March 30,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 23

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly twenty students from Improving Your Odd's at Holyrood with

their instructor's Charlie Cheeseman and Sheila Fitzpatrick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier and

the Minister of Energy, both, I guess I'll direct this question to the

Government House Leader. This morning on CBC's radio morning show the Premier

admitted that the Province was close to a deal on an agreement with Hydro Quebec

to develop the Lower Churchill and he said that he had no doubt the few

outstanding issues could have been worked out in reading the transcript there.

However, the Premier also clearly tried to create the impression, in the public,

that government broke off those talks because Hydro Quebec wanted Newfoundland

to pass legislation extending the Upper Churchill contract for an additional

twenty-five years after the year 2016 which would reduce the price of Upper

Churchill power from 3 mils to 2 mils. I'd like to ask the Government House

Leader, does he really expect the House to believe that explanation?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, as we know, is on

his way back from a speaking engagement in Moncton and my friend the Minister of

Energy is in Gander, I believe, speaking to the Chamber of Commerce today in a

previously arranged meeting. I didn't hear the interview with the Premier, I

confess I may have slept in a little this morning perhaps because I was here

later last night then was my friend the Leader of the Opposition. His House

Leader was here with us until the end and I don't have a transcript so I don't

want to get into that kind of discussion. What I can say, from my own knowledge

as a member of the ministry, is that that was the Hydro Quebec position. That

they wanted us to extend the preferential position. I would expect the House and

the public to believe it because it happens to be the truth.

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

MR. SIMMS: Well I'd say to the Government House Leader,

if he's going to depend on that - Mr. Speaker, let me quote for the Government

House Leader what the Premier said, I'll quote for him, right from the - I have

the transcript, he can look at that to if he wishes but here's what he said:

what was not possible was that the Government of Newfoundland would ever ask the

Legislature - that is go to the House - to reaffirm the existing stranglehold

that Quebec has on the Upper Churchill contract. We would never have agreed to

extend that stranglehold for a further twenty-five years, from 2016 to 2041, and

have the power price reduced to 2 mils, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Now, I want to ask the Government House Leader: Isn't he

aware that under the original Upper Churchill contract Quebec Hydro, in fact,

already had the right, on its own, to extend the contract for an additional

twenty-five years, and isn't it also true that the extension of the contract was

totally at the option of Hydro Quebec, and that Hydro Quebec wouldn't need

legislation from this Province in order to exercise the option?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the full

transcript so I am not going to get into the business of debating a selected

phrase.

The position, under the contract, as I understand it, is that

Quebec Hydro has the right to continue to receive power at certain rates. What

it does not have the right to, after 2016, the 40th anniversary of the start

date, is continued protection from action by the Legislature using our power as

a Legislature. That is conveyed in the collateral documents, if memory serves

me. I haven't looked at them for some time, but it is contained in the

collateral documents. This government is not prepared to extend that protection.

The Premier has made that very clear. He is speaking for the Ministry, and we

are absolutely firm on that. We are not prepared to extend the protection from

2016 on. That was one of the points on which the discussions with Hydro Quebec

foundered well after, I should say, the Cabinet paper which hon. members

opposite have chosen to make public and came by by whatever means.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know what the minister was talking about at the end.

I asked him to confirm what the Premier had said this morning on CBC Radio, and

the impression that he was trying to create was that the government, in fact, as

I just said to him in the question, was going to be asked to pass legislation,

that is why they broke off the contract. Well that isn't true.

The reality is, and I am sure the minister is aware - maybe

he can confirm that the government should be aware, at least - that Hydro Quebec

had already exercised its option to extend the Upper Churchill contract for that

additional twenty-five years, until 2041, at that 2 mil price. That is a fact.

And would he tell us, assuming he understands that's a fact, would he tell us,

does he know when that option was extended? Could he tell us when the option was

extended, and isn't it a fact that the option was extended, in fact, before the

government even began development talks on the Lower Churchill a couple of years

back?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the

Opposition, I have no doubt, inadvertently is confusing two very separate

points.

One is the right to extend the contract to receive power. The

second is the right to extend the portions of the contract that deal with the

protection from the exercise of the power of the Legislature. The first, in my

understanding, was extended in 1976, when hon. members opposite formed the

government; that's when the option -

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but (inaudible) again.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked when

the option was extended; I am giving him my understanding of it. If he knows

better than I do because he was either in the Cabinet or trying to get in the

Cabinet at that time, it was in 1976 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That's right, at that stage I was in the

House, in Opposition but the government of the day made no announcement of the

matter or didn't deal with the matter in any way. The hon. gentleman at that

stage, I apologize to him, he wasn't in the House, he was carrying bags for a

member of the House and, in due course, came into the House, but that is the

answer to his question.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) ask (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The other question, Mr. Speaker - the hon.

gentleman has obviously had his unpleasant pills today and they have had their

effect. Now, let me, Mr. Speaker, answer a serious question, seriously, if the

hon. gentleman will permit.

The other issue is the question of the forbearance by the

Legislature from using our powers to exercise our rights to tax, and other

rights. This government has not extended that, they have not been extended. This

government, Mr. Speaker, will not agree to come to the House to extend them,

that was one of the rocks upon which the negotiations foundered back in 1992.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, here we have more fancy footwork,

more tricks, more verbal trickery from the minister responsible for the

operation of the government in the House of Assembly. What the Premier was

talking about or implied, at least, was that we would not have agreed to extend

the stranglehold for a further twenty-five years and have the power price

reduced to 2 mils, that's what he was talking about. My question to the

Government House Leader is: Isn't that already done? Hasn't that option already

been extended? Can he answer that question?

MS. VERGE: Thanks to the Smallwood government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the bully

tactics of my friend, the Member for Ferryland, who obviously would like to be a

lawyer and hasn't made it, let me simply say that question was asked before, it

has been answered before, I have answered it and I am not going to get into a

debate on words of - I didn't hear the Premier's interview this morning, I am

not going to get into debate on selective editing, I am very familiar with the

hon. gentleman's technique of selective editing of transcripts. Now, what I have

given is a very clear and straightforward exposition of the position as I

understand it. If the hon. gentleman doesn't agree with that I regret it. I can

only say to him, bring forward the arguments and the facts and we will deal with

them. What I have told him is the situation as I understand it and I have said

it as clearly as I can understand.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Whether he understands the transcript, or my

reading excerpts of the transcript, let me ask him the question very simply and

maybe he can answer the question so we will all understand it. Under the Upper

Churchill contract there already was an arrangement and an agreement, and Hydro

Quebec had an option to extend the agreement, that covered the reduction in the

mil rate from 3 mils down to 2 mils. That option had already been extended by

the province of Quebec. Can the minister confirm that is accurate? That is all I

am asking. How are they exercised?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my understanding, as I said two

or three minutes ago, is that whatever option Hydro Quebec - not the Government

of Quebec - Hydro Quebec possessed in its contract with CF(L)Co, a contract

which never came before this Legislature in any form or at any time, or before

the government, I might add, that whatever option it had was extended in 1976 at

the time the original - the hon. gentleman is shaking his head. He and I may

have to agree to disagree on this, but I am telling him what I understand to be

the legal position, and with respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take my

legal advice from the hon. gentleman.

MR. SIMMS: Nor I, from you, nor your political advice.

MR. ROBERTS: I wouldn't even offer it to my hon. friend.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back and say that the option was

extended, in my understanding, in 1976. The option does not cover the point the

Premier was making, one of the points upon which the entire transaction

foundered which was the request of Hydro Quebec to which certain of our advisers

at the time, in late 1991, had indeed recommended acceptance, suggested in the

request by Hydro Quebec that its preferential position with respect to the use

of the powers in this Legislature be continued after 2016. I have said before

and I will say again, we are not going to extend that, we are not going to ask

the House to extend it, we are not going to extend it, end of answer.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting

Minister of Education, who I understand is the Minister of Health.

In the 1994 Budget estimates tabled by the Minister of

Finance government eliminated $10 million-worth of student assistance for

post-secondary students. The provincial grants were not just an incentive, Mr.

Speaker, but a basic necessity to enable many students to get a post-secondary

education. In this age, Mr. Speaker, when a post-secondary education is an

absolute necessity, how can the government justify making access to

post-secondary education more difficult for thousands of students and, in fact,

impossible for many of them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

[Commotion in the gallery].

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would tell the visitors to the galleries that certain

things are not permitted; among them is clapping or making noise in the

galleries. It is difficult at times, as you know, to keep order in the House,

let alone the public galleries as well. If people don't abide by the rules then

we clear the galleries. So if you want to sit and listen you are welcome to do

so, but not to make noise. Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The current system of

student assistance has some problems with it. Two of the major problems are

these. First of all, it puts, we believe, an inordinate strain on the families

of particularly medium-income people. It puts an inordinate strain on them if

they have students going to university, because they are required to contribute

certain amounts to the cost of the education of the students. That is one

problem. We have been told for quite some time that that puts an inordinate

strain on some families, and consequently, there are families who cannot allow

their sons and daughters to go to university because of this requirement. The

second problem is that because of a lack of change for quite a number of years,

costs have gone up and not enough money was being put in the hands of the

students. So these were two very serious problems with the current system.

We do not have an extra $20 million or $30 million to throw

into the grant program. We have been through some very difficult years and we

simply do not have that free money. We are trying to make some adjustments and

bring in a provincial loan program that would solve those two problems - first

of all, not insist that medium-income families be forced to contribute these

amounts to the education of the students, and secondly, it would increase the

amounts that are available to the students.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are instituting a provincial loan

program. That has to be done, Mr. Speaker, in such a way that it doesn't create

other problems for the students. We've had some representation and we are now

looking at these concerns.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that thousands of

students who rely on both Canada student loans and provincial grants to pay for

their education will now have to rely entirely on loans. That means that

students who now have a debt of $10,000 to $12,000 at the end of a four-year

university career will now face a debt burden of $22,000 to $24,000. How can the

minister justify forcing students to take on a debt load in excess of $20,000

before they even get their first job? How can he justify putting them in a

situation where they would have to spend most of their disposable income for

years after graduation just to pay off their university debts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the draft proposal that has been put forward in

terms of the new provincial student loan program we have indicated certain

remission levels, and these remission levels have been stated. Again, there are

perhaps some problems with the kinds of remission levels that were in that

original draft paper.

We still have time to work out these problems, and there are

some problems with that remission proposal. We still have time to work out

changes to the remission

schedule in consultation with the student leadership.

Mr. Speaker, we intend to try to solve these problems over the next month or so.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, it is the children of the

cash-strapped and often unemployed parents who have to access student grants,

and the whole educational strategy of this government is to create an elitist

educational system for the well-to-do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, why is this government excluding

young people from the opportunity to get a post-secondary education when you

should be doing the exact opposite? When will the government put in place

incentives to make it possible for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian to have

access to a quality post-secondary education?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, a lot of what the hon. gentleman

said is useless rhetoric.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Useless rhetoric, and nothing more.

Mr. Speaker, we have embarked on a program to make university

courses more available all around this Province, to lessen the cost to students

and parents around this Province. We have embarked on a very ambitious program

to do that, against the wishes of members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, this system, when it is finalized, and when the

adjustments have been made, will make it possible for many more students to

access a university or a post-secondary education in this Province, make it

possible for many more of them who now cannot do it to access post-secondary

education. That is one of the prime aims of changing the system at this point in

time.

We cannot sit with the status quo. We have been sitting with

the status quo too long. Since we have come in we have about tripled the amount

of money into scholarships. We have made changes to the program to try to make

more money available, and we cannot sit on the status quo. We must improve the

system to correct the defects.

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

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

I have never heard such a cop-out in my life. Since this

government has come in, university and post-secondary education has increased by

over 50 per cent, the cost of living has increased by over 50 per cent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: And university tuition and student aid has

not increased.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister this question. We

all know, in this House that banks, as business corporations, are not as

post-secondary education. We also know that banks are very, very wary about

lending money to people who have no assets or no collateral, and who have no

credit history whatsoever. So is the government going to pay the bank to share

the risk, allowing the bank to have a say in who is eligible for student aid,

and thus eliminating some students entirely from accessing opportunity to

post-secondary education.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the thrust

of the hon. gentleman's question. His tone of voice indicated a confrontational

attitude, but I agree entirely with the thrust of his question. We must ensure

with a student's ability to get funding to go to university, and I am sure we

can work these things out.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this:

How will government deal with students who are refused loans by the bank because

of credit history? How will government deal with students who are refused loans

at the bank because they cannot find co-signers? Can the minister answer that

question?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. We

have said that over the next month or so we will consult with the student

leadership and we will solve these problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: If I were now to give an answer and indicate

we've already got our minds made up, the hon. member will come back and say:

what about the consultation? You can't have it both ways. We'll solve that

problem, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister another question,

consultation? Why didn't you consult with the student aid or the student leaders

who sat on the student aid revisory committee who were calling for a meeting of

that committee for some eighteen months? Why did you meet with them after the

fact?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister another question,

how will government benefit from a generation of students and graduates who are

so burdened with that, that they will not be able to contribute totally to the

economy of this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'll repeat. Our intention is to

make more money available to the students who need the money. To make more money

available to the students who need the money. Now, that did not require a great

deal of intellectual activity to come to that conclusion. That the students -

because the costs have been going up - they need access to more money, that's

self-evident. We've received many indications that the stress on the parents was

becoming unbearable. So, Mr. Speaker, we have proposed in this draft student aid

proposal a method of overcoming these difficulties. I said that there may be

other difficulties created and the hon. gentleman has pointed out one of them,

one of the very serious difficulties that may be created. I say to him again, if

I were to give an answer to that today then that will be negating the whole

process that we intend to go through. I would also say to him that if there were

mistakes in the past, do we have to continue to make these same mistakes? Think

about that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance concerning student

aid. Will the minister finally admit that once adjustments for this year are

made that the government intends to in fact take $15 million per year out of

student grants and that his new program for student loan's and the increased

borrowing requirements will create hardships for all students and in fact

discriminate against rural students and lower income students?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. The answer to most of those

questions is, no. The intent is to improve the system to make availability much

more widespread in this Province in terms of students attending university -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having trouble hearing the hon. minister.

MR. BAKER: - and our record over the last couple of years

speaks for that, Mr. Speaker. We're making university education more accessible

in more areas of this Province to make it easier to obtain a university or a

post-secondary education. We are instituting a student loan program with the

objective to make more money available. Mr. Speaker, we'll work out the kinks in

this system in the next month or so.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Minister of

Finance and the government listen to the students who say that the borrowing

requirements are going to deter students from entering university or

post-secondary education in the first place and that they can't handle the debt

load. Why doesn't the minister sit down with students, scrap this program and

start from scratch and craft with the students a program that's going to

guarantee access to all post-secondary education without the excessive debt

loads that are set down here?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the obvious solution, I suppose,

is to find $30 or $40 extra million to put into the grant program. That's the

easy solution but, Mr. Speaker, it's a solution we do not have at our disposal

at this point in time. We simply do not have the money. Within these constraints

we have to try to find a way to provide the students with the money they need

and, Mr. Speaker, we fully intend to do that.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. I noticed that in the 1994 budget estimates an additional $1.2

million has been allocated to the department for older worker programs. I wonder

could the minister inform the House, will this program be for a new early

retirement program for fishermen and plant workers over the age of fifty-five

years?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a budgetary

amount there for a program for older worker adjustment, because there are

already commitments that the provincial government has ongoing with respect to

older workers who have displaced from all sectors. The kind of thing that

happened with M.A. Powell and the closure of the Coca-Cola plant and so on. This

is a program that is in place for older workers right across the country. There

are federal-provincial agreements in place.

That is not the heading. I'm not looking at it right now. I

don't believe that is the heading under which there is money in the Budget for a

continuation of our present commitments as well to fishermen and plant workers

who've retired under the retirement component of NCARP. There is an expectation

that there would also be a retirement component of the program that is put in

place after May 15 to deal with the fisheries adjustment for the next few years.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't answer

the question. The federal present Minister of Fisheries like his predecessors

wanted to lower the age for retirement in the fishing industry from fifty-five

to fifty. The Province has opposed that in the past. I want to ask the minister,

have you changed your mind? Will we now see a retirement program come into

effect as of May 15 where the Province will participate for people between the

ages of fifty and fifty-five years of age?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry; I

apologize if I missed the real intent of the question originally. There is no

question that in the discussions that have been ongoing and in the consultation

that we have been involved with through our officials and otherwise, in terms of

trying to come to grips with what will be put in place as a single program after

May 15 - because there are currently three different programs operating for

people who are displaced in the fishery - the intent is to have a single program

operate for everybody in the Province and all of Atlantic Canada on a consistent

basis.

One of the things again that was - there was some interest

expressed by the federal government of a willingness on their part again to

probably offer retirement at an earlier age than fifty-five. The provincial

government again sent the message to them quite clearly that we are interested

in participating at the same age levels for retirement in the fishery as are

available for every other sector for people in Newfoundland and Labrador. So we

have indicated to them clearly that unless and until the federal government is

willing to put in place a retirement package for loggers, construction workers,

and everybody else at age fifty, there will be no involvement financially by the

provincial government at a different age for the fishery than for any other

sector.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you. I will try to combine two

questions in my final supplementary for the minister. Can the minister inform

the House if people who have turned fifty-five, say over the last year or so,

will they be included in the new program? Those who have reached fifty-five

since the original program came into effect. Will those who have turned

fifty-five since now be brought into the early retirement program? Could the

minister inform the House if there has been a community or group of communities

identified by the provincial and federal governments for a pilot project, such

as has been identified in New Brunswick, where some income support program might

be piloted? Has there been any discussion to that effect?

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

labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: On the first matter, Mr. Speaker - or maybe I

will take the second one first. I'm not aware of any particular discussion

looking at pilot projects targeting certain communities. I don't know if that is

proceeding at any official level or not, but it is certainly nothing that I've

been involved in or apprised of. Maybe if you could - again, the first matter

you were talking about was...?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Anyone turning fifty-five (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Okay, yes, at fifty-five. In the original

program those people who turned fifty-five, who were fifty-five when the program

was implemented, were eligible for retirement. In the May 15 continuation that

will occur the concept, as I understand it, is that people who are fifty-five

years of age at that time will again be considered eligible for retirement. I'm

not sure if there will be any other adjustment to that but that is the position

as I understand it. That would be readily agreed to by the provincial

government. Any other variation of that I'm sure we might entertain discussion

on, but I couldn't give a definitive answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Why is the minister

displaying tunnel vision, figuratively and literally, by proposing that the

government build a four-lane divided superhighway right through the middle of

Pasadena, and submerge it in an eighteen-foot deep trench? Why is the minister

ignoring recommendations of three separate professional engineering firms,

strong preference of the Pasadena town council, and a recent petition of 80 per

cent of Pasadena voters? Why is the minister proposing to reverse a decision of

his own administration three years ago, all of which called for the highway, the

new highway to bypass Pasadena. Will the minister table his calculations?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: First I have to remember all the questions

the hon. member just asked me and that's pretty difficult.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's hard to do.

MR. EFFORD: That's hard to do. Let me give a short answer

and say, Mr. Speaker, it's the right thing to do, and let me explain why it is

the right thing to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Now, I sat and listened to your question, if

you want the answer, you listen or I will sit down.

First of all, the proposed southern bypass around Pasadena

will add on 2.9 kilometres to the distance coming around Pasadena. People in

Pasadena realize this as a negative thing towards tourism and the business

community in Pasadena. Secondly, the terrain, and the grade on the highway up

there will not permit the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, or

is not practical to build that type of highway. People in Corner Brook already

are against the high grades going around Corner Brook, and another major factor

in not putting through the highway where the proposed route was suggested to go,

is $10 million.

Now we have a major financial problem in this Province, so

much so that we pay out almost as much or just about as much in interest on debt

retirement on our loans as we spend in the whole education budget of this

Province, and it is time for somebody in this Province to make some sensible

decisions that are going to affect the future of the people of this Province and

not be irresponsible like the former government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Good answer, one of the best I have

heard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

speaker's gallery, Mayor Lewis Rose and Ted Feltham from Glovertown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to table the answers to

questions from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the air

ambulance service that were recently asked and given to my department. I table

the information for the hon. leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder if the Government House Leader could

help us? Yesterday in the House, in debate, I asked the Minister of Mines and

Energy if he could tell us the cost of the advertising campaign? He was going to

have it for us today before the House closed. He is gone now - is there anyone

else who could get that information for us?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the information,

nor do I have any word from the minister. I know he is in Gander. I mentioned

that earlier in the House. I can only say I will raise the question with him,

and since we are presumably going to be adjourning this afternoon, perhaps he

can provide the information to my friend during the adjournment. I will raise

that with the minister and take it from there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for Grand Bank wants

to stay tomorrow. He may be here alone, in that case, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: I rise today to present a petition on behalf

of 134 Newfoundlanders from all around the Province, Mr. Speaker, who are

opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They come from

Grand Falls-Windsor, Botwood, Port Saunders, Brig Bay, Burin Bay Arm, and other

areas of the Province, Mr. Speaker, and are amongst the hundreds of thousands of

Newfoundlanders who oppose the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard an awful lot in debate about the

merits of private enterprise versus public enterprise. Well, it is interesting

to note the most recent figures, as published in Atlantic Canada, of the most

profitable corporations in Atlantic Canada, that one of the most profitable

corporations is, believe it or not, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. In fact,

Mr. Speaker, of the rankings of these major corporations, Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro comes as number five, the fifth most profitable corporation in

the Atlantic Provinces. In fact, the revenue and the net income of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro on revenues of $369 million is $31 million, or 8.6 per cent.

That is the figure that has been published in comparison to other corporations.

By comparison, Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia Power Corporation, which the

government likes to talk about, had revenues of $46 million on $673, which is

6.8 per cent, so Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is more profitable than the

private corporation in Nova Scotia, and those returns are now accruing to the

benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that when members opposite

throw around these things, and `Oh, you all know that private enterprise is more

efficient than public corporations,' that is just rhetoric that comes from the

other side and is not fact. It is not fact when one compares Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro's performance to that of Nova Scotia Power, which is the most

direct comparison that we have here in the Atlantic Provinces. That is only one

of the many, many reasons. That is only using their arguments against them -

their arguments don't hold up.

There are more important arguments for the maintenance of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a private corporation. The petitioners here

say that the production of electricity is an essential service to the people of

the Province and should be controlled by the people. I agree wholeheartedly. In

fact, if I had my way, instead of thinking about privatizing Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro we would be trying to find a way of nationalizing Newfoundland

Light and Power so that we would have one corporation controlled by the people

that looked after this essential service. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a

monopoly that has the exclusive right to produce and distribute power to the

people, and it should be owned and controlled by the people. That would be my

preference if we were in a position to do that, and not be talking about giving

away this substantial, profitable corporation to private shareholders, most of

whom are outside the Province.

That is what these petitioners here want, and as has been

seen by the independent public opinion poll released yesterday, just a fraction

shy of 80 per cent of the people are opposed to the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, it's time the government listened to the people

and not take the kind of position that the Member for St. George's took last

night, in which he said that if 85 per cent of the people opposed to it then he

might consider changing his mind. That is what he said, Mr. Speaker, if there

was a vast majority, and he said in excess of 80 per cent, then he might

consider changing his mind.

Mr. Speaker, if that's the idea of democracy that members

opposite have, including the Premier, then it's time that we got rid of them and

replaced them with people who believe in democracy and believe in the will of

the people. That, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: In excess of eighty, he is not limiting it to

85 per cent. Maybe he needs 98 per cent in order for him to consider changing

his mind.

Mr. Speaker, he thinks he was elected dictator of St.

George's, just as the Premier thinks that he was elected dictator of

Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for members opposite to start

listening to the people, and responding to the people, and not try to spend the

people's money to convince them against their will, which is what they are now

planning to do.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to support this petition,

and if they don't support it, to get up and say why.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

Speaker's gallery, Wendy and Billy Dixon, Jack and Ian Law, who are council

members from Morecambe, England.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take my time allotted on petitions to the House to

talk about a few of the things that the hon. the Member for St. John's East just

talked about, and try to relate it to the students in the gallery, and their

concerns, the legitimate concerns that they have, as people of this Province,

the right to know the true facts.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East said that Hydro is a

very profitable company that is returning millions of dollars to taxpayers and

the people of this Province. Let me tell you where the money is going, the

profits that Newfoundland Hydro now is making - $147 million a year is going out

in interest payments to the financiers of Japan, Germany, Switzerland, the

United States, and wherever else - the world bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: In other words, $147 million is not profit?

Well, where do they get it if it's not profit? Make no wonder the Province of

Ontario is in the trouble it is; it is being run by an NDP leader. Where and

when has Hydro returned any monies to the taxpayers of this Province except for

the 1 per cent guarantee on the debt, which is $10 million a year? Other than

that there has been no money returned to the government or the taxpayers of this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of government owning and operating

private business is utter nonsense. As my hon. friend just said, the Minister of

Social Services, that ended in Russia last year. It is nonsense for government

to be operating any business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: The proof, Mr. Speaker, of government

operating businesses is the debt that we carry today. We carry a debt today in

the vicinity of $6.7 billion, on which we pay out $585 million a year in

interest payments alone, almost $200 million a year in debt retirement. In other

words, $700 million goes out on our loan that we carry. Now, that's not profit,

but the money must be collected in to pay out, the same as on the debt on Hydro.

You cannot pay out money unless you first collect it in, and if we had the $700

million that we are paying out in interest on debt retirement, there would be no

student in this Province looking for an education because there would be money

out there to pay for one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: But we have to pay for the mistakes of the

past.

I, myself, have a daughter in university and I have a son

going this fall, and I am just as concerned as any other individual in this

Province about education. Nobody gets an exception there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) grant?

MR. EFFORD: No, I am lucky.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Let me finish. I am lucky; I understand there

is a lot of people in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: They would be lucky if we didn't owe the $7

billion that you people put us in debt for seventeen years; they would be lucky

if we had that $585 million that we are paying out every year in interest on a

debt incurred by you people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) nonsense.

MR. EFFORD: Nonsense? In 1972, when the Liberal

government went out of power we owed $800 million. In 1989, when we took over,

we owed almost $7 billion, that's not nonsense, that's a lot of money; that's a

lot of money, Mr. Speaker. The prime principle of what we are talking about is

privatization of companies with which government should not be involved. Should

government set policy, should government set direction or should government

operate private businesses? Take it one step further. Newfoundland Farm

Products, here in Newfoundland, operated by government, losing $5 million a

year. Another prime example I referred to a while ago - we have a company in

Harbour Grace, Koch Shoe Limited, operated by the private sector employing over

300 people. Do you remember when government tried to bring in a rubber boot

factory in this Province and how it all went? You couldn't even sell rubber

boots. Government should not be involved in private industry, there are more

important things in this Province than the nonsense of getting up and carrying

on the business of what could be private companies, and it is time for the hon.

member to realize what is important to the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to respond to the petition presented by the

Member for St. John's East, and I want to go on record as supporting the

petition.

Now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation talks

a fine line but he doesn't come completely clean. Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, Mr. Speaker, is number five in the top ten performers in profitability in

Atlantic Canada of all companies, coming ahead of NewTel Enterprises and Fortis

Incorporated, I say to the minister - number five in Atlantic Canada. Now, the

minister talks about Newfoundland Hydro not contributing to the provincial

coffers - $10 million in the loan guarantee, $9.5 million from PUITTA and on top

of that, as a result of privatization, the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador will give the New Hydro a $30 million tax break.

Now, I say to the minister, if he were very sincere about

helping the students in the galleries today, if he were very sincere, then he

would immediately tear up the Hydro privatization bill, so we could have the $10

million plus the $9.5, that is $19.5, we would not give away the $30 million and

you would not have to force those students out of post-secondary education in

debt, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, in addition to all of that, Mr.

Speaker, it has been quite clearly shown in the last forty-eight hours, that 80

per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are deadly opposed to the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and on Thursday night past,

the Premier, in front of all the Province on public television said, that if the

public of this Province were clearly opposed to the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, he would not proceed with the legislation. Just

yesterday, in this House, under questioning from the Leader of the Opposition,

when that was put to the Premier, the Premier said: I couldn't care less about

public opinion, I am proceeding with the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro anyway.

And that's the problem you have ministers like the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, who can afford to send his children to

school and pay for their education; his children won't come out of university

owing $22,000 or $25,000 or $30,000, I say to the minister. They won't be

debt-bound for ten, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen years like most of the

students in this gallery because their parents can't afford to send them to

school; that is the big difference, I say to the minister, and that's what this

debate is all about with regard to the changes in student aid.

That's what this debate is all about as it pertains to the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The minister and other

ministers and the Premier, have been so weak in their performance and so weak in

their defence of privatizing Hydro, that all they can do is get up and berate

and belittle, question other people's intelligence who are opposed to this deal,

Mr. Speaker, and I want to go on record as supporting the Member for St. John's

East in the presentation of his petition.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition on behalf of the people of Bonavista South.

It reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer: Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro and to hold a referendum to ask the people of this Province their views as

to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown

corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is signed by residents of Bonavista

South and residents of the district of Trinity North and it contains one hundred

signatures.

A few days ago we went to the district of Bonavista South and

we offered the people there the chance to come out and voice their opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many did you get?

MR. FITZGERALD: We had about fifty-five people there, I

say to the minister. About fifty-five concerned residents came out and voiced

their opinion. We had students there, we had retired fishermen there, we had

fish plant workers, but, Mr. Speaker, the number is not the issue here. We

offered them the consideration of going out and a chance to voice their opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: The members on the opposite side continue

to get up and talk about what a wonderful deal this Hydro privatization is, what

a wonderful thing it will be for Newfoundland. I ask you, if it is such a

wonderful thing, take it out to the people and let the people speak, not do it

here, Mr. Speaker, among your own people, where they will knock on the desk and

give you a big hoopla because you have the numbers in your back benches. Out in

rural Newfoundland, I can assure you that the people when they speak it will be

a reflection of what you've heard in the polls that have been put forward on the

radio and in other polls that have been done in the past.

We continue to hear when we put on our radios and our

televisions, people continue to tell us we have to tighten our belts. It is time

to tighten our belts for all the bad decisions that were made in the past. One

time we could get away with that, because there weren't a lot of televisions

around or a lot of radios, but today people deserve to know. They deserve to

know what decisions their politicians are making and they hold their politicians

accountable. I can assure you, when people come and make decisions today that

are going to affect the livelihoods of their children and their grandchildren,

then they should be involved in the decision-making process. They should be

involved and they deserve to be offered a forum where they can voice their

opinion.

All we are asking the government to do is to go out and

consult the people, listen to their views and opinions, and make their decision

wisely based on public opinion. We continue to hear people in the House stating

that everybody who gets up and speaks against this deal - they call them all

kinds of names; they are this, they are that; you shouldn't put government in

their hands. I agree that government shouldn't be put in their hands through the

decision-making process, but they are entitled to their opinion the same as

those hundred people here from my district and from the district of Trinity

North who came out, showed up at a meeting, took the petitions out to their

community, and got people to voice their opinion against the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side, will certainly be voting

against the bill and we will be doing everything in our power, as we stated

right from the beginning, to defeat this bill if it ever comes to the House

floor. Thank you.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to offer a few comments with respect to the

petition, and maybe I could couch it in this kind of langauge: that there is no

question in my mind that if some of the reasons that the members opposite have

given continually in this House for being opposed to the privatization of Hydro

were true, I would be leading the charge with the petitions. I would be out in

the streets circulating petitions if there was one ounce or iota of truth in the

charges and allegations that the hon. members of the Opposition have been

alleging about this particular transaction.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason why they

are against it, because they don't care if it's in the best interest of the

Province or not, in my opinion, they think at this point in time that it's

popular to be against the privatization of Hydro. It makes them popular, and

they are so desperate to be seen to be popular that they want to get in front of

this little parade that's there.

Let me just give three examples, if I may, Mr. Speaker,

because I'm quite serious and I think members opposite know that, that I'd be

the very first one and everybody here - my friend, the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation - probably both of us would be fighting for who'd be

going around with the petition, if these things were true.

The Member for Ferryland and the hon. member just presenting

the petition, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South, just talked a little bit

again about the taxes and he keeps talking about the PUITTA, the transfer and so

on and $9.5 million. It has been explained, Mr. Speaker, at least ten times in

this House, that there is no money that comes to the Province through that

arrangement, it's a flow-through arrangement. There's no money to the Province

now, there will be none in the future. That's been explained a dozen times, but

because of the fact that they don't want to hear that - it's been explained -

they will not accept the explanation. So they go around talking about the taxes

every single time - every point that's been raised has been dealt with on its

merits. They refuse to accept the explanation. They have their own in-House

expert, the Member for Ferryland, who jumps up and talks about hundreds of

millions of dollars in taxes. The people on the other side, the hon. members,

Mr. Speaker, are willing to take the word of the hon. the Member for Ferryland

who has no background or experience whatsoever in anything to do with finance or

to do with electrical utilities. He quotes some numbers and they say that must

be true. Never mind all the experts, the Member for Ferryland says it - it must

be true, so we'll make sure everything else that's been explained is all

nonsense, we'll believe the Member for Ferryland.

The Member for Humber East talks about water rights, giving

away the water rights, all the lands and all of this. It has been explained in

this legislature, at least ten different times, that all that will happen is

that the water that goes over the dams and through the turbines now will go over

the dams and through the turbines then. It will be no different after the

privatization than before. The member's opposite say, oh, no, no, never mind

that explanation. We want to believe you're giving something away and we're

going to go and tell people you're giving something away. We're going to ask

them if you think they're giving something away which is what we're - will you

sign a petition? Sure, I'd sign the petition, I tell you, if I thought we were

giving anything away. There is nothing being given away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - and that's the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker,

that the group opposite keeps saying. The Member for Humber East - I have to say

it one more time, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature - the Member for Humber East

deals with the great scheme to try to discredit Premier Wells because, of

course, she figures that's the best thing to do - try to blame it all on Premier

Wells, try to make it look like he's cooking up some kind of deal; that'll give

credibility to people who might not like the government for other reasons. She

says that Premier Wells and this government turned down a deal for $14 billion

worth of construction, all kinds of billions of dollars to come to the - 24,000

person years of work so that we could give away the public utility to a group of

his friends, so he could get appointed to the Supreme Court. Now I've never

heard a more ludicrous proposition in my life. She goes around and says, `that's

what's happening, so will you sign the petition?' I guess you would sign the

petition if you thought there was any truth in that. The problem, Mr. Speaker,

is that there has been demonstrated to be absolutely no truth associated with

any of it. The members opposite, however, because it's seen to be popular to be

in Opposition, they jump in front even with the explanations to the contrary,

Mr. Speaker. They repeatedly give that wrong information presented as fact and

ask people to sign petitions. I tell you, you wouldn't have to get in front of

any of the members on this side because this place would be flooded with

petitions from all hands, from all members in the House if any of those things

presented, as reasons to be against the privatization, were true. They are not

true, the privatization of Hydro is in the best interest of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: It will be supported when the time comes and

therefore I cannot support the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland. You have

about a minute.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I challenge the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

and I challenge anybody on that side to debate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - the cost in a public forum.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It now being 3:00 p.m. and being Private Member's Day, I call

- I believe we're debating -

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: May I advise the House of two things; first

of all I'm told that the Premier's flight has been delayed. I had earlier told

the House that he would be in the House this afternoon. It will depend on

whether he physically gets to town. Secondly, I want to say to my friend, the

Member for Kilbride and other speakers, I am told that His Honour the Governor

will attend at approximately 4:45 p.m. or thereabouts to give assent to the two

bills. At the end of the debate - my friend, the Member for Kilbride will close

the debate, and whoever speaks immediately before him on this side, should take

that into account. Now, His Honour will be flexible on it and it is not -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I don't think it is appropriate to keep the

Lieutenant-Governor of the Province waiting for fifteen minutes. He will be here

at approximately 4:45 p.m. I want to advise the House that we will make sure

that my friend, the Member for Kilbride has ample and adequate opportunity to

close the debate, as he is entitled to do.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, Motion 5.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great

pleasure today to stand before the House of Assembly to debate and put forward a

private member's resolution that deals with the proposed changes in the student

loan and student aid program.

Let me say from the onset that it is my role here today to

point out to government, ministers and backbenchers, a critique of the proposal

that government has put on the table. I was somewhat, I guess, enlightened

today, and glad to some degree, that the Minister of Finance said that this was

a draft proposal and that it was not a fait accompli. I trust that the minister

will live up to his word, and the government will live up to their word -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: - that they will further consult the

students and student leaders of the Province and take into consideration the

valuable input that they have to offer.

I say also from the onset, to the Member for Eagle River,

that he will have ample opportunity to respond to this, and if he will be

courteous for one time in this session of the House and give me the opportunity

to debate this, and put it forward, I certainly will give him the same

opportunity and show the same courtesy.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Fair enough!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, let me read the motion. It says that I

presented it on Monday, to be debated here today:

WHEREAS post-secondary education must be accessible to all

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS it is in the best interest of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador and its economic future to have a skilled and educated

population; and

WHEREAS changing economic conditions in Newfoundland and

Labrador require at least post-secondary training before the average young

person can gain full employment and contribute to our economy;

BE IT RESOLVED that student grants be reinstated at

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that needs assessment criteria for

student grants be updated, and as well take into account the changing demography

of the student population by recognizing the special needs of students with

dependents; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED students be involved in

decision-making that affects their financial status, by ensuring that they are

consulted on a regular basis when student aid is being revised.

Mr. Speaker, let me say first and foremost that the concept

of student aid is not a new one to this Province. The concept of student aid was

introduced in this Province at a time when the people of this Province needed

more highly technical skills, needed more advanced education. It was under that

a social contract was entered into by the government of the day and by the

Premier of the day, Joseph Smallwood. Student aid was introduced so that those

who could not afford to come to university, those who had very little, who did

not come from affluent economic circumstances, would be provided the opportunity

to come to a post-secondary institution and therefore graduate with a

post-secondary degree, and move on to contribute in a highly efficient and

meaningful way to the provincial economy.

We all can concur, I think, that a more skilled and highly

technical work force advances the opportunities, not only of the individuals who

are highly skilled and highly educated, but advances the opportunities for

society as a whole. It advances the opportunities for each and every one of us

as a whole, both now, next year, the next generation, and the generation

thereafter.

In this light, I say to members opposite that we should

seriously consider the draft proposal put forward by this government. Let us put

away bi-partisan politics and look at this proposal for what it exactly is. It

is especially important for all of us to be aware of the changes occurring in

society and in post-secondary institutions, not only in this Province, but also

across the country.

The challenging economic times we live in have driven more

people back to university. Students who are older than average, students with

dependents, single mothers, these are the types of students who are returning to

university, and I am afraid that the proposal before us today does not reflect

the needs of those people. Many of the changes that have occurred, or been

proposed for student aid both federally and provincially, ignore these

realities, I say to members on this side and the members opposite, and that in

Province is further reduced.

Let me give you an example that was given to me today by the

student leaders of the Newfoundland and Labrador Coalition and the Newfoundland

and Labrador Federation of Students. Under the current proposal provided by the

government, the amount of assistance being offered is being raised by $30 per

week for everybody. A single person with one dependent is entitled to the same

amount as a person with three or more dependents. I say to members opposite, how

is this a fair assessment? How can the government stand and say that they are

going with this new draft proposal and proposed changes to the student aid

people in our society? It will not. What is needed here is a more realistic set

of criteria that will determine the needs of students by 1994 realities, not by

1974 or 1984 realities.

Subsequently, the government - excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I just

want to make one further point on the assessment criteria. Mr. Baker, stood

today and said that in consulting students that these are areas that can be

worked out. I say to the minister - I said today, and I didn't get a chance to

elaborate but I can now - if the government was so concerned, and so bent on

consultation, why have they not listened to student leaders who sit on the

Student Aid Advisory Committee, who are members of a ministerial advisory

committee? Why did this government refuse the request of students to call a

Student Aid Advisory Committee to deal with this issue and many other

challenging and serious issues that have faced post-secondary education for the

past eighteen months? That's not consultation. Consultation does not begin after

the fact. Consultation does not begin when a proposal is presented and it says,

here is what is going to be - that is not consultation, that is what you call

dictation, I say, Mr. Speaker.

In the 1994 provincial Budget, our government proposed to

replace an all grants program with an all loans program. What does that mean

essentially? What does that mean to each and every one of us? Away from the

hysteria, in terms of real, financial dollars, what does it mean?

This move, from a portion of a grant system to an all loans

system, is not new in this country. This move was made by the Province of Nova

Scotia last fall, in 1993. The government seems to be modelling that move, as

they have done with other legislation from Nova Scotia, in the privatization of

Hydro, in the changes to workers' compensation -

MR. GRIMES: That's not true. (Inaudible) in Nova Scotia

(inaudible) compensation; they haven't done it.

MR. E. BYRNE: - in changes to the right to refuse work, I

believe, in terms of Bill 59.

As of the fall of 1993 the Nova Scotia government created a

loan system that was administered by the banks. The banks immediately were

involved in determining eligibility as to who would get a student loan and who

wouldn't, and in that province, a total of 783 students were refused loans

because of poor credit ratings. The banks determined who would get a student

loan and who would not.

Subsequently, the government had to guarantee the loans. Many

mature students, especially those with dependents, mortgages, who had been in

the workforce, or displaced from the workforce for a variety of reasons, and

wished to come back and upgrade their skills, found it difficult to meet bank

loan criteria. Inevitably, students older than average are less likely to be

funded under this system.

I would like to point out to members opposite as well, that

in Nova Scotia another serious problem incurred by the banks involvement was the

processing of loans outside the Province. Now, while that may not seem such a

big deal to members in this House who have not had to go through student aid, it

is a big deal in terms of the appeal process, in terms of the turnaround time in

processing loans, and in terms of getting the right amount of money and the

exact amount of money that individuals require. In Nova Scotia student loans

were processed. In Burlington, Ontario there was no 1-800 number established for

students to call to speed up the process - there was no appeal process. Students

had to wait longer than they normally had to under the old system.

MR. TULK: Longer than they do now, would you say?

Seriously, I am asking (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Fogo that the model

your government is proposing -

MR. TULK: The one in Ontario, is it longer than the one

in Newfoundland? It is terrible in Newfoundland now.

MR. E. BYRNE: It was much longer, I say to the Member for

Fogo, in a short answer, but the proposal being put forward by you and your

government will turn administration of the student loan program over to the

banks, and if you think it is terrible now in terms of getting a student loan

administered, you will have seen nothing in terms of getting it administered and

turned around if it is turned over to the Royal Trust or CIBC. That is exactly

what will take place.

It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that women who are

returning to university, post-secondary institutions, often end up paying more

for their education than men because they make less, on average, upon

graduation. They will end up paying back more because of the increased

accumulated interest after graduation. So I say to members opposite, let us

learn from the Nova Scotia experience. Why should we proceed down that path when

it clearly has not worked? Let us learn from that experience and bring some true

assessment criteria and rationale to the new system of student aid being

proposed.

Now, what about the role of the banks? What role will the

banks play? It is very important for us not to get caught up in this and that,

you say this and we say that. We should look at this very, very critically. What

role will the banks play under this proposal? It is my belief, personally, that

there is no role, none whatsoever for private institutions and banking

institutions, they have no role in administering student aid or student loan

programs. They have no place in it, in my opinion. Under the current proposal

from government, banks will be responsible for the administration of loans. The

bank will define credit abuse, will dictate who, and what programs are eligible

for loans, and will not guarantee favourable interest rates. Furthermore, there

is no room for appeal with the banking institutions. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I

say today that turning completely the responsibility for student loans over to

the banking institutions is completely unacceptable.

Now, let me give some facts to members opposite. If members

would like copies of this I can provide it to them. Government has to pay a bank

to assume the risk of student loans. Under that system there is a possible need

for a co-signer, no guarantee of favourable interest rates, and that means that

students could be paying higher flexible interest rates, no fixed interest rates

at the time of signing. Banks will require some protection, obviously. In Nova

Scotia, which provides the model for this government's proposal, student's

credit history is examined. There were 783 Nova Scotia students who were refused

loans because of their credit history.

Now, let me tell you what could fool up a student loan for

you. I say, as a previous student attending university, there were always three

or four of us who lived in an apartment or rented a home. For example, one year

the phone happened to be in my name and when I left the phone was still in my

name. What happened? Somebody didn't pay the bill. I remember going to a bank

after leaving university to get a car loan and right on my credit history - `Ah,

your phone was cut. In 1986 you didn't pay your bill.' It was the people I lived

with who didn't pay the bill. However, the point should be well taken that

something as minor as that could cause a student to be refused student aid if

administered by the banks. That is one of the major pitfalls and holes in the

proposal by this government. The bank's bottom line - banks become involved,

under the proposal that government has made, in determining who is eligible for

loans, and need is not the sole requirement.

Now, let me bring you back for just a few moments. I think we

all can agree that student aid was a social contract that was entered into on

behalf of the students and the parents of this Province, and that the main

criteria for student aid was, those who were eligible and those who needed it.

If we turn over complete responsibility of the student loan program to the

banks, then we abdicate our responsibility as Members of this House to the

students of today, to the students of tomorrow and to our sons and daughters of

tomorrow.

The bank's bottom line is profit, I say again, not

and this has been demonstrated by the Nova Scotian experience - there is no

appeal process. Let me ask the Member for Fogo, if you went for a loan at the

bank and they said: `Look, we can't give it to you because your debt is a little

bit too high, your debt equity ratio doesn't equal,' to whom do you appeal?

DR. KITCHEN: What are you doing debating Nova Scotia?

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Health, I am not

debating the Nova Scotian experience and if he would listen and not be at

crossword puzzles, he might hear what I am saying. Now, I am giving you some

facts. In terms of credit abuse and processing of loans, the processing of loans

is not done.

MR. TULK: Do you want me to answer the question?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, to whom do you appeal if the bank

turns you down?

MR. TULK: Nobody - but students should be able to appeal.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. TULK: I don't appeal to anybody - but students have

to have an appeal, I agree with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I am

recognized, am I?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Order, please!

You can't hear the speaker up here.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is quite interesting to hear the Member

for Fogo say that students should have an appeal. Well, then, I say to the

Member for Fogo, talk to your colleagues, because under the proposal that is

being presented by you and your government, there will be no appeal process if

the student loan program is administered by the bank - that is a fact. Whether

you choose to recognize that reality or not, time will tell.

Mr. Speaker, what about funding levels? Under the current

proposal from government - remission; this is a very important issue, the

remission of student aid. Remission will only be available after students have

borrowed $22,000. Now, in cases where students complete the three-year program

at a technical school such as the Marine Institute or Cabot College and are on

student aid, the ceiling for remission eliminates all of those students who are

in a three-year program, every one of them, from any possibility of having any

portion of their loan remitted or forgiven. That, in itself, is discrimination,

I say to members opposite and this is something that should be looked at

seriously and critically by the Minister of Education, by the Cabinet and by

colleagues and backbenchers of the government.

Now, I say to members opposite as well, I implore each and

every one of you, and urge each and every one of you, to look at the proposal by

your government for what it is. Get beyond the rhetoric and look at it for what

it is, look at it critically and stand up for the students in your district, and

let's come together to make a better student aid program; that's what we are

about here, it is what we should be about here.

In terms of academic requirements, and there is a serious

academic requirement, thus far, we have not been given any indication as to what

the academic requirements for loans will be. I mean, this could be somewhat

problematic in that the government has the potential to impose criteria that

discriminates towards students who are unable to complete a full course load for

legitimate reasons such as the need to work part-time, the need to care for

dependants, the need to leave university due to an illness, so that if the

government is imposing academic requirements, that if you are in a four-year

program or a five-year program or a three-year program, that you have to finish

it in three years, in four years, it does not allow any flexibility for the

human condition. It does not allow any flexibility whatsoever to the realities

of today that many people are trying to cope with in trying to attain a higher

education, so that they can move on and contribute to our economy.

I would like to get into detail about the remission aspect.

If the proposed student loan program is implemented, an equitable remission

program must be created that is accessible to all, Mr. Speaker. We see that the

government proposal does not define whether or not remission will require

application by students who qualify, or if it will automatic. Also, students who

do not complete their program in a timely fashion are not eligible for loans

remission, meaning that the student must graduate within one year of the normal

time.

Mr. Speaker, I have much more to say and I will get to do

that in closing the debate in twenty minutes, but I would like to conclude by

saying this: that as a former student of Memorial, I would not have been able to

afford to go to university if it hadn't been for student aid. I came from a

large family of seven people with one salary. Student aid was my only hope and

it was there for me - and I am thankful every day that it was there for me. I

borrowed $20,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: May I just clue up? By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. E. BYRNE: I borrowed $20,000. Forty-one hundred

dollars of it was on a deferred grant program which I used to pay off the loan

in payments over a period of time until I found employment. I was left with an

approximately $16,000 student loan, which I am paying today at $300 a month, and

which I will pay for nine-and-a-half years at $300 a month. Upon final payment

of that loan I will have paid back $31,300-and-some-odd, on a $16,000 student

loan. What will this proposal by government do? Not only will it increase the

debt load to students to $20,000 - $25,000, but in paying it back, they will pay

back $45,000 to $50,000, Mr. Speaker.

I would say that if I had borrowed under this system, my

student loan would have been close to $29,000, and in paying it back, I would

have paid back close to $60,000. I don't think that is appropriate, I don't

think it is right, and I don't think it is the type of student aid program that

was meant to be in place in this Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I am pleased to rise today to speak on this resolution that I

must say was quite ably put forward by the Member for Kilbride. I first of all

would like to congratulate the students today. I am a former graduate of

Memorial, a former member of the Council of the Student Union at Memorial, a

former supporter for the President of the Student Union, and quite proud to be a

graduate of Memorial.

I am also quite pleased today to be here to speak to this

resolution because I think that, for the most part, this is a very solid,

well-meaning resolution. I think this is one of the few resolutions we have seen

in some time that has been put forward with great dedication and understanding

of the issue. I think we should see more of them coming from members opposite. I

say at the outset that, for the most part, I would see our being able to support

this resolution today without very much change at all.

I want to use the next few minutes to extrapolate on why I,

myself have taken that position, because I think the students today who came

forward deserve a full and frank explanation of where we are and where we are

going with education in this Province.

The fact is that over the last five years since we have taken

control of government, we have made significant, progressive moves in education

in this Province, for which we have to make absolutely no apologies. We are

proud members of this government, who can look back - and we can go to Labrador

City, to Gander, to Clarenville, to Burin, to Grand Falls, and we will see the

first-year university courses that are offered there now. We have seen some $8

million in capital works put into these facilities, Mr. Speaker, whereby

hundreds and hundreds of students are now saving $3,500 a year because they

don't have to leave these home communities to be able to get first-year

university. That is a solid, meaningful, progressive step that we have taken in

hallmark of this government, Mr. Speaker - that is one step we have taken

towards it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: All people in this Province should know

that at this point in time we are spending in the area of $750 million a year on

education - the second highest expenditure of all government programs, Mr.

Speaker. This year alone, we will spend $746 million, down a few million dollars

from last year because, due to declining enrolment, there will be fewer teaching

positions - but we are spending $746 million again this year in education. We

are maintaining our commitment to education in that way, Mr. Speaker. I think

the people of this Province want us to do that, and I, certainly, as one member

of this government, want to keep education a top priority of this

administration. We have seen, over the last three or four years, significant

changes made. In our first year in government, there was a doubling of the new

schools budget. Now we've seen some adjustments but we are still seeing $10.7

million in the new school budget for this year.

MR. TULK: More than that, because there was an emergency

that we took care of.

MR. DUMARESQUE: An emergency also was taken care of, Mr.

Speaker, in my own riding in Red Bay. This last year a brand new school was

opened in Red Bay. The year before that, a brand new school opened in St. Lewis,

Labrador - significant public expenditures of funds, Mr. Speaker, because they

were needed there and we made sure those monies were available; a new state of

the art $7 million school in Bonavista, in my hon. colleague's district, Mr.

Speaker. We had a disaster in Ramea, not too long ago, as we all remember, and

we are very pleased to be able to stand here today and know that the people of

Ramea are going to get back a school - a new school, because of our commitment

to education in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: We have no apologies at all to make for

that, Mr. Speaker. We are also looking at the expansion of Sir Wilfred Grenfell

College. That's where I first went when I left L'Anse-au-Clair. I got a

scholarship, Mr. Speaker - the son of a fisherman, one of seven in the family,

we didn't have the money. I stand here today no different from the Member for

Kilbride, we didn't have the money. My sister is there now and I'm sure my other

relatives are going to be there in days to come, not because they have the money

but because we have a government that's determined to make sure they have

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - because we're going to keep building

rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to spend the rest of my time today, Mr. Speaker,

talking about this particular program and touching on the things that have been

brought up by the Member for Kilbride.

Over the last three or four years, all members of this caucus

have been vigilant in talking to the Minister of Education about the need for

change in the student assistance program. We have been vigilant in saying,

Whatever you can do, Mr. Minister, please try to consider the increasing cost of

education, the increasing demands that are being put on parents because they

cannot support to the same level that they did before; to continue to try to

give some kind of additional support to single parents who are up there now in

the universities, Mr. Speaker, who need extra funds; to try to up the

scholarship so that people can get access to scholarships on their merits, Mr.

Speaker, and we have done that. I am very, very pleased to be here today to

support this piece of legislation, because we have seen a tripling of the

scholarship budget. We have seen that $30-a-week more, now, will go into the

student aid program as a result of the changes we are making - $30-a-week more,

which, obviously, for thirteen weeks, will amount to another $390.

Mr. Speaker, also, now, the parental contribution is going to

be changed. In the past, for instance, in a family of four with an income of

$40,000 a year, the parents had to contribute $2,208. Under this new proposal,

what are we saying to that family with an income of $40,000? Are we saying you

should now put in $2,000 or $1,500 or $1,000 or $500? No. We are saying to that

family, we recognize your need; we recognize the demands on your family. You

don't have to put in a cent this year towards your child's education.

The family income being $45,000, in the past we were supposed

to ask the parents to put in $3,392. We have now asked the parents of that

family of four with an income of $45,000, who were supposed to put in $3,392,

are you now going to have to put in $3,000 or $2,500 or $2,000 or $1,000? No. We

are now saying to that family, we recognize your need; we understand the demands

on your family budget. You are now not going to have to put in one cent as a

contribution to your child's education.

These are significant, significant moves, Mr. Speaker, and we

are very, very pleased to be able to see that extra $30 a week there and that

extra burden taken off the family contribution, the parental contribution.

Another very important point in this particular piece of

legislation is that a student coming out of university will now have up to

twelve months of interest relief. If they do not have that job, if they do not

have that ability to repay, they will be given up to twelve months of interest

relief. Now, that is different in the federal program. It was changed last year

by the previous administration in Ottawa when they said they were going to have

interest calculated immediately and they would then be demanding payment

immediately. We are now saying to students in this Province, under our program,

we are going to give you up to twelve months interest relief, to continue paying

that interest for you and allow you to find a job, or be able to come to us with

a program, a plan, to address your debt.

Now, there are other aspects of this that I think deserve

quite appropriate attention. First, I say to the hon. member, to all members

opposite, and to the people in the gallery, there is the process of

consultation. You know, it is not this government that created the British

parliamentary system and the secrecy associated with budget preparation. The

same thing applied when the Member for Grand Bank was previously in Cabinet, as

Minister for Career Development and Advanced Studies. We didn't do that. And I

have to tell members opposite - and it is no secret, but sometimes these things

that we consider to be so obvious, I think, need to be told. I sat listening in

this House on Budget day, to aspects of the Budget on which I hadn't had a

chance to be properly consulted, because that is the process. What is the point

in putting together a Budget if everybody knows what is going to be in it before

it is even drawn up? That would be wrong. So we have to go through a process and

that process is there.

What is absolutely fundamental to all of this is what the

Minister of Finance and the Deputy Premier said today, that this is a proposal

that was put forward. The principles are there, they are firm: the commitment of

$30-a-week is there; the commitment of a lessening of parental contribution is

there; the interest relief is there. These are solid underlying principles upon

which this program is based.

However, there is an important caveat. The Minister of

Finance said today and the Minister of Education has reiterated to us, as

members who were interested, that we are now going to undergo a process with the

student advisory committee, with all student organizations in the Province, to

make sure that two things in particular are addressed.

The first is the remission level. I believe, and I fully

support the people in the Province and the students in the gallery, students

everywhere, who have talked to me, who say it is not fair to increase the debt

load by 100 per cent on students who are in need, who are now going to be forced

to take the full provincial student loan program and the full Canada student

loan program. That is not fair. We are saying that and we are admitting that up

front. And we are going to change that - it is not going to be there at the end

of the day.

We are saying to them that we are in a difficult financial

situation - we know that, they know it. They know that we are in a situation

where the Federal Government have yet to make the kinds of changes that we want

to see put in place. For ten years now, they haven't increased it, not one cent

- $105 a week, it is still there. That is wrong. We say that today to the

Liberal government in Ottawa the same as we said it six months ago to the

Conservative government in Ottawa: Get it done, we need it.

What we are saying here to the students today is that we are

now going to undertake the process because it is not a solid, hard and fast

formula that is in place now. We are going to see the remission levels adjusted

to meet the needs of the individuals concerned. So that there will be a

manageable, reasonable debt load that will be associated with coming out of

university. There will certainly have to be a change in my opinion from the

$22,000 that is being talked about. That will certainly not be there at the end

of the day and I certainly look forward to the process that is going to take

place.

I believe all students can rest assured that at the end of

the day we will have a remission level that is in place, not unlike what is

there now, with the deferred grant program. As the hon. the Member for Kilbride

said, he used that $4,000 in deferred grant to be able to do a couple of things,

as I did. I had the deferred grant, too, just a few years ago, and I used the

deferred grant when it came out to either make the payments for the year or so

that I was trying to get my job, or to make a lump sum payment on the principal,

so that I could reduce the debt immediately.

I'm saying to you today that the remission level, or

remission grant, or deferred grant, or whatever name you want to put on it, that

will still be there, and in a fashion not unlike, in my view, what we have today

in the deferred grant formula. We are going to see that undertaken, and that is

the approach and the commitment we make to the students and the organizations

who are going to be involved in this. Therefore, we can fully realize that at

the end of the day they will have a better debt load to manage as they go to

start their futures.

We also want to see the complete review and make sure there

is a clear understanding of the relationship with the banks. I know other

members will expound on that. I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, and I want

to give other members from this side a chance to expound on it.

Before I conclude, I would like to move the following

amendment - moved by the Member for Eagle River, and seconded by the Member for

Fogo, that the following be deleted: "that student grants be reinstated at

appropriate levels", which is in the fourth section, and substitute therefor:

`that remission grants be made available at appropriate levels'.

That, Mr. Speaker, I think, is what the students are seeking,

that we are going to seek a process to put that in place. Further, by deleting

"for student grants" in the fifth

section and adding immediately after the word

"updated": `on a regular basis'. So it will now read: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED

that needs assessment criteria be updated on a regular basis' so that students

will know there is an ongoing process in place, that some of these changes can

be made to reflect the need at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe - and I ask the concurrence of

all hon. members of this House - that with the kinds of changes we have

suggested to a very solid resolution put forward in a well-meaning and

conscientious way by the Member for Kilbride, we can have a program in place

that will give more money and less demand on the parents, a greater commitment

to interest relief, Mr. Speaker, and a much lesser debt-load, so that we can

have something that is manageable in our times for the full commitment to

education that we are proud to stand on, on this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the outset, I must say immediately, the amendment throws

the whole motion out, as far as I am concerned. The main reason for this motion

today is on grants, grants, grants, that is what we are talking about here. The

remissions are what you can talk about later, but these students are here to

talk about grants and I will go into that and expound on that now.

First of all, the Member for Eagle River was in university

probably the same time I was - I know he was, as a matter of fact. It isn't very

long ago and that's why I decided to stay in here today and have a few words on

this. It isn't such a long time ago that I was a student at Memorial University.

The member talks about how proud he can be of his government. Well, I can tell

you, up to this point, they say, the great improvements they have done to the

education system in this Province - I'm not sure where it came from, but I sort

of remember somewhere along in the election about the great university that was

going to be built in Central Newfoundland, and all the other great improvements

to education; I don't remember those, and I can tell the hon. member, if you are

proud of what your government did so far, I can guarantee you one thing, if you

eliminate these grants you won't be proud of very much by the time this day is

over.

AN HON. MEMBER: A 70 per cent rise in tuition fees since

(inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, today, before I decided that I

would be one of the speakers supporting this motion, it was very clear to me why

I wanted to speak on behalf of the motion. It is not such a very long time ago

that the hon. colleague who put forward the motion here today, and I, sat in the

university and talked about these particular things and how we got through

university in tough times. There are members on both sides of the House, as we

know, who have gone through the education system during very tough times at the

university, when we thought we might have to quit, not for academic reasons

alone, through the stress and everything else, but also for the financial

aspect.

First of all, I suppose I should give a short background from

where I started. I come from a very large family - fairly large, I guess you can

say in Newfoundland terms - twelve children, I was the ninth child of twelve,

and let me tell you very simply, that if the grant program was not in place at

that university when I went to pick up my loan - after the loan aspect I picked

up the grant - I would not be here today probably. I can tell you that without

any uncertainty whatsoever, and I can tell you, as well, that I can list off

more and more people from my own community, especially rural Newfoundland areas,

and friends of mine, relatives, and I bet you can name off friends of yours who

would not have made it through university without that grant. They would not

have made it. And I am willing to bet on another possibility, that if you do

take away this grant, you will see an exodus of students from the programs they

are in now, you will also see a decrease in the number of students entering

post-secondary education systems in this Province, and you will see an exodus of

the most valuable resource we have in this Province, that of our young people

who have planned to get an education and stay here.

Mr. Speaker, it was some time ago, just after completing

university that I had an opportunity to leave and go to the mainland, as we all

did, as a matter of fact, I had a job offer there, and the more I thought about

it, although the tough economic times were here, I made a decision then and I am

sure a lot of students here in this gallery today would like to make the same

decision, to try to make it here in their own Province, not to have to go away.

Now, I just mentioned a few minutes ago the stress that is

related to making the decision in the first place to go to university. I am

talking about especially in the rural communities, when the parents, especially

of big families, sit down with their son or daughter after they graduate or are

about to graduate from Grade XII; they sit down and decide what their son or

daughter is going to do now. It is May month, April month and your father and

mother sit down and ask: What are you going to do from now?' It is one of the

biggest decisions we make in our lifetime, and up to this point, although some

people think it is a small thing, there is the availability of a loan, plus

there is the incentive of the grant. If you don't believe that, you are not in

the real world. If you don't believe that a grant is an incentive for students

to cling on and say, `Okay, I am going to owe so much money, but at least I am

getting something given to me' - it is an incentive to make that tough decision,

and say, `I want to go to school and do something with myself.'

MR. SIMMS: Exactly.

That's the plain reality of it - forget the political stripe

and just think about the human factor of it. I know, because I went through it.

I sat down and decided that. I left home when I was seventeen years old because

I couldn't afford to go to university at that time. I went to Labrador City

where I worked, like many students, and many hon. members, I am sure, shovelling

you know what, pouring cement, driving trucks - in Labrador City. I know a lot

of students did that. Let's face the reality of it. I waited, and saved a few

dollars, and then asked myself: Now, am I going to go through five years of

university - that was tough enough as it is, to think about going through five

years of university, not sure if you are going to get a job, with the way the

economy is these days, I say to all hon. members, that plus the added stress of

how much money you are going to owe when it is all over. Is it really worth it?

You have to ask yourself that.

Now, I had to make that decision on my own and it wasn't

until I was twenty-one years of age, when I had a few dollars pushed away, that

I finally got the courage and the guts, and I looked through the system, saw the

loan system, saw the grant system, and said, `Okay, I think I can handle it.' It

took me a long time to decide that, but what about the eighteen-year-old now

coming out of Grade XII, or a family these days - I know they are a little bit

smaller than mine was at that time - but with three or four children in a family

and maybe just a father working? I know lots of those situations. I am sure a

lot of the hon. members know.

Let's take it for reality. Sit down at the kitchen table, and

here you have one in Grade XII, one in Grade X, one in Grade IX, and you see

them all coming up through and the father is just making it now. I am telling

you right now, if there is anybody over there who doesn't believe that the

parents are going to sit down and look at the loan system to see how much they

can get for their son or daughter - then they are going to look at the grant,

but now there is no grant. There is not going to be a grant, and I can tell you

with no doubt in my mind that there are going to be many parents of students sit

down this fall, when they decide if their children are going to go on and

further their education, and say, `Boy, it is just too tough. It is just too

much to ask now, and you are going to have to go another route.'

Now, what is the other route going to be? I ask everybody in

this House today: what is the other route? Go out and scrape up some labour work

somewhere, or make-work projects or something - or go out and leave the

Province, forget it, you can't make it here. I tell you, that is a bad signal to

be sending to the youth of our Province.

This Premier spoke, time after time, in every election in

which I've seen him, about the youth being our main resource in this Province.

So where is the incentive? That $30 million? That is a drop in a bucket. I think

it's the best investment this Province has ever seen. If there was ever an

investment made by this government, up to this point anyway, then that was the

best one I have seen. It is an investment in the future. As a matter of fact, in

the fax sheets that the students put forward -

Before I go on a little more on that, I would just like to

make a couple of comments. I was so glad to see the students get together today

and come up and do what they did. Last night they came up, late last night. Some

of the students mentioned to me that they didn't think they would get the

support. I can tell them that they have support right across this Province -

right across this Province - right up into Labrador City, up to the Member for

Menihek's district in Labrador City, right across over to the West Coast, the

Grenfell College, and right on through St. John's here. You have a lot of

support. Stick together, because it brought back a memory to me today when I saw

you people out on the steps.

I was in university in 1981, and the hon. the Member for

Eagle River was there also, when we had a little bit of trouble down there - I

don't know if some of you would remember it, but it was when the sky-walks got

put in place. I am not sure of the statistics, and somebody can correct me on

this, I think it was the seventh accident that year crossing that street down

there, a main thoroughfare going through a university, and it was the seventh

accident - I think I am right, I say to the hon. the Member for LaPoile.

After discussing and asking, for a number of months, through

the student union at the time - I think Leo Power was then the president of the

student union - asking and asking, talking to the government of the day, which

was a Progressive Conservative government, they didn't listen, and within twenty

minutes of the last accident, which was a fatality, we, as students, closed off

that highway. It was the only way we had of speaking up. That was it.

You are doing the same thing here today, so I commend you on

organizing yourselves. Don't ever give up, because there are 30,000 students in

this Province - the future of the Province. Some of you may be sitting down here

in years to come. Who knows? I thought the same thing a few years back, but who

knows? The main thing is, I commend you on doing that. And don't forget, your

parents are in on this with you. They are people of this Province, they are the

people who have to help you through this university, and you should be commended

for that.

Now, this is on a couple of the facts you put forward and I

must say, you are really well-organized on that. We received these through fax

and information, and I'm not sure if all hon. members got these but if you want

any, there are copies here. I'll just read this for you. They say: `Grants are

an investment in the human resources potential of the Province. The government

receives, in return, on this investment, a well-educated and trained population

who can pay taxes, create opportunity and provide the human resources required

for the economy of the 21st Century.' Now that's what it's all about. You are

the people who are going to go out and get the degrees and do the jobs. You're

not going to be sitting back and waiting for social assistance to be passed to

you, waiting for your ten weeks so you can get unemployment, draining the

economy. You are the people who are going to bring this Province into the 21st

Century, into computers and technology. That's why it's such a measly sum, I say

to the government, it's such a measly sum to take this grant back. There are

other ways to cut. When I look around - today I just made a statement on

government waste again. There's always government waste, we all know it. I

mentioned today about the renovations to the building, $2.3 million is going to

be spent on this building this year for renovations.

AN HON. MEMBER: There isn't going to be (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, there you go. I agree with that waste,

too, I say to the hon. member. I say to the hon. member, I sit up in an office

now - as you know, the Opposition office is probably the worst part of the

building. And I can tell you this, I would sit and watch the stucco fall off the

ceiling and watch the paint crack off the walls - I would rather see the money

go into a student aid program or a student grant program then see that change -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: - any day of the week. It says again, and

this is once you graduate: `Graduates burdened by debt will not express their

confidence in the economy through consumer spending. Their income will be

consumed by taxes, debt payment and basic living expenses. People will not have

the ability to take financial risks through investment and business

entrepreneurship, given the debt incurred by their post-secondary education.'

Now, that's a point - when I read that I said, boy, that's dead on the nail.

We're talking about young people who are going to come out with fresh ideas,

initiative, who want to go out and start their own businesses. I'm sure there

are people now who are close to graduating who want to get out there and say, `I

have an idea.' I get calls every day from my district from young people coming

in with ideas. For example, the other day, a young person who just graduated

last year came in to me from my district, from Westport, and he had a proposal

all laid out. He did an engineering degree but now he is trying to get into

tourism. He had it all listed out perfectly, everything in the proposal - one of

the best proposals I've seen put forward to me since I've been in here - a young

person all ready to go, but he would have a little problem if it were five years

from now, if this loan system goes through or if these grants are eliminated. He

would have a big problem. He wouldn't have the money to back him up. He would be

worried about paying off a loan - a loan that would be tremendous; it's going to

be triple.

I stand here today - as my colleague, the Member for Kilbride

said - as a student still paying off my loan. I still have a loan of just over

$16,000 that I'm still paying off - I graduated in 1986 -that's for a

nine-and-a-half year term, which is the maximum that it can go now. So these

people - by the time you finish, after a five-year program now -

MR. SIMMS: How much is your payment?

MR. SHELLEY: The payment per month is somewhere near

$300, about the same as that of my colleague. But what I'm saying to you now is,

if the grant is eliminated at this stage - it's up to $30,000 or $35,000 that

you'll be paying off in a loan. How long is it going to take for you to get on

your feet? to finally jump up and say, `Okay I'm ready to take on the world now.

I'm ready to go out and show my entrepreneurship. I have some good ideas that I

can use.' You're not - do you know what you're going to be doing for the first

five, six or seven years? You'll be sitting back just barely feeding yourself -

AN HON. MEMBER: Slave to a loan.

MR. SHELLEY: - slave to a loan - that's exactly what it

is; this young lady we had up here said - and I made a note earlier before she

even said it - `Kraft dinner'. I went through university and I'm telling you, I

ate more Kraft dinner, and I didn't mind that, knowing that - and you know, I

used to go down to get my loan through Student Aid and line up there for hours,

you're half- hungry and you're waiting for that little incentive. You know you

got your loan and you go down: `Thank God, the grant is in today!' Let me tell

you, we bought Kraft dinner in cartons because we had to. Like many of us, we

went out and got cartons of Kraft dinner and to think - but we always made it.

We toughed through that. But I'm going to tell you, the whole point of all of

what I'm saying today is that I was right on the brink, and I'm sure many

students were right on the brink, of saying, `Mother, I'm finished. I'm coming

home. I don't know what I'll do when I get home, but I'm coming home.' I say to

the hon. the Member for Eagle River in all honesty and sincerity, without a

political stripe even to think about, I'm very dead serious, because I just went

through it. It's in my memory like it was yesterday. I sat there after two or

three years and was right on the brink of saying, that's it. I am going back to

driving a truck up in Labrador City, I am going pouring cement again, or

something, I just cannot do it. Then, of course, you would struggle for another

while, and sure enough, when you go down to the student aid office: `Thank God,

the grant is in here today and I am alright again for another little while.' You

might slip into the Breezeway for a little while but sooner or later you come

back again.

MR. WOODFORD: Where?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know - it is some bar on the campus,

somebody tells me.

MR. WOODFORD: There's no Kraft dinner in there.

MR. SHELLEY: No Kraft dinner.

But the whole point of it all is that you have to believe,

everybody in this hon. House has to believe that if you strip that grant - that

grant is only a small word, but it means so much so many students, and I am

talking from personal experience.

Some of the facts given on the fax sheets that were read out

earlier - I just want to run through them again, because there is -the students

got together, sat down and asked, `How is this affecting us?' And the first

thing that comes to my mind is the consultation part of it. Now, the Member for

Eagle River mentioned earlier the consultation process. I don't think he would

know consultation if it smacked him in the face. The Student Advisory Board for

eighteen months were waiting for a call from the Minister of Education, he is

over in Spain somewhere right now - and he didn't even know he had an advisory

board. He called them on the day of the Budget telling them to go and sit in a

room over there - don't come over here because it might get rough; stay over

there in a locked room somewhere and listen to the Budget.' Now, you tell me,

that is consultation! In other words, he said, `Listen (inaudible) my advisory

board.' Now, an advisory board, to me, means you advise. I assume that is what

it means, an advisory board to the students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, correct me - oh, is that right? Well,

I tell the hon. member, if you care about the students in this gallery today,

and the other 30,000 across the Province, stand up and vote against what your

government is proposing.

He spoke about consultation and the advisory board. The

minister had an advisory board and they were locked in a room on the day of the

Budget. Now, we are talking about consultation. The truth is he is going to do

whatever he is told by the hon. the Premier, just like in the Hydro debate. We

won't get into that too much because we are talking about students here today,

but in the Hydro debate they were told what to do, how and when to say it. That

is exactly what they did. They didn't consult in the Hydro debate either, I tell

all hon. members.

Ask a student here, outside the House, or on the telephone,

as a lot of you like to do, call them personally on the telephone, phone any of

them - I challenge the hon. member to phone one of these students, or anybody in

the Province today, and ask: Did anybody call you and ask your opinion as to

what we are going to do to your students grants? What would you like to see?

What are some proposals? like what the students put together here. They put

forward proposals before this government.

If you want to give one good suggestion to this government,

with Hydro, with amalgamation, you name it, ATVs, anything, here's one great

suggestion - I hate to give you suggestions because you might improve on them -

if you want to improve one bit, before you make decisions that are going to

affect people, go ask them. You did it when you were in Opposition. You weren't

long standing up then and shouting out, `Go ask the people!' But now you wait

for the hon. the Premier to make his big judgement and then say, `Whatever you

say, Sir, we will do, Sir. Yes, right away, Sir.' Why didn't you go ask the

students before you decided you were going to take away their grants and force

them out of university, and force them to leave this Province? Why didn't you go

ask them? I say to all hon. members over there that you should talk to the

students in your district, face to face, sit down and consult with them, and ask

them: `How this is going to affect you? How is this going to hurt you?' and they

will tell you real quick. Then it will be fine for you to go back to the Premier

and say, `This is what the students are saying. This is how they are going to be

affected,' and just maybe they will take some proposals, take something from the

average student or the average person in this Province and implement it so that

this Province will be better off in education in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude, because I know I have only

ten or fifteen seconds left. All I can tell you is if this government think they

are improving education they are well off track. Adjusting the Course -

you are 'way off course.

This government needs to get back and listen to the people

who elected them, because let me tell you, they aren't going to forget. You are

trying to push this through three years before an election - they won't forget

three years from now. Unless you start listening to the people, you won't be so

proud of this great red machine. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the next speaker, the

amendment moved by the Member for Eagle River and seconded by the Member for

Fogo is in order.

The Lieutenant-Governor will be coming in at 4:45 p.m.;

therefore, the Member for Kilbride would like to speak beginning at 4:25 p.m. so

that he can get in his twenty minutes.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all congratulate

the Member for Kilbride as the mover of a private member's resolution. Let me

assure him that when 4:25 p.m. comes I will take my place and let him conclude

the debate on what has been -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four twenty-one.

MR. TULK: Four twenty-one, well, whenever. I will let the

hon. gentleman have lots of time to conclude the debate on what is, as the

Member for Eagle River said, a very worthwhile motion. Because it puts in front

of us an issue that is near and dear to every person's heart in this Province

who either has gone through university or who has had kids go through

university.

I'm one of the older guys. I'm the only guy here today who

spoke who has to wear glasses. Let me say to the Member for Kilbride that he is

perfectly right when he says that there are a lot of people - and it is

something that I've said in this Legislature for years - that he is perfectly

right to say that there are a lot of people sitting in this Parliament today,

who would not have been here without the kinds of grants and free tuition, in

many cases, the kinds of grants, the kinds of loans, that have been put in place

by various governments in this Province.

As a matter of fact, I can say to him that a former Premier,

a leader of his party, I think if he was here today, would say the same kind of

thing. He was a university contemporary of mine. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that that gentleman, himself, would admit to you that he would not have been

Premier of this Province except for the grants and the free tuition that were

put in place by a Liberal administration under one, Joseph R. Smallwood.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get to one other point. Let me

inform the hon. gentleman of another little piece of history - and that's where

it pays to be old. The gentleman who proposed and pushed for that free tuition

and grants for students - salaries, they were called in 1966 and 1967 - does he

know who that person was? a little piece of parliamentary trivia. Well, I will

tell him that it was none other than my good friend, the Member for Naskaupi,

the present Government House Leader. That is a tribute that anybody in this

Province should pay to him today. He was the chief mover and the chief architect

of putting in place salaries and free tuition for students in this Province.

So when we hear the hon. member - and the debate was going

very well. The Member for Kilbride made an excellent opening statement. The

Member for Eagle River made an excellent opening statement. The Member for Baie

Verte - White Bay started off very well, Mr. Speaker, but then he had to bring

in his little bit of politics - got down a bit.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Now, I sat and listened to him quietly - I ask

him to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt that there is nobody in

this Province today who does not want to see every person who is capable of

getting an education get access to that education. Let there be no doubt about

that.

I want, before I go on too much further, to congratulate the

students who are left in the gallery and the students who were here today. There

was a big cry over on the other side just now about: government may have changed

its mind. Well, I would like to remind them that we do live in a democracy, and

that the students today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. They are up

again. There you go. The Member for Mount Pearl is up there again. I have to say

to him that we do live in a democracy, that those students do have the right to

stand on the steps of Confederation Building, that they do have the right to

come and sit in the gallery, that they do have that right to show that they are

opposed to something, and that if it is to be effective, the government should

listen.

We have seen in the last two or three weeks - and I am not

going to dwell on the last two or three weeks - but we have seen in the last two

or three weeks where the other side have begged us to go out and talk to people

and change our minds. Now, all at once: `Don't change your minds about this

issue.' I wonder why. I will leave it up to you.

I want to congratulate the students, and I believe that as a

result of their efforts -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: See what happens when `Clyde' gets back.

MR. TULK: There you go. That is the Opposition House

Leader.

I want to say to the students that I believe this is a result

of their efforts. I want to tell them that the Minister of Finance in this

Province today may seem at times to be - he is not here, I wish he were - a

rather hard individual. Let me -

MR. HARRIS: How come there are only nine (inaudible) over

there?

MR. TULK: Here we go - the `Premier of Ontario'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Does the `Premier of Ontario' wish to speak?

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this about the Minister of

Finance. I spent four years with him in Opposition. I spent four years sitting

in one of the offices that the hon. gentlemen are now sitting in, up on the

fifth floor. I can tell you that that gentleman's desire is certainly not to cut

back, not to nail students, not at all. I can tell you that that gentleman has

been one of the prime movers of trying to increase scholarships in this

Province. He is adamant that even in the hard times we are now in that students

will have more access to funds. He is adamant on that. I can tell the students

in this Province that in spite of what they have seen in the last two or three

days, the Minister of Finance will be a friend of the student population of this

Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you go through the resolution - twenty

minutes goes very quickly - and as you look at some of the things that the hon.

gentleman has said here, you can't disagree with the principles. You can't

disagree with the principle of this resolution: "post-secondary education must

be accessible to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador."

MR. SULLIVAN: What kind of interest do you have? - eight

people.

MR. HARRIS: Eight people is all you can muster.

MR. SULLIVAN: Out of thirty-five.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) gone out to get a few