May 1, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 18

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend congratulations to a fisherman in

my district, Mr. George Feltham of Eastport, on being awarded the Romeo LeBlanc

Medal for Responsible Fishing.

Mr. Feltham was presented with this award by the Right Hon. Romeo LeBlanc

during a recent ceremony in Ottawa. This award was presented in recognition of

Mr. Feltham's exceptional contribution to Canada's commercial fisheries. I

want to point out that this medal is the highest distinction given to one of

four Canadian fisherpersons receiving the first National Awards for Responsible

Fishing.

Mr. Feltham is indeed to be commended for his responsible fishing practices

and professional conduct. He exemplifies the image of a professional fish

harvester, and the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has greatly

benefitted from his dedication to rebuilding, conserving and protecting our

Province's fish resources. Mr. Feltham is specifically known for his

leadership in demonstrating the importance and value of fisheries conservation

and has worked diligently in conserving lobster resources in the Eastport area.

I referred to that experimentation on the Eastport peninsula in my first member's

statement in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. LUSH: Thank you.

I just want to conclude by extending congratulations to Mr. Feltham and wish

him all the best in his future efforts in the fishing industry of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: I am sorry that I didn't know the member elect was going to

be in the gallery today, but I wonder if I might, on behalf of all people in the

House - now that the member is elected, I'm sure nobody from either side would

object to welcoming the newly elected member for Trinity North, Mr. Ross

Wiseman, to the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sure Mr. Wiseman will appreciate why I didn't give

him a standing ovation, but I do in a most sincere way congratulate him on his

victory and welcome him to the House of Assembly and, in the not too distant

future, welcome him in taking his seat in the House and participating in the

debate about the issues that face the Province and, in particular, participating

in the debate about the issues that face the District of Trinity North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, certainly, as I did on the night of the

election, I wish to congratulate Mr. Wiseman on his election in Trinity North

and to welcome his visit as member elect in the Speaker's gallery. I look

forward to seeing him here in the House for full debate on the issues facing

this Province and his own district.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, every year the health

and community services boards around the Province plan for summer hospital bed

closures. Based on past years, it is anticipated that between the months of May

and September, up to one quarter of the beds in our Province's health

facilities may close in order to facilitate vacation periods for physicians,

nurses, other health professionals and support staff.

Just as in any organization, staff look forward to time off from work to

spend with their family and friends. This is also a priority in the health

profession. However, managing staff vacations with the needs of patients who are

ill is a real balancing act. This is an unavoidable situation in a profession

which serves to take care of people in hospital, nursing home or other clinical

settings.

The health and well-being of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will

remain the number one priority during all summer bed closures throughout the

Province. So while routine surgeries and hospital admissions will be scaled back

in favour of staff vacation time, this will not occur where the medical needs of

the people are compromised.

As always, there will be difficulty in managing leave in specialty areas like

critical care units. That is because only a small portion of our health

professionals become trained to work in those specialty areas.

In regions where there is a shortage of particular health professionals,

arranging vacation time may also be more difficult. This problem is faced by all

other provinces across Canada, and in most instances stems from national

shortages in some health professions and trades.

In this Province, we have taken action to manage our human resources well. We

have set up an Integrated Health Human Resource Planning Committee which is made

up of representatives of government, the boards, associations and employee

groups. Sub-committees are doing work to ensure we in this Province are least

affected by national shortages and other negative trends. This could mean many

things, from evaluating our current education programs to looking at scopes of

practice.

We have also made key investments as it relates to health human resources. In

1999, we created 125 new permanent nursing positions and we converted up to 540

casual nursing positions to permanent status. We also provided additional

support staff to assist. Government has set aside money for incentive programs

for physicians, nurses and allied health professionals, such as signing bonuses

and bursary programs. Money is also allotted to hire nurse practitioner program

graduates, and we will spend more to hire new salaried physicians.

In addition, government agreed in February to a classification review of the

nursing occupation, including the licenced practical nurse classification, and

the social worker classification. The purpose of the review is to ensure current

classifications properly reflect the complexity of the work employees perform in

today's environment. This reflects the changing nature of many health care

related professions which is evident by classification reviews already underway

for such classes as physiotherapists, pharmacists and dieticians represented by

the Association of Allied Health Professionals.

Arranging vacation for the thousands of people who work in our health system

is no easy task. However, I am assured that our regional boards will do their

best to maximize the number of staff who do receive a vacation, while balancing

this with an adequate number of bed closures so as not to interfere with the

urgent and emergent needs of patients. Government will continue to work closely

with boards to monitor the situation to ensure that health services to the

public are maintained throughout the summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice to know now that summer vacation is between May and September. The

previous minister stood in this House a year ago and announced closures in April

- there were sixty closures from the fall to April - and said these are normal

summer closures occurring there. I am glad the minister has vacations now

beginning in May as opposed to beginning in June. I might add, you said last

year in April when you announced twenty bed closures here in this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: There were twenty bed closures announced, the minister

said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh sure, her memory is short. Read Hansard, I say to the

member.

We had sixty bed closures occur last year before May 1. We had 120-some beds

closed last June. We were told they would all open in the fall. They did not

open. They never opened. They closed more before Christmas. They closed beds

since Christmas. There have been over 1,000 bed closures in this Province in the

last ten years, and people are out there waiting to get surgery. They tell us

emergency cases will not be hurt. I spoke with a person recently who had cancer

surgery cancelled six times. A lady who had breast cancer, waiting to have a

mammogram, has six months to wait, she told me just this past week. What are

they going to do when they shut down more services during the summer months? It

is a little late.

The minister talks about converting 540 casuals to permanent. There were

people working casual; they were working casual, more than the regular number of

hours. It did not put any new manpower in the system by converting casuals to

permanent because they were getting as much work as they wanted anyway.

An opportunity arose here a year ago to do something with the shortage here.

They closed the barn door after it was too late. A year later, I say to the

minister. Yes, minister, this year is too late. It is too late now to close the

barn door, I say to the minister. You had an opportunity when you where here in

the House over a year ago to do something about it and you did absolutely

nothing about it except scorn at the nurses who sat here in the gallery. They

are not coming back. After the RNs are written, we can tell you again, you can't

even recruit half the nurses who are graduating this year, I might say to the

minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody agrees that during the summer months there will be some bed

closures; however, we don't want to see this - as was done last year - used as

an excuse to have permanent bed closures, beds that will never open again

without ever any proper planning, announcement, or public discussion of these

events.

There is some mention here of attempts being made to reclassify healthcare

professionals, and I don't have any problem with that. The problem was that

when the nurses were on strike, when there was an opportunity to negotiate and

resolve a healthcare crisis and nursing shortage before it was created, this

government did nothing and, in fact, enhanced and created the crisis by refusing

to acknowledge the problems with the healthcare profession, in the nursing

profession, and the need to retain and to attract nurses and other healthcare

professionals. We are now trying to pick up the pieces of this government's

mess last April when it ordered nurses back to work and refused to accept

binding arbitration.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and advise the

members of this House that government has chosen the Royal Bank of Canada as its

main banker.

In December of last year, I announced that government would be seeking

proposals from financial institutions to provide banking services to the

provincial government. The agreement with our current banker, the Canadian

Imperial Bank of Commerce, expires May 31, 2000. All

Schedule I banks in the

Province were sent a Request for Proposals.

Government received proposals from four banks - the Royal Bank of Canada,

CIBC, Bank of Montreal, and Bank of Nova Scotia.

Following a review of the proposals, officials of both the Treasury Board

Secretariat and the Department of Finance carried out an evaluation process. The

evaluation determined that the Royal Bank of Canada was the preferred bank.

Mr. Speaker, government has enjoyed a good relationship with CIBC over the

past fifteen years and on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

I am pleased to express our appreciation for the service they provided.

Government looks forward to its new partnership with the Royal Bank of

Canada. Officials of Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Finance

are now working to make the transition as smooth as possible.

The agreement with the Royal Bank of Canada becomes effective June 1, 2000.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to inform this House today that the Royal Bank of

Canada will be providing Visa and debit card acceptance services, and the Bank

of Montreal will provide MasterCard acceptance services to government effective

June 1. There was also a formal call for proposals to provide this service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for a copy of her release earlier. I would like to

congratulate the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal, of course, in receiving

the government contract. Hopefully, the intent of this change was to save the

taxpayers of the Province some money.

It is good to see the government learning from their past mistakes regarding

tendering and proposal calls. It said here that the Department of Finance and

Treasury Board did an evaluation of the proposals. Hopefully we won't see

another lawsuit, as we have seen so many times in the past, and the present

lawsuits against this Administration with respect to their public tendering and

poor proposal calls. Hopefully it will pay off, but time will tell.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly is appropriate that we should evaluate and change banking

services from time to time; however, there is no indication here as to why one

was preferred over the other, what advantages they are worth to the Province,

whether they are cheaper or whether they are more expensive, or whether there

were different advantages.

I wonder if the minister could explain to the people, in a future Ministerial

Statement at some other time, why it was that this particular relationship was

preferred to that of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce or any other

bidders.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to announce to the House that May 7-13

has been proclaimed as Nation Forestry Week across Canada. Since the early 1920's

a week has been set aside each year to bring special attention to promoting

greater public awareness about Canada's forests.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the reason we are doing it a week early is to

give everybody an opportunity to think about it for an extra week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it would do good for

some people to think about forestry a lot more.

The theme for National Forest Week 2000 is Canada's Forests, Learning from

the Past, Building for the Future. As we continue to move forward towards the

twenty-first century, it is important that everyone with a vested interest in

our forest resource use their knowledge and contribute to the formulation of a

responsible and effective management plan which focuses on sustaining our

valuable forest resources for the future.

The fact is the forests of this Province have a profound affect on the lives

of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. The forest industry is a social

and economic backbone of over eighty communities and creates over 10,000 jobs

every year. In 1999, sales from the Province's pulp and paper mills reached

approximately $600 million GDP and saw their products being shipped to more than

forty countries worldwide. During the same period, sales of forest products from

Newfoundland and Labrador sawmills reached approximately $40 million.

Modernization and the development of new market opportunities have also lead to

the creation of new jobs, particularly in the value-added wood products

industry. The forest industry is presently the third largest contributing sector

to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador behind the fishing and mining

sectors.

Our forests also provide a playground for an array of outdoor enthusiasts

which include everyone from moose hunters to cross-country skiers. Our forest

ecosystem is also home to a variety of wildlife - the best managed moose

populations in North America - which depend on a healthy environment for their

existence.

Through public education and a promotion of sound forest management practices

we can make people more aware of the true value of our forests and communicate

the need to manage them in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner.

In an effort to promote understanding and cooperation with respect to the

protection, responsible use and development of our forest resources, the

Newfoundland Forest Service, in conjunction with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Forest Protection Association, will be providing the general public with an

opportunity to learn more about the forests of our Province. Informative

forestry related activities including tours of woodland areas, Newfoundland

Forest Service facilities, along with other hands-on exercises, will be

available to school groups and the general public at forestry offices throughout

the Province. That is the reason why we are going a week early, to give the

schools their notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to take this opportunity

to acknowledge the efforts of the men and women who dedicate their careers in

effectively managing the forests of this Province. It is a result of this

commitment that Newfoundland and Labrador is now considered to be a forerunner

in this country with respect to knowledge and expertise within the forest

industry.

We are also tabling a copy of the kit being distributed to the schools.

Since this minister has not received a question from the Opposition in two

sessions of the House of Assembly on forest activity, I look forward to seeing

more of that, too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, welcome the opportunity to welcome the National Forest Week, and I

thank the minister for forwarding a copy of his statement.

The second part of the theme is Building for the Future. I think it is

important that we recognize the importance of silviculture in our Province and I

encourage the minister on doing more to enhance our silviculture program, and

also recognize the importance of sustaining our forest resources, and to involve

all the stakeholders of our forest resource and have a balanced approach to our

forest resources.

If the minister would like me to ask questions on forestry, I think I am

quite willing and quite capable of asking a lot of questions pertaining to the

forestry industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, pertaining to all the

stakeholders who deserve and are expecting the department to have a balanced

approach to our forest resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, when we look at the big stakeholders and the

small stakeholders we see that these stakeholders are not all being treated

fairly and equally. I say to the minister, if you want questions on the

forestry, I can come up with lots of questions, and I am sure in the days to

come I will have good questions on the forestry. Maybe we will get something

done pertaining to the sustainability of our forest resources, the jobs and all

the stakeholders in our forestry.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting that the minister's very fine words here are very

interesting and informative, except that they leave out - as did the statement

by the Opposition - the most significant issue having to do with our shared

forest in the Province today, and that is the Main River. It is an area we don't

know enough about, the 250-year-old-plus boreal forest where an environmental

impact statement was done fifteen years ago which has deficiencies as long as

your arm, where we have not adequately studied this, and yet we are on the verge

of having a war of words in Corner Brook that demands the cutting of the last

boreal old growth forest in North America. I think backed up behind these fine

words should be some recognition of forestry as a shared resource for all of our

people, the stakeholders who are directly involved in earning a living from the

forest and the fibre, plus the rest of us who are earning a living -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and living in the environment of which our forest is a very

important part.

Oral Questions

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Lately, Mr. Speaker, the Ministers of Work, Services and

Transportation and Tourism, Culture and Recreation have been praising the

federal government and Marine Atlantic for leasing a high speed catamaran type

ferry to operate in the Gulf as an interim measure. Surely the ministers and

Cabinet are being kept up to date with respect to Marine Atlantic's plans for

a ferry service. We know, for example, that Marine Atlantic's board are now

negotiating to buy an old British ferry, the Stena Challenger, which we

also understand does not have enough cabins to meet passenger demands on the

Gulf as it now stands.

In terms of what will happen after the interim measure that Marine Atlantic

is taking, that the ferry that Marine Atlantic's Board of Directors are

looking towards, which it now looks like they are going to purchase outright,

does this type of ferry meet the provincial government's own criteria for a

new permanent addition to the ferry service for the twenty-first century? Will

this new ferry not only meet the government's criteria, but will it also

position this Province to take advantage economically not only of tourism trade,

but to enhance our economy generally throughout the Province?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think the general public has been informed

of what Marine Atlantic is going to do with regards to this summer's schedule.

I don't know if they announced the name of the ship but everybody else seems

to know it, that it is the Max Mols. It is a ship from Denmark. I believe

it is a catamaran. It is a ship that was built in 1998. It is an aluminum type

catamaran craft, similar to the other types, wide-bodied hulls that they have,

say for instance, in operation from Yarmouth to Bar Harbour.

The question with regards to if it is satisfactory to the Province, well, as

far as I am concerned for this summer, on the Gulf itself, it is a fast ferry.

They are telling me that they had no choice to put it in, they couldn't get

anything else. What we wanted, and in our report, was we wanted something that

could go on the Argentia run that had enough cabins to accommodate people on the

so-called night ferry on the Argentia run. They do not have that. They tell us

they could not get it, it was not available. So at this stage and at this point

they would have to take this vessel and then put something else in place for the

fall.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that was not the question of what going to

take place in the interim, during the interim measure in terms of the catamaran

vessel that has been hired with its foreign crew. That is not the question I

asked.

The question I asked is: Does the provincial government have its own criteria

for the more permanent solution that Marine Atlantic is now contemplating? It is

widely known that Marine Atlantic's Board of Directors are in negotiations to

purchase an older British type ferry called the Stena Challenger. We also

know, minister, that the capacity for cabins on that vessel does not meet what

the need will be as a permanent solution. So I am asking you directly not what

is happening this summer - we understand that, it is an interim measure put in

place by Marine Atlantic and the board - but what I am asking about is the

permanent solution that Marine Atlantic is contemplating in terms of the Stena

Challenger that they are negotiating to purchase. Does that meet the

provincial government's criteria for a permanent solution that will enhance

the Gulf ferry service, that will provide not only the opportunity to enhance

tourism but to provide the opportunity to enhance our economy as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Does that ferry meet your own criteria, minister? Yes or

no.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am only aware of what is going to happen

this summer with the new vessel that is going to go on the Gulf this summer. I

have been hearing reports that they have been talking about the Stena

Challenger , that she is a ropax vessel and they may have something new on

that in the fall because of the extension of their contract. Apparently, she

wasn't ready. They are looking at it.

If that vessel is the one that they are talking about, my understanding is

there is another 25 per cent to 30 per cent capacity on that vessel, if she is a

ropax. They were thinking about rescheduling. I don't know, that is

hypothetical. I don't know what they are doing.

Our response to that would be: We had it in our report that was done last

spring that we wanted something there that would take the place, especially on

the Argentia run, with regards to the long, fourteen- to sixteen-hour run on the

Argentia-North Sydney run.

Now to the other part. We must have something in place for the fall for the

capacity. We had problems last fall with capacity on the Gulf with the MV

Joseph and Clara Smallwood and the MV Caribou . Something has to be

put in place this fall. We made the federal minister aware of this and we will,

again, be making the federal minister aware of this next week. We have to have

something in place in the fall to address the capacity problem that we had on

the Gulf last fall.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister, in answering the question, has

highlighted an important issue. It is clear. I will ask you directly before I

get to my next question. Are you involved directly in the selection process of a

permanent solution or are you only advising what you want?

I know you went around the Island last year, you produced the report On

Deck & Below , but is the provincial government part of the selection

group for a new ferry? Does the provincial government - you haven't indicated

- have criteria of what this Province needs with respect to a provincial ferry

service? If you have that criteria, could you tell us what it is today and why

you are not involved in the selection process?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not involved in the selection process.

The federal minister and Marine Atlantic are responsible for it. I don't go to

the federal minister when I am trying to make decisions on the provincial marine

division. They do their thing. Marine Atlantic reports to the federal minister,

they don't report to this department. There is no direct involvement with the

federal minister or Marine Atlantic on what decisions they are going to make for

this fall. We have made it quite clear though, as a province, where we stand and

what we wanted. Public capacity was the big problem, it has been a problem for

the last number of years, and we want that capacity problem addressed.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let's get to the capacity problem. Fifteen

years ago, the MV Joseph and Clara Smallwood ferry lost $135 million,

nearly twice the amount budgeted in this year's federal budget for a new

ferry, a permanent ferry. Seventy-five million dollars, I believe they budgeted.

The former minister, or the Minister of Tourism, has recently said that: the MV

Joseph and Clara Smallwood is nothing but a constitutional cattle boat. That

was said by the present Minister of Tourism. I would like to ask the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation: Are you concerned?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely. I agree.

What I am also concerned about now is that if we are looking for a permanent

solution, if capacity, as all people in the House, have outlined, then what

representations have you made to the federal minister with respect to $75

million being allocated for a permanent ferry service? Will that meet the

capacity problem as you have outlined in your own report, On Deck & Below ?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, yes, the capacity problem is one of our real

concerns. It had been in the past, it is today, and hopefully will be remedied

for tomorrow.

They have said that they are going to put on this new fast cat for the

summer. That will address - if they put the proper scheduling in place - the

capacity problem for this summer. If they put the proper scheduling in place for

this fall with the MV Caribou , the MV Atlantic Freighter , and the MV

Joseph and Clara Smallwood in place, they will address the capacity problem

for this fall, no question about that, but they must put the proper

schedule in

place to accommodate it.

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

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

Minister, I will ask the question again. The federal government has allocated

$75 million, not to deal with the catamaran or the leasing of this vessel just

for this summer period. They have allocated $75 million in the federal budget

for the purchase of a new vessel. Are you concerned that $75 million will not

meet the problem with capacity, given the fact that the MV Joseph and Clara

Smallwood was built almost twenty years ago at a cost of $135 million? Will

the $75 million allocation go to meeting and exceeding the capacity problem on

the Marine Atlantic run, in your view? Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, with the addition of the fast cat for this

summer, there shouldn't be any problem with capacity provided the proper

scheduling is put in place. If they go with the Stena Challenger they are

talking about for this fall, and put the proper scheduling in place with fast

turnarounds and so on, even with the refits of the MV Joseph and Clara

Smallwood, Caribou and MV Atlantic Freighter, there shouldn't be

any problem with capacity. That is all I can tell the member. If they do that -

I don't know what they are thinking about doing. I have no direct input into

that. If they do what you say, and if they do what I just outlined, then there

shouldn't be any problem whatsoever with capacity this year.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what we are getting here is a spin about this

summer. My line of questions are not about the capacity problem for this summer

because they put in place an interim measure to handle it for this summer. My

questions are about a more permanent solution for next year, the year after, the

year after that, and beyond.

I will ask the minister this: The allocation of money provided in the federal

budget of $75 million, are you convinced that when that permanent solution is

put in place, when that $75 million is spent to put a new vessel on, will that

meet the criteria you have established as minister? Will it meet the criteria

that the people in this Province so badly need? And will it meet and exceed the

demands and growth in the industry for this Province for this year and the next

ten years? Yes or no?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will say again what I said before. I have

said, yes, yes, yes to all of the hon. member's questions. I told him that if

they do put the Stena Challenger in place this fall, along with the

proper scheduling.... You can put a $200 million or a $400 million vessel there

if you like - they can spend $500 million - but if they don't put the proper

scheduling in place to accommodate the capacity problem on the Gulf, it is not

going to work.

If they put the Stena Challenger that they are talking about putting

there, whether it is $75 million or $150 million, and they put the Caribou and

the MV Clara and Joseph Smallwood along with the Atlantic Freighter

in place under proper scheduling, with fast turnaround, to accommodate the

problem we had last fall, then there shouldn't be any problem in the

foreseeable future.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is missing it. The minister is missing the point. He is saying

that money doesn't matter. So, do we put the Minister of Fisheries' boat, if

we have a good scheduling problem.... If we take his logic, we can put the

Minister of Fisheries' boat on the run as long as it is scheduled okay. That

is what he is saying.

The problem is this: The money allocated by the federal government will not

meet the capacity problem or the criteria of this provincial government to

ensure that the service that we have put forward, that the people of this

Province demand, will be met. Are you concerned about it, Minister? Yes or no?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't make sense what the hon.

member is getting on with. I don't know if he looked into it. I don't know

if the hon. member looked beyond the name of the vessel they are talking about

getting this fall. If he did, he would look at the capacity that this vessel

has. That vessel alone will provide approximately a 25 per cent increase itself.

So even if you took the MV Joseph and Clara Smallwood off for two months

and put the Stena Challenger on and the Caribou, you will have no

problem addressing the capacity problem. If you took the Caribou off, and

the Atlantic Freighter at the same time, the MV Joseph and Clara

Smallwood and the Stena Challenger would be able to accommodate the

capacity problem. That is what they told me.

I looked at the capacity requirements that the Stena Challenger has,

and as far as I'm concerned if that is the vessel they are talking about and

they put the proper scheduling in place, with fast turnaround, especially when

the refit takes place on the MV Joseph and Clara Smallwood and the Caribou,

there should be absolutely no problem.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I want to ask

the Minister of Fisheries about the recent Newfoundland Supreme Court decision

that prevents the minister from attaching export restrictions to process

licenses issued by his department. I would like to ask the minister: How many

licenses did he issue, as minister, that these export restrictions might be

attached to?

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

MR. EFFORD: None, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that the report

carried in The Telegram is false, where a processor in the Province

indicated that there were sixteen such processing licenses presently active that

could now adhere to the Supreme Court ruling and be allowed to export fish

products out of this Province?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me the question: How many

did I issue? I re-issued sixteen licenses of retail trade within the Province.

Out of those sixteen licenses that are issued and re-issued on an annual basis,

I do not have the exact amount but I think three of the sixteen have the export

on those licenses.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: So the minister did issue licenses.

Minister, what are the implications of the Supreme Court's decision for the

processing sector? Does it mean that the provincial government cannot attach any

conditions on the export of unprocessed product? Does it mean, for example, that

companies will be able to export semi-processed or raw product, thus eliminating

the thousands of jobs that are presently available in the processing sector in

this Province?

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not reading what the minister is

saying. The Supreme Court of

Newfoundland told the minister that he could not attach export restrictions

on a license. If the minister cannot attach export restrictions on a license,

then I would like for the minister to tell the House today how he can stop

unprocessed product from being exported from this Province if he has no say in

what the export restrictions are?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking a

question based on what he read in the local news media. I have not yet received

the judge's decision. I have not received a copy of the judge's decision.

Until I get a copy and read it, and have the legal advisors of my department

advise me on exactly what that decision says, only then will I or anybody be

able to make a statement on the judge's decision.

In the case of unprocessed fish, the judge made it very clear that this does

not impede my ability, as Minister of Fisheries, in attaching conditions of

licenses saying that fish must be processed on the Island of Newfoundland and

Labrador and not shipped out to be further processed anywhere else.

All along we have had a condition of license saying that if that species of

fish is going directly to the consumer and not to be further processed in any

other part of this country or other part of the world it can be shipped directly

to the consumer. So the hon. member opposite does not know much about the fish

processing or the policies that we have as a government in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

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.

Under some health boards in this Province, sick and disabled people who are

confined to their homes must pay to have someone come to their home to take

blood, while under other boards the service is free. I ask the minister: Why

should a disabled woman in Clarenville pay $25 a week to have blood taken in her

home when a person here in the City of St. John's can have it taken in their

home at no cost?

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

MR. GRIMES: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I will have to check into it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago I raised in this House, on May 4, 5 and 6 - three consecutive

days - why they were staring to privatize service here in St. John's. I am

glad the minister came back three days later, after denying it, and then changed

the policy.

I want to ask the minister: Why are they privatizing essential health care

certain services based upon where people live?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that there is any privatization

of health care services going on in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When a person who is confined to their house here in St. John's and can

have someone come in and take blood and it does not cost, and a lady in

Clarenville who is disabled and cannot get out of her home has to pay $25 a week

to get blood taken, to me that is privatization of blood care services in the

Province.

There is already a ten-tiered health care system in this country. Are we now

going to have the twelve boards with a twelve-tiered system, I say to the

minister, in this Province? I want to ask the minister: Who makes that decision?

Is it your department or is it the individual health care boards?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will check into the circumstance that the hon. member raises. I am, though,

not aware of any privatization of health care services in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I am not about to speculate as to why there may or may not be a charge

for some service to be provided in a home in one part of the Province versus

someplace else. I an not aware of the details. When I get the details, I will

certainly respond in full.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to remind the minister that two years ago, on May 4, 5 and 6 in

this House, I raised that issue here when it started in St. John's, and they

came back and the minister announced then that the service - first she indicated

it was not being done, and on the third day she indicated that now the service

basically was going to changed back to what it was.

I want to ask the minister: Who is responsible for those decisions on

services that are being provided? Is it you, Minister, or your department, or is

that authority given to the twelve different health care boards out around this

Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are, throughout the whole of the country, a list of services that are

covered under the Canada Health Act in which there are funds transferred to the

help provide for those services and to have them paid for. There are a whole

range of services that are completely and totally paid for, 100 per cent, as a

result of what is commonly known as the medicare plan in Canada consistently

throughout the whole country. There are other services that are not covered by

the Canada Health Act are not covered by medicare but in certain provinces,

depending upon the ability to pay, they are paid for in some provinces and paid

for by the individuals in other provinces.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, my understanding is that there is consistent

treatment from board to board with respect to those services that are covered,

because there is money provided directly from the provincial government above

and beyond federal transfers to pay for certain services completely in

Newfoundland and Labrador, but I will check fully on the instance that the hon.

member raises and report back to the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a difference in services provided in the Clarenville area and in the

City of St. John's, and other parts of the Province I might add, and not only

in the giving of blood. In home support services there are different standards

in different parts of the Province.

I want to ask the minister: Will he check and ensure - first of all, if he is

not convinced it is happening, it is happening. I can give him the names of

individuals who are having to pay for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask him: Will he ensure and change that policy so

there is equal access to health care services provided in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, equal access for residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador to health care services has always been the objective of this

government. I will certainly gladly accept the information and check into it for

the hon. member.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour. Is the minister

prepared to acknowledge that the studies done fifteen years ago, in 1986, for

the EIS showed very serious deficiencies that were, in fact, identified by

officials of the former Department of Environment? And will the minister

acknowledge that these deficiencies have been further exemplified by recent

comments by scientists who have studied this and have pointed out that serious

changes have taken place not only in understanding of ecology but in fact the

different notions of how our ecology should be protected since that time?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some time ago the paper mill in Corner Brook submitted a plan to the

department. At that particular time, when the plan was submitted, we called for

an EPR. That is an Environmental Preview Report. That particular report was

prepared by the company and has been submitted to the department and we have

until May 13. We have until May 3 for public response to that particular report.

Even as we speak there are people who are responding to that particular report

but until such time as the report is completed on May 13, I will not speculate

on what further action might be done.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, since the House last met, a number of groups -

recreation groups, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, members of the

scientific community, the Protected Areas Association, and recently the World

Wildlife Fund Canada - have called upon the minister to have a full

environmental impact statement on this area before any decision is made which

could potentially destroy one of the last, if not the only, boreal forest

containing old growth balsam in all of North America. Is the minister prepared

to put an end to all of the speculation and say to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper

that they wish to engage in logging this area, they have to submit it as part of

a five year plan for full scientific and public review?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said to the hon. member in my last answer, we have put a process in

place. Part of the process that is in place now is an Environmental Preview

Report. That has to take time. It has to go through stages. That particular

decision will have to be rendered by me, on that report, by May 13. The public,

as we speak, up until May 3, can submit, and they are submitting. We are

receiving letters from the department but I am not going to speculate as to what

that preview would be. We will have to wait until May 13 and then at that

particular time, if the option is still available to me, I can look at it then.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently, the Province's secure custody facilities for young people have

come under some scrutiny. People throughout the Province are asking whether

young people at these facilities are getting the help they need to deal with the

personal issues that probably led to their incarceration in the first place. Dr.

Linda Inkpen's report on the Whitbourne Youth Centre several years ago

strongly recommended putting more attention and resources into intervention,

counselling, rehabilitation and prevention, but we have had good reason on

several occasions since then to question whether this government has actually

implemented those recommendations as it should have.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Can he tell us what added steps

the government has taken to ensure the focus at these secure custody facilities

for young people is on counselling and rehabilitation rather than just

incarceration?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Linda Inkpen submitted her report regarding

custody of youth in 1996. There were fifty-seven recommendations as part of her

report filed at that time. Seventy-five per cent of those recommendations have

already been implemented; thirteen are ongoing and will continue to be part of

implementation. There is still approximately one recommendation which

constitutes 2 per cent of the total recommendations that we have not yet decided

on what to do.

I can assure the hon. member, however, that all recommendations, including

the suggestion for extra counselling, is of course given a high priority.

Government takes very seriously the recommendations of Dr. Inkpen.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What a response, Mr. Speaker. Young people who threaten

suicide are crying out for help. When suicides are prevented, these young people

are not out of trouble, I say to the minister. It is not enough to lock up

troubled young people and monitor them to ensure they do not harm themselves.

Their situation calls for something more. I don't care if they have all been

met. There is one recommendation, I say to the minister, that indeed has not

been met, and it is dealing with the troubled lives of these young people at our

youth facility in Whitbourne. What efforts have you made, minister, to find

additional counsellors so that young people whose lives are in crisis can get

the one-on-one intervention they need to turn their lives around for the better?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not at liberty to discuss any

particular or specific cases that the hon. member might be referring to. I can

assure him, however, that we do - as is reasonably permitted, based upon

financial resources - have social workers in place at the institutions to

provide ongoing assessment and treatment. We do have a psychiatrist from the

Waterford Hospital who visits regularly, once the problems have been identified,

to provide counselling. Government is being very responsible in the handling

these situations and will continue to be.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this year there is going to be some $12 million spent on

provincial road works, so I ask the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation when he is planning on announcing the provincial road work.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the capital works program for the Province has

been announced. It was announced in the Budget, some $16 million. As the proper

tendering process and the work is done with regards to getting the tenders ready

they will be announced as they did last week in some areas, and the week before.

There will probably be some this week and next week there will be a few more. It

will be the same way we have done it every other year. It will be announced when

we are ready.

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

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

I ask the minister what process or criteria is being used to allocate this

work, or has the Minister of Fisheries promised it all to Trinity North?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. gentleman that

we will use the same system we use every other year. The priority is determined

by officials in the department. I don't know what the Minister of Fisheries

did, but I know one thing. There were no monies allocated for Trinity North

during the campaign from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I know many members in the House have been contacted by constituents relating

to an issue, and I want to give notice that tomorrow I will introduce the

following private member's resolution for debate.

WHEREAS the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation plays a vital role in

television communication in the country;

AND

WHEREAS the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provides regional and local

television coverage throughout Canada and all provinces;

AND

WHEREAS the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation local coverage allows

people to see, hear and interact with events within our own community;

AND

WHEREAS the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provides a direct link to

our culture, our heritage;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly unanimously endorse a

resolution calling on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to cease immediately

any plan to cut local television programming such as the supper hour news cast, Here

and Now ;

AND FURTHER

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the federal

government to ensure that adequate funding is provided to the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation to ensure local and regional television programming

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that if I heard him read

what I thought I heard him read -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: After we have had a look at the resolution - I haven't seen a

copy of it - if what I thought I heard him read is what he did read -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, no. I would like to have a look.

Bring us the resolution. What I am saying to the hon. gentleman is that we will

pass it right now. I have no doubt that I heard it right, but I always like to

see what is on paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: He is making photocopies?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask for a break.

MR. TULK: I wonder if we could take a break while they are gone for

photocopies and come back, and pass the motion right now?

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

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

I appreciate the commentary because I know this is an important issue. The

Minister of Tourism has been out talking about it, members of our Assembly have

been out talking about it. If what is contained in the wording is acceptable, in

terms of just passing it like that, I think it is important for some debate to

occur on it.

This is important. We have been in situations in this Legislature, in my

seven years here, where we have moved expeditiously on some matters that have

come before the House. In some cases it has paid off, in other cases we have had

to come back and correct things. However, if the wording is acceptable we are

prepared to pass it. Maybe we can put up one speaker each if that is fine with

the Government House Leader.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the hon. gentlemen that

indeed, yes, that if he wants to take five minutes to introduce his motion I

think we would have the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, since he

has been leading the charge on that, speak for five minutes. Then put the

resolution. I would like, though, if I could - and I always like to do this

because I don't like to make those kind of mistakes - if we could take a two

minute break.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take a five minute break.

MR. TULK: Take a five minutes break, Mr. Speaker, just for us to read the

resolution. I don't think there is any problem with it at all whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: The House is recessed for five minutes.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

So the agreement is that we have three speakers for about five to six

minutes?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will conclude the debate at the end,

after the other speakers.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: It is an agreement.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

During the Easter break for the House of Assembly it became very apparent

that federally the federal treasury board, if my understanding is correct, has

demanded from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation nationally significant cost

savings which eventually, and can only, mean a reduction in services to the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regionally.

It is also very apparent that what we see that could happen - the president

of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Rabinovitch, was in town recently,

publicly made some statements, met with the employees of Canadian Broadcasting

Company, but made no promises and could give no commitments to the possible

reduction in the service.

What are we talking about in terms of reduction of services? What is really

and effectively on the table? What is effectively on the table is that regional

programming from the CBC's point of view in this Province will be gone. One of

the most listened to, best watched, and highest rating programs not just in the

Province but in the country is effectively on the chopping block.

Historically, look at how the CBC has played a vital and critical role in the

development of our Province educationally, culturally and historically, in

linking parts of this Province at a time in the last fifty years that did not

know other parts of this Province; in introducing history, the history of the

Great Northern Peninsula to the history of the Southwest Coast. We look only at

one program that used to be that is now not any more when we talk about Land

and Sea , for example.

There is a significant concern within the public itself. Now we have agreed

to keep our comments timely and on point today. This is an unusual mood which, I

think, reflects the spirit of all members of the House and how important this

issue is that we debate it and that all members of this House unanimously - all

of us - send a message loud and clear not only from the Official Opposition

benches and from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, but from the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador and all of its ministers, on what regional

programming means to this Province.

Newfoundland and Labrador has undergone significant change in the last fifty

years. I look at some of governments' policies - both Liberal and Progressive

Conservative policies when both parties have been given the privilege and the

opportunity by the people of the Province to be government - in terms of the

role that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has played in sometimes being

the advocate for the concern of the average person in this Province, the person

who gets up every morning to eke out a living to remain here, to be proud of our

roots, our history of who we are, and what we have become.

I look at the Fogo Island situation with respect to resettlement and the role

that CBC played in bringing forward the voices and concerns of a region of our

Province at time in our history in the 1960s when most people in the Province

were vaguely, if at all, familiar with the concerns of the people in that

region.

On a very practical level, when you look at the concentration of ownership

that is occurring in the Province's media today, it is even more critical in

terms of radio, in terms of newspapers, in terms of TV. This is a significant

issue. One of the biggest reasons, I think, outside of the history that the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has played in the Province and giving us the

opportunity to showcase ourselves to the rest of the country and to ourselves,

but in recent times, certainly within the last five to seven years, the

concentration of ownership in the media is becoming a bigger concern each and

every day.

It is important to maintain balance in reporting. I don't know if there is

any member in this House who has always agreed or felt that the stories they

have seen about what has taken place in this Legislature or about the Province

generally -

MR. TULK: Nobody except me.

MR. E. BYRNE: I know that is not true, I say to the Government House

Leader.

I don't know if there is any member of this House who can say unequivocally

that they have agreed with every broadcast or every assessment reporters have

done. There is no one who can disagree with how important it is to maintain

regional programming, to maintaining a balance in terms of ownership within the

Province in terms of media outlets, to ensure that at least there are a variety

and a significant number of points of view.

What is at stake as well, more importantly, is that it seems in the last

decade there has been a sustained and concentrated effort federally to start to

dismantle the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its regional entities. I

look at CBC radio, for example, and the role it plays across the country in

terms of connecting the more rural parts of our country, not only to themselves,

but for us to know what is taking place with farmers in Saskatchewan, to give us

the ability to see what is taking place with fishermen and salmon stocks in

British Columbia, to see what is occurring with respect to the fishing stocks in

the rest of Atlantic Canada, to see what is occurring nationally, and to give

that regional focus that is so critical.

If we do not take the time to debate and support this motion, what

effectively are we saying if we don't send that strong unanimous message from

this Legislature? We are saying that the slant that evidently could come because

of the reductions the federal government are demanding from the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation - and that as a result of that, if the regional

programs are cut to the extent that they could be, and it looks like they will

be - if we don't put up a fight from this Assembly, that we accept any slant

that the federal news will give us. All we will see in supper hour programming

news is not news that is happening locally, not news that is happening on the

West Coast, Southwest Coast, in Labrador, on the Avalon Peninsula, on the Burin

Peninsula, or on the Northeast Coast. We will accept the type of news that we

will get that effectively will be about what is happening in mainland Canada.

There may be a regional broadcast from Halifax where probably, out of a

half-an-hour broadcast, there may be a five or seven minute segment set out for

Newfoundland and Labrador, and there may be a five and seven minute segment set

out for P.E.I. Frankly, that is not good enough.

I appreciate the comments that the Minister of Tourism has made already

publicly. I think it is critical, absolutely necessary, for all of us to stand

behind this resolution today to debate it, pass it unanimously, and move on it.

I appreciate the Government House Leader, on behalf of his colleagues in the

House, putting aside what is the normal agenda for Monday afternoon debate,

which is the motion of non-confidence, which we are about to clue up given the

time constraint that we have.

For those people in the gallery, this type of resolution is normally set for

Wednesdays, Private Members' Day. I think it reflects the spirit of all

members in the House that we have basically given leave to deal with this very

important issue, in an emergency way, without it going any further, so that on

the first day that the House of Assembly is open it sends a strong, unequivocal

and clear message both to the federal government and to CBC nationally, but more

importantly, to the people in this Province who have come to depend and rely

upon the news and regional programming that is so critical to the state of who

we are.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to join in the debate on this

resolution put before the House quite properly on the first opportunity of us

forceful and hopefully unanimous way, the importance of the decisions being made

on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with respect to regional coverage in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have seen, in the last number of months, as a result of budgetary action

the national executive of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that the end

result of these actions will see a dramatic reduction in the service to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, a large chunk of CBC's budget in

Newfoundland and Labrador will be gone.

Now, we have already suffered very severe cutbacks in this Province from CBC

Newfoundland and Labrador. They have come disproportionately. I have not done

the analysis but those who have, have told me that we have suffered

disproportionately to other parts of Canada in terms of the reductions in

service, the reductions in budget, the reductions in staff and the reductions in

programming capability.

The importance of CBC Newfoundland and Labrador cannot be underestimated

because of the role that it has played in making us better known to each other,

simply put, not only on an ongoing basis but on a day-to-day basis; because,

although there is competition in the news market for television, they cannot

adequately cover the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not have the

resources to provide the coverage that is needed for Coastal Labrador, Northern

Labrador, Western Labrador, the West Coast, the Northeast Coast, and all other

places - the South Coast - all over this Province where important things are

happening, where issues are developing, where the needs of the people of this

Province to have access to the rest of us are being met right now by the CBC but

cannot be met by anybody else.

I was discussing this very issue with some people from the private

broadcasting world. You might think at first glance that they might be happy to

see the competition go, but that is not the point of view that I hear expressed;

because if CBC is lessened in its ability to deliver the news and to be a

significant part of the news media in this Province, on television in

particular, then the need for NTV to spend resources to compete, to be active in

covering stories that they might not otherwise cover, will be diminished. So we

will see an overall lessening of the ability of people of this Province to know

not only what is going on but to allow them to hear from others what they think

of what is happening and develop a worthwhile public debate in this Province.

The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned the possible results of major

serious cuts. I want to tell you, from my experience, I worked for CBC for about

a year and a half back in the mid-1970s, before I went to law school. At that

time - back around the spring of 1975, I started - radio and television news

worked together, and there was a supper hour broadcast. In that supper hour

broadcast - it was a national news broadcast; it started at 6:30 p.m. - there

was an eight minute local news segment. That was twenty-five years ago. The

stories, when I was a reporter - I was only there as summer relief for six or

eight months and then I worked in radio for another year before I went to law

school - the stories that you were able to do, if it was the major story of the

day you might get a minute and a half, or you might get a minute and forty

seconds. Otherwise, you had forty seconds for your story, sixty seconds for your

story, or ninety seconds for your story. If it was the major, major story of the

day, you might get a minute and a half or close to two minutes. So you had a

very small window to broadcast news, to develop stories, to go into issues and

to let things be considered news that might not otherwise make it, and that is

what we see happening with both NTV and CBC. We see them develop stories that

they see of major public interest. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The suppertime program of Here and Now is probably the most watched supper hour

program on a per capita basis of any suppertime news package all over Canada

within CBC.

NTV is ahead of them for the first half hour of their show. I am talking

about within CBC now. Within CBC, the ratings on a per capita basis of the

Newfoundland Here and Now suppertime news package exceeds that of Toronto, that

of Vancouver, that of Winnipeg, and that of every other place in the country.

It is a tribute to the interest that is being shown by Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians in what is going on in their Province, in what is happening in all

parts of the Province. We are at a pretty crucial time in our history, the turn

of the century, fifty years of being a part of Canada, expanding offshore

industry, vital issues that have to be debated and discussed, and we have to

come to some directions on these issues with a vigorous and vital public debate.

It is very important that these issues be able to be aired within the local

community and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to see not only what

is going on in the City of St. John's, but what is going on all over the

Province. In order to do that, there has to be the resources at the disposal of

the CBC region in order to make that possible.

I think it is imperative that we all get behind this motion. Obviously, I

would imagine that copies of Hansard as well as the resolution itself will be

the minister responsible for the CBC, and ensure that the concerns of each and

every member of this House as expressed in this motion are passed on to the

We can't let this happen, Mr. Speaker. It, in fact, is an insult to the

seriousness with which we take our provincial affairs, our history, our culture,

our communication with ourselves, to have this happen by our national

broadcaster.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I can say much more than that, except to say how

important this issue is to each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I look

forward to hearing the remarks of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation on this very important issue.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to join this debate today. I thank

the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward the resolution

because it essentially lifts it out of the political realm and out of the

partisan sphere and says to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that every

party, all of us in this House, substantially agree with the resolution as put

forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

It is a good resolution, we support it, and I would ask his Honour - in line

with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Opposition -

if he would send it forthwith to the Parliament of Canada on unanimous consent,

and I assume there will be unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker, that is important because the board meeting of the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation occurs on May 8. It is at that time that they will be

making these decisions. As Mr. Rabinovitsch, himself, has said, they have a $45

million problem and in order to deal with it they are going to examine very

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I would like to make on this

resolution, and they are these: I can recall going into the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation studios on Prince Philip Drive fourteen or fifteen

years ago when I was a teacher, a theater teacher, and seeing the place just

alive - alive with creativity, technical people moving around. The studios were

constantly full. There was a lot of buzz and good, positive energy happening in

this place. There really was a lot of good, positive energy happening there.

Local productions were being done: Skipper and Company, Reach for the Top. A

great many programs were being developed and conducted here in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Codco.

MR. FUREY: Codco. There were a lot of shows being done. It was a good,

positive place to be. The reason I raise that is because I was there in the

studios just last week, meeting with the unions, and talk about a contrast; a

contrast in fifteen short years between when I was there with a group of high

school students, myself as a teacher, and then going in there the other day as a

politician and sitting down and listening to the unions. It was like walking

into a morgue, like walking into a funeral parlor. It was empty. There was no

buzz. There was no energy. There were no youthful people running around, no

technical creativity. The place wasn't full of spark and fun and fire. It was

dead. The morale was terrible. I met with the unions, and probably the Leader of

the Opposition met with them as well. It was just devastating and terrible.

One of the things that I would say to the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador and to the people of the Province, is the shameful thing that happened

twelve years ago, or about a decade ago, when the cuts first started happening

at CBC. It started out as the death of 1,000 cuts, a little cut here, a little

cut there, and it was insidious. You couldn't see it but you could sort of

feel it if you were in that environment. You couldn't really see it, you

couldn't quantify it and you couldn't measure it, but a decade ago they

started putting the knife right in. What did they do? They went after the

technical, the creative, the spark that really builds a cultural community. They

went right in there. Shame on them for doing that, because the studios slowly

closed down. Nothing was created. There was no new energy. There was no new

technical expertise. The creative genius had bled out of the place, and shame on

us for not making more noise, for not standing up, all of us, because here is

what happened by shutting those studios down. You see great programs that are

award-winning programs, that are fabulous programs, that are developed, written,

produced and acted by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, drifted off where? They

were built right here in St. John's at the main studios. They drifted off to

Halifax.

Twenty-two Minutes, which is

an act of genius that we are all very proud of,

just won a national comedy award for the best hit program across the country.

Where is it produced? It is produced in Halifax. It is produced in a region, not

in the Province where it was born, not in the Province where the Newfoundland

genius was born. They couldn't produce it here. There was no facility for them

to produce it here, and that is shameful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes, all Newfoundland cast, produced, written, directed,

partially, and then acted by Newfoundlanders. That is the real shame, when they

took away all of that creative genius, those new young people who were bringing

their skills from the technical schools into CBC, all of that technical know-how

drifted out across the country. The comic genius that is Codco and Twenty-two

Minutes and others drifted out across the country. Nothing is produced, with the

exception of one or two shows which are no longer, as the Leader of the

Opposition rightly points out, production shows in and of themselves.

You talked about Land and Sea. It used to have its own one-hour program, and

it ran and was produced and developed here. They have now clipped it down to

half an hour as part of Here and Now, as they go through.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: That is right.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party correctly says that this is the

highest rated supper hour program anywhere in the country. I wish I could

collect the revenues or find out - we are trying to analyze this now - what are

the revenue streams that come in from advertisers, et cetera, supplemented with

the subsidy to see if in fact it even pays for itself? Perhaps it does.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big dollars.

MR. FUREY: Big dollars, I would submit, but you are correct in saying

that. When you compare it, I think there are three other jurisdictions in the

country - Prince Edward Island and I believe Winnipeg, Manitoba - that have

first-rate supper hour shows that are very vastly supported by viewership right

throughout those provinces, but Newfoundland and Labrador has the number one hit

supper hour show, Here and Now, anywhere in the country. They are looking at

cutting that, hacking it, chopping it in half.

There is something else we have to bear in mind. The cultural aspect is

important in and of itself, but the economic aspect equally, Mr. Speaker. A lot

of people don't realize this, that there are forty-five jobs riding on this,

very good paying, well paying jobs, technical people, art direction, cameramen,

creative people who are working on the supper hour news. It is just not two

people reading the news every night. There is a plethora of people who range in

behind that, who are generating this whole production and research, et cetera.

Those jobs could be on the chopping block.

The next point I would make is that the Broadcasting Act itself, which is an

act of the Parliament of Canada, right inside its own

preamble it talks about

CBC's mandate being to reflect the regions to themselves, and every single

province and territory has a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Now, with the

cutting, bleeding and gutting that we have seen over the years, you saw offices

close in Corner Brook, in Grand Falls, and stations close in Labrador, and we

are left essentially now with a headquartered CBC in St. John's with some

stringer reporters around the Island. Well, if they take all away and they just

give us a couple of reports that are fit in, in what they call windows, into a

national network program, a couple of stories maybe into this program, I would

submit to the House of Assembly that offends the Broadcasting Act which talks

about its mandate right in the

preamble that each region must be reflected unto

itself and of itself right in the act.

I will go a step further and say that the CRTC, in its latest ruling, right

in the condition of licence, said to CBC: we will give you your television

Broadcasting Act and allow regions to be reflected onto themselves, but we say

to you in the licence, do not cut. In fact, beef it up. Add new monies for it.

Make sure that you go and produce the kinds of shows that I just talked about,

that CBC itself used to produce in a very creative manner right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador and export. We used to have variety shows that we

exported right across the nation, that got top marks right across the nation.

I would say to you that this is a good resolution. We cannot allow the

just create a phone-in network television here in St. John's. We cannot allow

them to create a storefront which is window dressing and say this is CBC for

Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, they came - you will recall this - CBC

themselves went across the nation. They held hearings here, and the public came

out in full support of production here. They came out in full support of adding

the creative element, beefing up those studios, reviving CBC and making it the

colourful, wonderful and bright place that it was. The public said that, not

just politicians, not just people with self-interest who work at the

Corporation, but the general public itself.

I say, in conclusion, they cannot turn their backs on the public. They should

not turn their backs on their own act, the Broadcasting Act, and they should not

be negligent in the condition of licence given by the CRTC and just walk away

from the very reasons that the CRTC put in their licences. That would be

criminal and negligent.

I thank hon. members for their indulgence. I think this is a good resolution

and I think, if Newfoundlanders and Labradorians ever were to speak up, we can

make sure that we save this particular program which is good for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if I could have just a brief moment to

conclude. I want to thank the Leader of the NDP for adding his voice to the

resolution we put forward today. I thank the Minister of Tourism for adding a

couple of points that cannot be lost. One, certainly the legislation that enacts

the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from the Parliament in terms of its own

preamble. It is a mandate to provide regional programming, to reflect what our

country is. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself is part of the

character of what makes people who live in Canada, of what makes Canadians

different, and provides for us, I think, the opportunity that we can say to

anybody, anywhere, at any time, that we are interested in each other.

Finally, I want to say to the Minister of Tourism as well that, in his

these are and that is the group that we are talking about that has put the

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the position that it is now in, without the

federal government, in terms of demanding more, in terms of cost savings from

them that has put them in the situation where they have no choice. So I urge

each and every member of the House, where they can, to exercise their own

individual influence outside of the influence of this Legislature, outside of

the influence of government, but to exercise our own individual influence

wherever we can to ensure that at least at the bare minimum the level of service

that we now have is maintained - at the bare minimum.

The minister is correct in terms of what has happened over the last ten

years. At one time there were at least 300 people just in this region here, not

what was going on in Corner Brook or other parts, but now that is down to about

seventy-five. It is shameful to think that the type of not only comic genius but

journalistic sorts of people who have come from this Province: Rex Murphy, Harry

Brown and others who are playing a crucial and vital role in the country's

affairs today from a broadcasting point of view, that, from our perspective,

much of what they are doing is being produced elsewhere and that is shameful.

I want to thank, finally, all members and the Government House Leader for

giving the indulgence to pre-empt the routine matters of the House for today in

dealing with this motion very expeditiously and dealing with it critically, as

we all should.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: I would like to have the record show that it was a unanimous

decision of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

I declare the resolution carried unanimously.

We were on the routine proceedings and were dealing with Notices of Motion.

Further Notices of Motion?

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Motion 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

Did the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne adjourn the debate?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to continue debate on the

non-confidence motion in this government's Budget which was put forth.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Non-confidence?

MR. HEDDERSON: Non-confidence, absolutely non-confidence.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Maybe it is my haircut, too, I don't know; but some

people may have been down in the sun and maybe that is the reason they may not

be sure of things.

I say to the minister that I have not had confidence in this Budget. The main

reason is, of course, in my area of education, that since the mid-1990s I have

seen millions of dollars being taken out of the allocation to the K-XII system,

savings that were certainly spent elsewhere. We find ourselves now in a

position, six or seven years later, where these saving would have gone a long

way to solving a lot of the current problems in education, so again I speak from

the aspect of non-confidence.

I go back through the 1990s, when educational reform was certainly a buzz

word and there were all sorts of expectations that the millions of dollars - and

I mean the millions and millions of dollars - that would be saved in school

closings, in the lay-off of teachers, in the, I suppose, amalgamation of the

different school boards, that these millions and millions of dollars worth of

savings would create an opportunity for the government of the day to move

forward and to allow this Province's education system to be developed into a

state-of-the art delivery system that would certainly not only lead this

Province but lead this country in education for many years to come; certainly

lead it into the Twenty-First Century.

Alas, the Twenty-First Century has arrived - with a lot of hype, I might add

- but our education system has not really entered into the Twenty-First Century.

There have been a lot of reports done, there have been a lot of promises made,

and this Budget is no different. There were promises that enough money would be

allocated to action a report that once again would put the education system back

on the rails, but we see that is not true. There was well over $11 million taken

out of the K-XII allocation - close to $11 million taken out - that could have

been used to bring about the recommendations of the Williams-Sparkes report that

would certainly allow the education system of Newfoundland and Labrador to catch

up with the so-called school reform that was touted and promised back in the

early 1990s, in particular the 1992 report by Dr. Williams.

These reports, I would say to you - which are somewhat too numerous to

mention, since the early nineties - have called for initiatives to create, as I

have pointed out, an education system that would lead not only the Province but

the country into the Twenty-First Century. We had the opportunity, but the

opportunity was lost as these reports, for the most part, have simply gathered

dust.

The initiatives that certainly were put forth - I referenced the Williams

report, I referenced the Canning report in 1996, I referenced the crisis in the

classroom by the NLTA, and other reports - clearly stated that the education

system of Newfoundland and Labrador was in sad need of reform. Of that, there

was no doubt. It called for a sound curriculum, a curriculum that would get away

from more, I guess, knowledge-based into a more resource-based curriculum from

the Kindergarten to the high school, and this resource-based curriculum would

have a sound philosophy, and it wouldn't be simply a philosophy that we had in

years gone by that the more knowledge that you could regurgitate, the more facts

that you could regurgitate, the smarter you were. This is not the case in our

more modern world, in the post-modern world that we find ourselves in right now,

because the students of today have to be able to inquire, they have to ask the

right questions, they have to know where to find the right answers. So the

curriculum has slowly changed, or has required change, but this government has

not allowed, I suppose, the delivery to catch up with the philosophy, so the

sound curriculum is not there. There is a scramble now to try and catch up, but

you can't catch up unless you are prepared to put your money where your mouth

is. This is where this Budget falls down.

It is hard to believe that once again some esteemed educators have taken the

time to go around this Province, to talk to the different groups who are

involved in education, to bring back to this government a blueprint of where we

should be going at this particular time, and to find that in that particular

year the action is going to require another five-year plan. This five-year plan

will bring us up into 2005.

When we look at reform beginning in the late eighties and finishing up five

years down the road from where we are right now, that is not the expectation of

the people who were very much involved in voting in a referendum where they

thought they were voting for a reform, where neighborhood schools, where easy

access to schools would be, safe schools, state-of-the-art schools. These were

the type of schools and schooling the people expected in 1996 when they voted to

revise the denominational system. We are in 2000, halfway through the year you

can say, and still the government is dragging its heels. In this Budget we see

that the money certainly is not going to be allocated for education.

It is not that we are asking for new money. We are asking, for the K to XII

system, for the allocations that have been given to it as near as the last

Budget last spring. The $11 million that somehow has been taken out and gone

elsewhere would have actioned this five-year plan in perhaps two years. I say to

you this is where it should be, that I should not have to be on my feet right

here today asking that the government reconsider its allocation of money to the

K to XII system. I shouldn't be here. It should already be there. The savings

that were gotten as a result of the cutbacks in particular, sixty-eight teachers

coming out of the system, these savings would be better used if they were

injected into this particular program.

I talked about the curriculum. There are other initiatives that were taken

that, again, have not been actioned and it looks like they will not be actioned

for at least another three years to five years, if ever. The physical space that

our children, the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, endure with regard to

their delivery of education leaves a lot to be desired. I have had occasion to

visit many schools in this Province and I can tell you that the maintenance on

these buildings is terrible, to say the very least.

We are down to less than -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes. My colleague here is mentioning to me just one

particular school, and I can tell you there are many more. There are not exactly

not there, the type of space, oftentimes, are cramped classrooms. There are

still schools in this Province which have carpet on the floor that has been

there for, perhaps, twenty years or thirty years. It is a proven fact that

carpets harbor more bacteria, more dirt - and I say dirt - than anything else in

a school and they certainly should be removed.

There is a lot I can say about the state of education in this particular

Province. We are now into the twenty-first century, not that that makes any

difference; it should be no different any year regardless. However, the

promises, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that were made were not kept, and this

Budget of the year 2000 does not meet the commitment that this government made

back in 1992 to make sure that by the turn of the century our education system

would be second to none in the country and indeed in the world.

I am very disappointed to see that money savings certainly have been taken

out of the K to XII system and spent elsewhere when indeed, by keeping the level

of funding there, at least we could jump ahead, because it is important that we

jump ahead, that we move forward, that we don't drag our heels when it comes

to the delivery of education. I can't tell you how important it is for us to

get the jump in other areas by educating our children in a manner that is most

appropriate, in a manner which clearly prepares them for the challenges they are

going to meet, and there are many challenges out there. I tell you, there is no

better way to prepare our children for the challenges they are going to meet

than to give them sound education. We cannot continue to look in the past

because there is no doubt that the education system of Newfoundland and Labrador

was certainly adequate to address past concerns, but since we have come into the

1990s - and we know we had to shift gears, shift philosophies, and shift in many

different areas. The desire was there, the blueprint was there, but the

government of the day did not, I say to you, fulfil its commitment to the people

of this Province when it came to actioning what should have been done.

I say once again that when I look at the Budget this year - and I am only

dealing with the K to XII - there is a sense of disappointment. Given the

opportunities, once again, that this government has to make a difference, we are

looking at a three- to five-year plan to catch up with what should have been

done at this particular period of time.

Our literacy rates have been, I suppose, looked at. I don't know if the

standards of literacy have risen or dropped, whichever way you want to look at

it, but there is real concern out there in the business world, in the real

world, that the students in our schools are not being prepared for the

challenges they have been asked to meet. They are very serious challenges.

I say to you that the initiatives are there. They need to be actioned. Early

intervention, for example, when we talk about literacy rates, the money that can

be saved in the long run by intervening early, and I don't mean in

kindergarten to grade XII, I mean pre-kindergarten. We don't have to go very

far with regard to finding out, through research, that it is a proven that the

earlier the intervention can take place the more successful that intervention is

going to be. If we are looking at really getting a handle on drop-out rates, on

literacy rates, the best place to start is not after the fact but is to be

proactive and to get there prior to the problem mushrooming to such an extent

that it cannot be handled.

I would implore, I would ask, that the delivery of education in Newfoundland

and Labrador be looked at as a priority, as it should be, but this Budget does

not put education into that category. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out as I

began, the millions of dollars that has been taken out - and there is something

like $80-plus million since 1994 - if these savings had been injected back into

the system we would be much further ahead than we ever could hope at this

particular time. We have situations out in our schools where buildings need to

be refurbished, where resources need to be put in, where the children are not in

what we would call a safe environment. The air quality in the schools is

certainly another concern. For too long we have ignored the need for good

proactive maintenance to make sure that we are ahead and providing a learning

environment for our students that, once again, are certainly adequate ones for

their learning.

The restructuring that took place, and it did take place, brought us down to

something like 340 schools. We are talking about 90,000 students. It behooves me

to understand how, with such a drop in population, with such a drop in the

number of schools, there are still schools out there, there are still situations

out there, that are less than adequate.

We are entering the twenty-first century and we have been assured by this

government that this last Williams-Sparkes report will lead the way, that in a

couple of years' time everything that should have been actioned in the last

decade will indeed be done, but I fear that this is not going to happen. This is

where the aspect of accountability must come into the picture. We have to make

sure that what is being done in our education system, in the K to XII system,

that the people who are doing it, the results that are gotten from it, that

there is some degree of accountability. That appears to be a move which is

absolutely required, because with the different type of schools that we have,

with the geography that we have, we must hold this government accountable to

ensure that the delivery of the curriculum into the classrooms is indeed a

delivery that is appropriate and effective, because we have to.

As long as I can speak, I will have to continue, if I could, to remind this

government how important education is because somehow along the way I suspect

that prioritization of education has not occurred, that in many cases it has

just been delay after delay. I fear that this Budget indicates to me that there

will be yet another delay in the implementation of the necessary recommendations

to ensure that all students in this Province are getting the type of education,

the delivery of education, that they certainly need.

The teaching has changed tremendously. However, in saying that, it is very

unfortunate that many of our, I guess, teachers do not have the opportunity to

be professionally in-serviced on a regular basis to keep up with the changing

times in education. Because you must be able to change with the times and to, I

suppose, roll with the punches because, I tell you, in my twenty-odd years in

education I have seen tremendous changes. The students, thank God, have remained

the same but the teaching strategies that are used, the relationship between

educator now -

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just in cluing up, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that the

non-confidence in this Budget is there.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: I thank you very much for the time to speak, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words in the debate of

non-confidence in the government as to its measures taken to deal with the

problems facing the people of this Province. We have a large series of problems

that are not properly addressed, not adequately addressed by this government's

actions. We have an unemployment rate in rural Newfoundland that is staggering.

We have an economy that is so sensitive to the one contract or another coming

our way that, for example, we have in Marystown and that area probably the

largest industrial workforce on layoff in all of the country on a per capita

basis. We see an excellent facility, a group of skilled workers who have

developed and proven their skills over many years, now being lost, gone to

various other parts of the country to work because they can't get work in the

shipyards built and paid for by the people of this Province and turned over to

an American company for a dollar in exchange for a promise of development and

the promise of work, a promise that has not been fulfilled.

That alone is enough to express non-confidence in this government's ability

to manage the assets and affairs of the Province and ensure that we have

adequate work for our people. When you look at the Terra Nova project and its

building activities in Scotland and in other parts of the world, equipment that

could be built and should have been built in Marystown, one shudders at what

this government is prepared to do to get oil development going without insisting

that we have our fair share of the benefits of that oil resource.

We have seen it with Hibernia, and I guess we can make excuses for Hibernia.

It is all very well to take the approach that: You know, the oil resource is

finite and is going to be gone and Hibernia is going to see it go. I, too,

obviously, am terribly concerned along with many Newfoundlanders to see the kind

of royalties that we are actually getting from the Hibernia deal. Some excuses

can be made on the basis that this was the first oil project, that there was

some doubt as to whether or when it might take place. There was some doubt as to

whether it was economical. There was some doubt as to whether the demands of the

Government of Newfoundland were too onerous for the oil companies. There was

some debate going on about whether or not there were sufficient offshore

reserves to justify a full scale offshore oil industry.

All of that doubt is gone. We are now at a second stage of development. The

Hibernia project is now the cash cow for Petro-Canada, the cash cow for Murphy

Oil Corporation, the cash cow for the partners in Hibernia who are reaping the

benefits of high oil prices and want to increase their production capacity in

order to further take advantage of the prices while they are high. One can

hardly blame them for that, but at the same time I do blame them if they

continue, if they insist, if they try to treat this as some sort of marginal

resource that they are doing us a favor to exploit, that they are doing us a

favor to take off our hands, that they are doing us a favor to leave some crumbs

on the table for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the forms of

royalties and some jobs, by forcing on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

some phony international competitive regime.

I don't believe for one minute that what was motivating or what happened in

the Terra Nova deal was a pure, without bias, without influence, international

competitive regime as to who would get the work for the Terra Nova project. In

my view, that did not happen. They resisted doing work in Newfoundland and

Labrador. They avoided doing work in Newfoundland and Labrador. They used weasel

words in agreements with this government, and I blame this government as much as

them.

MR. J. BYRNE: Weasel words.

MR. HARRIS: Adopting weasel words -

MR. J. BYRNE: What do you mean by that?

MR. HARRIS: Weasel words are words that you can weasel out of. These

weasel words were used in agreements that were signed by this government on

August 5, 1999 - or 1989.

MR. J. BYRNE: Which decade are we talking about?

MR. HARRIS: Let me get the decades right here.

Weasel words were used about best efforts, about bringing the jobs from

Leatherhead, England, the engineering and design jobs, back to Newfoundland as

soon as it is practical; another weasel word that turned out to be totally

unenforceable by this government or by anybody against the consortium

developers.

We see once again this Province being the loser because this government did

not stand up strong enough to look after the interests of the people of this

Province. Now we have made these arrangements, we have made these contracts, we

have made these deals, but we have a new project coming. The Newfoundland

Benefits Agreement that was agreed on between this government and the Terra Nova

consortium is not something that we expect to see with the White Rose

development, so far at least. They are to go before the C-NOPB with their

Newfoundland benefits plan. They are to put forth their ideas about what they

believe they can accomplish here in this Province in terms of putting together

that project and doing what needs to be done. What is left as the role of the

people of this Province, aside from those few individuals who are on the

Offshore Petroleum Board, who see themselves as regulators of an industry and

not political players, because that is not their role? What is the role of the

Newfoundland Government? What is the Newfoundland Government going to be doing

to ensure that the Newfoundland benefits are satisfactory to the government? How

are they doing it? Are they doing this in an open public forum or are they doing

it behind closed doors without letting the public know where they stand and what

they are prepared to insist on?

We have an alternative being proposed, an alternative to the development of

the White Rose field and the neighboring fields, that would see gas coming

onshore in this Province very quickly to develop an onshore oil and gas

industry. That is the strategy that would see the first beneficiaries of

offshore gas in Newfoundland and Labrador being the people of this Province.

Only at a later date would we see the gas going on to the rest of North America

as part of some intercontinental pipeline system to the markets, but we would

see in the interim the development of gas related industry onshore. We would see

the potential for the cleanup of the Come By Chance Oil Refinery with clean

fuel. We would see the possibilities of a co-generation plant to assist in

producing electricity as well as supplying steam heat to the oil refinery.

One of the most significant problems that face the operators of the Come By

Chance Oil Refinery is the reliability of power. That problem could be solved.

The pollution of the environment in the Come by Chance area could be resolved,

practically eliminated, by the use of gas as a fuel to operate the refinery. The

co-generation plant itself could generate additional electric resources not only

for the Come By Chance Refinery but also for other industrial users.

We would see happen what has happened already in Nova Scotia. We would see

paper mills converting to the use of gas as a fuel. We would see the Holyrood

generating station convert to the burning of Bunker C and the pumping of sulphur

into the atmosphere to the burning of gas in their turbines and producing with

efficient burning the final result of combustion being water vapor, water vapor

and carbon dioxide, and far less carbon dioxide than is produced by the burning

of conventional fossil fuels or even wood. The burning of coal, wood and oil

produces far more in the way of pollutants and far more in the way of carbon

dioxide than does the burning of gas.

We see a real alternative strategy developing here, a real opportunity for

this government to ensure that a strategy that is chosen is the one that

benefits the people of this Province the most. There are some significant

barriers in the way. We always have this difficulty in the area of resource

development of the potential of trading royalties for jobs. We see the potential

in this government itself. The Premier himself, in May of 1996, when talking

about Inco, talked about the trade-off between royalties and jobs. He wasn't

long changing his tune when I took him to account for it in this House of

Assembly.

That is one of the problems that we have as a Province, where we are in

receipt of significant benefits from the equalization formulas, transfer

payments related to the equalization formulas, as a part of Canada.

We have seen, in some of the items under the Inco proposal, where we would

lose 112 cents on the dollar from our revenues from the Inco development of

Voisey's Bay if we take it in royalties. That is a very significant problem

that we have as a part of Confederation. We have to find solutions to that and I

don't see them coming from this government. In fact, I don't see any action

at all from this government.

We have a group of people who are the victims of a whole, long series of

government inaction on their contributions to the pension plan. Public sector

employees in this Province, government workers who payed religiously into the

pension from their cheques each and every pay period for all of their working

lives with government in the expectation that their contributions were being

matched by government, in the expectation that when they retired the pension

would be there for them, in the expectation that the practice of government

increasing the pensions along with public sector increases would be continued.

That, Mr. Speaker, went on for years, for decades. Whenever the issue of

pensions being negotiated by NAPE and the public sector unions was every brought

forward, government said: Not negotiable, not an item for negotiation.

What happened in 1989? The last increase in public sector pensions was

granted to the pensioners, and in the last ten years not one cent from this

government, not one cent from the Liberal government since 1989 until now to

public service pensioners. No wonder they are practically camped outside the

lobby, coming every day, put in a position of having to request that this

government treat them fairly. That is another item where there is no confidence

in this government, and how this government is treating its own public sector

workers.

There is a call now, Mr. Speaker, for a co-management of the pension fund, a

joint trusteeship allowing employees to have a say in the management of pension

funds and pension plans. Some of that goes on in other provinces. It goes on in

Ontario with the teachers' pension, it goes on in Newfoundland with MUNFA, the

Memorial University Pension Fund, and there is a call now for it to happen with

the pension funds of this government. It is an idea that has to be considered,

and it has to be seriously considered.

While we are considering that issue, we should also consider another one, and

that is the value, the value as an asset, as a tool for development, as a

support for investment in this Province, the value of all of our savings in the

public pension funds of this Province, whether they be the MUN pension fund, the

teachers' pension fund, the public service pension fund. All of these funds -

hundreds of millions of dollars, I say to the Minister of Fisheries; more money,

I say to the minister, than is in his budget every year - goes into the public

service pensions of this Province to be used for investment purposes to provide

proper pensions for our retired employees. What happens to that money? Where is

it going? What is it being used for? What stocks and bonds in other parts of the

world are being supported by our public service pensions? What is happening to

our public service pensions? The money that is there, that is being invested for

public sector, whether it be for teachers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: We are talking about the pension funds of this Province, the

MUN pension fund, the public service pension fund, the teachers' pensions, the

Memorial University workers' pensions. All of these pensions, Mr. Speaker, are

invested by this government. What are they being used for? If we are going to do

a proper job of understanding how our pension system works and how it can be

used, we have to start finding ways of using it to support investment in this

Province. Just the way the Province of Quebec does. They play a role in

supporting industrial development and economic activity in their own province.

We have to start figuring out ways of doing that, ensuring that we are spending

and investing our public pensions with a view to public purposes and to the

purposes of this Province.

These issues are some of the issues that need to be considered and which this

government is ignoring. What about health care and home care? I see we have the

attention of the Minister of Health. He looked up from his newspaper. On that

area, on that front, what are we doing? As a country, we are putting our health

care system in crisis on an ongoing and permanent basis. Why are we doing it?

There seems to be no rationale unless you look a little further and see who the

big players are and what the big money wants.

The big money in this country want to see the health care system in crisis,

because they support an alternative to a publicly funded health care system that

is consistent with the five principles of the Canada Health Act. They want to

see that happen. They want to see the health care system in a crisis because

then they can come in and provide the alternative: You have a health care system

in crisis, but we have the alternative; we can provide private health care. We

can provide private health care for those who can afford it. I think the words

they use are: to take the burden off the public system.

That is not the kind of health care system that Tommy Douglas fought for.

That is not the health care system that the New Democratic Party fought for all

across this country, and that is not the health care system that we alone are

fighting for in the House of Commons today when the Liberal Government,

supported by the Tories, supported by the Reform Alliance, got together to

defeat a motion by Alexa McDonough on March 2 calling for increased support and

restoration of the funding for health care, and to fight against the

privatization going on in health care.

What we saw happening in that House, we see it happening in Alberta. I saw it

happen. I saw it in an

article written by the hon. Government House Leader's

former lawyer.

MR. TULK: Are you talking about John Crosbie?

MR. HARRIS: John C. Crosbie, PC, O.C., Q.C.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave to hear what your lawyer had to say?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: This is an

article by the hon. John C. Crosbie: Medicare and

the health care system. It reads: The question is not whether our system should

be publicly or privately controlled, but how much of each is needed to save the

system.

That is the kind of fence that a number of people are sitting on in this

country instead of getting behind and supporting the public care system.

Since my time is up, Mr. Speaker, I will allow somebody else to speak and I

will get another opportunity to discuss the level of confidence that this hon.

member has in this government in the future.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words on the non-confidence motion which has been

put forward by our members on this side of the House. I suppose, in bringing

forward the non-confidence motion, it was a reflection of what people were

hearing out and about in their districts. This Budget when it was brought down

in March certainly did not have people out dancing in the streets, certainly did

not provide much hope to the people who were out there unemployed, or the people

who were out there in debt by thousands of dollars for student loans. It did not

offer much hope to the person who was without a job and having to leave this

Province and go and seek a job in another province in this country.

If it ever reached home to people, if people were kind of confined to their

own little districts and not knowing what was happening in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador, with the numbers from the other side that were out in the Trinity

North by-election, they must have heard it loud and clear. They must have

received a message loud and clear of how unhappy people are and how -

AN HON. MEMBER: There was enough of them out there.

MR. FITZGERALD: There was enough of them out there, and I am sure they

must have heard it at every door they went to. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, it struck

home to some of them. Because I can tell you that what is happening in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador today is not something that we should be very proud

about. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador today is probably in worse shape than it

has ever been in since Confederation. I can tell you right now that the rural

areas of this Province is a power keg about to explode.

When you go out, you talk to people who have been trying to receive funding

to access a job in another province. People call me and say: Where can I get

money to go and access confirmation of a job up in Alberta? Where do you go and

send them? The Department of Social Services at one time provided funding, a

mobility allowance, for people to go to work so they could get off the system.

HRDC, when it was known as Canada Manpower, at one time provided assistance for

people to go and access a job. They are not asking for anybody to give them

anything. They are saying: Please, would somebody listen and provide me with

funding so that I can go and access a job that I have confirmation of, and I

will pay the money back. In a lot of cases those people have to stay home, stay

on the system, and not be able to access a job.

The by-election in Trinity North probably gave us all good reason to come

back here and take a second look at what we are doing and what people were

saying, the decisions that we make here, how far removed we are from the

everyday happening. On one door that I knocked at - I have always been a member

who fulfilled my obligation to somebody who asked me to do something - one

gentleman in the District of Trinity North gave me a letter and he asked me if I

would present it to the House of Assembly. It reads:

Hon. member, Roger, would you please try and find out what happened to our

donations that were given to Mr. Efford? Note: I am a core fisherman, boat under

thirty-five feet, one of the majority of fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have invested in the future fishing industry. Please do not let Mr. Efford

destroy us.

The money that he is referring to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Just sit down and hear all of it. He gave me that. It is

a letter that came from the United Fisherpersons of Newfoundland and Labrador

and it reads: Dear - and the name was on it - March 9, 1992. It was a plea for

money, and the man is asking a simple question: What happened to my money?

I am going to read the letter that was sent out by the chairperson of the

United Fisherpersons of Newfoundland and Labrador. It says: Dear Mr. - I will

leave the name out, Mr. Speaker. It goes on: As you probably have heard in

recent days, I have initiated on behalf of the United Fisherpersons of

Newfoundland and Labrador, a major publicity fundraising campaign -

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I just want to ask the hon. gentlemen if he can supply me with

ten copies of that letter? I will tell you, one of the most interesting careers

in Newfoundland politics has been the Minister of Fisheries. I tell you, I want

to keep every little bit of paraphernalia I can, so I would like to have at

least ten copies of that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly provide the hon. minister with

a copy and I will include with it his proposal for the buffalo ranch as the

salvation to the economy of the rural Newfoundland areas of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I will include two of them.

Mr. Speaker, the situation at hand - I will start again, because it is an

important letter. It was signed by the minister. The minister's handwriting is

here. It says: As you probably have heard in recent days, I have initiated, on

behalf of the United Fisherpersons of Newfoundland and Labrador, a major

publicity