May 11, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, May 11-15 is Police Week in Canada. It is

a time to forge stronger relationships between police services and the communities they

serve. Police Week began in 1970 with a collaborative effort between the Ministry of the

Solicitor General and its provincial counterparts.

On a local level, both the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the RCMP

are planning activities throughout the week to recognize the significance of this week.

This morning I attended the official opening of the festivities for the

RNC. Tomorrow the RCMP will officially launch their activities, and on Wednesday a new

detachment of the RCMP will be opened in Nain. I look forward to joining the RCMP in both

of these events.

I would also like to say that May 15, Friday, is recognized

internationally as Peace Officer Memorial Day.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend our police forces for

the work they do every day, but I would also like to highlight the fact that our police

forces are extremely active in our communities throughout the Province. They build

partnerships in the communities throughout the year, and this week is an opportunity to

acknowledge and focus on that good work.

I am pleased today to bring this to the attention of the public and the

House of Assembly, and encourage everyone to take

part in the activities of Police Week in

their own community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his Ministerial Statement and, on

behalf of the members on this side of the House, we join with the minister in certainly

recognizing and acknowledging the good work of our companion police forces here in this

Province. We are fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to have two strong police forces which, as a

matter of tradition and practice, have worked very closely with one another.

I only hope we do not see a repetition of what happened last year when

unfortunately we had our companion forces competing with one another for solely budgetary

reasons. Hopefully we will not return to that and we will continue to have two strong

police forces that work in harmony and in conjunction with one another for the benefit of

the residents of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we call Oral Questions, the Chair would take

this opportunity to welcome to the gallery today Mr. Arthur Lee, of Toronto, who is

visiting the Province on an investment mission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen today another national report which indicates

that of all the provinces in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador is the hardest place to

find work for students. We have seen the out-migration stats which show that our people,

especially our young people, are leaving this Province in record numbers. Students seeking

summer jobs, new graduates, countless other young people throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador, know firsthand the experience that the jobs just are not there.

Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is this - in order for us to

solve a problem we must first admit that one exists. Will the Premier today admit that in

the last twenty-seven months student employment, or the opportunities for young graduates

in our Province, has not been there? Will he also admit that government's initiative or

initiatives to curb that problem to date have not realized the potential they should have?

And, when will he start doing something in a more tangible way for young graduates and

young people in this Province, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I really am quite surprised at the

question of the Leader of the Opposition, at the tone of his question. I think every

single member of this House would say that there are not enough opportunities for young

graduates in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we would all say there are

not enough opportunities for summer jobs for young people generally in the Province of

Newfoundland, and I think we would all want to work harder to provide more opportunities.

But to suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition just has, that the economy of Newfoundland

and Labrador is worse off now than it was twenty-seven months ago, flies right in the face

of the evidence that is being produced by Stats Canada. We had a report last week, last

Friday, that showed there are 9,000 more jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador this April than

last April, a major improvement in the full-time job creation efforts and work of this

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we know that the number of people who

rely upon social services has gone down consecutively month over month for most of the

last eight or nine months, so the economy is improving.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to make representation to the

government that we need to do more to assist our young people, Mr. Mr. Speaker, I accept

that and we will do everything we can afford to do within our power to ensure there are

more jobs this summer for young people looking for work in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. But I do not accept and I cannot accept that Newfoundland and Labrador's

economy is not moving in the right direction because, Mr. Speaker, it is moving in the

right direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, once again the Premier, in a very

deliberate way, does not answer the question put forward.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, the entire electrical engineering class at

Memorial found permanent work outside this Province. That is a statistic that this Premier

or this government cannot ignore. Headline, The Globe and Mail last March:

Newfoundlanders leaving Province in record numbers. The Evening Telegram: Residents

depart at record rate; Editorial: The exodus of our best and brightest. Story, Here

& Now: Trepassey dwindling away to nothing.

Premier, this is the legacy with respect to young people to date of

your government. The question for you is: Will you recognize it, and will you admit that

the initiatives this government has taken with respect to young graduates and young people

in this Province to date simply have not worked?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there can be nothing more transparent

than the Leader of the Opposition standing in his place and saying that the legacy of the

last twenty-seven months has been a bad legacy for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, when he refuses to recognize that twenty-seven months ago Newfoundland and

Labrador was dead last in terms of GDP growth in Canada and today we are number one in

terms of GDP growth in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the biggest year over year drop in

Canada in unemployment, 3 per cent drop, was in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last

twelve months.

Mr. Speaker, why does the Leader of the Opposition cling so longingly

to bad news and negative growth and bad times when good times are on the way? Because the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, have confidence

in themselves and confidence in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier can shake, rattle and roll

all he chooses. The reality is that the economic performance of this government, and the

drop in the unemployment rate, is a simple matter of the exodus of people from this

Province. So, is the Premier now saying that the unemployment rate has dropped in this

Province because of his government's initiatives because more people have left? Is that

what the Premier is saying to the people of the Province today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you know, I think that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador might understand the Leader of the Opposition and his party

saying that they have a better plan, or they have a way to accelerate the economy faster,

or they have other ideas and they would like to put them on the floor of the House. They

could understand the Opposition saying - I could understand it. What I cannot understand

is the Leader of the Opposition just standing in his place and saying there are not more

jobs this year than last year.

In absolute numbers, there are 9,000 more jobs this year than last year

in Newfoundland and Labrador, and if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand that,

he doesn't understand the basics of public policy. Let me ask him this. What the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador really want to know, if you are concerned about jobs, is why

haven't you yet, months after the fact, said whether or not you support the Churchill

River power developments? Because those are jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

perched on the fence so long he is like a permanent fixture on a fencepost!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I accept the definition put forward of a framework agreement by the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board in your absence last week, where he said that a

framework agreement is not the final agreement; that the framework only sets out an area

for discussion in terms of any deal.

Let me ask the Premier this, in response to his question: Is he saying

today that his negotiating team, the legal advisors associated with it, have worked out

the final deal with respect to the Lower Churchill agreement? If they have, is he prepared

to place it on the Table today? Because if it is, then we will take a stand very quickly;

but if it is not, I will say it once again, this leader is not signing any blank cheque

for that leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition cannot

make up his mind in the House where he stands on the Churchill Falls power developments,

maybe he will make up his mind standing before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in

a general election on the Churchill River power developments!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Because I repeat to this House, and I say it again,

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to allow the Leader of the Opposition the luxury of not

knowing whether he is standing or sitting, whether he is number two, whether he is number

one, whether he is onside or offside, whether he knows the details or does not know the

details. One way or another, somewhere or sometime, maybe soon, he is going to have to say

where he stands for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the Premier again: Is

he telling the House and the people of the Province, today, that the final arrangements

between the Province of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland are complete, that the

deal that is ready to be signed, is signed and that he is going to drop it before the

table? Because if he is, we will make up our minds quickly. But until we see the details,

I say to the Premier, we are not signing any blank cheques. Show it to us and we will make

up our minds very quickly, I say to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Leader of the

Opposition this: There is very good progress being made on the Letter of Intent and when

the Letter of Intent is finished, if he can't make up his mind then, then we might be

giving him a twenty-one day deadline to make up his mind on where he stands on this deal.

Mr. Speaker, we have an agreement which has already put, based on the

picking up of the extra recall power, an additional $600 million in the hands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; but the Leader of the Opposition, with the cash already

flowing in, is not sure whether or not that task is a good deal. We have a deal which

gives us a guaranteed winter availability contract which gives us $1 billion more starting

this fall, but he is not sure whether or not that is a good deal. We have an overall

agreement that moves us from a $300 million loss on the Churchill River power developments

to a $5.2 billion gain, but he is not sure whether or not that is a good deal.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good deal, just as it is a good deal that

Newfoundland and Labrador is moving forward. We are moving forward in terms of GDP growth

and we have 9,000 more jobs in the Province this year than last year.

I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this: The people of

Newfoundland and Labrador expect him to occupy his job, not only in name but in substance;

and, sir, you have an obligation to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has

now been months. Where do you stand on these Churchill River power developments? At least

the pervious Leader of the Opposition told us where he stood, even when where he was

standing was not comfortable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: You were going to change the contract. Remember that

secret document? You were going to change the contract weren't you? Any other secret

documents?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is abundantly clear and what is

transparent to the people of the Province today is that this Premier is looking for any

issue to run to the polls as quickly as he can, to do what he wants to do in another life

yet to be defined. That is what is abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Like I said, lay it on the Table and we will make up

our minds very quickly. Whether you want to do that in a twenty-one day election call or

not is entirely up to you, Premier. Lay it on the Table and we will make up our minds

quickly.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this government, unlike other

governments worldwide, have not chosen to invest in the young people of the Province.

Young people, since he became Premier, and under his predecessor, have had the burden of

more responsibility, more debt, higher tuition fees and higher loans.

The question for the Premier is this: Will the Premier admit seriously,

that we have a crisis with respect to young people in the Province, with respect to

out-migration, spiralling student debt and less opportunities in the Province? Will he

look at other models worldwide that have worked, such as in Ireland, where lower tuition

which has in turn provided more economic opportunities for young people? Will the Premier

admit that there are serious problems with respect to young people that his government has

not addressed whatsoever and that it is time to address them in a more serious, tangible

and meaningful way?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will not admit what the member has

said because what the member has said is not true. Last year in Newfoundland and Labrador,

this government sponsored the largest ever summer student employment program in the

history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this year there is going to be $7.5

million directed toward summer youth employment in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. This year, in our recent Budget, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

announced a scholarship fund or an assistance program for students most in need in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, assistance of up to $1,000 per student as a stopgap

between now and the introduction of the Millennium Scholarship Trust Fund put in place by

the federal government.

The position, the plight, the circumstance, of the young people of

Newfoundland and Labrador has been very much on our minds. That is why we have worked so

hard to put our fiscal house in order. That is why we are so delighted, Mr. Speaker, that

Newfoundland and Labrador's economy is beginning to show signs of life. That is why we are

so proud that we have gone from dead last in terms of GDP growth to number one in Canada;

because it demonstrates that if we have a positive attitude, if we believe in ourselves,

if we understand that we are responsible for our own success or failure, that we can

change our lot in life.

Mr. Speaker, the negativity, the pessimism, the defeatism of the Leader

of the Opposition won't change Newfoundland and Labrador. Grabbing ourselves by our

bootstraps and pulling them up, that is what will change Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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.

At a community service council in February, 1997 they published a

report entitled Shifting the Focus, Community Discussions on Child Sexual Abuse. Now,

based on statistics received from the Department of Social Services at the time, the total

incidents of abuse that were reported in 1995-1996 were 4,810 of which 898 of these were

sexual abuse or 19 per cent of all cases. Of those 898 cases, I say to the minister, 257

of these cases occurred within the immediate family. The report was released fifteen

months ago and I am sure the minister is very familiar with it. I ask her, if she shares

the same concern as this report indicates on this growing problem here, not only in this

Province but across the entire country?

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

Services.

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

As any person will admit, whenever there is any incidence of sexual

abuse, it is a concern to all of us, government officials, as well as family members, and

adults in general. Certainly, as a government, we are very concerned about those issues,

and I guess it is one of the reasons why we, as a government, put together our provincial

strategy on violation, to look at the issues around violation and in particular, in many

cases, sexual abuse. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about any incidents of sexual

abuse in families.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the major findings, two particular things in that report, I say

to the minister: That children continue to be at risk of sexual abuse, and when it is

reported, they receive intermittent and inconsistent help. Secondly, offenders remain

unchallenged in many instances by their families and their communities; and if they

acknowledge their problem they usually have a few options for help.

I ask the minister: What plans, if any, does the department have to

address these particular matters?

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

Services.

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

I think one of the areas this year that this government has taken a

firm position on was in early childhood education prevention and early intervention. As a

result of some of the initiatives put in our Budget this year, we are hoping to focus on

many of the issues around such things as literacy, abuse and mental health needs,

particularly through our community youth networks.

Overall, through the community health boards, and through their models

of prevention and early intervention, as well as policies through the Department of

Health, whereby we have a nursing consultant to deal with mental health issues and

children health issues, we would be working together to try to eliminate gaps in the

system that we have come to identify. Many of our services we provide are through our

children in care services, and I think we can always have room for improvement to try to

reach the public at large.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

About five weeks ago, I wrote the minister requesting information on

child prevention statistics such as: The case-load of a social worker; such as the high

turnover rate among social workers in child protection; training specific to child

protection for those social workers and so on. I certainly hope to receive that

information shortly.

I say to the minister: The community service council report has been

out now for fifteen months and obviously statistics only bring it up to 1995-l996. I ask

the minister: Would she table in this House, or provide information on the cases that have

occurred since that time, so we can get a true indication of what is really happening

there, and how effective the measures are, or the lack thereof, occurring within the

department?

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

Services.

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

In response to the member's

preamble: He wrote me and I returned a

letter saying that we were in the process of reviewing the request for the information for

which he had asked and would make it available as soon as it was compiled. That will be

delivered to him upon compilation.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there are definitely needs in our

system. As I have pointed out earlier, our whole ability to access child abuse - we have

to work very clearly and very closely with the courts, but our main focus has been around

children in care, and that is where we have our statistics, from that area. Other than

that, those statistics would come from the courts. As my colleague, the Minister of

Justice, said last week: We are working closely together with our community health boards

to try to develop the liaisons we need to make sure all children are covered, and all

policies put in place will reflect the needs of all children, not just those children who

are in care under the Department of Health and Community Services.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Education.

I draw the minister's attention to the fact that disruptions in classes

are continuing today in School District No. 2. Parents want meaningful consultation with

their MHAs, the minister and the school boards concerning the impacts that the cutbacks in

teacher allocations are having on their children's education.

Last week, the minister indicated that this school board may be used as

a bit of a test case to determine how far cutbacks will have to go before there are

significant compromises to a quality educational program.

I want to ask the minister: What are the main features of a quality

educational program, and how far will the school boards have to go in cutbacks to teacher

allocations before he is satisfied that the overall quality of education has been

compromised beyond what is reasonable?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question and an opportunity to shed a little bit more

information on what is happening on the Northern Peninsula at this point in time.

It is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that parents have again chosen to

keep their children out of school at this critical time of the school year. It is most

unfortunate at any point in time in a school year, where parents reach a conclusion that

the best they can do is take the children out of school and deny them the education that

is being offered to them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the issue, with respect to the general question that

the hon. member asks, is really puzzling with respect to the Northern Peninsula because it

is in this context: Last year, at this time, the school board had the same number of

teachers that they have today. They had planned an organization, Mr. Speaker, to rearrange

some schools. Some of them, some of their plans, had to be changed because of the decision

and the injunction granted by Justice Barry in the middle of the summer. As a result, Mr.

Speaker, some eleven-and-a-half units were provided to the school board to undo the plans

that they had in place for this school year.

The only change on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, is that those

eleven-and-a-half units have been taken back from that school board. So there should be,

Mr. Speaker, on the Northern Peninsula, no reduction in programs from last year, there

should be no downgrading of the educational opportunity and, Mr. Speaker, at this point in

time, the school board has not finalized all of its plans for the next school year.

I have stated publicly and repeatedly, that I believe the parents have

been very much premature in their actions because the school board has not finished its

deliberations, and it is beyond me as to why we cannot offer the same educational

opportunity this year as we did last year, when you have 200 fewer students and the same

number of teachers as they planned to operate with this time last year.

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

supplementary.

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

Perhaps, Mr. Minister, they believe that rural reform would mean

improvements in classroom atmosphere and more teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, that School District No. 2 is

already the biggest user of distance education. There is not a single school that offers

art education, only one high school offers one course in music and most of the physical

education classes that occur are being taught by the classroom teachers themselves. There

are a total of five units allocated for guidance, with 1.5 units assigned to Labrador

Coastal schools, eight of them, and the other 3.5 assigned to the entire Great Northern

Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; he ought to get to his question.

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Are these courses

and these programs among the ones the minister considers non-essential, therefore not

affecting the quality of education; and, without access to these programs, can the

minister say that the children on the Great Northern Peninsula and Coastal Labrador have

equal opportunity to reach their full educational potential?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the students on the Northern Peninsula, in

the boundaries of District 2, have as much of an opportunity to reach their educational

potential this year as they have ever had in their lives. They will have as much of an

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, next year as they have ever had in their lives. The whole issue

is: If the members opposite again would like to make part of their platform in an upcoming

election, that they will promise every student in every school in Newfoundland and

Labrador that they will have access to the same programs that might be in the largest high

schools in St. John's, put it in your platform and deliver it.

This government believes in realism, Mr. Speaker. The people on the

Northern Peninsula will have, as I say again, this year, the best opportunity they have

ever had, Mr. Speaker. Next year, they have an opportunity to have the same educational

opportunity. Nowhere in Canada, Mr. Speaker, where we have rural settings with small

groups of people in isolated communities, has anybody ever figured out, other than to use

things like distance education, how you can have every single curriculum alternative

available to every child in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So if the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, wants to suggest that that is a

realistic objective, and that is obtainable in Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe they might

explain why the seventeen years that they were the government they did not produce as much

of an opportunity as is on the Northern Peninsula today. They had seventeen years to do

it.

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

Valley.

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

We have just seen the case of the successor Premier announcing the

election. Just wait a little bit, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: Next year over 80 per cent of the

schools in District 2 will have double classes. Over 80 per cent of the students will be

in double grades. There are many examples of triple and quadruple classes. The present

school system does not adequately serve the students of this board. The allocations,

albeit they may be equal to last year, will not be able to erode this lack of educational

opportunity. I say to the minister: Stop blaming the school board, begin to look at the

situation there. The people on the Great Northern Peninsula and Coastal Labrador have made

sacrifices. They have combined their schools. Now they are asking the minister to look at

the situation.

I ask the minister: What will you do to assure equal access, equal

opportunity, as was talked about in the Williams' Royal Commission report, for the

students on the Great Northern Peninsula and Coastal Labrador?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are very serious about what is happening on the Northern Peninsula

as we are with everywhere in the Province. The reality of it again is this, Mr. Speaker,

and it bears repeating: This year with respect to declining enrollment on the Northern

Peninsula, in District 2, the government removed zero teachers from that school board;

absolutely zero, Mr. Speaker. With respect to declining enrollments the reduction was

zero.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, the school board had planned a school

arrangement. There was a court injunction and we provided units to the school board. What

we have done is taken back those units because there is no need now and no legal reason

for them to be in the system. They have the same opportunity as last year, Mr. Speaker, an

opportunity to make improvements. We are working with the school board, Mr. Speaker. The

school board - and this is the sad irony of the situation - has not even finished its

deliberations as to the organization of schools for next September. We are working with

the school board. They need to finalize their decisions. We are not casting any blame, Mr.

Speaker. We are just saying that there are duties and responsibilities for the government,

there are duties and responsibilities articulated in the schools' act for the school

board, we are working with them and we are sure at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, when

all of the decisions are made, we will have a quality education opportunity in District 2,

as we will elsewhere in the Province.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Finance as it relates to

Newfoundland Hydro dividends.

Mr. Speaker, the 1998-1999 Estimates show that the dividends from this

source were estimated to be $46.8 million in 1997-1998. However, only $16.8 million were

received. Further estimated dividends for this year appear to be $49 million.

So my question to the minister is: Would the minister inform the House

as to the reason for the difference last year and the basis upon which the estimate for

this year is arrived at?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member; I could not

hear the first part of his question. I heard the $49 million at the end. I don't know to

what he is referring. Was it Newfoundland Hydro? I am just guessing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The 1998-99 Estimates show that the dividend, Mr.

Minister, from this source was estimated to be $46.8 million in 1997-98. However, only

$16.8 million were received. An estimated -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is with respect to Newfoundland Hydro

dividends. Further estimated dividends for the year appear to be $49 million.

So the question is: Could the minister inform the House about last

year's difference and the basis upon which the estimate for this year is arrived at?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave a similar answer to the hon. member in our Estimates hearings

the other day. I don't have the details before me, but essentially what we have required

of Hydro over the last several years is a special dividend of $15 million. What that

figure in part represents is the net flow-through from CF(L)Co of the first part of the

Churchill Falls agreement; the net from approximately $36 million in gross revenue from

the sale of the 133 megawatts that was immediately recalled as a result of this recent

deal negotiated by the Premier and Mr. Bouchard on behalf of the Province of Quebec. The

net to the Province is in the range of $22 million to $24 million. That comprises a fairly

substantial portion of it. There is also another $12 million in regular dividends that

come from Hydro as well, and the balance is an increased dividend we expect this year. I

can get a more detailed answer, and I believe I may have given it in Estimates hearings

the other morning.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could indicate, in this House, what is the

dividend payment

schedule for 1998-1999, and how does Newfoundland Hydro fund the payment

of these dividends?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the Province has an investment in

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It guarantees approximately $1 billion worth of debt

incurred on behalf of Hydro. The dividends that come to the Province are the same as any

dividends. They are paid out of profits at Newfoundland Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

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

As chairman of the Government Services Estimates Committee I wish to

report that the Committee has considered the matter to it referred, and have passed,

without amendment, the following heads of expenditure: Finance, Government Services and

Lands, Works, Services and Transportation, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the Public

Service Commission, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. DECKER: Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I think I just have a few minutes left on Budget debate from the last

day. To pick up where I left off, on a discussion we ended on Friday - that was about

rural renewal. Some of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition posed to the

Premier today, Mr. Speaker, on what is really happening out there in rural Newfoundland -

yes, it's good to hear the good news and so on, and some of the effects of it.

Then the Minister of Education talks about realism. Well, Mr. Speaker,

there are a lot of people in this Province asking today, where is the reality in all the

announcements we hear day after day, the big announcements. We talk about Hibernia and

Voisey's Bay, all these mega-projects that are, at the end of the day, going to show up

where it is all to. They are going to be able to go out to people in small-town

Newfoundland and Labrador and say: It's all coming, it's just a matter of a few days and

it will be here. Mr. Speaker, it is not happening that fast. That is the reality of it.

The strategic economic boards, all put in place some good plans, some

good ideas put down by people who were on these boards. I have talked to people as

recently as this weekend who sit on those boards and they are starting to say: It's good

to have all these plans, all these ideas, but unless we can execute those we aren't going

to see jobs at the end of it. That is what everybody in this Province is starting to ask

about now. It's good to have a great plan, great to have a good scheme, but where is the

reality of jobs? That is where realism has to kick in, Mr. Speaker.

We talk about statistics from Statistics Canada of 9,000 new jobs. Was

it also taking into account the number of people who left the Province? Was it also taking

into account the number of people who are coming off, not just in May, but have come off

the TAGS system and are going back on a line? They are not on the unemployment line. You

won't see them in the unemployment statistics because they are in limbo. There is no place

on unemployment for them. The last resort is going to be for these people to go to

welfare. You won't see them on the unemployment list. That is where we are missing the

boat on this, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, as a member living in rural Newfoundland, back

there every weekend when the House is closed, talking to those people over and over, they

are wondering where the real tangible jobs are going to be in the next little while.

Mr. Speaker, one of those I will mention today, and we spoke about it

on Friday, is the seal industry. If there is one industry that this entire House of

Assembly and everybody in this Province better jump on real soon it is that industry. It

has to be done right. Can you imagine people in rural parts of Newfoundland seeing seals

in the gardens, up on the roads, all around us - killing a resource that we have had there

for years. They are eating fish, and we find that we are just at the beginning of that

seal industry but it has to be done right.

Then to get a notice - and even the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture agrees with me - we received calls last week from people who have a domestic

licence to go out and kill six seals for personal use. They bought their licence at 12:00

noon and by six o'clock that evening - closed.

Imagine now, not like there are not enough seals out there. We find out

that they buy a licence for domestic use - as far as I am concerned there should be a lot

more than just six - for people in this Province to go out and kill a seal to eat, and to

find out, with the swarm still around our shorelines and, like I said, up on roads and in

people's gardens... If you think that is an exaggeration, go ask the people who have seen

them.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture even

told me of an incident last week when we was out walking his dog. His dog started to bark

and he thought it was going after another dog. In the middle of the road, in his own

district, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said there was a seal in the middle of

the road, barking. That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker.

Then you go to a place like Robert's Arm, and we will lead right into

another issue of the fish that are being driven inland. We can talk to all the scientists

we want, Mr. Speaker, but a fisherman said to me - and it makes just as much sense as any

scientist I have heard - that all the fish you see in the bays and up in the streams, and

everything else - like in Robert's Arm - that seals are chasing them there. They are

predators. Like any predator when it is chasing its prey, Mr. Speaker, it will go anywhere

to get rid of it. That is exactly what happened with this.

That will lead into another issue that I said I would raise today from

people in my district who are starting to make the phone calls now, and that is a food

fishery; and it is about time people started to talk about it again. I understand there

are some meetings taking place real soon on the food fishery, and I want to remind every

member in this House of Assembly: Remember the arguments from last year, and start at the

very first argument.

The very first argument that I have ever put forward is that if there

is going to be a food fishery for any Atlantic Province, or for any part of the Province,

then it should be for everyone. If not, stop it for everybody. If it is that bad, stop it

for everybody. That is a simple premise that we worked on last year, and that is only the

beginning of the argument. Because in the first year, as we remember, we remember seeing

the call that Nova Scotia, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, all could go out for a food

fishery. Last summer I spoke to people who went to Prince Edward Island - Newfoundlanders

on vacation who went over there. It would turn your stomachs, they said, that you could go

out in Prince Edward Island and catch ten fish but when you come back to Newfoundland - no

way.

This year they thought it had improved a little bit because they gave

the South Coast and the West Coast - it was available for them to got and catch ten fish.

Now, who could ever justify putting boundaries in the water of the Northern Peninsula, or

somewhere on the Avalon Peninsula, and saying that half of the Province can fish and the

other half cannot.

Mr. Speaker, some people might think it is a bit early to be talking

about it, but I am going to tell you - and I know that any rural members here who are

talking to people in their own districts, they are saying to them this year that last year

we were pretty civilized and pretty quiet about it all, and we accepted it at the end of

the day. But, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you here today that people are not going to accept

it this year. They are not going to accept it for a couple of reasons.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, times have gotten tougher. They have not

gotten any better; they have not even stayed the same. They have gotten worse in this

Province for a lot of people, especially in the rural parts of this Province. And those

ten fish, for four, five or six days, whatever it is going to be open for, can mean a lot

to a family that has very little income. It is going to mean a lot to a lot of families

now who are going to turn to welfare for the first time in this Province.

Let me tell you, you put ten good-size fish, a good cod fillet or a

good salt fish in your fridge, that can make a big meal for a lot of people. It might not

mean a lot to a lot of people here sitting around in their suits but, I am going to tell

you, put a few potatoes with that bit of salt fish and you have a good meal. You can

support a lot of people on a good meal with that, I can tell you. I know there are a lot

of people in this Province who feel the same way. The warning is already there. The phone

calls have started.

The week before last when our committee travelled to Ottawa under the

All Party Committee on post-TAGS, I did get a few minutes aside from our TAGS meetings to

talk to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Anderson, to let him know and to give him

forewarning that this year he will not be able to skirt that issue as easy as he did last

year, Mr. Speaker. People are not going to accept it this time. Very simply put, the

people in this Province are simply saying: This year treat everybody the same and we will

not have a problem with it; because it was ludicrous last year to think about what could

happen.

In Robert's Arm - the last report, by the way, from the Minister of

Fisheries himself, talked about fish in the shallow part of the bay. When the ice went

away this year you could see the fish - codfish - piled up in the bay, and nobody was

allowed to catch them.

Here we have a seal population that is exploding and they will not give

us an extra quota for seals. At the same time we have the cod coming inshore, chased by

predators, so we should be able to have a food fishery. Somebody should be able to go out

and catch those ten fish which means a lot to a lot of people in this Province. If for

nothing else, besides the point that I have used earlier, that besides the fact that a lot

of people could use the ten fish in families now with tough economic times in this

Province, it also means a lot to the people who have been on the water for years and

years.

When this was open a couple of years back, I went out with an old

gentleman friend of mine in the community of Pacquet. He took us out to fish. He didn't

even bother to fish himself. Just to be able to get in the boat and just to be there is a

morale boost. To be able to go out in the boat, know you have the jigger there - or a

baited hook, of course, is what it is now, and I certainly can agree with that. I don't

have a problem with that. I am going to tell you that this year the rumours and the

warnings I am getting are all about the people in this Province being treated equal to

everybody else in Atlantic Canada.

Also, one of the most ridiculous arguments we had the year before last

was when nobody in Newfoundland was allowed to fish. We could almost handle that P.E.I.,

Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia could fish for ten fish, but when we found out that

St. Pierre-Miquelon, with all due respect to St. Pierre-Miquelon, just miles off our

coast... Can you imagine the people on the Burin Peninsula sitting down two years ago,

saying: I am sorry, you can't go get ten fish, but we have allowed our foreign friends

here, who happen to be around our coast, to go out and do it.

That might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, because

people, to me this year, are starting to say with phone calls and letters already: If you

are going to shut it down, if the cod stocks are so bad that we can't catch ten fish, it

is gone anyway. That is one point.

The second thing they say is: If you think that is going to destroy

stocks, yes, close it down, it is bad enough. People are telling us: If you are going to

treat everybody the same and close it down for the entire Atlantic region and the entire

Province of Newfoundland - which even got more ludicrous after the idea of St.

Pierre-Miquelon fishing - now we have to split up our Province. We are going to put

chain-link fences in the water so that fish from the West Coast can't swim up around to

the North Coast.

We will use some scientific knowledge now. They found out that fish

that were tagged off the Port aux Basque area were found off Russia and off Iceland,

tagged there. So don't tell us that fish don't swim. They talk about different stocks for

P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, a lot of rubbish. A lot of time you can listen to scientists and

get some good things from them, there is no doubt about that. At the same time, there are

people who are out there in our communities, some fishermen who have been in boats for

fifty and sixty years. The two gentlemen last year, I think one gentleman was ninety-five

years old and the other one was eighty-one years old, fishing since they were nine and ten

years old. Of course, they were arrested for fishing for a few codfish. That is the type

of thing that happened in this Province last year, and it is something that people won't

stand for this year, I guarantee you. The warnings are there.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is not here today but I have

certainly talked to him on many occasions. I hope they are going to address that. I hope

Mr. Anderson is thinking about it. I hope he realizes what the impact is on this Province,

although he lives in British Columbia. We have to let him know, and I hope our own

minister is going to let him know, some of the ways people in this Province are feeling.

Besides the economic boost of somebody being able to go out and catch a

few fish to eat, if it is four days or six days, that could be up to sixty fish. Sixty

fish in your freezer or sixty fish salted and put away, that can mean a few meals for a

few desperate families in some hard times in this Province.

Secondly, like I said before, and I will end with that, it is a morale

boost. If people this year could have those couple of weekends to go out and go on and get

their boat ready, and they could take their family out for a day on the water, that is

worth it. I am telling you one thing; in this Province this day and this spring, people

are going to need anything they can get hold of to boost their spirits. Because it is not

very good in rural Newfoundland and Labrador as we speak today.

It is fine for the Premier to talk about these great mega-projects. We

have been talking about Voisey's Bay for years. He was down in Houston, Texas, where he

was talking about the oil industry as though if he didn't go to Houston the oil wouldn't

flow. He is talking about all those things. People love the big projects. Now he is

talking about the Lower Churchill. Like our leader said earlier here today, it is okay for

the Premier to stand and say: Come on side and be part of the Lower Churchill deal.

I said it here in this House weeks ago and I will say it again today: I

have no problem in developing the Lower Churchill, but there is only thing we are going to

make sure of this time, and every member in this House should agree to that, that it has

to be done right this time. It is not going to be a deal of the great cohorts of the

Premier or anybody else who believes they have the expertise in this, because we have been

told before that there was lots of expertise with doing deals like this. We don't believe

it this time.

Our leader put it very well today; we are simply saying: You show us

the fine print, you let us read through this, and we won't make the historical mistake of

all times for this Province of something that happened in the Upper Churchill. We will

take our time, we will sit down, we will go through the fine print. We will get our own

advice on it as well as look over it ourselves. Then we will make the right decision. We

are not going to hold up something with the magnitude of the Lower Churchill if it is

going to be an economic benefit for this Province. There is nobody silly enough to do

that. You cannot play with that, Mr. Speaker. That is something that is real. Just for the

Premier to say to us that he has been in closed-door discussions with the Premier of

Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, for ten months, is of no comfort to us. That is all we have so far,

that the Premier of this Province and the Premier of Quebec - we all know what his

ultimate goal is, to destroy this country - have been sitting in closed-door sessions for

ten months.

Now, does the Premier expect us to take that as something that we can

bank on? Mr. Speaker, if you ask people around this Province, they are not going to say

yes to any of that. They are not going to say: Yes, give us a blank cheque and we will

develop the Lower Churchill. I think it has great potential. I think the concept of

developing the Lower Churchill is great for economic benefits in this Province, with

electricity rates. Of course, one of the things in the agreement we have seen already is

the fact that a transmission line to this Province would be very important if we are going

to do the Lower Churchill and do it right.

It is easy to talk about mega-projects like Voisey's Bay and Hibernia

and the Lower Churchill, but sooner or later, and very soon now, Mr. Speaker, some people

in this Province are going to start saying: With all those press conferences and all the

announcements by the Premier, where are the jobs? Where is the beef?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the beef?

MR. SHELLEY: Where is the beef? That is exactly what they are

saying. The Member for Humber Valley knows very well because they are asking him the same

thing in his district. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, they are saying: Where are all

the realities - the Minister of Education talked about earlier today?

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is time that this government started to focus on

people in this Province and where they can help the best. One of those groups of people is

the young people who every day come into our offices with great business ideas, only to

find out that by the time they get through the bureaucracy and the red tape they give up

and leave.

I had an example of it in my district just a little while ago. Two

young men came in with a great business idea and by the time they got through permits and

regulations - by this time they were discouraged by the government, they said - they

decided to pack it up and leave. Those two young, bright people are in Alberta right now,

Mr. Speaker. That is what is happening. That is why the focus of this government must get

back on the key to the recovery of this Province, which is education. Education will be

the key to the recovery of this Province because, simply put, if we keep those young

people here with their attitude, their enthusiasm, their ideas, they will develop those.

But, Mr. Speaker, if the drain continues at the rate it is today, this Province is in for

a tough, tough road, and it has to stop real soon.

Mr. Speaker, even today in the questions put forward to the Premier,

the Premier is still not acknowledging the problem. He is still talking about Statistics

Canada, and what great statistics we have. He has to acknowledge the problem. With any

problem, you have to first of all - if you are an alcoholic or a drug addict - acknowledge

the problem and then you deal with it. That is where it comes from, Mr. Speaker. So the

first stage the Premier has to get to is acknowledging that while he is doing his

travelling all around the country, the Statistics Canada that he phones back and gets

every now and then is not enough. He has to have more than statistics to go tell...

You take your statistics and go out to small-town Newfoundland and tell

them about the great statistics. Just go and stand in front of a crowd of loggers to whom

I spoke in Stephenville a couple of weeks ago and tell them: No, settle down, guys. You do

not have to worry about mechanical harvesters. You do not have to worry about any of that.

The Premier has some statistics here that say we are doing great. We are on the big road

of recovery - all kinds of records of recovery in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the reality. It is good to be optimistic, but at

the same time you have to be realistic. I have always believed that if you are straight up

with a Newfoundlander and Labradorian and tell him the truth, he does not mind it. What he

does not like is being told he is pie in the sky, mega-projects, everything is going to be

okay; trust us, you will be okay. It is not working.

What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that patience is running out. The

patience of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is running out. They are tired. It is

almost like the boy who cried `wolf'. Time after time, another big press conference,

another 1,000 jobs here, another big economic plan. The Strategic Economic Plans, they are

all going to work. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a warning to the government.

The Premier threatened today about an election call. Well, Mr. Speaker,

what we tell him is: Go ahead, make our day. You just go right ahead, call it. If he has

the guts to call it, he will call it today. He should be up in his office now getting a

writ ready, heading to the Lieutenant-Governor's house. That is where he should be,

because if the Premier thinks that all this big image and prestige is washing off, that

his big trip to Houston, Texas, and Calgary last week, and Toronto the week before that,

if he thinks that is impressing people, I think he is in for a reality check. Mr. Speaker,

we are going to see that real soon, that the Premier is going to get that reality check.

You can mark my words. We have talked to people around this Province today, Mr. Speaker.

I just have one minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker. I will finish off by

talking -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Two minutes? That is not bad. I am going to get leave

though, right? (Inaudible) is not here. Some chance.

The Minister of Justice is going to give me leave. I am making so many

good points he is going to give me leave, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no justice.

MR. SHELLEY: There is no justice. No, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chris, John is out of the House today, let it roll.

MR. SHELLEY: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is out of

the House so we figured the Minister of Justice would let us roll for awhile. I was making

so many good points, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Strategic Economic Plans and press conferences, that is

all wonderful. It sounds good and gets everybody excited for a couple of minutes. People

say, `I hope it is going to work.' But, Mr. Speaker, a warning to the government: Sooner

or later you have to see the end result of a plan. I have been involved in all kinds of

plans that looked perfect on paper, good statistics and so on, but at the end of the day

you have to show the results. You have to show where you are heading, and you have to see

something that is tangible, something that is real. Not saying: Hold on for one more year.

We were wrong in our Budget last year. Let us go for one more year and guaranteed you will

see it next year.

Mr. Speaker, you can only go back to the well so often, and the Premier

should take notice that his time is just about up. That is why he is talking about an

early election. That is why I believe, because nothing is coming out. It is all there, Mr.

Speaker, and people are telling. I bet you in all the polls the Premier is doing himself,

poll after poll on every issue, the Premier is being told: You had better call an election

soon because you are slipping all the time. That is what they are being told. They are

saying: Call it now to get it over with. Because, Mr. Speaker, the time is up. The ghost

is up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: The jig is up.

MR. SHELLEY: The jig is up, as he said before.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about the Budget in

this Province, to look at some areas where certainly nothing has been done; something

should have been done but we have really done absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget has been described as one that has something

for everybody. Maybe an election Budget, I think some people may have referred to it as,

where we try to push all the buttons and hopefully we will hit some areas that are

probably necessary and some areas that maybe we can do something with.

It mentions the social sector, like health, education, and social

assistance. It mentions the resource sector, like fisheries, forestry, and the

mega-projects. It mentions the infrastructure area of roads and ferries. The Budget is so

positive and uplifting in its tone that one might be forgiven for overlooking the fact

that the social sector is suffering from cuts, the child benefit deducted from social

assistance, school closures, less for Memorial, the hospital wish list that, of course,

has no target date whatsoever. The resource sector is left floundering, not enough money

for silviculture, no concrete new action on fisheries, and nothing on mega-projects. The

infrastructure sector is coasting on federal dollars for roads while the municipalities

are facing yet another year of downloading. Some Budget, Mr. Speaker, some great news for

people around this Province who are trying to survive.

Let's look at some of our cuts in the health care system. Maybe

somebody should take some time and talk to people who work in the health care sector of

this Province to find out exactly what is going on in some of our hospitals and some of

our institutions, talk to people about the way our hospitals are cleaned now, talk to the

people who work, about how this is done in hospitals. Do they get the same cleaning they

once got? No, they don't. The Minister of Health or whoever can say what they like, but

talk to the workers, talk to the people who do the work in these institutions, and you

will soon find out what goes on.

I mentioned here a few weeks ago about a seventy-seven year old man

from my district who was in hospital, and because of a shortage of staff the nurses told

his family it was much easier to put him in a diaper and leave him in bed, rather than

help him out of bed to get to the washroom. Just imagine! The Minister of Health should

really be proud of that, because, Mr. Speaker, that is really something to be proud off;

when you say to a man who has his right mind, that we should leave you in bed in a diaper

rather than assist you to get out of bed to go to the bathroom.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. FRENCH: Well, the reason there is no assistance given is not

because they don't want to do it, but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, they do not have the staff

to do it. So they say to the family that is the best we can do. If that is the best, Mr.

Speaker, the best is not good enough. The best is far from good enough when we have to

tell people: If you want to make sure your mom or dad gets fed, be there at mealtime

because we do not have time anymore to help your mom or dad get their supper. I have seen

that, Mr. Speaker, I have seen it firsthand.

Or we say to somebody who needs a sheet of this eggshell styrofoam to

be put in the bed for comfort: Well, if you are not dying, this government tells you, you

do not need that. If you are dying, you should have it, but if you are not dying, or not

ready to die, then you do not need it; you should suffer. Mr. Speaker, I know firsthand

about that.

We look at - again, it seems like every time I speak here I go back to

homes for special care in this Province. The Member for Topsail knows what I am talking

about, he has a few of these homes in his district too. I am sure he has received calls, I

know he has received calls, because some of the people who called him have also called me.

An industry in this Province that gives excellent health care, excellent care to its

residents but is not treated properly by this government, an industry in this Province,

Mr. Speaker, that gets less money, an industry that we have studied to death, and I

understand that there is probably another study being done now through the Department of

Health - I mean, what nonsense.

I spoke to several home-owners in the last week or so. One of them told

me that if it continues, and they do not soon get an increase, by this time next year a

business that has been in existence for probably thirty to forty years, Mr. Speaker, is

gone; because they will no longer be able to afford to stay open. That, Mr. Speaker, is

certainly not right.

The last report that I have seen done was called the Kirby Report, that

recommended that each resident in the home pay $1,100 per month. It has not happened.

Insurance has gone up, food has gone up, maintenance has gone up, labour has gone up, but

what they are receiving has not gone up and should certainly go up, so that residents in

these homes, and the people who own those homes - after all, they do have the right to

make some sort of a living.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is time this government opened its eyes. I

believe it is time people got out and visited some of these seniors' complexes, some of

these homes for special care. I believe it is time the people went into them. I believe it

is time they did something for the people in this Province who have invested their life's

savings and their futures into operating these types of businesses.

If anybody in this House, Mr. Speaker, thinks that it is easy for these

people to survive, then I will gladly take a day and take any member, on either side of

this House, on a tour through my district. I will introduce them to home-owners, and I

will let them hear firsthand of the problems that are being incurred by home-owners in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will take them to homes in my district where they

can learn firsthand what is going on in this Province.

What is going on, as I said earlier, is a disgrace, and I think it is

time the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, this government, did

something about it; because in the last Budget they did absolutely nothing. They have made

more presentations to the Minister of Health and Community Services than I can even think

about. They have met with people in the department more times than you have fingers and

toes. Yet the end result is always the same: We should have another look at this or we

should have another look at that. Well, the time for looking is here and gone. The time is

here, Mr. Speaker, to have some action.

I believe the Speaker in the Chair today knows what I am talking about.

I believe he has some homes in his district, and I believe at one point in time, if I am

not sadly mistaken, I had a conversation with him concerning a home in his district. He

nods his head, and I'm sure he is nodding his head yes. The time has come, the time is

past, that we should do something for the home-owners in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. The quicker we do that, Mr. Speaker, the better. The quicker we get out there,

the quicker we offer assistance to some of these homes, the better off we are going to be

and the better off these home-owners are going to be. It is the cheapest form of health

care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is time we did something about

it.

Another thing I would like to touch on, Mr. Speaker, is Memorial

University. It seems like I always talk about this, as to why the Auditor General in our

Province can't go in and do her audit on Memorial University. I don't know, for the life

of me, why, but it is time a change was made, so that the Auditor General in this Province

can go in to Memorial University and do the type of an audit that needs to be done by the

Auditor General in this Province.

Fifty-thousand dollar interest-free loans, driving around in Caprice

cars, importing material from out-of-Province so that the grass can grow, or we import the

grass: our student debts are going through the roof but we have money for this. Somebody

seems to be very defensive of their turf, very, very defensive of their turf and maybe it

is time we changed the act. Maybe it is time we allowed our Auditor General to go in there

and do the type of audit that needs to be done. It certainly will not interfere with the

university on what they choose or choose not to have in courses. That is not the idea of

doing this audit, Mr. Speaker. The audit, in actual fact, will have nothing to do with

what courses they teach and so on. It would have absolutely nothing to do with doing the

proper audit on Memorial University, and it is time that it was done.

We have seen students demonstrate on our steps. We listen to students

all the time. We have all had students, certainly within our own districts, who are

suffering and who are coming out of university owing thousands and thousands of dollars.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. It should not be, but it is and this government has

done nothing to stop it.

Mr. Speaker, the Wells Government promised to do something about the

economic recovery in this Province, and, of course, he set up an Economic Recovery

Commission; a think tank that produced none of the results our Province needed, none of

them, absolutely none of them. Of course, our current Premier got rid of that, the

Economic Recovery Commission. What did he replace it with? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

There is no economic plan, Mr. Speaker, there is no economic plan. We have seen more good

sense from Doug House in The Evening Telegram in recent weeks than we have seen

from the government in more than two years. The Budget document is an exercise in pushing

pennies around in a ledger.

The out-migration in this Province: I don't know about some members,

Mr. Speaker, but I hear it every day from young men and young women in my district who

have gone to Ontario, who have gone to New Brunswick, who have gone certainly to Alberta

and British Columbia looking for work.

I heard the Premier today say 9,000 new jobs. I would love to know

where they are and I would love to know if they are full-time jobs or exactly what kind of

jobs they are, because the out-migration in this Province is rampant and continues to be

rampant for the young people who are coming out of our universities and who are going off

to other parts of Canada to work, to make a decent wage to try and survive.

Ireland addressed its out-migration by taking a hard look at education,

technology investment and bolstering the traditional industries in that country. Mr.

Speaker, what do we do here? We slash education to the bone making it impossible for young

people to go to school and for graduates to stay in their home Province. That is what we

do here. We do not help, we hinder.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is no secret what has happened to our

fishery, that the federal government continues today to allow overfishing from the Grand

Banks. We have foreigners who can still come in and who can still take the fish off the

Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador while our own Newfoundland people sit home and do

nothing. That, to me, is certainly wrong, and it is about time that this government took a

stance and did something about it before too many of our towns die and there is little or

nothing left; before there is little or nothing left.

Of course, we are all waiting for the Churchill Falls contract. We are

waiting to see it laid on the Table to see what is in it. A year or so ago there was a

private member's motion here to give the Premier a blank cheque to travel all over Canada

to talk about the Churchill Falls project. I hope we did not spend too much money on it. I

won't not say spend too much money, I would say waste too much money. Because, Mr.

Speaker, that is a proposal, I guess, that is before us all today, as members of this

House, and a proposal that would certainly bring, if done and done properly, economic

benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I noticed the weekend paper, Mr. Speaker, talking about a clothing

manufacturing plant for your own area, and it is very interesting to note that on the

front page of today's The Western Star in Corner Brook, the Premier is talking

about the same project. So we are going to have one in Clarenville and one somewhere on

the West Coast. You know, let's be real! Are we going to get two of these? Who knows. I

would certainly like us to get two of them, but I do not think that that is ideal.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, Voisey's Bay seems to have hit a large bump in

the road. We still have not seen a tax regime from that particular project and we noticed

the company talking about losses and so on. Well, I would agree with the government that

if they are not going to have a refinery and a smelter in this Province, to heck with it.

Let's leave it where it is because it is time that we did not send everything out of this

Province to be done.

We watched the private member's motion the other day which we all

supported. Motherhood, that is what it was. We were talking about things for Labrador and

we talked about the pelletizing plant, whether it should be in Labrador or somewhere else.

Who in their right mind, Mr. Speaker, is going to talk about it going outside of Labrador?

To me, it is a very simple matter, that they should be told: You either do it in Labrador

or you do not do it. That is what should happen. We do not need to jump up and down or

beat our chests. They should be told, and told in the strongest of terms: If you are not

going to do this in this Province, then you are going to have trouble with us. If somebody

says that is a threat, well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what it is. That is exactly what

it is and that is exactly what these people should be given. That is exactly what these

people should be told: If you don't do it in Newfoundland and Labrador, you don't do it at

all, and if you challenge us on this issue, we will throw up so many road blocks that your

head will spin. It is time that maybe that is the attitude we should take, Mr. Speaker, to

stop these jobs from going out of our Province into Quebec or anywhere else. It is time

that it ended. I am not so sure if we need a private member's motion, Mr. Speaker, to end

it but it is time that we end it.

I commend the member for his motion, but to me it is a very simply

issue and it is a motherhood issue. He is not the only one who has written letters. I have

written letters in support of the plant being in Labrador and not going outside our

boundaries. It does not always happened from somebody on the other side. It does not mean

that some of us on this side of the House do not do those things either. Do not think that

we do not do those things, Mr. Speaker, because we certainly do. We believe in the

Province we live in. We believe in the Province that we call home. That is why we are

here. We should fight to improve what we do for this Province.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, Churchill Falls: One can only hope that it

comes to a reality. Again, before we sign blank cheques for the premier to run all over

Canada, all over Newfoundland, for fund-raisers, before this member here is willing to do

that, I would certainly like to see something laid on that Table that is of a positive

nature; and very quickly, I say to the minister. The premier - I won't go there, I will

stay away from that. These are things we have to do.

We talk about rural renewal and about projects: I hope, Mr. Speaker, if

there is something after TAGS, and there has to be, by the way, if there is a program, and

every indication seems to be there is going to be something - in regions of this Province

where we have zonal boards, I hope these boards will not be circumvented. I hope these

boards will be consulted on projects that are going to happen within their jurisdiction.

Because the word out there, Mr. Speaker, is that some of them are going to be bypassed. If

that happens, then we will all know exactly why.

If we are going to appoint these boards or work with these boards, then

let's use them, let's use the expertise that is on them and let's use the people who are

on them, who understand what is going on in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

what is going on in various areas of this Province. I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that

some of this is not going to happen, and, of course, that, Mr. Speaker, is certainly

wrong.

This Budget, Mr. Speaker, is thirty-seven pages long, with numerous

appendages and attachments. Surely, somewhere in all of that, there is a strategy to help;

a strategy to help students deal with access to post-secondary education and cope with the

debt that some of these students are incurring as they get closer to graduation.

Mr. Speaker, this message, of course, has to sink in somewhere. When we

see, as I said today, two proposal announcements - I hope they are two different

proposals, I say to the Speaker today. I hope they say that they are two separate

proposals because we can use all the help we can get.

Mr. Speaker, as I do every year when I stand here for the Budget, I

would like to spend the last couple of minutes that I have talking about private partner

funding. I want, again this year, to talk about my own District of Conception Bay South,

where we have major troubles with water and sewer. It's the largest municipality in this

Province, and at the rate of $1 million or $2 million or $3 million a year we are going

absolutely nowhere, only probably backwards. When you see towels that were white but are

now yellow, when you talk to people who can't drink their water, and when you talk to

people who have to replace hot water boilers and heaters, then there is a problem. In my

area of the Province there is such a problem, a problem that has to be corrected.

I do know that there is a proposal before government. It has been

before government for quite some time. I can only ask this government as quickly as they

can to deal with private partner funding. Hopefully over the next little while something

is going to be done so that areas such as mine can receive the much needed water and sewer

services they require. If that is the area or that is the way it has to be done, Mr.

Speaker, then that is the way it will have to be done.

Again I have had the opportunity to look at the proposal. I don't think

it's such a bad one, by the way. I might need to give it probably a little closer

scrutiny, but by and large the concept to me is certainly a good one and should -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: It is, yes, it is. I say to the Member for Conception

Bay East & Bell Island, it is a good proposal. I have looked at it. I certainly have a

copy of it. It's the only way, Mr. Speaker, that towns such as mine are going to be

serviced. Again the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island knows of what I

speak. I can say that there are parts of his riding - because I know his riding as well,

and it's not too far from mine - where they certainly experience the same problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: Just leave for a minute to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close on the private partner

funding end of it, but just to encourage the government to really have a strong look at

the proposal that it has before it now from the municipality of Conception Bay South, and

to ask the government, as speedily as it can, to really have a good look at this, and see

if we can't do something, so that areas such as mine, and those of the Members for Topsail

and Conception Bay East & Bell Island, can receive very much needed water and sewer

services; in our municipalities and in our ridings.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the leave and for your time.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I stand to talk on the Budget debate. I believe I

have an hour. I spoke for an hour with respect to the amendment on non-confidence.

Lately, Mr. Speaker, it seems that any time you ask this government a

question about anything at all a number of things happen. It causes a bit of a chain

reaction. First of all, we are being too negative. Forty-one per cent of the student

population who graduated from Memorial last year are living outside the Province, and as

leader of a party you stand up and ask a question about it, and you are accused of being

negative. Forty-one per cent! I don't know if anybody else is concerned. I'm sure they

are. I'm sure a lot of members are concerned.

The time has come for us to have a look at some new approaches The type

of people who are leaving the Province are those who are highly skilled. They are

graduates, whether it's from Memorial, the College of the North Atlantic, or a variety of

other post-secondary options that are available to people.

I talk to a number of employers all the time, but last week we talked

to three, in particular, with respect to Grade XII. Upon completion of Grade XII, how many

young people will find themselves in a situation of employment or have the necessary

wherewithal and skills, coming out of our high school system, to find meaningful work? By

meaningful I mean something more than offers five or six dollars an hour. The reality is

not many, because the world has changed significantly. The world we live in requires new

skills, culture of learning, lifelong learning, and coming out of Grade XII, after

Kindergarten to Grade XII, is not enough any more.

Twenty years ago, if you graduated from high school with the skills

that were available to you there were opportunities for you within the workplace, with a

variety of employers, whereby you could find employment at a decent income - not

necessarily the highest income but at a decent income - and work your way into a position.

With the ongoing training that probably would have taken place with that employer or a

specific employer, you could get new skills and work your way up. But ask students today

who graduated two or three years ago and have done nothing else other than graduate from

Grade XII, did not pursue other post-secondary options, what sort of opportunities are

available for them today? They are severely limited. Most employers will tell you across

the country, certainly in this Province, that unless there is a minimum of two to three

years post-secondary experience, people are not getting in the doors for an interview.

So when you stand up and ask questions about youth in the Province,

which comprise a significant portion of our population, and you are greeted with, you

know: You are being too negative, be more positive - I could hide my head in the sand and

talk about the wonderful things in the Province because there are many, but there are also

challenges that we must overcome. Unless we are able to deal with it in a forthright

manner in this public Chamber, acknowledge that we do have challenges and talk about them

openly and forthrightly, not in an adversarial or confrontational way, but in a way that

brings people together, constructive, talk about the problem, offer some solutions - I

mean there is no question in my mind that we should look at adding a number of years, two

years possibly, to our secondary system; whereby people who go on to access another two

years, that the skills they gain and the courses they take be transferable to any other

institution in the Province, whether that be the College of the North Atlantic, Memorial

or others. These are the things we need to take advantage of. If nothing else, Mr.

Speaker, it is a social partnership that we must get into and we must talk about

immediately. It is a serious problem.

Newfoundland and Labrador is no stranger to out-migration. It never has

been. In recent reports out of Industry Canada, in some of the reports that have been

written for Industry Canada, we should deplete rural communities in Canada, specifically

Atlantic Canada. That would be a way to solve the problems of underemployment, transfers,

etcetera, etcetera. If that were the case then we would not have an unemployment problem.

The number of people who have left this Province in the last fifty years, since

Confederation - there have always been peaks and valleys, but there is one thing that is

distinctly different about the out-migration problem that has occurred in the last five to

seven years: That prior to that time the majority of people who were leaving came back.

There was always an exit and an enter, back and forth. The door swung both ways. People

left for six or seven months. There were many national projects of infrastructure. Our

skilled workers, from plumbers to electricians, to operating engineers, to pipefitters, to

drillers, to blasters, etcetera, were in demand across the country. Newfoundlanders have a

good reputation: skilled workers, second to none; work ethic, second to none; quality of

work, as high as any other group in the country.

One Local in Toronto comprised of about 12,000 members, at least 4,200

of them are Newfoundlanders, a little over 40 per cent of one Local Trade Union in

Toronto, of which there are maybe forty or fifty. But one Local alone out of Toronto, out

of a 12,000 membership 4,200 are Newfoundlanders. Now many of these people are members of

that Local within terms of the international union agreements. They can transfer, whether

it is from Toronto into Alberta, from Alberta back to Newfoundland or from Newfoundland to

Nova Scotia. Essentially, it is mobility that has been guaranteed, if you have the skills,

if you have the experience.

Newfoundlanders, traditionally, have come and gone in a variety of

different ways and means to seek employment, to find employment, and have been amongst the

first group of people in this country to go and find work where work could be found, where

they could make a decent living and where they could support their families. Nothing new

about that. That has not changed today. What has changed today, and what has changed

dramatically, is that the number of young people who are leaving are not coming back. It

is absolutely frightening.

I do not have to tell any member in this House the problem that they

are facing within their own individual districts. In Corner Brook, the number of young

people who are coming out of the high school system, are they finding positions in Corner

Brook to the extent that they are used to? No. In Stephenville, Port aux Basques, Grand

Falls, Springdale, Baie Verte, Fleur de Lys, Buchans, Port au Port Peninsula, and the list

could on - they are not.

Last week, for example, I know of an individual who graduated from

Memorial with a Computer Science Degree. He was recruited by Northern Telecom right off

the street. They were down here and recruited him; starting salary, $46,000 - $47,000 a

year. He did not have the necessary experience to go to work with IT firms in the

Province, but they recruited him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Recruited him.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, they recruited him.

Many firms were requiring two years experience and I am not about to

question that. The firms have their own sort of hiring criteria, they know what their own

needs are. But what I am questioning is the need for young people with skills to leave,

that those opportunities are not being presented to them.

Northern Telecom, last year, for example: Of all the electrical

engineers that graduated in every university across Canada last year, Northern Telecom,

one company, hired 25 per cent of them. One company hired 25 per cent of all the

electrical engineering graduates in Canada last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are their headquarters?

MR. E. BYRNE: Their headquarters are in Toronto; satellite offices

all over the country and the globe.

The industry that is emerging and Northern Telecom or Nortel, how it is

restructured and how it is taking advantage is an example of what, in many cases, should

be happening to a greater extent in the Province. I also understand the one firm here

could hire 50 graduates tomorrow, if they had the necessary skills, but they do not; hire

them tomorrow, just like that.

The difference again with out-migration - I could go through a number

of my friends. One in particular who graduated in 1989 from Memorial, Bachelor of Arts,

Major in Economics, Minor in Political Science, had a chance for summer work with the

Workers' Compensation Commission in Ontario. He got married the same summer and both him

and his wife went to Toronto for summer employment. They thought that it would be a good

experience to go up for four or five months, together, away from everything, to work,

possibly gain some skills and some experience and then come on home. That was nine years

ago. Today they are living in Ottawa. They have two kids, one is four, the other is two.

She teaches in Ottawa and he is a full-time adjudicator with the Workers' Compensation

Commission. They will not be coming back - would love to, but can't.

They bought a three bedroom townhouse which would go for about, I would

say, $80,000 to $90,000 in this city. They bought it in Toronto for $220,000. That is what

they paid for it; a three bedroom townhouse, that in this city, in impeccable condition,

you would buy for anywhere from $85,000 to $90,000. That is one example.

They were down this summer for a holiday. I believe it was their

parents thirtieth or thirty-fifth anniversary. I am not sure which. Life is different for

him today. It is different than he imagined it would be upon graduation from Memorial

University. It is different for his wife, as well, who graduated from Memorial University

in his Province. But there it is, that is reality. He has skills, he has employment, he

has a family, they both have a family. It takes two of them to provide, as it does with

most families today. That is one individual who will not be back.

Another individual, a good friend of mine, ended up in Calgary ten

years ago, on a work term, in the Engineering Department. It was his last work term. He

had to come for his final six courses at Memorial. He ended up with a firm in Calgary.

Upon graduation he had a couple of offers outside the Province and decided that he was

going to look around a bit more, waited it out here. He was in a position where he could

wait it out for several months. At the end of the ninth month in 1991, he had had enough.

He is an engineer, graduated with distinction in terms of academic honours and ended up in

Calgary.

He went to work with the firm that he had his last work term with. That

was seven years ago. Today he is in Calgary and the type of engineering work he is doing

is related to Terra Nova, related to our offshore industry. So we have an expatriate

Newfoundlander, a son of the Province, born and raised here, educated here, did very well

academically here, travelled across Canada on his work terms, who ended up working

full-time for an engineering firm in Calgary which has a huge contract with respect to the

Terra Nova oil industry. This is an engineer, doing work, trained, educated from here, who

would love to be home, married there to a lady from Calgary, and the work he is doing, his

income is dependent and directly related to our offshore oil and gas industry.

Let's talk about Terra Nova. In terms of the agreement that this

Province signed with Terra Nova, let's look at the engineering work alone. My

understanding - and I stand to be corrected - but my understanding is, that as part of

that agreement the bulk of the engineering work would be done here. It is just about

complete. However, where are the engineers? Where are the 110, the 130 engineers, who are

working with that industry or working with respect to Terra Nova? They are located in

Britain. Where is the majority of the work is being done? In Seoul, Korea.

Now, I have listened to the Minister of Mines and Energy's responses

and the Premier's, upon signing the deal. They have talked about how they have traded off

- I don't know if traded off are the right word. Traded off may be the wrong words. Let me

put it this way: That their attention was focused on the revenue arrangement, not

necessarily the initial working construction of that deal that was supposed to come in

place; but it should have been.

Twenty-five years ago, in Norway, a country not unlike our own in many

respects, in terms of standard of living, quality of the people, work ethics, et cetera,

found themselves in an emerging oil and gas industry, not unlike where we are today. They

made a commitment to themselves, that where they did not have the expertise to take

advantage of their industry, they would bring it in. But the difference was, that in

bringing it in they learned from it, that five years later when that expertise was

required again they did not need to bring it in. People in Norway were themselves trained.

They took advantage of the skills that did not exist within their country and within their

labour market and they created it, because they learned from the best in the business in

the world at that time.

Employment-wise, they benefitted significantly. Technology-wise, in

terms of the transfer of technology that took place with respect to that industry, they

ensured that it did take place so that in future, whether it was within their own society

or another that needed expertise - because they knew that it would at some point but did

not know necessarily where - that they were able to offer it. If it were not for a

Norwegian company and the Norwegian expertise, I am not convinced that the Hibernia site

would have worked out as well as it did. Because when they came in, it was their expertise

that brought the expenditures on line, it was their expertise that made the GBS project a

successful one along with the solid work ethics of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. But

the situations that have occurred here with respect to the very early stages of our oil

and gas industry, with respect to our skilled labour force and our skilled pool, certainly

would not take place in Norway today.

When you look at the number of industrial electricians who were

certified, from one end of the country to the other, people, Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who would go to work anywhere in this country, but were displaced from that

project, forty-five or forty-six of them who had the qualifications, who had the

experience, who were not able, were not allowed, were denied access simply because another

company came in and brought their own personnel, then there is something wrong.

I have no hesitation in talking about the value of a project in

Newfoundland and Labrador being a Canadian project. I have no hesitation in terms of

ensuring that if it is, where the Canadian government was involved to the extent that they

were, that other people should, if the opportunities present themselves, be able to take

advantage of it as well. It should not be, as what happened in many cases, at the expense

of people in this Province who are primed, ready and skilled to take advantage of those

opportunities, but that happened, and it continues to happen today.

If you want to look at other models in the world of places similar to

our own, Ireland is a great example. There has been much talk about how Ireland has

transformed its economy. There has been much talk about where they were twelve, fifteen,

sixteen years ago. The talk is not without substance. The similarities are uncanny, the

similarities are scary, the similarities are unbelievable. About fourteen years ago

Ireland's percentage of people leaving the Province was about the same as ours; an older

population, education costs the highest in Europe. The economy, in terms of where it was

going, largely depended upon one or two industries. Agriculture is a major industry in

Ireland. In fourteen short years they have turned it around.

If you want to look at the areas that they looked at, they brought

people together from labour, from business, from education. They sat down and talked about

approaches. Not unlike ourselves today, we are in a very adversarial sort of position when

it comes to labour relations. They entered into what they called a social contract.

Everybody became a partner in terms of developing society as to where we want it to be.

There were guarantees put in place for labour, for business. There was a climate

developed, a climate by where one portion of their economy was based upon: If you came

here you could count upon certain things. It was a social partnership. People within the

economy became social partners, and they continued to be so for the next ten years.

They participated as social partners in what we call strategic

planning, outside of government. Government didn't become the be-all and the end-all but

it became one aspect, a very important aspect in terms of the legislative aspect,

regulatory regime, providing the environment, but with a sound strategic plan, a plan that

was over the long term, that looked at the quality of work today, where we could maintain

what we had first of all, where we could create it, and where we could attract it.

Their document is one that is still alive. It is a living document. The

social partnership was based upon consent. It was a very consensual relationship, one

where people came to the table and agreed upon certain things. Politics in the Republic of

Ireland is colourful, to say the least, depending on what part of Ireland you go to.

Certainly in Southern Ireland, where what we talk about in terms of the Republic of

Ireland, it became very much a consultative sort of approach. Government did not move in

the face of business or labour, or in the face of creating an economy that was going to

work, or that could hopefully work. It consulted widely and broadly, and it continued to

do so, and it continues to do so.

Its public sector, once a very bureaucratic sort of public sector

approach, was transformed into a very entrepreneurial approach. Entrepreneurial in a sense

that from the bureaucracy point of view, or the bureaucracy that obviously is a necessity

with government and, depending upon how government chooses to interact with it, can be a

very positive interaction, but it created more of an entrepreneurial spirit not only

within the bureaucracy but within the school system.

Some of the benefits that are being taught at the very lowest levels in

Ireland today, in terms of education, what we would say are Kindergarten through Grade IV,

have yet to be realized. Some of those people today are just graduating from their system

- what their secondary system is - but they are also into very much related job-entry

skills on a variety of topics, whether it be informational technology, value-added,

secondary processing, attracting capital investment, to enhance and bring down costs and

offer a very solid and second-to-none product and services that they are into. But it was

very entrepreneurial based and it was a tenet of how they felt they should turn around

their economy.

It is sector focused in terms of its focus on the economy. It did not

look at itself as an island, or develop an island mentality. Actually it shook it off, and

it was forged as a new and emerging economy; how that new economy could bridge itself with

and be added to Ireland's traditional economy based upon resource sectors, how it could

enhance that economy, how it could provide better opportunities for it. We have a

situation in this Province where the largest industry - it is not the construction

industry, not the fishing industry - is the food industry. Last year the food industry was

worth $1.6 billion. We in this Province, in terms of our consumption of that industry and

the goods and services that we need from it, produce less than ten percent. The Member

from Humber Valley knows what I am talking about. He was a participant in it.

In 1985 - you look at the Milk Marketing Board where fresh milk was not

offered in this Province to the extent it is today. We were not producing what our needs

were, or what our requirements were. But in fourteen short years we have gone from being -

we were a market by where skim milk, powdered milk, was being dropped in the marketplaces

through a variety of measures, but people in that industry came together themselves. They

decided they were going to protect their industry, and they did. They have created

employment, they have created wealth, they have created money that was at one time being

(inaudible) on a product that was going outside the Province that is now staying here.

That industry is self-sufficient today as a result of it.

You talk about the milk quotas, one industry, how far milk quotas have

come in the last ten or fourteen years. It really is one of the most successful stories in

the last decade in this Province. It is only one aspect of more things that we can do, a

lot more things that we can do.

When you talk about the amount of Carnation milk for example, one

product. It may sound foolish but one product alone is worth, I think, in this Province,

somewhere in the vicinity of $17 million to $18 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $31 million.

MR. E. BYRNE: How much? Thirty-one million was it, the year before

last? So, $31 million on Carnation milk. We do not produce any of it here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. None of it is processed here. It is all produced

in Montreal. We have a $30 million consumer item being purchased by people in this

Province - $30 million - in terms of purchasing one product, Carnation milk, and where is

it being produced? All of the secondary processing, all of the jobs that go with it, all

of the industrial sorts and economic (inaudible) that we could get from that, are being

produced in Montreal if I am not mistaken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Montreal?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Carnation milk. In Montreal I believe. How many

people would be employed here in this Province? The reduction of shipping costs,

incredible. It is an incredible story.

Root crops: You go out on the West Coast, certainly in parts on the

Central and Eastern parts of the Province but on the West Coast in particular, out around

the Humber Valley, Codroy Valley area, and the amount of root crops that we do not produce

ourselves, that we should be, for our own consumption. It is not as easy as just providing

land to do it and letting people go ahead and do it; there is a whole industry standard

associated with it. We are competing with large food chains at the moment. We are not

providing any incentive by where to do it. If you look at the report on agrifoods, how

many of the recommendations were implemented to date in that report? There were some

pretty solid arguments made in that report for where we should be moving within the food

industry, but we are not at this point. On many of them we have not moved anywhere.

You want to look at the amount of cold storage that is available in

this Province for people in that industry. Really, it is nothing worth talking about. Cold

storage is an infrastructure or a necessary piece of infrastructure that is required if we

are going to move into those areas. So fundamentally we have not moved, in terms of that

area, to the extent that we should.

Now look at Fairlee juice, a quality product supposedly, coming out of

Ontario. You can go anywhere in this Province and Fairlee juice is what we buy. The fact

is, all the water for it comes out of the Great Lakes. It goes through a chemical process

that involves about ninety to ninety-five different chemicals to purify the water. The

water is mixed with concentrate, bottled and sold down here and everywhere. We have a

great local company doing exactly the same thing; but one of our natural advantages is the

type of water that we have, crystal clear. Some of the best water in the world is right

here, but that is another area where we have not moved in a direction strong enough, long

enough, and provided enough incentive for people to get to work.

Those are the areas that we get into value-added, secondary processing,

the types of areas that create wealth and jobs meaningful over the long term. We have

talked about natural outlets for some of our seasonal industries that would provide for

secondary processing but they are not here. The infrastructure is not here. So, Mr.

Speaker, these are areas where we need to move in a new way.

Outside investment in Ireland. Mr. Speaker, it was something that was

not so actively pursued twelve to fourteen years ago but it is something that is actively

pursued today, each and every day.

What does the minister have? It was a welcome back gift was it?

What is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: From what I hear, when you got off the plane on

Friday night you were not carrying a Sobeys bag. That is my understanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, the minister should not... From my understanding,

it was not a Sobeys bag that was in your hand. When you got off the plane in St. John's

Airport on Friday night, it was not a Sobeys bag with a bit of aftershave in it that you

were carrying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not sure about that. I did not inquire to that

level. I did not inquire at all. This stuff was offered to me. I was not going to inquire

on it. How was the show? I heard it was one of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I did not get an offer. Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that an offer? When are we going?

AN HON. MEMBER: In August.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let the record show that the Minister of Mines and

Energy wants the Leader of the Opposition to go to Norway. I am not sure I am going to be

able to take you up on your offer, to be honest with you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a written invitation.

MR. E. BYRNE: A written invitation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I will send your old campaigning buddy from the

West Coast, from Stephenville, the old -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand. Your old friend, who is now the Member

for St. John's East, (inaudible) in Stephenville, bought a couple of good campaigns for

the former member, Fred Stagg, is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and you did. You did a great job.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back to - the tone of my comment is that in

Ireland it has been actively pursued, outside investment. I spoke to somebody who was in

Dublin for five months about two weeks ago, a private sector businessman who took the time

and went over and had a look around. He spent five months there. He went over for actually

four to six weeks and ended up coming back - he took more time and stayed there.

He said one of the interesting things - he was there ten years ago, and

what he saw on his trip, on his jaunt, this time that he did not see ten years ago was the

amount of young professional faces, the amount of old buildings that had been restored,

the amount of industry that is there now that was not there ten years ago. He compared it

in a very small way but in a realistic way to what happened in Trinity.

Anybody who took the time to go down to Trinity or who has been in

Trinity say ten to twelve years ago, I would say that 80 per cent of the homes were

boarded up, if not more, but today they have been restored. People are interested. It has

become very much a hot spot for a period of time during the year, but an area to which

people are flocking. They have invested.

In Ireland, he said, what struck him about Dublin was the amount of

young professional people under the age of thirty who were driving the Irish economy, who

were not there ten years ago. He said it did not happen overnight. It happened a job at a

time. It happened a company at a time.

They took advantage of their natural attributes. They combined it with:

a partnership that was based upon consent; strategic planning, and a strategic plan that

the entire industry bought into, and the economy bought into; a consultative approach with

politics; an entrepreneurial public sector and private sector; focus on the new economy in

bringing new jobs, but enhancing existing industry; actively pursuing outside investment.

Combined with all of that, in terms of education and training, they

invested heavily. They went from the highest per capita cost of post-secondary education

in Europe - they were 25 per cent higher than the next highest cost in Europe - and in ten

free to everybody, but it wasn't a free ticket. While it is a laudable goal if we can

afford it, to educate people freely in a post-secondary sense, if we want to maintain them

in our economy there has to be some conditions attached, and they did attach some.

This all combined with what you would call an integrated approach to

developing a society, an economy, developing socially, providing advantages that were not

necessarily there before. With that plan, while they had it, people were on board, it

wasn't enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It used to be like ours, though. Their equalization

system was an exact mirror of ours.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, nothing else. That is exactly right.

Mr. Speaker, with that integrated approach that was just described, you

would think that would be enough, but they felt that it was only the beginning. Because

implementation of a plan is where the action really is. You can have the best laid plan in

the world, but implementation is where it's at, and they combined it with that.

The Minister of Mines and Energy is exactly right with respect to

equalization. We have, probably, in the next twelve to eighteen months, the same

opportunity. While the federal and provincial governments fiscal arrangements, or what

they call Canada's social union, is about to be negotiated, they are a little ways away

from designing the framework of what will encompass that discussion with the provinces and

the federal government. While it does present some threats and challenges, it also

presents some opportunity.

To that extent, I can only hope - because I don't know for sure, but I

would assume, and I think it would be a fairly safe and natural assumption to make - that

government is planning now for those discussions, that government is putting forward its

view of what we have contributed as a province to Canada. Because there is a view that is

widely held, but it is wrongly held, that we as a province have taken more from

Confederation than we have given to it, and that is simply not true over time. I am not

going to get into the details of it, because I think that we have long debated that. The

fact of the matter is that we have contributed far more to the country in the last fifty

years than we have received.

It is not unlike any other industrial economy, or an economy that is

based upon an industrial centre, like Canada has been, where trade has been essentially

east-west, not north-south, in terms of between us and America over the last fifty years.

The Canadian economy generally has been based upon the industrial heartland in Ontario,

and we have contributed significantly to it. Most of our resources, in some way, shape or

form, end up there, in terms of our export mentality, if you will. We have exported raw

materials, we have exported raw energy, we have exported raw cod block, we have exported

raw timber, we have exported raw materials. The list goes on.

But we find ourselves today still living, in some ways - we have not

certainly decolonized our minds to the extent that we should have to date, but we find

ourselves living today in an economy that is far different, that is not based upon

west-east or east-west trade practices. It is not based upon north-south trade practices.

It is based upon being in a position in the world as an economy, that we have some

natural, geographic and other advantages, and that we are competing globally. And unless

we start taking advantage of it, and taking more advantage of it, and changing how we look

at certain things, and making the necessary adjustments and investments that we need to

make today that will provide some significant outcome in a positive manner ten and fifteen

years from now, then ten or fifteen years from now some other Premier, some other Leader

of the Opposition, some other member of the Opposition, some other minister, will be

standing up and asking and defending, in a very confrontational, adversarial sort of way,

the exact same questions that I have asked today, or that other members have asked today,

and I would not label that as progress necessarily, not at all.

I think if we are going to adopt an approach that is consultative, that

is based less upon being adversaries but based upon being people in a Province - there are

only 500,000 of us. You could take all of us and one day deposit the works of us in this

Province in Etobicoke and Toronto and they would not know we are there. They would not

know that 500,000 people, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, were there until Friday night

came or any other night came.

AN HON. MEMBER: If 500,000 Newfoundlanders showed up, they would

know.

MR. E. BYRNE: What I am talking about is in terms of population. We

are blessed with some significant advantages, but we have to rethink how we are doing

things, simply put, and they would know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) thinking.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I mean, certainly if four or five got together

in this Legislature and ended up in Toronto for one night they would know they were there,

but we cannot get into that.

Mr. Speaker, that is the Republic of Ireland's story. What has been

ours? When it comes to social partnership, we have established and talked about how they

have re-engineered and redesigned what social partnership meant, and it was based upon a

process of consensus and consensus building. Ours today is still based upon very much an

adversarial model. Their strategic plan, as we have talked about, is a living document:

monitored, implemented, changed, developed where it sees fit. Nonetheless, it is a plan

that is alive and is working through what is happening.

Where is our strategic plan? My assertion is that it is a dead document

today, that this government has moved swiftly away from the strategic plan. The concept of

a strategic economic plan and a strategic social plan are goals and objectives that we

should be working towards on a daily basis; and once having an approach outlined that

people can buy into, that is based upon consent, that we are moving forward, that is where

we should be with it.

Their politics, more so now than it was fourteen years ago, is more

consultative. There is more work going on by members in the House, irrespective of what

side of the government they sit, with industry. These are the people who are out pursuing

investment, members of the House or members of their Parliament or House of

Representatives. Where is ours?

We have seen some movement in that with respect to an All Party

Committee on fisheries. We have adopted an approach that left partisan politics at the

door, where it should be on specific issues. Maybe there is a lesson in that. I believe

that the electorate are more open today to legislative reform than they have ever been

before, and I think it is a topic that we, as elected representatives in this House,

should pursue; or, it is an idea worthy of pursuit. Where it ends up, who knows? But I

think it is an idea worthy of pursuit and I believe the people of the Province ultimately

will benefit from it.

Public Sector: Now, while our public sector has moved greatly in terms

of entrepreneurial sorts of thinking, we need to move even further, I would say, Mr.

Speaker. Their sector focus on a new economy has been successful, but it has been

successful for a number of reasons. Have we been? Are we being successful today in terms

of taking advantage of situations that present themselves, or our focus on resource

management to the extent that we should?

Let's talk about water export. This is a legitimate, fundamental

concern. The opportunities that lie in this Province for the export of crystal clear,

second-to-none water in this Province are immense. In the next twenty-five to thirty

years, water in this world will become an ever increasing valuable commodity. Some people,

in some of the information that I have read, have predicted that thirty years from now

water will be as much a commodity as a valuable - because of the exploding world's

population, or a continuous erosion of the world's water systems to the extent where they

have been polluted and beyond repair to some extent, it will become a commodity as

valuable as oil. Some economists and some people who are forward-looking have said that.

It is an advantage that we have. Are we actively pursuing outside investment? Maybe the

Minister of Mines and Energy who is a former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology,

can answer me. Have we actively pursued outside investment to the extent that we should

have? Honestly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, just generally speaking. I just concluded

water. How do we get around it? Are we our own worst enemies in some ways?

I heard a story recently by where a former Premier was somewhere in

Ontario, some time back, dealing with a major bank for a call centre. We satisfied all of

the conditions put forward, and then some, but what it came down to was their image of us.

Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what I understand, that it was the best. That

is what I heard, that when push came to shove, when all things were equal, we were - I

heard it was in the top three but we were the best, the minister says. Well being in the

top three is - well we were the best; that is even better.

MR. FUREY: They acknowledged that.

MR. E. BYRNE: They acknowledged that. This was at a call centre, at

a bank with a major call centre, and what it came down to was their image -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and that it came down as number one. It came

down that their image of us: accent, our belief in ourselves -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly, yes. If we could only tell that to Marine

Atlantic. People who have the reservation systems in Port aux Basques are not allowed to

accept calls outside the island.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, go ahead. I am interested because last week I

heard this and this really struck me.

MR. FUREY: That was their only complaint (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and as a result we did not get it. Where did it

go?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nova Scotia.

MR. E. BYRNE: Nova Scotia.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Are they? So there may be another opportunity.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I notice, even on the legislative agenda, you

talk about that, in terms of attitude, a bill respecting credit unions and a bill

respecting the regulatory regime associated with it. Look, if there is anything we should

rethink about banking in the Province maybe that is it, in terms of providing more

incentive. Government's major bank, for example, the CIBC, when you think about what has

been done over the past five years with banks, it has less to do with service and more to

do with profit. In a time where barriers should be tumbling we pay, individually, as

people who use the service. We pay more in service charges than we have ever paid before.

CIBC, I think it was in 1995 or 1996, just on customers of CIBC using Interac, made $355

million.

AN HON. MEMBER: And laid off 20,000 people.

MR. E. BYRNE: I was just going to say