to suggest that they are not meeting

the criteria, it is just not so.

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the point of the petition is that the

children of these rural communities do not have the choice. They cannot access the

programs that the children of Mt. Pearl, St. John's, or Bishop Fall's can. The minister is

factually wrong in what he said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. He is not on a point of order.

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude, and I would invite them to send these comments back to

the parents in Red Bay as well.

The school in Red Bay for next year, under the Small Necessarily

Existent provision, will have enough teaching units for the size of the student population

to guarantee, as it did this year, that every student could be accepted into Memorial

University, not necessarily into a particular course of study. They could not get directly

into the medical school. Maybe they might want to give that example the next time around.

You can take a selected specialized course, Mr. Speaker, and show that some student could

not get into that course. They can get into Memorial. The only thing that stops any

student from getting into university is whether or not they have a 70 per cent pass rate

in the courses that they concluded in high school.

Mr. Speaker, the school in Red Bay - because that is the example given

in the particular petition - will have an equal number of teachers in total to any school

of an equivalent size and equal size anywhere in the Province. We cannot provide extra

teachers in Red Bay that we would not put into any other community of the same size with

the same student population. The number of teachers in the school does not equate to what

is being described in this petition, because I would suggest that some people, maybe even

members of the Opposition, have given some misinformation to some of the parents, and that

the full information does not pertain to some of the comments made in support of these

petitions.

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his comments has, I do

believe, breached the rules of procedure in that he has impugned motives to the Member for

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and to this member in the preparation of petitions.

I want to assure the House that I have had no discussions with the

Community Council in Red Bay. They speak to this House out of their concern for their

citizens, and it is wrong in Parliament for the minister to impugn motives to any hon.

member, including this member of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not interpret the hon. member's comment in that light,

but we will certainly review Hansard and rule on the point of order raised.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might revert to Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given for a moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave to revert to Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During Question Period, I indicated to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition that we had a letter whereby the offer to which he referred was withdrawn. The

letter is from Marble Resorts Inc. It is dated June 12, 1997. I would like to read a

couple of paragraphs.

`I was extremely displeased and disappointed to hear the bad news to

the effect that the minister and his advisors have decided that it is necessary to recall

for public proposals for this project to ensure that any other interested parties may have

an opportunity to submit a competitive proposal for the project.

`As I indicated to you on the phone, I have proceeded to review this

very surprising turn of events with the other principles of MRI, particularly in view of

the fact that we have already responded to your written invitation to submit our proposal

to you last week for our Phase I Development Program, which clearly indicates we are not

asking government for any funds for the project.

`As a result of all of the above, we have decided to take the following

course of action irrespective of the fact that the minister may proceed to public recall

for proposals:

`Number One: Marble Resorts will not respond to any recall for

proposals for reasons which were explained to you and the minister at our meeting in

Steady Brook on April 25, 1997.

`Number Two: Marble Resorts will not in any likelihood proceed

otherwise with any of the development described in our current proposal until the

development attitude improves to our satisfaction.

`Number Three: Marble Resorts will respond freely and openly to express

our disappointment with the lack of response to our proposal. The various members of the

media continue to aggressively seek information from us about our development plans.

`Further to all of the above, we hold the strong opinion that there is

no justification to circumvent Marble Resort's present willingness and capacity to proceed

with the project by publicly recalling for proposal at this point in time. Our belief is

based on the fact that MRI clearly was selected by the government through the initial

public proposal call last year and moveover has, in the interim, amalgamated its

(inaudible) the only other bona fide proponent then participated in last year's proposal

call process.

`Irrespective - and this is interesting - of the looming possibility of

a public recall of proposals and our willingness and capability to proceed unilaterally

with other development plans, we have decided that we must withdraw our proposal which was

made to you last week, if we do not receive your positive written response to it before

noon, tomorrow, Friday, June 13, 1997.

`We sincerely look forward to receiving your favourable reply.'

That's a letter to which I referred when the proposal was withdrawn.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to table this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: I am going to meet with them. They want to discuss it

again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's comments I had the

understanding that he was interpreting what I said as being false information and

insinuating that I was lying in the information that I was giving.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has already been raised on the comments by the hon.

Minister of Education. The Chair is taking it under advisement and will rule on that

matter later.

MS JONES: Okay. I will await the ruling from you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a petition.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly. The prayer

of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session convened, the

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS 1.5 kilometres of the road through the community of Princeton

remains unpaved; and

WHEREAS the road is in such terrible condition that vehicles are being

damaged, including school buses serving the area; and

WHEREAS the residents of Princeton pay the same cost for services,

including gasoline taxes, registration of motor vehicles and drivers licences, as all

others in Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to upgrade and pave the two remaining unpaved sections of road through the

community of Princeton, and

AS IN DUTY BOUND your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here is a petition put forward by the residents of

Princeton, a small community on Route 235 of approximately 170 residents. This petition is

signed by eighty-four residents of that particular community asking the government if they

would look at paving the roads through the community.

Mr. Speaker, there are two small sections of roadway there, in total of

1.5 kilometres of road. It has never been paved. They are not asking for their road to be

recapped. They are asking that their road be paved. It is the road going by most of the

houses in the community, and for some reason the pavement passed by Princeton but did not

make the two detours in order to include the two small byroads where most of the residents

of this particular community live.

Mr. Speaker, they are not asking that the road be upgraded, all the

turns taken out and all the hills to be done away with. All they are asking, is for

government to consider paving their roads. It is certainly not a luxury anymore, Mr.

Speaker, it is almost a right, I suppose, that we have all come to take for granted, to

have a road paved through our community so that we might be able to open our windows in

the summertime, so the ladies might be able to hang the clothes on the line, so people

might go out and do such simple things as even wax or shine or wash their cars, be able to

go out and drive through their community without experiencing the taste of dust and

without experiencing a cloud of dust in front of them all the time.

It is not unfair, Mr. Speaker, today to ask that we have a paved road

through our community. Some of those dirt roads - we say that we are going to go out and

do away with the dust, we are going to solve the dust problem, we are going to spread

calcium on the roads and this sort of thing, Mr. Speaker. That makes for an awful mess

tracked in over people's floors and over people's floor coverings, and it is certainly not

the answer.

Mr. Speaker, what people are asking for is simple. The request is very

simple. They are asking if government will consider paving those two local roads. I don't

see how they cannot pave it, when you look at the extra cost of sending the grader in

excess of 20 kilometres on a regular basis in order to grade the 1.5 kilometres of road

through Princeton.

Mr. Speaker, I approached the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation on this particular problem, and he had indicated: You are getting 15

kilometres of pavement this year now and that is all we can do.

That particular

section of road that is being paved this year falls

under the Roads for Rail Agreement, where that money was specifically directed to be spent

on Route 230. It can't be changed and spent through the communities of places like

Princeton, Winter Brook and Jamestown. The minister also went on to say: This year we have

committed the majority of our funding to pave local gravel roads, not to recap. Well, Mr.

Speaker, this petition would certainly fall in that category of thought. It would

certainly fall in the category of unpaved roads. People are asking that their road be

considered, they are asking that their road be paved, and I support them 100 per cent in

their efforts.

It's unfortunate sometimes that residents have to go and circulate

petitions in order to bring their plight to the attention of the minister in the House of

Assembly. Mr. Speaker, members rise daily to put forward petitions of people's concerns

where they have to go draw up prayers of petitions, go door to door and put them in local

centres to have people sign them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think we should have to do that. I think

the government, in its wisdom, should attend to the necessary problems, and it should

attend to them as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise today in my place to support the petition presented by the

Member for Bonavista South on behalf of the people of Princeton, a community, as he said,

with some 170 people. Eighty-four people signed the petition. Pretty well 50 per cent of

the people in Princeton signed the petition to get their road upgraded.

According to the member, Mr. Speaker, a member who has no problem

speaking in this House of Assembly to support the people of his district - no member on

this side of the House has any problem standing in their place to support the constituents

of their districts in the form of petitions. With respect to the 1.5 kilometres of road

needed to be paved, two sections of road that pass by a number of houses in the community,

that definitely needs to be done.

The member stated the reasons why the people in the district need it

done. We have dust from the cars in the summertime. In wintertime, also, there is a safety

issue, I suppose, with ice building up on the roads differently than it does on pavement.

The ice builds up and it requires more salt and sand and what have you. It is a safety

issue.

Also, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the school buses travelling over

these roads, bringing children to school: I am sure any of us living in our communities

wouldn't want our roads to be in the condition that the Member for Bonavista South says

this road is in. Although I do have to say, in my district there is one

section of road, 5

kilometres off the Bauline Line going over towards Portugal Cove, that is a dirt road,

that yet needs to be paved, and so close to St. John's. We have been trying to get the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to put some money into that over the past

few years, and I will continue to work towards that end to get that

section of road paved.

It is long overdue, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the situation in Princeton, the member mentioned that

it is no luxury to ask to have this 1.5 kilometres of road paved. From what I can see the

people are not asking for something out of the ordinary or anything like that. Basically,

they are asking for equality to other areas in this Province, to have their road paved. It

is not a lot to ask for in this day and age, I don't think. People in the community of

Princeton would certainly appreciate having that done.

He mentioned in his few words that he has approached the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation. I am sure that the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation is hounded by all members of this House of Assembly trying to get roads

upgraded, re-done, re-surfaced and what have you in the communities and in the districts

throughout the Province. If you look at the overall budget, I suppose, of the Department

of Works, Services and Transportation, 1.5 kilometres is not a lot to ask in the overall

scheme of things for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in light of the

fact that the member mentioned the Roads for Rail Agreement and some of the work that was

done down there. The money came out of the federal pot, is one way to put it, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly support the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista

South who, as he always does, is speaking on behalf of his constituents, and I am sure he

will continue to do so.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and present a petition from Williams Harbour Integrated

School in District 2. It says:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the government through the Small Necessarily Existing Schools

policy has reduced teacher allocations from 1.31 regular teaching units and .50 SMH units

to one regular unit and .50 SMH at Williams Harbour Integrated, suffering a loss of .31

teaching units for a 24 per cent reduction which will result in six grades being taught

together in one classroom;

WHEREAS the principal will be responsible for teaching all students in

all grades for the whole day;

WHEREAS the school will not be able to access any specialized services

such as guidance, music, French, et cetera;

WHEREAS the school has a .50 SMH unit, probably making it rather

difficult to attract a qualified teacher to this remote island;

WHEREAS the school is struggling to offer the minimum required program

and thus students will be drastically disadvantaged;

We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the

government to undo these injustices and increase our number of regular teaching units,

whereby students can receive a more quality education to meet the demands of a competitive

and challenging society;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the four schools in District 2 that has

fallen through the cracks in the Small Necessarily Existing School regulations.

The community of Williams Harbour, on the Coast of Labrador, is on a

tiny island. The children of this community have been educated to Grade VI and then

transferred to other communities to live with family and relatives and so on to continue

their education for a number of years. Now today their Grades Kindergarten to VI, the

quality of education that they are going to receive, are being put at risk. This is

certainly not at all in fairness and equity to the children who are there.

Mr. Speaker, there is one teacher in the school. That teacher is also

the principal. The principal of this school is expected to go into a classroom from 9:00

a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with six grades in the classroom, and at the same time do the

administration work for the school, organize extracurricular activities for these children

so they can be involved in some form of physical activity, drama and so on. They are

expected to do all this, and at the same time prepare these children for when they leave

Williams Harbour and go into a junior high school program in another community.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a big task, and it is a lot of responsibility

to place on any one teacher in any one school in our Province. I think it is situations

like this that the minister and the Department of Education have to sit down and review

individually, look at what the impacts are going to be on these children in the community

of Williams Harbour and in other schools in District 2 that are affected similarly, and

they have to address this situation, each school individually, as to how they can help and

how they can deal with it, Mr. Speaker.

I think the people in this community and the students in this school

have fared very well over the years. They have developed a good curriculum for the

children who are there, they have built their community around their school, and they took

a lot of pride in the calibre of education that was being provided to their children. Now,

today, all of that is going to end. Come September, they will all be crammed into one

classroom with one teacher with inadequate courses to be able to prepare these children

for leaving their community, leaving their school, and going into another program

somewhere else.

One would think: What will happen to these children when they go

through and finish Grade VI and are transferred to another school in another community to

do Grade VII? They take up board and lodging with someone else in that community. They

will have to go into a school and sit in a classroom with dozens of other children and be

able to hold their own and be able to continue with the program. They have to be prepared,

and the crucial years of preparation are these years in their schooling right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: So how can the department justify putting six grades in a

classroom with one teacher and expect them to have adequate education?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: I ask the minister to look at situations like this and

deal with them adequately.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise again to support the petition put forward by my colleague on

behalf of the students and the parents and the entire community of Williams Harbour.

The Minister of Education should by this time have had his sensitivity

increased and his level of awareness become a little more acute to the particular needs of

some of the communities in rural Newfoundland. The community of Williams Harbour and its

problems have been quite adequately explained by the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au

Clair. I have had discussions with some of the people in Williams Harbour in the last

several weeks, and they tell me the situation they are facing now means their children

will be more disadvantaged than they were themselves thirty years ago.

Therefore, in rural Newfoundland the quality of education is not

getting better. Access to equal opportunities is not improving. In fact, I spent several

days in District 2 last week talking to the parent councils, talking to the school

principals, talking to the people who came out to the public meeting in St. Anthony where

the Minister of Education was invited to be, and where the Minister of Justice as the

member was supposed to be, and where the member for the area in Hawkes Bay, the current

Minister of Mines and Energy, was supposed to be there as well, none of whom turned up at

the meeting.

The people in St. Anthony last week, when we had our meeting, wanted to

talk to their Minister of Education. They wanted to talk to their member, who is the

Minister of Justice. They wanted to talk to their member, who is also the Minister of

Mines and Energy. None of these people bothered to attend the meeting. The message to

these people was very loud and clear. It was one that said: Your concerns are not being

heard.

The people at that meeting last week representing all of the people in

school District 2 raised concerns about the quality of education. They talked about equal

access, they talked about equal opportunities. One gentleman got up and said that the

quality of education in District 2 would be worse in 1998-1999 than it was in 1960-1961.

That certainly was the concern of the parents.

They are talking about the fact that if they are going to attract

doctors to work in rural Newfoundland - and one doctor stood in St. Anthony last week and

said: If my children have to suffer because I want to practice medicine in St. Anthony, in

that area, then I will make a choice, and my children will be the winners. He said: I will

not stay and practice medicine in rural Newfoundland if my children cannot have a quality

education.

That is what is happening in the rural parts of this Province. That is

why more than 100 people turned out in St. Anthony last week to say to their school board,

and to the provincial representatives, of which I was the only MHA who turned up at that

meeting, to say to the elected people that their concerns needed to be addressed by this

House.

District 2 has unique problems and they should be addressed. I know the

Minister of Education says he is going to do something about it. He is wishy-washy again,

which is not unusual for that minister. He is just hoping that it will all go away and

over the summer things will dissipate and disappear and all will be lovely. Mr. Speaker,

that is not the case. The children of rural Newfoundland, the children of School District

2, deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, we can expect more petitions to arrive from communities

like Williams Harbour, from places like Hawkes Bay, and from all up the shore. I met last

week with some parents in Flower's Cove, in the area of River of Ponds and all throughout

that particular district. Mr. Speaker, their wish is that their children will have some of

the reforms that were talked about when we talked about education reform, implemented in

the next school year. What they are seeing instead is a government that is focused on

cutbacks. They say, we are going to balance the provincial budget on the backs of the

children of this Province and that is ultimately very, very unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before moving Orders of the Day I would move

that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., but that we recess for supper hour at 6:00 p.m.

and come back at 7:00 p.m. I would move that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn

at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motion carried.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2. I would move that the House

move itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole

on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!

Order No. 2, Committee of Supply Estimates.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I welcome the opportunity to participate again in the Budget Debate. We

have heard many speeches in the last number of months, and some of them have been very

helpful. I compliment the Minister of Finance for his participation last week when we were

doing line by line. It is rare that a Minister of Finance has taken so much time and

effort to be so helpful in giving answers. However, Mr. Chairman, we do know as well that

overall the performance of this government raises a lot of questions.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the debate we have had questions asked about

many issues. As a matter of fact, there is a whole Auditor General's Report that has not

been addressed yet by the ministry. The watchdog of the government in Newfoundland since

Clyde Wells decided that we did not need an ombudsman, has to be the Auditor General.

Glancing through the Auditor General's Report, we note that there are many, many places

here where there are questions relative to the management of finances of this Province

that have not been addressed by the government. Questions that were asked by members of

this House and the Official Opposition have not been answered by the ministry.

Mr. Chairman, we do know that there are problems in many parts of this

Province. Today in Question Period we made note of the problems in Education and the

problems of equal opportunity and equal access as they apply to schools in rural

Newfoundland. There were some questions as well in the Auditor General's Report relative

to the transfer of assets from the twenty-seven school boards to the ten school boards,

and the Minister of Education has not yet to date given adequate answers to these

particular problems.

We had hoped during the Budget Debate the minister would stand in his

place and apprise the House of what happened to all the assets of the twenty-seven school

boards. Where the Auditor General draws reference to the fact that some of the money needs

further explaining, we thought perhaps during the Budget Debate the Minister of Education

would stand in his place and make sure the public of this Province were well informed of

where the $160,000 - it says: The amount in excess of the approved levels totals

approximately $160,000. I have not seen the Minister of Education stand in his place and

give explanations that would satisfy this House, or satisfy the comments made by the

Auditor General in her statements that were tabled in the House for the year ending March

31, 1997.

We also wanted to draw some reference to the fact that there were some

considerable overpayments made to the directors. We know there are ten directors and

thirty assistant directors in the ten new school boards. The Auditor General in her

comments said: Establishing the minimum salary a director or assistant director could be

paid, the department requested employees to complete a form indicating their current

annual salary levels.

The Auditor General continues: We assessed the accuracy of twelve of

the forty salary submissions, and our review indicates that five of the twelve salary

submissions included one-time bonuses, bonuses not actually paid, inflated bonuses, and

one-time vacation payments as part of their annual salary. The department's annual funding

for administrative salaries for five of the twelve school board executive positions

therefore overstated by approximately $26,000. That was only on an examination of twelve

of the forty salary submissions, and five of the total presentations of the twelve that

came in from the various school boards. In that there was found to be an overstatement in

the amount of $26,000.

The Minister of Education should have, by this time, since he has had

ample opportunity, had a thorough investigation. He did say, when this matter came to

public knowledge, that he would carry out an investigation and that he would be tabling

the result of that investigation in the public forum of the House of Assembly. However, to

date we have not had the benefit of that particular presentation made to the hon. members.

We are asking the Minister of Education when he will conclude his

investigation as to what overpayments may have been made to the directors of education

during the transfer period from twenty-seven to ten school boards. Since the Auditor

General only examined a sample of the positions, what was the conclusion? We know that in

the ones the Auditor General examined there was an error of overpayment by $26,000. Was

the total $40,000, or was it less than $50,000? How much did, really, the transfer cost by

way of overpayments to the directors or the thirty assistant directors?

Also, there were issues surrounding the annual leave that former

superintendents claimed for compensation purposes. The Auditor General raised some

questions on that as well. Therefore, there are some real issues we have to seek answers

on, and there also were some detailed commentaries made on various school boards as well.

We had also asked some questions in this House relative to the way in

which the Memorial University books are audited. As a matter of fact, I do believe the

Member for Cape St. Francis one day asked questions in the House to the Minister of

Education as to why the University is not subject to the requirements of the Auditor

General's act. We have not had answers to that during the Budget debate, Mr. Chairman. So

we are saying to the hon. the Minister of Education that Memorial University spends $100

million of the taxpayers' money in this Province. During this Budget debate we have had

zero input from the government as to where the $100 million was spent. We just have a

blanket allocation in the Budget of the total amount paid to Memorial University,

approximately $100 million. We asked questions on it here and we asked questions through

the Auditor General and her division and we are told that when she goes to the university

that the door is shut, that she is not allowed to ask direct questions of how the money

was expended. The university, of course, claims that any questions on their finance just

happen to be an infringement of their academic freedom.

Mr. Chairman, we know that is a lot of nonsense. But there was

an act

passed by the Well's government that meant that the university could operate without

having to be answerable to the Auditor General and could not be brought before the Bar of

the House for direct questioning.

Mr. Chairman, that is not what happens in other Provinces of this

country and it certainly should not happen in this Province. I can assure all hon. members

that one of the polices that will be brought forward by this side of the House, when we

can get a chance to ask the people for their commentary, in the not to distance future, is

that we will be espousing two things. One would be that we will have a Ombudsman appointed

for this Province and secondly that we will be requiring the whole expenditure associated

with Memorial University, to be accountable to the Auditor General.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the Budget debate as well we have had some

discussions directed toward the issues as wide ranging as the trips that were taken by the

Premier. Mr. Chairman, someone asked me today, in fact, downstairs in the cafeteria, the

question was asked was: Is anybody trying to get information relative to how much the

Premier spends on his travel budget. It was a case of where the person asking the

question, who just happens to be an employee of the Provincial Government, said: You

should try to find out additional information.

Mr. Chairman, the travel budget of the Premier has to be one of the

highest since Joey Smallwood, who, of course, was well travelled, all at taxpayers'

expense. Mr. Chairman, even the media are beginning to question now some of the travel

itinerary of the Premier and the fact that he rarely is where he should be, which is here

in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, we also had comments during the Budget debate on all the

polling that has been done, the $59,000 spent on polls over the last while; the poll that

the Minister of Fisheries had done to determine whether he would support the people on

TAGS or not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was really enlightened by the speech of my colleague for Waterford

Valley and I would be delighted to hear him continue here, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank my good colleague for Ferryland for facilitating the

efficient use of the parliamentary rules that say, that when we have a Budget debate, we

go ten and ten. It only requires one interrupting speaker for the procedure to start all

over again. Mr. Chairman, that is the beautiful thing about parliamentary rules.

Mr. Chairman, I was saying before I was interrupted by the Chairman,

carrying out the rules of the House, as he is supposed to do, I was talking about the

travel of the Premier. More and more and more people of this Province are saying: What is

going on?

Yesterday, we had the minister announce that they are going to change

the Child Tax Credit. That certainly gave people in this Province great encouragement. I

remember the current Minister of Health standing in her place day after day and denying

that the Child Tax Credit was going to adversely affect those people who were dependent on

social services benefits. I remember the current minister standing in her place and

saying: No person will be receiving less money than they did before, and denying that

there would be any adverse effect on those people who were the poorest of the poor.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased, when I see the government has finally

recognized that we should be giving help to people who are the working poor in this

Province, but that it should never be financed by the very poorest of the poor families in

this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say, after all the denial, after all the

statements made by the current Minister of Health - she stood in her place day after day

after day and said: No, no, no. That they were not going to change the rules relative to

the Child Tax Benefit. But, Mr. Chairman, we know now that there are some people in the

back-benches of the Liberal Caucus who have a conscience. We know they could not be in the

Cabinet because, if they were in the Cabinet, changes would have been made a long time

ago. They would never have occurred initially.

So, the people of conscience had to be people in the caucus who put

extreme pressure on the Cabinet to change its mind. I would say, that the truth is there

would have been a caucus revolt if there had not been changes made to the Child Tax

Benefit.

Mr. Chairman, that was the real problem. I talked to hon. colleagues in

the back benches and I know how they felt about the Child Tax Benefit. I know how they

felt about the hard-nosed approach by the current Minister of Health and I know what the

response was to other comments made by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that people in the back benches of the Liberal

Caucus still have the power to say to the Cabinet: You have to have a conscience. You

cannot introduce projects and work initiatives for the working poor and have it paid for

by the very poorest of people in this Province. I am glad to say that what happened

yesterday shows that the back benches of the Liberal Caucus told the Cabinet: If you do

not change that, you are not fair to the very poorest of people. There would have been a

revolt. We know that there would have been a revolt.

We know, on this side, that it would have gone back to the Cabinet

meeting or Caucus meeting that Clyde Wells had, when the voices were shouting and there

was almost a revolt at that time, in the Fall of 1995.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you now, that we are happy to give credit to

the back-benchers of that Caucus who put pressure on the Cabinet ministers and taught them

a lesson in consciousness and fairness, and showed them what it was like to really feel

for, and respond to, the needs of the ordinary poorest person in this Province.

Yesterday, when the minister stood in her place, we were, on this side,

delighted. I want to give credit to the great job done by the critic in our caucus. The

Member for St. John's West has been calling into the open line show, she has been giving

press releases, she has spoken on petitions and has presented a private member's

resolution. She has been here as well speaking in debate and one persistent theme she has

had is that, we have to be fair to the very poorest of the people in this Province.

This claw back that is connected to the Child Tax Benefit was so unfair

- yesterday was a triumph for her, in particular, because she has been the advocate. Also,

by the way, it was a triumph for people like George Baker, who has been speaking out on

this issue as well, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that the people in the back benches of the

Liberal Caucus finally convinced the Cabinet that they had to take measures or they had to

suffer a revolt. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the people in the back benches over there

knew that this particular policy was so unpopular in their constituency households that

they would have great difficulty trying to market this particular program for the sake of

$10 million, which might sound like a lot to ordinary folks but in terms of total budget

dollars, when we have nearly $3 billion, that is not much.

That was what we would have taken from the very poorest of people, a

lot to an individual, not much in terms of the total budget, but would have a tremendous

impact in the households of this Province, and would have helped young families to get on

their feet, helped them to put food on their tables and helped them get their kids ready

to go to school, probably making sure that there is a lunch in some child's book bag that

would not ordinarily have been there.

Mr. Chairman, that is an initiative that we applaud. Government

sometimes does things that are right, and yesterday, after much convincing, after months

and months of ultra right-wing Liberalism, they decided that they would show a little bit

of Progressive policy - Progressive policy was working - and finally they came to their

senses and abandoned their right-wing Liberalism and listened to the back-benchers. They

were able to forego a caucus revolt. It all worked for them.

Mr. Chairman, with these few comments, I want to conclude my

introductory comments this afternoon. I am sure before the long day that we anticipate

will occur has expired, I will get a chance to get back again and continue my commentary

relative to this particular Budget and some of the good things in it, some of the bad

things that are there, and where the government deserves to be commended, like the

back-benchers of the Liberal Caucus, what they did to the Cabinet forcing them to change

their minds. We will commend the back-benchers as I also have commended members of this

caucus, especially the Member for St. John's West who led the charge on this side and

deserves a great deal of credit in having that particular policy changed and amended.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I sat here today for as long as I could

and listened to the hon. Member for - Waterford Kenmount?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, boy. You don't even know the name of the

district.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is Waterford Valley.

MR. EFFORD: Waterford Valley. It goes to show you how boring he is

that we do not even know where he is from. He stood there in his place for about twenty

minutes and kept talking about the change in policy, one change in policy, and he repeated

it over and over and over again. He never talked about all the good things that are

happening in the Province today, but for twenty minutes he stood to his feet in total

negativity.

That is the reason why he is sitting in the place he is in today, not

now the Opposition House Leader that he was in the past, moved over to the third row; two

people sitting all alone over there. He then stands to his feet and tries to impress his

Leader that he is -

MR. SULLIVAN: You have sat back further than that, I say, before.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, no doubt, but at least I came forward. I am still

not sitting in the third seat.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke to a group of students at 10:30 this morning at

Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts on the future opportunities in Newfoundland and

Labrador. The one thing that I talked to the kids about this morning is attitude in

Newfoundland. If we have one thing going against us it is attitude, the negative attitude

that is being displayed and being talked about, like we are talking about in the House of

Assembly, through the news media and around the kitchen table. Wherever a group of people

are talking, it is negative. People don't appreciate and look at the advantages and the

opportunities, what we have in this Province of ours. If we keep on brainwashing our young

people into feeling the negativity that is being displayed by members opposite and other

people around the Province, nothing is ever going to change in this Province.

I keep hearing people say: We don't have opportunities here in this

Province. We don't have resources here in this Province. We don't have jobs here in this

Province. Well it is not the government's responsibility to be creating jobs. Regardless

of the political nature, it is no government's responsibility to go out there and start up

industries. In fact, history has proven that every time governments have been involved in

industry it has been a losing proposition.

So the way to turn it around is to get out of private industry and let

private industry develop the opportunities and create the jobs. But we don't have the

confidence. The average Newfoundlander does not have the confidence in the resources

available and does not see the depth of the resource available to look at the

opportunities and develop a bright future, and it is because of negative -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) lack of confidence.

MR. EFFORD: That is one of the problems, lack of confidence. How

can you not lack confidence when every time you hear someone speak opposite, every time

you turn on a news clip on television, it is negative, negative, negative? Nothing will

ever change while we keep talking negative.

`If you go and speak to a group of high school students, no matter

where they are around the Province, you will get the same story: What have I got to live

in Newfoundland for? I have to get educated and I have to move out of Newfoundland.' Mr.

Chairman, that could not be further from the truth. If we, in this Province, believed in

the resources we have in this Province, looked at the opportunities, and if the business

communities start developing the opportunities there would be no reason for people to be

so dismal and so negative in their views about the future of this Province.

Look at the forest industry in this Province, look at the mining

industry, look at the aquaculture industry, look at the oil industry, look at the fishing

industry: All of those industries are the envy of a lot of provinces in Canada.

I often compare the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to a small

country like Iceland. The main resource they have in Iceland is the fishery. What do they

do in Iceland? They bring people in from other counties to work in the fishing industry.

They don't have enough people in Iceland to work in the fishing industry. It is almost a

carbon copy of Newfoundland as far as the marine resource but we have all of the other

resources. We have the forest industry, the agriculture industry, the mining industry, the

oil industry, along with our fishing industry.

Mr. Chairman, there are opportunities in this Province to develop in

the fishing industry if we have a vision, if we have an imagination, if we start exploring

the world needs and the world demands, looking at the world technology, looking at the

world opportunities. There is more to fishing in this Province than catching fish and

processing or filleting fish on a line.

Even today, with an export value of $575 million in 1997, the average

Newfoundlander thinks there are no fish. Five hundred-and-seventy-five million dollars

worth of export value and the average individual in this Province today thinks there is no

fishing taking place. How do you educate the people in this Province? How do you get the

information out there that the fishing industry is not gone? In fact, the fishing industry

is better today than it ever was in the history of the Province. Why? For the first time

in the history of this Province, and I should say since Confederation, we are exporting

$575 million worth of fish with not one dollar of government or taxpayers' money, either

federally or provincially.

In the last two years there have been absolutely no subsidies, in any

form whatsoever, go into the primary processing or the primary harvesting of any species

of fish in this Province. People said that it could not work. People said: If you don't

give the money to the industry the industry will collapse. I said the opposite: If you

take the subsidies away, if you take the grants away, if you take loans away that

government gave in the past, it would become stronger than it ever was. I was right, Mr.

Chairman. Today the fishing industry is on a road to success. It is on a road to building,

growing, year by year. As I said last year, $575 million. With the increase in the shrimp

quota this year given to the inshore fishermen of this Province, I will say now, depending

on the market price of the species sold, that this year, 1998, we will exceed an export

value of $600 million.

In 1997 we employed 21,000 people in the fishing industry. In 1998,

according to the increase in quotas of the shrimp fishery, that should exceed 23,000 or

probably 24,000 people. Mr. Chairman, that is not an industry that is dead. That is an

industry that is alive and well and sustainable to the people in the communities where

those opportunities are, where the harvesting and the processing take place.

What else did we do in the fishing industry? We said, as a government,

that we are not going to allow any more product to go out of this Province unprocessed to

be further processed in some other part of the world. As a result of that, Mr. Chairman,

for the first time in 500 years - harvesting fish and hunting seals. 1998 is the first

time in the history of this Province that we are now canning seal pelts. What did we do

for all of the history of the Province? We hunted the seal, we pelted it, we took it and

put in a container and shipped it to some other part of the world where the jobs were

created. Now, today, we have two tannery operations in this Province and a third one

coming next year.

What did we do with the male caplin? For all of the years we have had a

caplin fishery in this Province, since the early 1960s, we took the caplin out of the

ocean and separated the males from the females. We shipped the females to some other part

of the world to be processed, and we dumped the males back into the ocean to let them rot

on the bottom and to let the other species of fish eat them.

We changed that policy, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. EFFORD: We, as a government. We - you and I - changed that

policy and said: No more dumping of male caplin. Utilize it, use it. Today, in 1998, there

will not be one male caplin dumped as waste into the ocean, not one caplin. The 20,000

tonne that was dumped annually will now be used for zoo food, for fish meal, and for human

consumption. It is one of the highest protein species of fish in the world, the male

caplin.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am trying to enlighten your member on something

here. If you spent more time over here maybe you would learn something.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). You are back on to the Chair.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Chair is back on to me, I say to the member.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stand here today to add a few comments to the Budget Debate. What

topic are we discussing?

MR. J. BYRNE: Executive Council.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, it is all very well for the minister

to get up and say that you should not be negative; you should speak positively. You are

carrying forward a message that nobody believes. We are belittling everybody, where

everything that is happening is negative, there is nobody leaving this Province,

everything is great out there.

Mr. Chairman, it is one thing to speak the truth and it is another

thing to speak negatively towards things. When I talk to people, I put the best foot

forward and tell people what opportunities are out there. I speak at functions. Mr.

Chairman, there is nothing worse, I suppose, than a negative-minded person.

MR. LUSH: The member does a good job. (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The Member for Terra Nova has heard me speak, and

when I do it is always a positive message that I put forward and let people know what is

out there. Mr. Chairman, it is a job to speak positively about negative things.

Before I continue, I have to compliment the Member for St. John's West

in the efforts that she put forward. I have to compliment the member in her tireless

effort that she brought forward in seeing something to be changed. Whether it was negative

or positive, it was changed, and it was changed because it needed to be changed. I have a

funny feeling that the people on the opposite side, when they got the Premier's ear, when

they got the Cabinet members' ears, they had whispered the same message because they were

hearing it, Mr. Chairman.

I have to tell you a story. The member today - should be a minister -

asked questions about the Canada Pension claw-back, if you would, whereby people now are

forced to apply for Canada Pension at age sixty, even though they may be on social

services temporarily. It might be the first time, the only time, and the only six months,

that an individual would apply for social assistance because they may find themselves in a

position in life that is totally unfamiliar to them. Because they find themselves in that

position, social services today say that you must now apply for your Canada Pension

because you are sixty years old.

Mr. Chairman, one of the stipulations in applying for Canada Pension is

that you should have a drastic reduction in your income. Your income has to be

substantially decreased, number one. Number two, Mr. Chairman, is that you must have some

idea that you are going to retire.