May 5, 1998 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 19

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by

Ministers

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

Services.

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

Mr. Speaker, last November I made a statement in this House about the

Krever Report. In particular, I expressed the sorrow and regret of this government to

Canadians who sustained injury due to the contamination of the blood supply.

Mr. Speaker, that position has not changed today. I said previously

that to proceed with a compensation package or assistance plan would require considerable

financial resources and that it would be beyond the fiscal capacity of this Province to

act alone on such a recommendation. I said that since we have a national blood system, it

is imperative that the issue be reviewed collectively. I sought an early meeting with my

counterparts at the earliest convenience. General agreement was reached by Health

Ministers representing all political parties regarding financial assistance to people who

contracted Hepatitis C from blood between 1986 and 1990. This agreement was subsequently

announced in late March.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and without prior notice of changes to our

agreement, I was asked to respond to comments by Premier Harris of Ontario. The

announcement by the Government of Ontario, that it is prepared to share financial

assistance to people who contracted Hepatitis C from blood prior to 1986, will result in a

review of the current federal/provincial/territorial agreement which is still in place.

I spoke with the federal Health Minister just moments ago, the hon.

Allan Rock, and asked that a meeting of the federal/provincial/territorial Health

Ministers be convened at the earliest possible date to discuss this issue. I also spoke

late last night with the Chair of the provincial/territorial ministers' group, the hon.

Clay Serby of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, it is my view that ministers need to discuss this matter

as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the current agreement for the 1986 to 1990 period is still

in place from my perspective and also from the perspective of my federal colleague. I

understand from Mr. Rock that he will be speaking on this issue later today.

As Ministers of Health, we concluded this agreement around the

federal/provincial/territorial negotiating table. It has been and continues to be my view

that this approach is the appropriate one for discussing any possible changes or concerns

in terms of this very important issue, which would involve all the provinces and

territories and the federal government at that table.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that this is a national issue, that we have a

national blood program, and that the ministers and governments have a responsibility to

take a national perspective on some issues in the interest of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Health critic for not passing this out

prior to entering the House, but I just concluded my conversation with Minister Rock.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly rise to respond, and I am pleased to know that there are

going to be further discussions going on. As the minister very well remembers, I spoke in

the House last fall on this particular issue when the minister at the time failed to

apologize for the actions of the Province who was responsible for the Canadian Blood

Agency at the time.

There is a price to pay, I say to the minister, when a Province that is

part of that process shirks its responsibilities. There is no particular price you can pay

to these people - I spoke with one on the phone five minutes ago before I came to this

House - for the price they will have to pay because there was not proper screening of

blood even in the 1986 to 1990 period, not to say anything prior to that period. That is a

big price to pay. There is no price, I say to the minister, that can restore their systems

back to normal again, to be able to live a normal life. A certain percentage of the people

are going to die in the next number of years from that; an estimated, I think, roughly 20

percent of the people.

I say to the minister that hopefully with what Mike Harris has done,

and the resolution in Quebec and from British Columbia and from other people who are

starting to realize now that they did not act with the compassion and concern for people

who lives were affected, now they are going to correct the problem. I certainly hope they

do that.

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

Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The position of this Province, of course, has been to say: A contract

is a contract, a phrase that we dislike in another context.

It is pretty obvious that the widespread compassion across this country

for all of the people affected by Hepatitis C infection has maintained, despite the vote

in the House of Commons last week. I would ask this minister to join with the other Health

Ministers and not - what they tried to do before - hide behind the federal government's

stand on the issue. Join in trying to reach a solution that sees compensation or

compassion towards all Hepatitis C victims as soon as possible.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community

Services. In light of my questions in the House yesterday, and subsequent statements in

the public by people affected, will the minister now acknowledge that people who did not

traditionally pay for blood tests in their home are now being asked to pay?

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

Services.

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

I would like, at this time, to thank The Evening Telegram for

providing me with the name of the person to which the Health critic referred yesterday.

As we speak, Mr. Speaker, I have asked my officials to look into the

issues that have been raised; and I will say again that in a publicly funded system we do

provide for the blood collection services. If a person is able to go to a hospital, by all

means, certainly, we encourage them to go to a hospital or clinic. If they so choose - and

in the St. John's area and, I understand, in the member's own district - there is an

option to have people come to their own home to have blood withdrawn. But I do say, Mr.

Speaker, that we are looking into that. We appreciate the name so we were able to follow

through on it, and we will be following through on any other cases that are brought to our

attention.

I will say again: In a system that costs $1.1 billion, I openly admit

that I do not know each case, each tens of thousands of cases that enter and impact on our

system every day, but I am only too happy to follow up on any individual request that I

get, in any way possible.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I provided that name to The Evening Telegram and the other

media, and if the minister wants particular names I will provide them to her.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact, the minister asked in the House yesterday. I

spoke with the senior people in her department yesterday and they never even raised the

issue with me, from the ADM level, I say to the minister. If she wants other names - I

will give her receipts. If she wants receipts, I will give her receipts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now on a supplementary. He is debating the

minister's answer. I ask him to get to his supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Does she think it is fair that a

ninety-one year old lady, who does not leave her house at all, has to pay for blood to be

taken in her home? Does she think that is fair?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak about an

individual case, and he knows better than to even pose the question. What I will say, Mr.

Speaker, is that I am not going to say that any ninety-one year old person - I called a

person the other day to wish him `Happy 95th Birthday' and he was out clearing the snow

off his car and getting ready to do his groceries. So, I am not going to generalize and

say that because you are ninety you are not able to get out and do anything. I will not do

that. What I will say is that if somebody is non-ambulatory - that is, if they are not

able to get out of their own home because they are disabled or some other reason - and

they require the blood that has been ordered for them, they can access that through our

publicly funded system.

I will not deny that in this city, and in other areas, a lot of people

who were in the blood collection system, in the public system, have now offered private

services in the private system; and there are many non-insured services within our health

care system. We have a publicly funded system but we also have non-insured services. Any

person in this room or outside can choose to avail of services of a private nature even

though they are oftentimes offered in a public system, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the minister has been briefed since yesterday because she

would not even admit that yesterday. I say to the minister, you would not even admit it

yesterday.

Now, I ask the minister, and in light - yes, I have several names of

people, I say to the minister, who are not capable of getting out of their homes, numerous

people, and an extra in addition to the six I had yesterday, there are several others

since who have called, I say to the minister.

Will the minister not admit, since people who did not normally have to

pay now have to pay, that this is in reality the beginning of a privatization of certain

health care services and a user-pay concept?

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

Services.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am the first one to admit that I

would love to have a lot more money to put back into our publicly-funded system to broaden

the services.

For example, Mr. Speaker, for the information that is required I think

it is important to note that the home support services that we provide in this Province,

for the most

part comes out of provincial funds, Mr. Speaker, and we would love to have

more federal funds to put in to broaden that. I will also continue to say, Mr. Speaker,

that people still today, whether they want to or not, can avail of private services

whether it is foot care, Mr. Speaker, or whether it is for the collection of blood.

However, if the physician orders that blood be collected and if they are unable to get out

of their own home to get it and it is ordered and required -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J. M. AYLWARD: - they can access that from the publicly-funded

system, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a service of the Department of Justice that

provides assistance and, in some cases, counselling to the victims of crime. For example,

these services include guidance in dealing with our court system, preparation for

witnesses and the like.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, it has been traditionally the

position of Victim Services -

MS J. M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, it has traditionally been the

position of Victim Services that due to the lack of resources, they are unable to provide

services to children and this service should be provided by the staff of Children's

Protection Services. In fact, victim services are provided by child protection social

workers, Mr. Speaker, by default, although this is not a part of Children's Protection

Services mandate. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, such services are ad hoc and are not provided

to any standard, and furthermore, the addition of victim services to an already

overburdened program further reduces the capacity of child protection.

In short, children are not able to avail of victim services in the same

manner as adults. My question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, is: Why are not

victim services available on a consistent organized basis to the most vulnerable segment

of our society, namely, our children?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is a

Victim Services division in the Department of Justice. That division does provide victim

services to the vast majority of men and women who need services when they come into

contact with the court system.

The hon. member talks about children. The vast majority of children who

need victim services are provided these services through the Department of Justice. This

is especially true whenever there is a relative involved as a perpetrator with a young

person. The vast majority of cases where young people require victim services, there is a

relative involved.

Some time ago I did an interview which the hon. member is probably

referring to. I think it was played just after Easter. My colleague, the Minister of

Health and Community Services and I recognize that there is a possible gap in victim

services to children in cases where the perpetrator is not a relative. We are very much

aware of that gap. In most cases, social workers do indeed provide the service, even

though the Act states that they can only do it when it is a relative. We are aware that

there is a potential gap there, and the minister and I are both dealing with it.

There is a lobby of sorts which is suggesting that we should put in

place a parallel system to the Victim Services program, whereby you would have another set

of social workers throughout the Province, which would probably take forty-five or fifty

additional social workers. We do not think it will be necessary to do that at this time.

We believe that in the vast majority of the regions of the Province we

can work something out with the social worker, or with the Victim Services social worker.

It is an area that is not as drastic as the hon. member would have you believe, but we

have detected that there is a possibility there is a gap there. My colleague, the Minister

of Health and Community Services and I have been aware of it now for some time, and we

have our officials looking at it.

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

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. minister, there should be no gap, because it is

mandated by your department, Mr. Minister, to deal with victim services regardless if the

victim is a child or an adult. There ought to be no gap.

I ask the minister: Is he not concerned that there will now perhaps be

an overlap between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Community

Services? Where is the standardization, where are the guidelines to ensure that our young

children are protected as they go through a very difficult court process?

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

MR. DECKER: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, leave him alone now and he will

turn over every rock and try to find problems where they do not even exist -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: - notwithstanding that it will make some extra work for

his own profession, I suppose, Mr. Speaker - that seems to be pretty important. The

reality is that the problem is not nearly as great as the hon. member is suggesting. In

the vast number of cases, victim services are provided by the Department of Health and

Community Services, where children are involved and where the perpetrator is a relative.

There are a few cases, Mr. Speaker, now remember, where the social workers, in areas of

the Province where they are not overworked, quite happily get involved with children who

are abused, or are before the courts, for whatever reason. They quite happily get

involved.

There are a few examples where the social worker is too overworked with

other demands on his or her time, and they do not have the time to deal with it. That

small gap, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say we are dealing with it. There have been other

gaps in the system which the government picked up and attempted to deal with, Mr. Speaker.

The way social services deals with the sixteen to eighteen-year-old is

in the area that we are addressing. And, whenever we perceive or see that there is a need,

we attempt to address it, and this matter is being addressed. If the hon. member had been

the first one to bring it to my attention, I would thank him for doing it. But,

unfortunately he is many months too late. It was brought to the attention of myself and my

colleague and we are certainly trying to address it.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a serious problem, I say to the hon. minister. In fact, media

reports last week referred to a book written by an RCMP Corporal, with respect to the

children and the experiences that they had in going through the court process. It is a

serious problem, and I say to the minister, there ought to be no gap whatsoever, there

should be no child whatsoever left unnoticed as they go through this very difficult

adversarial process.

So, I ask the minister: Why does he not follow the mandate of his own

department, the Department of Justice, and ensure that victim services are provided for

each - not most, but for each and every child of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: It is obvious the hon. member feels that he has got to

go with that second supplementary, no matter what the answer is. The answer has been

addressed, Mr. Speaker. I advised the hon. member that has soon as we recognized there was

a possible gap there, my colleague and I attempted to address it.

Now we are saying the same thing, the only thing is that the hon.

member had to go and have a third question. I suppose they only have so many questions

prepared and he felt that he had to come up with that third question even though I had

addressed it. Sure, in an ideal world everything would be covered. There would be no gaps.

Nothing would be left out. No stone would be left unturned. As soon as this matter, Mr.

Speaker, came to the attention of myself and my colleague, we asked our officials to get

working on it and to address the issue. It is not as serious as the hon. member would have

you believe. It is just that he had to get his third question away.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: My questions today, Mr. Speaker, are for the

Minister of Human Resources and Employment. They have to do with the SWASP, the Student

Works And Services Program. Since this program has been of benefit to both post-secondary

students and to the Community Services Council as well, and it has given good on-the-job

experience for the students, as well as a $1,400 tuition voucher and $50 a week, and it

has given help to the volunteer and non-profit organizations, I am wondering why the

government has seen fit to cut this program in half. There were a 1,000 jobs last year and

there are only 500 this year. When something works so well, why would the government agree

to have it cut in half?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, there are two elements to the funding for

the SWASP program. There is the funding that is provided by the provincial government

toward SWASP and funding that is provided through the federal government toward SWASP. The

provincial program provides funding under the paid initiative, which is an arrangement

that is used with the private sector where the Province cost-shares the cost of the

program with private employers. The SWASP program funded by the federal government is the

community service SWASP. This is the element of the SWASP programming which was reduced

this year. It is 100 per cent federal government programming. The Province has maintained

its funding of $2.1 million for SWASP in the area that it has jurisdiction over.

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

West.

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

Programs like SWASP are desperately needed. When the federal government

decided to cut its portion did the provincial government make representation to them on

behalf of the students here and tell them how good this program was and fight for them to

keep their funding in place?

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, it was really

through the efforts of the Province last year that the amount of funding in SWASP for the

community service component was increased from $1 million to $2 million and that was by

direct representation from the Province to the federal government. I would have to say,

however, that over the course of the summer and into the fall, there was a certain amount

of protest against the SWASP program itself. Some of that protest was actually coming from

members of the Opposition who were objecting to the fact that we were engaged in a program

which was providing community service for which students received a tuition voucher. I

would assume, despite the fact that there has been very positive evaluations on the SWASP

program from both the participants who were involved, the students and private sector

employers as well as families and parents of students, that perhaps the federal government

decided to reallocate its funding. I would have to say, however, that the federal

government is maintaining the total amount of funding that it is putting towards student

employment this summer. It has simply not chosen to maintain the same amount in the

community service component as they had previously.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. The

Globe and Mail yesterday reported the proposed specifics of a successor program to

TAGS. The

article indicates that approximately one-quarter of the TAGS group, mostly

deck-hands and plant workers do not fit the criteria for early retirement or license

buy-back and have little to benefit from training programs and the like. I would like to

ask the minister: What proposals has his department made to ensure that adequate

adjustment is included in a new TAGS program for these Newfoundland and Labrador fishing

industry workers?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the hon. member is perfectly

sure that anything reported in The Globe and Mail is for the benefit of

Newfoundland and Labrador. If he has not read the latest one, he should read Jeffrey

Simpson in the editorial this morning. You have it there, have you? Good. You should read

it.

The truth of the matter is that this government has maintained that the

federal government has a responsibility to all of the people involved in this industry

that was affected in any way, shape or form by the disaster that has occurred off this

coast of ours, around this Province of ours, and that position has in no way changed. So

it would cover deck-hands and everybody else, obviously.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, it seems that the 2,000-plus Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

who will see their last TAGS cheque go in the mail tomorrow, Wednesday, may end up being

abandoned by Ottawa. I ask the minister what assurances he can give to those fishermen and

plant workers, and to their families, that a new post-TAGS program will also include them.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the same assurances that I gave yesterday.

We are using every avenue possible to ensure that those people are taken care of and that

their needs as we recognize them, everybody in this House, are addressed by the federal

government.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, according to the

article that appeared in

yesterday's Globe and Mail , there seems to be a distinct possibility that income

support to TAGS recipients will be reduced to social assistance levels. I ask the minister

if he or his government find it acceptable to have up to 20,000 Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians placed in such a financial position through no fault of their own.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should listen to the

news. Yesterday evening, I said no, that was not an acceptable position for the federal

government to put forward, and we still maintain that position.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I brought up the question of water export in the House on

a number of occasions. We have always said that if we are going to export water from our

Province it should be as a finished product and not as a raw resource. It now seems the

Liberal government in Ottawa are fighting the same problem.

I will just say as a

preamble that "once a precedent is set, it

could have a cumulative effect, and then you would simply open the door for others to do

the same. After a while, you're going to be having a substantial dilution of your resource

without any way of managing it, and any way of assuring it doesn't take place." That

is a direct quote from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, from today's Globe

and Mail .

I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, does she not have

the same concerns for our provincial resources as her cousins in Ottawa do for our

national resources? When are we going to stop the exportation of water as a raw resource?

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

Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any water being exported

from this Province in bulk at this point in time. If the member is referring to that,

maybe he can fill me in on it. I will tell you that we have had some representation,

certainly, by businessmen in the Province who are considering a number of initiatives.

Whether or not that would involve exporting water in bulk, whether it would involve

value-added secondary processing, those are all factors that are being considered; but

there is nothing happening, to the best of my knowledge, in that realm at this point in

time.

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

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, no, there is none at this time, but

there are proposals on the table for acceptance. According to the North American Free

Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, the act of granting a permit to remove

water will turn water into a tradeable commodity and make it vulnerable to these

agreements.

I ask the minister: Will she prevent the export of water as a raw

resource and instead do what British Columbia have done? What they have done is not allow

water to go out as a raw resource but only as a finished product. By doing that, we give

the secondary jobs and the assets from revenues to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

as opposed to people outside.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me say that at this point in time it is

not happening; that is not to say that it will not happen. We will obviously look at each

individual case on a business case. If there is benefit to be made from exporting water,

and there are jobs that go with that, then we will look at that as well; but I am not

going to stand here and preclude that from happening without having an opportunity to look

at the business of the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa they are concerned about

taking 600 million litres of water a year over five years, and that has raised some

serious concerns. Here in our Province we are looking at exporting, according to the

proposals on the table, 15.6 billion litres of water a year, far more than the concern in

Ottawa.

I ask the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask the minister: Is she prepared to put at risk

water resources for future generations? According to NAFTA, once the tap is on you cannot

turn it off.

Will the minister put in place legislation to insure that any water

resources to be exported from our Province will be as a finished product, giving the jobs

and revenues to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat what I said in my previous

answer: that when there is a case before me that we have to consider, we will certainly

talk to my Cabinet colleagues about how we want to proceed with this; but at this point in

time there is no water being exported in bulk from this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member opposite, we will

look at each case on an individual basis. If there is a business case to be made for a

combination of exporting bulk water and value-added, we will look at that. But, Mr.

Speaker, it is not happening at this point in time; and for the member opposite to ask me

whether or not we will come out with a policy at this point in time is asking for the

impossible.

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

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

Minister of Education.

Since funding for educational purposes is supposed to be granted on a

non-discriminatory basis, the Avalon East School Board decided to take the Department of

Education and the government to court to have Special Education teachers assigned to that

school board on the same ratio as those assigned to other school boards in the Province,

and this has been a long-time and contentious problem for the Avalon East area.

I ask the minister: Why has it been necessary, and why has he caused

the parents to have to take this kind of action for fairness and equality for their

children who go to the schools administered by the Avalon East School Board?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure how much liberty I have to address any particulars with

respect to this issue because there has been a document filed in the courts. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, there has been a court date set for some time in the fall, in October as I

understand, to deal with the issue.

However, with respect to maybe a little bit of information which might

be useful and instructive for all of us as to the history of this particular issue: For

years it has been understood that while teacher allocations for all purposes - regular

classroom instruction, library services, guidance services, Special Needs, Special

Education and so on - are done by way of formula, it has always been understood and taken

for granted in education circles that in the few larger centres that we have - like St.

John's and maybe like some centres in Central Newfoundland, Corner Brook and the West

Coast and so on - there are certainly some efficiencies or economies of scale that can be

effected in delivering educational opportunities to students that are not available and

not possible in more rural isolated circumstances.

Even though we use fundamentally a group of formulas to determine the

allocation of teachers, the suggestion has always been, and the circumstances have always

been, that with respect to Special Education teachers in particular, the larger boards -

there have always been three different formulas in place in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is not an issue that was put in place to deal with one particular school board, Mr.

Speaker. There have always been three different formulas for a long period of time with

respect to the allocation of Special Education teachers.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, because boards have merged, we find

that the application is only different in one of the ten boards, which happens to be the

largest board in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Some parents, obviously supported by members of the board, find this to

be difficult to understand or accept at this point and they have launched a court action

based upon it.

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

Valley.

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

I admit to the minister that the ratios have changed a little bit.

There have been some changes in recent weeks, from a ratio of 5.5 Special Education

teachers per 1,000 students in the total population of the school system to 6.05 Special

Education teachers per 1,000. However, if the same ratio used in the rest of the Province

was applied to the Avalon East School Board, that school would receive fifty more Special

Education teachers than they have now been allocated. They have been allocated a total of

eighteen, five of which have to be used in the Janeway.

I say to the minister: Why will you not do the right thing and not wait

for this October 13 court case but move now to treat the children in the Avalon East

system the same as you treat the children everywhere else in the Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr.Speaker.

Again a little hesitant, as you can sense, I guess, and as the member

can sense, in addressing the issue more directly, his last question suggests: Why would we

not treat the students the same as they are treated in the rest of the Province? In fact,

if you asked and put the same circumstance in most other areas of the Province, they would

answer you quite directly that they believe, and parents believe, and teachers believe,

and students believe, that students in the school system in and around St. John's have

always been treated by virtue of circumstances. They can take advantage of efficiencies in

the economy of scale better than any other students in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that

it is not a matter of one part of a very complicated teacher allocation formula being

discriminatory or anything else; it is a matter that the whole system has always

historically, repeatedly, worked to the advantages of students in places like St. John's.

What we are faced with, Mr. Speaker, is a parent, on behalf of his or

her child, and the school board - quite understandably, when you look at an individual

circumstance - deciding to take a court action; not forced by anybody to do so, but

deciding themselves to take an action based on one of several different components that

lead to the overall educational opportunity for that student in the school they attend.

Mr. Speaker, the issue will resolve itself through the normal course,

because at this point in time the government is more than convinced that we treat

teachers, students and parents in Avalon East, in District 10, as fair as if not better

than anywhere else in the Province.

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

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr.Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following

resolution;

WHEREAS the natural resources of Newfoundland and Labrador, both

non-renewable and renewable, rightly belong to the people of this Province and;

WHEREAS future resource development in our Province must in every case

possible, and to the extent possible, ensure that our people are the major beneficiaries

in terms of jobs, secondary processing where it is economically feasible to do so, and any

other economic benefit that can be properly achieved through effective public policy;

THEREFORE

be it resolved that this hon. House affirm this resource

development policy on behalf of all of our people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, today I have a petition from people

from all over the Island on the claw-back of the National Child Tax Benefit. The petition

is worded as follows:

WHEREAS income support payments to recipients of the Child Tax Benefit

increase will be reduced in proportion to said increase;

WHEREAS the 7 per cent increase will apply only to regular bi- weekly

income support and not to special benefits such as mother/baby allowance, special dietary

allowance, single parent allowance and rent deduction;

WHEREAS income support recipients struggle to subsist on incomes which

place them intolerably well below the poverty line;

WHEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that no reduction in income support payments

be effected in relation to the increase in the Child Tax Benefit, and that the 7 per cent

increase be applied to rent and special benefits.

As I said when I stood in the House earlier in this session to speak

against the claw-back in the National Child Tax Benefit, and as the lady who was

instrumental in getting this petition initiated says, there are many children out there,

many families, who will not get a chance to take advantage of the programs that are going

to be, or are supposed to be, initiated by the money that is clawed back, the poorest of

our children.

This lady says, and I quote, `There are no losers with the new program.

Social assistance families will not experience any reduction in total combined income.'

This lady says, and I quote, `I can prove you wrong in many areas. How are we not losing

money when the money that we are being given is being taken back? The money is not for the

adults but for our children.'

There are many people who have children who will not be able to take

advantage of the family resource centres, because these family resource centres will not

be set up in all communities. There are many children out there in families and they do

not need the day care programs. There are many children who are entitled to the child

benefit who are not in an age group to be able to take advantage of many of these

programs.

This person has said that it is not only social service recipients who

have signed this petition, but people from all over the Province who are working class,

middle class and business people. As a matter of fact, she added that a lot of social

service recipients were afraid to sign - and these are her words, not mine - because their

cheques may be taken from them.

Whether that is true or not, it is perception; and to the people who

are on social assistance, perception is reality. When people are living with their money

being clawed back, unable to take advantage of the programs for which their money is being

clawed back, and they are afraid to speak out against it because they are afraid their

cheques might be taken from them, then we are living in pretty sad times.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague for St.

John's West. The prayer of the petition is very simple. We want to make sure that the

Child Tax Credit benefits the very people that it set out to benefit.

We, on this side of the House, do not have any difficulty with finding

funds to encourage those people who are unemployed or those people out there who need a

bit of incentive to be able to go and find a job. We don't disagree with the idea that we

should be letting people who need to keep their drug cards keep them, if they are on help

from the department by way of benefits. We don't disagree with these kinds of incentives.

However, where we do disagree is where we find that the present policy that is being

developed nationally and being endorsed by this government discriminates against those

people who, for whatever reason, are on long-term assistance and whose children already

find it very difficult to cope in any case.

What we are going to do is marginalize, discriminate, we are going to

make a situation even worse. We are going to take the children who are very poor in this

Province and say to them: There is nothing in this package for you.

Mr. Speaker, what that does, certainly, is take from the very poor to

give to those who are not quite as poor. Now, that is not acceptable. We should be finding

money, from those who have, to be able to help those who have not. That is the whole idea,

the concept behind equalization and the transferring of money from the richer provinces to

the poorer provinces. It does not help very much, if you have a woman down in Wesleyville,

who first of all has great difficulty getting a job, maybe a single mom. How is she going

to benefit from the child tax credit? To hear the minister say that nobody will get less

money that they do now, that is a cop-out answer. That is simply not addressing the issue.

Because the whole idea is to make life a little better.

made a commitment that by next year there would be no hungry children. Child poverty would

be eliminated in this country. Let me tell you that in 1998, there are five hundred

thousand more children in poverty in this country today, than there were nine years ago.

Nine years ago the federal government said: We are going to eliminate

child poverty by 1999. In 1998 there are five hundred thousand more children in poverty,

than there were nine years ago. That is a shame for all of Canada. And, to hear this

government say that they are going to condone a practice which will take money from the

very poor, to help out those who are not quite so poor, and to tie it into some kind of a

job creation program - it is difficult to find a job if you are a single mom in a rural

community, and you have two or three children. Where is the job going to come from?

We say to the minister, go back to your federal buddies up there. Do

not fall into the kind of trap the Federal Minister of Health fell into, saying yes to the

issues that were raised by General Rock up there, the Minister of Health. Say that you are

going to stand up for the poor of this Province and that you are going to do it now and

look at what is happening to the poor people of Newfoundland of Labrador. Because for us

to fail to do so, we are abrogating our responsibility to the very poorest of children in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the National Child Benefit Program is a

program that was designed by the federal government in co-operation with the provinces. It

is intended to prevent and reduce child poverty and certainly to support parents in their

employment efforts. It is intended to address some of the systemic barriers that exist,

that trap people in a cycle of dependency. It is understood by both the provinces and the

federal government that it is not the only answer to poverty across this country. But, it

is a targeted measure to try to eliminate the systemic barriers that exist to people

getting out of the system.

Mr. Speaker, the National Child Benefit Program provides an increase in

benefit to low-income families for children. In this Province, the increase amounts, on an

annual basis, to $10.15 million. That amount of money will be used in a strategic way to

provide much needed early intervention and prevention programs and services for children.

As members opposite know, many advocates for decades have been looking

for and seeking early childhood programs for children in this Province. It is through the

availability of funds in the National Child Benefit that we are able to put in place a

system of early childhood programs, of family resource centres, of youth networks and,

yes, very strategic employment programs to assist families who are receiving social

assistance, as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, in responding to this petition -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The hon. Minister.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In responding to this petition, I would say that this National Child

Benefit Program is structured in such a way, that no social assistance family will

actually receive less income. The only portion of the income that is not allowable is the

increase that will be implemented in July. By using those funds to establish a

reinvestment strategy, we are able to provide much needed child and family supports and

services throughout this Province. Those programs and services we will be able to increase

when the federal government increases its National Child Benefit in subsequent years and

the long-term benefit to all of those in the Province is considerable. The advocates

recognize this. I think that many families who are living with low incomes recognize this

and are supportive of it.

We do recognize, of course, that people who are receiving social

assistance and families who are living with social assistance would like to have more

income to work with. With this in mind, the provincial government, in the Budget this

year, did increase the basic rates for social assistance by the 2 per cent. Mr. Speaker,

we know that this is not enough but we do know that it is a start, and what is much more

important is also to make a start on those long-term, early intervention strategies for

children and families that will help break the cycle of poverty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise today to present a petition on behalf of

constituents in my district. I will read the prayer of the petition: To the hon. House of

Assembly, Newfoundland, in legislative session convened. The petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the construction of the Goulds bypass road has been identified

as a priority under the Canada-Newfoundland transportation initiative.

I say to the minister, every day there are petitions there when I go

upstairs and if the minister wants to go up and check my mail now I will give him

permission to see if there is more there.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I say to the minister, he appeared up in that

office before when I was sitting there. In 1992 I got elected in a by-election. I was

there in office and prior to the election of 1993, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation walked into the office with his Mulroney 500 Club card in his back pocket,

in his wallet. Yes, I saw it! He showed me his card! He walked in there to run as a

candidate for the PC Party in St. John's North and lo and behold, you know what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Opposition House Leader, who was the former

Leader of the Opposition - it is difficult to get his name straight; yesterday he was back

as Leader of the Opposition. But he spouts a gross exaggeration. As a matter of fact, it

is an entire `infactualization' because, as far as I know, that club never had membership

cards.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can tell you, I would never know,

because I never paid $500 bucks to have dinner with Brian Mulroney - never did, but there

are people on that side of the House who have.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: This is a great exhibition, Mr. Speaker, of a person

on his feet who knows very little of what he is talking about. For the record, the

membership fee in that club is $1,000 and I do not want to be short-changed.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They should call it the Mulroney 1,000 Club if it is $1,000. Why do

they call it the 500 Club? Once again I will admit, the minister should be an authority on

that subject because he knows -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is now speaking to a petition and he

should keep his statements relative to that petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The contribution to that club allowed the Prime Minister to stay in

power so we could have a Canada-Newfoundland transportation initiative that is going to

put those roads here in the Province. It came during Mulroney's term, I say!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is highly relevant there! I was trying to

establish the basis by which we got this $800 million. It was from Brian Mulroney as Prime

Minister of the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say, Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very relevant. All we

want to see is the last step of that initiative, not the step that required the minister

to put money in the pockets of the PC Party so we can keep the Prime Minister in power,

but the last step so the Prime Minister could use -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind the hon. member that he is on a petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So we can use the last step of that program. So that money, that was

allocated federally, can filter down to a much needed cause, the Goulds bypass road. The

minister knows quite well the traffic volumes on that road are very high. The safety of

people in the Goulds area, I must say, is a big factor. Many people have been killed on

that highway in the Goulds, I say to the minister, over the past number of years.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Government House Leader, when the

minister stands and announces we are going to see a start now, even a few measly several

hundred thousand dollars, I promise not to present another petition. I will do that, I say

to the minister. As long as the people there have a cause and they want to keep sending

petitions until work commences on that, I will do my utmost to present petitions of people

on behalf of the district.

There are fifty-seven people on this particular petition that was

circulated within the town of Ferryland. There are a few people outside Ferryland who I

guess visit the area. I see one who teaches there who lives in St. John's, but the rest

are all residents of the District of Ferryland - mostly Ferryland. No, I see one here from

Mount Pearl, a teacher also, I might add, up in the district. Fifty-five of these live in

the district, two others commute back and forth every day over the highway, and they can

bear testament to what type of highway they have to drive over. There are concerns, I

might add -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker? The minister took up some of

my precious time.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise again to support the petition put forward by my colleague from

the District of Ferryland to say that these petitions are arriving in our offices upstairs

on a daily basis.

The residents in this particular part of the Province are hoping that

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is listening. However, we have some

doubts about whether the minister really is listening. We are hoping that when we finish

this petition today he will do what he is committed to do, and that is to rise and tell us

that he is going to announce a strategy to implement the planning phases and get going

with the job of building this road that has been committed now for many years. In fact,

this has been on the Liberal agenda since 1989. It has been talked about election after

election. What the people in Ferryland are trying to say is that they want action.

I mentioned in the House the other day the issues of safety. The member

just mentioned the number of accidents that have occurred on this highway over the years.

One only has to drive in the Goulds roadway to get some idea of the tremendous bottleneck

that is occurring. You can just look at the width of the road, look at the great number of

curves that is in the road, to know that something should be done. Certainly, the

conceptual plans have been done for a long time. I am not sure how much detail has been

done by way of the detailed planning, or indeed, if all the land acquisition has been

taken care of. I do understand most of the land acquisition has been done, that some of

the detailed conceptual plans are now being formulated into ready to tender documents.

We say to the minister, it is time to start acting. Because it is

inappropriate and unfair that the people along the Southern Shore, in the Goulds and

Kilbride area, should have to wait for many more months before some action is going to be

taken by the minister. We are hoping that the minister has been listening to the

petitions. I can say to him in all truthfulness that these petitions arrive in our offices

every day and they are presented on a very timely basis.

It is the prayer of the people that the minister take action, and he

has heard the argument put forward by the Member for Ferryland, that great historic

district. If we are going to promote tourism, if we are going to have people going down to

Bay Bulls to go out on the bird watching tours, and we are going to facilitate economic

development of the harbour down in Bay Bulls and in Witless Bay and in Colinet, and all

down through there - if we are going to do that, going to encourage tourism, we had better

make it possible to drive over pretty decent roads.

Because right now if you were to ask somebody to drive down the

Southern Shore Highway, particularly in the Goulds area, we know that is not an

appropriate road. The people want it to be addressed and have said so over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, what the people want is some beginning this year because

they have been put off and put off every year since this government came into power in

1989. They have heard talks of it but have not seen any action. I am anxiously awaiting

the minister now, in the next few seconds as I sit down and he has a chance to get up, to

announce a strategy to address this issue. I am keenly awaiting his particular answer

because I can see him over there now waiting to get up and give, even in the agenda or the

Orders of the Day, where we are going to be talking about petitions. Maybe this is the

time for him to make a ministerial commitment.

We are hoping that he will listen to the petition, be moved by it, be

filled with compassion, filled with understanding, and in that mood he will now rise in

his place and take advantage of the opportunity to address the issue to the Member for

Ferryland, and we will now, shall we say, finally settle this particular -

The member has said that if he can get a commitment to move ahead this

year, this will stop the petitions. If not, I can assure the minister that, given the

numbers that have been arriving every day, this will be a continuous thing from now until

the end of this particular session.

Thank you very much.

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I have an obligation and a responsibility to respond to some of

these petitions that have been presented by the hon. member and to, I guess, put in

context and let the hon. member know that this is a government that does meet its

obligations and a government that does fulfil its commitments.

When the Roads for Rail Agreement was announced in 1987-1988, there

were a number of projects identified under that Roads for Rail Agreement and the Goulds

bypass was one such piece of road. So was the Conception Bay North bypass, the Conception

Bay South bypass, the Outer Ring Road, the Pasadena, the Corner Brook, the Deer Lake

reconstruction and realignment of that highway, and I want to assure the hon. member that

we are living up to our commitment.

That is why, yesterday afternoon, I issued a press release indicating

that we had, in the last few days, let tenders for $11.5 million worth of roadwork on the

Outer Ring Road. It was a commitment, an obligation that was in that agreement, just like

the Goulds bypass road; and, as I explained to the hon. member on more than one occasion,

we believe it is incumbent upon us as government, to finish off the projects that are in

hand, to finish off the projects that are entrain, so that people like the hon. Member for

Mount Pearl or the hon. Member for Waterford Valley can get to work faster in the morning;

so that the Government House Leader, this very distinguished, honourable, reputable,

capable, intelligent man of immense leadership qualities and capacity, can get to work

earlier as well because he can drive on the Outer Ring Road. I understand now he has to go

through the City of St. John's and the Town of Mount Pearl in order to get back into the

City of St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: City of Mount Pearl.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I am sorry, the City of Mount Pearl. I apologize.

MR. TULK: Will you try and repeat all those adjectives you just

used about me?

MR. MATTHEWS: Lovable, likeable, cuddleable, distinguishable. On

occasion, the hon. member is anguishable; that is, he causes me anguish because I have

difficulty in living up to - I just aspire to the high standard that he sets in terms of

his legislative knowledge and ability to lead the agenda of this government through this

House, such that we get our work done on time, such that we do not have to be here when we

should not be here.

MR. FITZGERALD: Did you say the distinguished member or the

extinguished member?

MR. MATTHEWS: I would say to the hon. Member for Bonavista South

that the `distinguished' Member for Bonavista North will long outlive an `extinguished'

Member for Bonavista South, notwithstanding that the Member for Bonavista South may have a

few years on the Member for Bonavista North. But age is an honourable thing, I say, and he

who is now, I understand, the longest sitting member of this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MATTHEWS: No?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Member for Windsor - Springdale,

followed closely by the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, Terra Nova.

MR. MATTHEWS: Terra Nova. I said the hon. Member for Terra Nova and

the hon. Member for Windsor - Springdale, I understand, have more service time than the

hon. Member for Bonavista North, but the hon. Member for Bonavista North has more service

time than the hon. the Member for Bonavista South will ever accumulate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I draw the hon. member's attention to Standing Order 92 which says:

Every member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the

statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and

the material allegations it contains.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All of what I just said was simply to point out that on this side of

the House we are abundantly blessed with talent, we are abundantly blessed with

leadership, and it is sufficient to say that the agenda of this government is one that is

moving in the right direction for the right reasons.

To the point of the Goulds bypass road, I can assure the hon. member

that it is still a commitment of this government to ensure that the Goulds bypass road is

built. That is why, once we start the Goulds bypass road we will be able to complete it in

a shorter time frame than would otherwise normally occur, by virtue of having a bunch of

projects on the go, none of which are completed.

As I said yesterday, I announced that municipal construction was given

a contract for $5.7 million to pave 8.8 kilometres of road on the Outer Ring Road. Pyramid

Construction was awarded a contract of $2.9 million for paving of 3.5 kilometres.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And Trident Construction was awarded a contract of $3.069 million to do

structures.

Mr. Speaker, once we have completed that major piece of work on the

Outer Ring Road this year we will be able to drive from - as you probably saw the

construction has started already in by Donovan's Industrial Park. You will be able to

drive from that right on to Allandale Road this year, and get off and get to work more

quickly than you could heretofore. Immediately following that bit of work, we will be

carrying on with the other work on the Outer Ring Road, together with the Conception Bay

South and Conception Bay North bypasses.

I can assure the hon. member that while I cannot obviously announce the

projects that will be done next year, or commence next year under the Roads for Rail

Agreement, I can give the hon. member a very liberal - if I were him I would take from

this House a very liberal high level of confidence that the project is at the top, or near

the top, of our list of priorities, and we will be moving forward at the earliest possible

moment to get that piece of work done so that the people on the Southern Shore, the good

people on the Southern Shore I might add, who are represented by the hon. member -

AN HON. MEMBER: And the people in the Goulds.

MR. MATTHEWS: - and the people in the Goulds, and the people in

Mount Pearl, and the people from all over the Province who want to go to the Southern

Shore, will have better access by virtue of that transportation link that will be put in

place. It is coming; I want to assure him of that.

The only thing I would caution the hon. member is that he not talk

himself out of a very good construction project, because day after day after day after day

he is up presenting petitions and I question the construct of those petitions. I am

wondering if he is not hauling leaves off one petition and making many petitions out of

them.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wouldn't do that.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not suggesting he is doing that. I am not

suggesting that, Mr. Speaker. I am just raising it as a possibility, and I would ask the

hon. member to understand that -

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

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

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

order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. minister made a statement that implied I might be taking

leaves from copies. Every petition I presented is an original, not even a fax. It is

authentic. It is stamped at the top in which community it was placed and so on, and is

very authentic.

I ask the minister to withdraw that remark that he made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister if he would withdraw his remark.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if there was any shame, if there was any

suggestion, if there was any possibility of a concept that I might be alleging that the

hon. member is doing anything inappropriate heretofore, out of the way, inconsistent with

parliamentary procedure or good rules and good order of the House, I absolutely withdraw

it. Because I believe unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Member for Ferryland

District, the Opposition House Leader, is above all things an honourable man. I think that

the extent of his honour has been displayed to this House. Certainly the hon. member is a

man of great experience. Obviously that is displayed by the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand from what the hon. minister said that he has withdrawn

that statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would concur with your

observation. I would read that into my comments.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I hear the hon. member and the hon. minister debating back and

forth in the House about a $100 million thoroughfare here and an $80 million thoroughfare

somewhere else, I cannot even fathom that, when I have to go and plead to the minister to

give a few paltry dollars to a community the size of Lethbridge so that the schoolchildren

might be able to ride to school without getting sick and tired on the way. I cannot even

fathom that the minister would stand and talk about how important it is to be able to ride

and get to work five minutes faster in some particular thoroughfare -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member on a petition?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes I am, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member presenting a petition?

MR. FITZGERALD: Some particular thoroughfare, Mr. Speaker, and

forget about those people without a paved road to drive on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You are exactly right. Take it from the Outer Ring

Road, I say to the hon. member, $100 million. You get on the highway, you get up five

minutes early and hop in your car and come to work, I say to the hon. minister, and you

will have no problem arriving at work on time.

When you talk to the people out in Winter Brook, and you talk to the

people out in Lethbridge, who cannot even open their window in the summertime, cannot even

hang their clothes on the line, Mr. Speaker, the same people who pay the same price for

gasoline, the same price to register their vehicle, the same taxes when they go shopping,

as the people here in this City, because they drive on a gravel road and when you open the

window the house fills with dust. The minister knows full well what I am talking about,

and that is what those people have been contending with all their life. They have never

seen a little bit of pavement put through their town.

The people in Lethbridge drive over a road twenty-eight, thirty years

old, patches on top of patches. Right now you don't know in most cases if you are driving

on the old railway bed or if you are driving on the road. It doesn't need a pile of money

to build a new road. What they are asking for is something as simple as to have the road

ditch, put in a few culverts, and have the road recapped. The minister knows full well

what I am talking about, and hopefully he will look after that particular need in my

district.

The petition I have to present today is a petition to the House of

Assembly. The hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened; the

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the TAGS program whereby the federal government compensates

fisheries workers for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I was with the understanding that the member had a petition dealing

with roads, from the comments he was making, and I had asked him to get to his petition.

He continued to talk about the roads. I understood that was the petition he was

presenting.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is on TAGS, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will allow the member to present his

petition now, but from here on I ask hon. members when they present a petition to get to

the prayer of the petition immediately so that the Chair will understand clearly what the

member is doing.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am sorry about that, Mr. Speaker, my apologies.

WHEREAS the TAGS program, whereby the federal government compensates

fisheries workers for its mismanagement of the fisheries resource, is due to expire in

August and many people entitled to funding have already been, or are about to be, taken

off the program prior to that date;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to take a lead role in convincing the federal government to announce and

implement, without further delay, a successor program to TAGS which includes income

replacement, licence buy-back, early retirement, economic diversification, and immediate

consideration to those who are entitled to compensation and are now or are about to be

taken off this program.

Mr. Speaker, here is a petition that was presented to me by people who

had gathered here to demonstrate and bring their concerns forward to this Legislature back

a week or a week and a half ago. What they are asking for is to get some idea from this

government, some idea from the ministers, some idea from our federal government up in

Ottawa, what direction their life is going to take after tomorrow. Because for 2,000 of

those workers, 2,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, their last pay cheque goes in the

mail tomorrow.

I do not know how many people here, sitting in this House, have ever

found themselves in that kind of a situation. I do not how many people here can comprehend

that, when those very same people, Mr. Speaker, real people with real names, owe bills and

do not have a pay cheque after tomorrow. What those people are asking for: Is to have the

federal government pay attention now before those 2,000 people are throwing off the

program -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and do not collect a pay cheque anymore to feed

and support their families.

I ask the minister, if he is going to respond to this particular

petition, if he would be kind enough to address that. I know there have been questions

asked here in the House. I know where the minister's heart is, I have heard him speak up

in Ottawa, and talk about the need, and the fear of what might happen to those 2,000

people, Mr. Speaker, about to come off this program -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - but they need some direction - they need to know.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Same thing - en franais.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to support my colleague, as I have done many

times in this House, and continue with some of the comments I made yesterday with respect

to this issue and how it is unfolding.

The member reminded us today, that tomorrow the last cheque goes in the

mail - that is how close it is - that is how urgent it is. And we did say in our meeting,

I think all member of the committee, to Mr. Pettigrew on that day, that that is how urgent

it was, that, within days - not weeks or months - people are going to face the reality

that the last cheque they just received is the last one they are going to get from any

program.

Then, after that, as we continue conversations in here or they listen

to the media, they are wondering what is going to happen when that last cheque is used for

the last bit of groceries, the last light bill, and so on.

That is the stage they are at, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, a lot

of the people who have come off over the last days and weeks are already at that stage. I

have talked to them every single day - one day at a time, as late as today - people who

are wondering how they are going to pay their light bills, get groceries for their home

and so on. That is where it is. That is the reality of it and it is not fabricated or

dramatized - that is the reality of it.

If you go around to the rural Newfoundland communities today, you will

find that people do not know where they are going next week or the next few days, in

paying their bills, and paying for the necessities of life. Really, Mr. Speaker, it is

hard to even imagine or fathom exactly where we are with this.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about a comment that the Minister of Fisheries

made here yesterday.

I will make a point - two points: One, Mr. Speaker, on the seal

industry. We cannot say it enough. Some people are getting tired, they said, hearing the

Minister of Fisheries talking about the seal industry - well, I am not.

I know a lot of people in this House who have been watching that and

paying close attention to it are not getting sick of it. In fact, I will go the other way

and say we are not hearing enough of it - we are not hearing enough in the media, we are

not hearing enough nationally.

If we had a battle convincing people in Ottawa about the TAGS Program -

that is not going to be anywhere near the battle we are going to have ahead of us in

convincing them that we should have an increased seal quota for a seal industry in this

Province. That is where I think the real battle is going to be - I really mean that.

If we had a hard time up there convincing the Ottawa mentality of a

program that was needed in Newfoundland for TAGS, wait until we really have to go - and I

say to the minister, talk about a all-party committee or whatever strategies are in place.

What a battle we have ahead of us to convince Mr. Anderson and the group in Ottawa and all

those MPs, that we need an increased seal quota and that we should have a professionalized

seal industry in this Province. That is going to be a big challenge for us.

I support that Minister of Fisheries, the Government House Leader, the

Premier. If there is one issue that I can think about - you talk about Churchill Falls and

all of those - if there is one issue where we have a battle ahead of us, it is that one.

Let us take the scenario that next year we could have a million seals.

The quota could go to a million, which I still do not think is enough to control the

number of seals that are out there - and with the situation with the fishery and so on.

Say, we had a million seals for next year - well, Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is make

sure we are going to do it right and proper. We cannot go and just wave our arms and say:

Let us kill every seal in sight - let us haul every one in and throw them into whatever

plant there is in the Province.

What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is set up professionalized seal

hunters to do it right. Bring it into a professionalized seal industry, as a modernized

plant, where we shoot that animal and bring it into a plant, we take the hide, we take the

meat and we take the seal oil and capsulize it right here in this Province. That is what

we have to do. We cannot just say we are going to cull the seals, Mr. Speaker. It has to

be done responsibly. If we are going to get respect for this industry we have to show

people that we respect what we are doing and that the industry is for professionalized

people to do it properly.

The other point, Mr. Speaker, and this is the second one that I totally

disagree with the minister on, is when he talked about the out-migration numbers in

Newfoundland last year, some over 9,000 people - for the first quarter of this year over

3,000 people, a record. The point that I really disagree with him on is that those people

who left had an option. He said they had an option. I do not think they did, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe some of them had an option to a point where they had to make a decision. They could

have probably stayed and not done so well but they did not have a total option to stay,

and I do not speak that from guessing. I speak to that from people I have talked to

directly, who have gotten in their cars with a U-Haul in tow and left the Province. They

did it because they had no option. They were used to a certain way of life and maybe one

or both the husband and wife lost their jobs and they had to leave, Mr. Speaker. They had

to leave the places they grew up in. They had to take their families out of school, and

the members here who have children know how tough that can be for a high school students

in Grades VII, VIII or IX to have to leave their friends and to go to another community

and start school all over again. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not but it is a

reality that people left who did not have the option.

I do not think that was a fair statement for the minister to make. I

think it is a reality that people in this Province had to look and judge what they had in

front of them. Can they pay their bills? Can they offer their family the type of life they

were used to? We are talking about people in their forties, Mr. Speaker, late thirties and

forties that had to leave the Province. The statistic I keep seeing before me, is one I

read just a few days ago that over 70 per cent of the people who left in the last two to

three years are between the ages of nineteen and thirty. The other statistic on top of

that, by the way, was that they had education greater than high school, 34 per cent had

more than high school.

So the minister knows and we all know that that is a problem. It has to

be addressed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - and there have to be policies put in place to

address those, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the petition that the hon. gentleman just

presented from the other side of the House, asked - the prayer of the petition was that

the government take a lead role in trying to promote the cause of those people who are

coming off TAGS, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, I think it is on May 8 or May 9, but

certainly this weekend. Now, Mr. Speaker, you cannot help but support that petition

because the government has been taking a lead role and trying to persuade the people in

Central Canada, the national media, for example, one Jeffery Simpson, one editor of The

Globe and Mail that got destroyed by the Premier a couple of weeks ago on television.

I suppose he is trying to give us a flick back now -

AN HON. MEMBER: The editorial (inaudible).

MR. TULK: That is what I am talking about, the editorial and

Jeffery Simpson. The real problem here is not with individual members of this House, it is

not with individual members from Atlantic Canada, the real problem - and I have to say

this to him, that I do not think I have reported this in this House and I understand that

Mr. Gerry Byrne, who is the MP for the West Coast -I just forget the name of the federal

seat - has made his presence well known in putting forward our case to the Liberal caucus,

which is primarily the caucus out of Ontario. I understand at this point in time he has

support for a post-TAGS program, for which I want to commend him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member stands in this House and asks

that the government take a lead role, I want to tell him, he knows we are doing that; but

I guess he is trying to serve notice in case something does not happen on Friday or

Saturday so that he can come back and say, `See, I told you so.' Mr. Speaker, we continue

to take a lead role. As a matter of fact, we led the hon. gentleman to Ottawa. We led him

and his colleagues, the Member for Ferryland and the Member for Baie Verte and some other

people to Ottawa so that we could make a case for this problem. I want to also tell him

that there are a number of other people who are wondering. And none of us on this side

need lectures from the hon. gentleman when it comes to knowing about people in need. We

all spend our lifetime at it. We have all spent our lifetime dealing with that problem and

we spent the better part of eight to ten months trying to convince people in Central

Canada that there is some necessity for this program. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is

going to be a program and we still continue to press, even if it does not come about on

Friday.

We will still continue to press the people in Ottawa, the people in the

national government, even if it is not done on Friday, that they take those people into

account - whenever they announce the program, regardless of whether it is the last of the

month or the middle of the month, that they take people into account who have been

affected by the fishing industry - regardless of when it is done.

I want to tell the hon. gentleman that people on this side of the House

and the people in the Liberal Party, do not need to take a back seat to anybody when it

comes to standing up for the rights of fisherpersons in this Province, regardless of

whether they are in the harvesting sector or the processing sector.

I want to tell the hon. gentleman that it was a national Liberal

Government who put in place the UI program for fishermen in this country. It was opposed

by the Tories, and it was opposed by the Tories of Newfoundland, at the time. I want to

tell him also that one of the technologies that destroyed the North Atlantic groundfish

was factory freezer trawlers. I can remember today the Premier, standing on the ninth

floor of this building, where the Old House of Assembly was, berating a Newfoundlander,

the federal Minister of Fisheries, a Newfoundland Tory by the name of Jim McGrath, for

granting factory freezer trawler licenses - not one, as he had originally said, but two.

He was called by then, Premier Peckford, the worst fisheries minister

that Canada ever had.

AN HON. MEMBER: What party was he from?

MR. TULK: He was from the Tory Party. He was not even from Central

Canada, he was not even from B.C. I hear the hon. gentleman from Bonavista South; he is

standing over there trying to make a few points about our cousins in Ottawa. Well, I want

to tell him that those people were his cousins from Newfoundland. They were not from

Ottawa - they were his cousins from Newfoundland. And, he can try how he likes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TULK: Oh, what a shame! The tradition of the Tory Party in this

Province has been to down fisheries and destroy stocks. He can look all he wants to.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 1.

I understand that the hon. gentleman, Mr. Sullivan, adjourned the

debate and had to leave for two or three minutes.

Mr. Hodder has not spoken and if he would like to get up and speak and

adjourn the debate when he comes back. And you have already spoken, `Paul'.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just for one moment. I want to get it clear what the hon. the

Government House Leader is saying, that the hon. the Opposition House Leader adjourned the

debate. He is presently out of the House on business, but when he returns, the hon. the

member will give way to him to resume the debate? He will adjourn debate?

MR. TULK: Or Mr. Speaker, if they so choose on the other side to

let the hon. gentleman use his thirty minutes and then let the Member for Ferryland and

the Opposition House Leader take it from there.

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

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

I want to thank the Government House Leader for facilitating the

arrangement and I understand that the Member for Ferryland will speak for his twenty-eight

minutes when he returns.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. the Government House

Leader for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, the motion that is before the House is a non-confidence

motion. It says that all the words after `that' in the resolution be struck and replaced

with the following:

It says that `this House acknowledge and condemn the government's

failure to manage competently the Province's finances, its failure to live up to its duty

or its promise to provide adequate direction and funding for social programs, such as

Health and Social Services, its failure to secure the future of our Province by investing

appropriately in education and students, and, its failure to better to discharge

effectively his responsibility for and invest in economic recovery and employment growth

in the Province, and particulary in rural areas so desperately in need of development and

jobs.

Mr. Speaker, what in essence the non-confidence motion says is that

this particular government has -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I've just been told a vicious rumour about

the hon. gentleman which I don't believe, that he has a Dale Carnegie course that they are

trying to get him off (inaudible), and not only that but he used to teach it. Would he

stand and deny that for the sake of Dale Carnegie?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: You see, Mr. Speaker, the essence is that the

Premier hasn't been in the House now for days. When we welcomed strangers we thought we

would be welcoming the Premier. We know that the government, of course, had -

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

I just want to draw the hon. member's attention to something that he is

doing here now. He is referring to hon. members who are absent. All hon. members know that

is unparliamentary here, that it isn't acceptable, that ministers and others from time to

time have responsibilities that will take them away from the House. Hon. members should

not refer to the absence of any member from the House.

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

I would be delighted to be able to refer to the fact that the hon.

Premier was present. However, if I referred to him as being present I would be telling a

lie, and I can't do that.

I note that the government had the advantage, you see. There in the

last year or so they went and had those elocution lessons. They brought in this big

consultant at taxpayers' expense and they had those big seminars, the Jimmy Baker type

seminars, for all members of the Cabinet, and they had exercises in waving arms and

speaking forcefully. Of course the Premier was there doing his best to encourage his team

over there to get with it. Thus far I sense that the Minister of Justice learned very well

how to get up and wave his arms and say very little but behave like Jimmy Swaggart and all

those other evangelicals that from time to time have been know for what they say or what

they do. I did note that the Cabinet ministers did have all of that practice. We on this

side of the House of course haven't had that kind of practice, so you can't expect us to

be so well-versed in those methodologies of communication.

Mr. Speaker, what this motion is all about is saying that we see a

great gap between what should be done in this Province and what is being done. We see a

great gap between the commitments that were made by this government in their election

platform - and we did have the Red Book at that time, and I from time to time have taken

it out and have made comparisons. Last year we had a presentation of a booklet called The

Report Card. We haven't seen the report card. Where is the report card? We would like to

have the report card back. Because last year it was printed overnight, brought people back

in who were, shall we say, working overtime, had to get this booklet out to all the people

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the report card this year can't be very good. I'm sure the

people who are out there, who are going to be taken off TAGS in the next two or three

days, would love to get a chance to see what you are saying about them in the report card.

It's not good enough to them for you to tell them that the Premier finds it more important

today to be down in Houston with his buddy from Nova Scotia, because that is where he is.

I listened to the news this morning coming out of Nova Scotia, and

Russell MacLellan says he has business in Texas. Then the Premier of Newfoundland and

Labrador is leading a group of businessmen here. Maybe when they are down there Russell

and the Premier might be able to tell us really what they discussed relative to Marine

Atlantic, and how Russell is being courted to support the Premier's bid for leadership of

the federal Liberal Party. Of course, if the Premier is courting Russell MacLellan for

leadership votes, you know that he is not going to be too tough when it comes to things

like jobs being transferred to Newfoundland out of Nova Scotia. He is not really going to

be tough on New Brunswick either, because you see, the Premier now has a national agenda.

Just the other day I saw a piece in the paper by John Gushue. It was in

Sunday's paper, it was called: What's up with Tobin? John Gushue, of course, edits the

Insight page in The Evening Telegram . In this particular case, John Gushue was

asking the question: What is the Premier's real agenda? So right now we find ourselves

questioning why the Premier was in Toronto last week attending a huge fund-raiser, a

$1,000 a plate fund-raiser and then, right on top of that, at the weekend convention, he

announces that the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador does not have any more debts

to pay; and we see a bit of a connection between the two.

Mr. Speaker, we read with interest some of the comments made by John

Gushue. He says, "I can't blame him for wanting the top political job in the country.

But I do fret that on key issues - files, as he insists on calling them - Tobin is not

working with total, absolute concentration." In other words, the Premier has another

agenda. The Premier's agenda obviously is more focused on national issues. In fact, as I

said earlier, I would like to say that he has great attendance here in the House, but for

me to say that would be to tell an untruth and part of the rules say you cannot tell an

untruth. Therefore, I cannot say that the Premier has a great attendance record.

Mr. Speaker, really the public of Newfoundland and Labrador are getting

a little sceptical of what the motives are. Of course, we know that the Premier sometimes

behaves as if he is the Ambassador to Newfoundland from Ottawa. Well you know, we do not

like being treated as if we are a bunch of Colonials. Of course, as the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture mentioned the other day, the Central Canadian attitude towards

Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada is a little bit less desirous than we would like to have

it.

Mr. Speaker, we want to say to the Liberals opposite, you cannot be up

in Toronto toasting the Liberal elite, raising $400,000 we were told. If you look at the

number of people who were there, $1,000 a plate, that is $400,000. No wonder we on this

side have a vote of non-confidence. How can you have a vote of confidence in a government

whose Premier is supposed to be here in this Province, but where is he? He is in Ottawa

getting $1,000 a plate and paying off the provincial Liberal Party debt with that. While

we do not disagree with fund-raising, we certainly have questions about whether the

Premier's priorities should be to be in Toronto toasting the elite of Bay Street or

whether they should be right here in this Province. Mr. Speaker, we have some difficulty

with that. It is no wonder that people like John Gushue are beginning to ask questions

about the real agenda that the Premier has.

Mr. Speaker, we want to say to the Premier that if he wants to raise

his national profile, then he should be doing it in more appropriate times, and we should

be aware of the fact that if he is going to make compromises on things like Marine

Atlantic, that there are people in Newfoundland and Labrador today who are saying: Why are

we making compromises? Is the Premier really trying to make himself look good? Why is the

media carrying stories about him and Russell MacLellan down at the oil conference at the

same time, and we understand even sharing some of the booth space and that kind of thing.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are asking real questions about the agenda of the

Premier as it relates to his priorities nationally and his priorities in this Province.

Therefore, because we have some questions about the agenda and the intent of the real

wishes of the Premier it is no wonder that we stand here and we have a vote of

non-confidence.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just the other day as well - I was just reading

through another

article here. Tony Collins who writes out of Gander, writes an

article in

which he talks again about some of the actions of the government. In particular, he writes

a column about all those public opinion polls. Last year we spent $59,000 on public

opinion polls while many of our children went to school hungry. Mr. Speaker, the priority

of the government is not to feed our children, the priority of government is to conduct

public opinion polls.

We had public opinion polls last year on Sunday shopping; two or three

on that. We had the arming of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, aboriginal land claims,

we had the post-TAGS program, we had opinion polls on sexual orientation legislation and

we had many other opinion polls that were conducted. As a matter of fact, the government

last year spent nearly $60,000 doing opinion polls to find out which way the wind was

blowing. This is in direct contrast to the former Liberal Premier here who, of course,

spent $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a year on public opinion polls, on essential and sensitive

issues. The present Premier gets an idea and then he goes out and says: Do a public

opinion poll to see which way the wind is blowing.

Of course, on something like TAGS, they set out and had a public

opinion poll done on TAGS. Mr. Speaker, 51 per cent of the people in this Province gave a

response that the government probably would support. So, Mr. Speaker, we say to the

government that on something like TAGS you either believe in it or you don't believe in

it. If you need to go out and carry out public opinion polls, you have to raise questions

as to how sincere you were to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are going to be

thrown off that program. Mr. Speaker, either they deserve to be supported or they do not.

You support them because it is the right thing to do, you don't support them because you

go out and do a public opinion poll and then say you will support them if the public

opinion poll says it is to your advantage, but you will not support them if you find that

the public opinion poll is saying something different. Is that the way we are going to run

the government?

Therefore, if you are going to do public opinion polls on everything,

like TAGS and that kind of thing - I say to the Government House Leader, they were doing a

public opinion poll on the TAGS thing there last year. It certainly raises questions as to

whether or not the government would have supported them if the public opinion poll had

been a little different.

MR. TULK: What makes you so dirty minded?

MR. H. HODDER: Well, shall we say, when you find out - I say to the

Government House Leader, it is a case of where if you do these public opinion polls there

has to be a motivation to do them. If you really believe that all of those people who were

getting TAGS deserve their income, you would not do a poll to find out how people are

reacting. You either believe it or you don't believe it.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted as well today to make note, that on the issue of

the arrangement for the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy - just yesterday the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers' Association joined in to denounce the decrease or the changes to the

TAGS arrangement. Mr. Speaker, I note here that Brendan Doyle is now issuing a press

release here which is dated just yesterday. It says: There is a fight for fairer treatment

for workers devastated by the loss of their livelihood. Mr. Speaker, we know that these

changes - and we hope there will be some comfort found in the near future for these

people. We have been asking questions. We are encouraged by some of the answers that are

put forward by the Government House Leader, but when we listen to what is being said by

the federal minister, we simply have to say to the government, we wonder really where the

federal government is coming from. There are so many inconsistent messages. One day the

federal minister is going to be supporting the people who come off TAGS on May 9, the next

day he is not. He gets on television and his language leaves a little bit to be desired.

In fact, just in the lobby this afternoon I heard one of the reporters say how shocked

they were to listen to the language of the federal minister from Newfoundland last night

in the news broadcast.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to address a few more issues, because again

the motion here is one of non-confidence. Let me follow up on something that happened in

the petition session this afternoon. We had a petition put forward by the Member for St.

John's West. That petition was relative to the changes that are going to be made to the

Child Tax Benefit.

gave a commitment that they would eliminate child poverty by 1999. However, we know that

today, as I said at petition time, there are 500,000 more poor children in this country

now than there were eight or nine years ago. The concept of eliminating child poverty, not

only did we not change the income status of the families and the children involved in

1989, but we have added to it. In fact, there are 500,000 more children in poverty in this

country in 1998 than there were in 1989.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to the comments made by the

federal Minister of Finance on January 10, 1997, a year and a bit ago. Paul Martin said: I

believe child poverty is the great social challenge of this generation. We think we are

now reaching the point of absurdity in terms of inequality.

Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Finance says we have reached the

point of absurdity in terms of inequality. That is the federal Minister of Finance making

a statement a year and three months ago.

We say to the government opposite that when we talk here about changes

to social policy, what we are really saying is that we in this Province have failed in our

obligation to our youngest citizens, our own children. The Williams Royal Commission

mentioned in its report - it said one of the most pervasive problems in school is the

issue of child poverty. Studies were done for the Williams Royal Commission by the

Department of Health, the Department of Education, and the Department of Social Services.

Eight or nine years ago it said that one child in four in this Province was going to

school hungry.

These studies were done before the cod fishery failure. They were done

before other economic downturns. They were done before we were devastated by the economic

changes of the 1990s. Therefore, when we came to the Patricia Canning report we see

conclusions reached there, again based on evidence gathered, that there may be as many as

40,000 of the children of this Province going to school hungry.

If the Patricia Canning data is correct, and we have no reason to

believe it isn't, today, and registered in this Province, there are 101,608 students going

to school. That is in primary, elementary, junior high and senior high schools. That would

mean that maybe two in five - I can't believe it is that high, but it could be as many as

- if 40,000 children, it could mean as many as two in five of our children are going to

school hungry every day.

The Patricia Canning report said there was a very close connection

between low social, economic status and educational achievement. We acknowledge the fact

that the Province has put some extra money into the Child Food Foundation and we

appreciate that, but every time we have spoken on this issue - I have spoken very often,

as have all other members on this side, about child poverty.

Mr. Speaker, the National Forum on Health, which is quoted extensively

in the Social Policy Advisory Committee Report submitted to the government just about a

year ago by Penny Rowe, shows a connection between the financial depravation of families

and children and their chances of success in the school system.

It says that poverty is far more than a lack of money. For children, it

leads to exclusion, it leads to isolation, and it leads to marginalization. What that

report says, and I can quote from it: Children who grow up poor show about

three-and-a-half times the number of conduct disorders, almost twice the chronic

illnesses, and more than twice the regular school problems, hyperactivity and emotional

disorders, as children who are not poor.

Mr. Speaker, that kind of data seems to be just glossed over by the

government because obviously they really bought into the notion that if you could have

children in school who were well fed then they would perform a lot better.

Mr. Speaker, I have said before that we have to start addressing the

issue of child poverty. I remind all hon. members that in the school system we have many

children who every day try to cope with the fact that their families are poor.

I say to the hon. members, and remind them how we all feel as adults

when we are hungry. We feel fatigued, restless, and we are not able to concentrate. When

children are hungry, they have all of these emotions plus a lot more.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to break the cycle of under-achievement,

we have to start feeding our poor children. There is no doubt any more about the

connection. It is there. It has been substantiated by reports that go back for fifteen and

twenty years. In fact, one of the reports I read the other day was dated in 1973. That

report, at that time, drew a direct connection between income of families and child

achievement.

Mr. Speaker, what it means is that children who come from poor families

find themselves in Special Education classes. We know, if you look at the children who are

in Special Needs classes, Special Education classes, and you look at the social economic

status of their parents, you will find more children in that particular class will come

from poor families than well-off families.

Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the petitions that have been presented

continuously in the House by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, the Member for St.

John's East, and myself, we talk about a comprehensive school lunch program; and that has

been raised here many, many times.

The school lunch program is now being offered in seven of the St.

John's schools. Seven schools in St. John's now offer a school lunch program. Mr. Speaker,

I mention the school lunch program only to note that it is being coordinated from St.

Joseph's Elementary School on Quidi-Vidi Road. It now has a fair number of students who

are taking advantage of the program. It is being offered in a non-stigmatizing and a

non-identifying structure, and that is very, very good because that is one of the issues

identified in the Williams Royal Commission, that we would offer a school lunch program in

a way which would not identify the children and would not stigmatize them any more than

they have been stigmatized now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, in talking about the school lunch program,

to offer congratulations to Andrea Maunder who runs that program. She has a host of

volunteers who go down there every day. Many of them are retired people in St. John's,

retired civil servants, retired teachers, people who have some extra time. The school

lunch program can only work if it is being supported by the local community.

Every single day there are volunteers who go to St. Joseph's School. I

have been down there, I have visited the school, I have watched the food being prepared

from the time it comes in in the early morning. I have gone in with the system, gone to

the schools where it is being served, and I can tell you that it is very well received;

seven schools.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to note again the School Children's Food

Foundation. I want to acknowledge that this is a partnership between Petro Canada and the

School Children's Food Foundation which is funded this year by the Province to the tune of

$1 billion in total, between the whole group, and that is good. Their mandate is to try to

assess the needs in different schools. When I called upon them to send me out an

information package they were very quick to do it.

Susan Green and her team there are doing a wonderful job. In fact, I

say to all hon. members, if you haven't asked Susan Green to send you out a package of

information that should be sent to the schools in your district, then you are missing out;

because Susan Green and her team would want to, through you, make available their

resources to try to develop a comprehensive program of help for students in your district.

I find working with Susan Green to be very good; she is very receptive.

Again, I want to say that the whole idea here is that we can begin to

address it. It is not a lot of money, $1 million is not a lot of money, but it is a

beginning. I want to compliment the government for doing that. I will just say that they

should be doing a lot more.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you as well, and literature will tell you, that

child hunger is never the fault of the child. The child is just a victim of hunger. They

suffer the short-term consequence, which is being hungry in the school system. They also

suffer the long-term consequence, which is that these children have to go to school every

day and, in the long term, there is a higher rate of drop-outs. They don't succeed. Many

of them drop out before they finish their schooling, because when they reach high school

they find it quite embarrassing and as soon as they get a job that pays them a few cents

they just drop out. There is a lot of evidence out there, a lot of data, which shows that

connection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you donate any money to them?

MR. H. HODDER: I certainly do make contributions in kind and

products as well.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TULK: Sit down, no leave.

MR. H. HODDER: No leave? Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader

denied me leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here listening to my

colleague for Waterford Valley and I am surprised that he would stand in this House and

criticize something that this government has been doing for some time, and I can assure

him will continue to do for some time, and that is raise funds to pay off Party debts and

to get ready for subsequent elections; the next one that will be called hopefully in the

next two or three days.

MR. SHELLEY: That is why you have lost a lot of weight, is it?

MR. A. REID: That is right.

Let me come clean with everyone now, Mr. Speaker. The reason why I have

lost all the weight - as you can see, I have over thirty pounds gone - I am ready to go

and I am hoping the Premier is going to call tomorrow morning. If he does, we can have it

over with and we can have a decent summer and go away as members of the House of Assembly

with forty-seven seats on this side of the House and one on the other. I am hoping he will

make that call in the next few days. Now I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that these

gentlemen and ladies on the other side of the House will not be back in the House, but I

have a feeling that some may be back in the House with a different label on them.

MR. TULK: Now listen, he is not coming over (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Well I am not sure about Waterford Valley, but I can

tell you this much, that they are over there who have already asked us, and are seeking

already to come across, because they all think they make good Cabinet ministers; and, Mr.

Speaker, I think some of them would. I actually believe that some of them would make good

Cabinet ministers.

MR. TULK: I will tell you there is one fellow over there whom we

should consider; Sullivan.

MR. A. REID: Oh, without a doubt.

MR. TULK: Very rational.

MR. A. REID: Without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, without any doubt in my

mind whatsoever. That man has been a personal a friend for a long time and I have no

problems whatsoever in saying to you I would be honoured to sit in the Liberal Party with

Loyola Sullivan sitting beside me; without any hesitation whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: He is one of the most honourable gentlemen I have met

in Newfoundland politics, and in Newfoundland, and I have no problems in saying that. I

say that quite often to a number of his friends and I am friends with a number of his

friends. I have no problem with that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am going to own up to

something now that I did not own up to before.

He and I have been on vacation together, you know -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? You and who?

MR. A. REID: Loyola and I. We have had some good poker games and

good laughs over some of the things that have gone on in this House, even though he was on

the other side. He got up yesterday and answered to the Leader of the Opposition and I

say, quite honestly, I wish he was still Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Loyola, I say to you, through you, Mr. Speaker, you

can finally, I guess, lean back in the chair without worrying about those knives going in

any further. Is that what you can do now? Yes, you can sit back and relax. I guess he has

the knives out of his back and the wounds are healed by this time.

I just want to make a couple of comments. This is on the Budget. I want

to say quite honestly that I know it is the job of the Opposition to get up and move

non-confidence motions in the government and everything else, but it hits me right here to

think that my friends across the way would move a non-confidence motion in me, Mr.

Speaker. I wish, when they got up to move a non-confidence motion in the government, they

would say: with the exception of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. You

know, they should do that.

I want to make a couple of comments on a couple of subjects that are

continuously coming up in the House. I know the hon. Member for St. John's West brings it

up on a number of occasions. It is Sunday shopping. Well, thank God I am living in a

district that Sunday shopping has not made one bit of difference to. What has happened

basically is that none of the shops have opened, so I am not too worried about it.

Mr. Speaker, you will find that that has happened in most cases in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I am glad because, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, I do

go to church Sunday mornings and I do not shop on Sunday. I will not say that I will never

shop on Sunday but I feel that I can do what I need to do in six days and I do not need to

do it in seven. Then on the other hand, I do agree with letting stores open. If they want

to open on Sunday, that is private enterprise and we should leave private enterprise to

private enterprise.

I am pleased to say that in my District of Carbonear - Harbour Grace,

which was, I suppose, when it comes to education and religion, probably the most

predominant district in the Province. Maybe I can even go as far as to say anarchy to a

certain extent. Because for anyone who knows a little bit about history in Newfoundland,

Harbour Grace in my district is the only place in the Province that ever had an incident

where Catholics and Protestants actually killed each other. That was back some time ago.

I tell you, quite honestly, I am quite proud to be able to say that I

am the representative for Harbour Grace as well as Carbonear, this time around. That is

something new. I am quite proud to say that I do not have any problems with the

educational reform in my district. In fact everything is going along quite smoothly. There

is nobody complaining, other than the few people that are looking for some extra things

for the schools that are open. I do not blame them for that because I am doing the same

thing with them. So I am happy with the educational reform the way it is going.

I want to give you a quick overview of my department, if I can, in

regards to the Budget, Mr. Speaker, and some of the things that we have done, more or less

a report card. I know that I am going to give a report card on Thursday night, but I am

not going to have the opportunity to speak to the whole House and at least get my few

words recorded, as it relates to my department and what we have done for municipalities,

and what we have done, in general, for the good of the Province, through the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation, the Fire Commissioner's Office, the Provincial Affairs

Department and all the other responsibilities that I and my department have in operating

on a daily basis.

First, I want to say that yesterday I made a statement in the House of

Assembly. I talked about debt relief and re-financing. I want to make a few brief comments

about that, Mr. Speaker, more so on the debt relief program, of the $12 million that was

in my Budget this year to assist municipalities around the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, to date we have closed deals with forty

municipalities, and I have approximately thirty-five almost ready, pretty well ready, to

sign contracts with. I look across at my hon. colleague from Ferryland district and I

think he probably knows more about that debt relief program then a lot of other people in

the House, because he was involved with one of his communities, just one in his district,

that got him -

AN HON. MEMBER: And a couple of others.

MR. A. REID: And a couple of others. He got involved to the point

where he helped me straighten out one of his communities. I think I can honestly say that

both him and myself were happy at the end of the day that it worked out as well as it did.

I know the town and the people living in the town are happy with the solution that they

have and the fact that the government has taken some money and helped that town, hopefully

- and I say it with finger's crossed - survive over the next few years until they can put

themselves in the situation where they can start to become more affluent themselves and

more self sufficient.

Mr. Speaker, I admit, and I say quite honestly, that there are, I won't

say hundreds, but there are communities in the Province that are a lot like the hon.

member's town that he worked so hard to find debt relief for.

There are no boundaries drawn on whether or not you represent a

Progressive Conservative district, an NDP district, an Independent district or a Liberal

district.

AN HON. MEMBER: It helps if you are Liberal.

MR. A. REID: It helps if you are a Liberal, yes.

The approach that we have taken is, we have taken the most serious

communities first and worked down from the most serious. We are getting to the point now

where the department and the team that we put in place to do this work is feeling quite

good about the whole scheme and the whole situation. Because now we are starting to see

results, and now after signing a number of contracts some time ago and watching what has

been happening to these communities since then, and monitoring them, we are finding that

they are keeping all their financial statements up to date and keeping themselves on line,

so they are not falling back or behind into the same situation they were in before we

refinanced. So, I am proud of that.

Mr. Speaker, that was $12 million. That is a lot of money. It was

almost the exact amount we took from the Municipal Operating Grant. If you remember, the

year before last I stood in this House and said that one of these days someone would be

calling me Robin Hood, because we have really stole or robbed from the rich to give to the

poor; and at the end of the day that is how it is going to come out.

I do understand that some communities are still finding it rough, in

regards to meeting their debt charges and paying their bills and so on, but I know that

each and every member in the House of Assembly knows that if one of their communities is

in a situation where they are strapped for a few dollars they can always come to me. When

I say that, I mean the member can always come to me and say: Art, you have to help me with

this, and you have to try to help bail out this community, or you have to try and keep

them alive for the next little while. I can honestly look across the floor and say that I

have done that for a number of you people on both sides of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are a good minister.

MR. A. REID: Oh, I have done things that I have not told the world

about. I don't let them know most of the things I do for you.

I have to tell you this one. It's more of a joke than anything else. I

even had a member come up to me this afternoon and ask me for some capital works money and

told me that he would support me in the next federal election if I wanted to run in his

district. He wasn't from this side of the House either, Loyola. They would do anything for

a few dollars.

I will say this to you, Mr. Speaker, I will proclaim now, that I have

no intentions of running federally. I'm trying to convince my good friend and colleague

from Port de Grave. He would be the man to do it, but he is reneging too, he is holding

back. I have no digs on the job in Ottawa for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.

I want to make a couple of quick comments too about a couple of things

that I did this year in regards to being involved. One of the things we have to take

credit for over on this side, Mr. Speaker, is the school lunch program and the dollars

that this government has put into school lunch programs in the last two years. I think we

should give ourselves a pat on the back for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: It was never done before, never in the history of this

Province, and we need to pat ourselves on the back for the dollars that we put into the

school lunch programs in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Let me tell you, I was with the director of that

agency just last week down at the Home Show, and she got up and spoke after me. She said

that without the Liberal government and what they did for her program, not only in St.

John's but in this Province, they wouldn't be able to deliver a te