June 13,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 28

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the public galleries,

eight adult students from the W.I.S.E. school on Parade Street and their

instructor, Eileen Clarke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to announce the

establishment of a royalty regime that will apply to the development of all

petroleum resources in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area, with the

exception of the Hibernia and Terra Nova projects. In conjunction with this

regime, the government intends to also provide an exemption from the application

of the Province's retail sales tax to all petroleum-related capital and

operating expenditures in the offshore area.

This announcement follows a previous statement that I made on

June 21, 1994, two years ago almost to the day, when a generic royalty regime

was established for the Province's onshore petroleum resources.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant event from a provincial

perspective. Sparked by the Hibernia and Terra Nova oilfield developments, there

has been renewed interest by the petroleum industry in the Newfoundland and

Labrador offshore. Establishing a generic royalty regime will produce a stable

framework that will benefit future developments in the Province. It will

ultimately translate into more employment creation and a stronger provincial

economy as well as provide government with a new source of revenue. The regime

has been structured to ensure that we receive our fair share of the revenue from

petroleum resources while, at the same time, promoting their exploration and

development.

Mr. Speaker, the new regime is designed to reflect the level

of prospectivity of the Province's offshore area while being sensitive to the

costs and risks associated with offshore petroleum development. The system is

similar in structure to the one applied to the Hibernia project and to that

equitable sharing of revenues.

The regime has the following components: Number (1): a basic

royalty, sometimes called an ad valorem royalty, a per barrel royalty, with

increasing production, starting from 1 per cent and going to 7.5 per cent of

basic revenue.

Number (2): a two-tier net profits royalty. Tier one, 20 per

cent of net revenue after a rate of return of 5 per cent plus the long-term

government bond rate. Tier two, an extra 10 per cent of net revenue after a rate

of return of 15 per cent plus the long-term government bond rate.

The basic royalty begins at a low rate and increases as

certain cumulative levels of production are reached, providing an incentive to

develop small and marginal prospects by ensuring that minimal royalties are paid

on these types of small fields. Once cumulative production reaches 100 million

barrels or, if the project becomes profitable well before that point, the

Province will receive a minimum of 5 per cent of gross revenue immediately. That

would grow to 7.5 per cent with higher production.

The two-tier net royalty is profit sensitive and profit

driven. It is designed to reflect changing economic circumstances and to ensure

competitiveness with royalty systems in other international and national

jurisdictions. When a certain profit level is achieved, the net royalty is

applied with the Province receiving the greater of the basic royalty or the tier

1 net royalty payable. If profits increase beyond that level, government

revenues will also increase; if these profits further increase significantly,

then government revenue will also increase significantly as the tier 2 regime

will then kick in at an additional 10 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the design of this basic plus two-tier net

profits royalty system is very purposeful. It provides for three important basic

insurances for the Province: number one, it ensures the viability of small and

marginal fields, thereby ensuring that these fields will be developed and will

produce economic activity and royalties for the Province; number two, it ensures

that the Province will receive a royalty for each and every barrel of oil

produced, starting with the very first barrel; and number three, it ensures that

if oil prices increase or if the profitability of the field otherwise increases

in any way, the royalties will also increase with them. We gain on the high

side.

I expect that the competitiveness of this royalty regime,

coupled with the elimination of the Retail Sales Tax on all petroleum-related

expenditures in the offshore, will contribute significantly to the growth of the

petroleum industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is always good to come to a specific agreement on a

royalty regime. It is also important to have the opportunity to look in-depth to

ensure that we are maximizing our return on resources that belong and are

developed here in this Province.

The Terra Nova project is exempted. The minister hasn't given

any rationale why that might be exempted, or really any update on the status of

what is happening on the Terra Nova project, and why it might be exempted.

Because we know there are tremendous reserves in the Terra Nova field and the

Hibernia field, of course, and other fields may be less significant in real

benefit to the Province.

I also understand that the retail sales tax break to Hibernia

could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars - well over $100 million over

the life of that project; that is very substantial when you look at an exemption

under RST, with a harmonized rate, too. I would like to know from the minister:

Is the exemption applying to the full 15 per cent under the value-added tax, or

just to the 7 per cent owned by this Province?

One of the purposes of giving a tax break is to encourage

companies to purchase goods here in this Province that they would not normally

purchase here. Has the Province done an assessment of what the companies would

normally buy in this Province, and what the net return to this Province would be

by giving that exemption, to ensure if we are, overall, going to be net

beneficiaries from this break on taxes, or whether it would be more beneficial

to achieve the higher rate, and then we might be in a net position overall? That

is independent of the independent taxations on the different profit levels. It

is important, I say to the minister, to understand that. It is also important to

smaller companies to enable them to be in the market, that they are not going to

be unduly penalized. That is important too, and there are some provisions made

for that in this particular regime.

Once again, I say to the minister, it is important to look at

the net benefit, and he makes some reference to an exemption. He has not

qualified in any way how that might be applied, and what the Provincial

Government estimates and figures are on their research to show exactly how we

would benefit by giving this exemption. That is predicated upon ensuring that

there is going to be economic benefits or spin-offs by giving this exemption,

and until we see, I say to the minister, what these projections are, what will

be purchased here that would not normally be, we cannot determine in the final

analysis whether this is a good deal or whether it is not. But there are some

positive aspects to it, I will agree, by having a different tier level. A

two-tier level based on increasing profits is good because it gives us a return,

but will we get to those higher levels of profits on smaller types of operations

when we have exempted major ones like the Terra Nova field? That is what has to

be determined, and we can only answer that when we look at the analysis

government has done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: And in the long term we will see what these

benefits are. Only then will we know the true story, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised at the level of detail of the royalty regime

on the one hand, and also surprised at what is missing on the other. There has

been no public discussion about this and the implications of it, and nothing in

what the minister says tells us what kinds of revenues the government expects to

receive from this royalty regime. I am not surprised that the Premier is out in

Calgary releasing these details because they are the ones who are going to jump

up and down and thank him for having a royalty regime in this Province that sees

the oil companies paying less on a barrel of oil offshore Newfoundland than

individuals are paying on a litre of gasoline at the pumps, Mr. Speaker, when

the percentages are looked at.

If we are going to be making those kind of sacrifices we have

to know the reason why consumers are paying through the nose, and people who are

taking the oil resources and going away and selling them elsewhere are getting

such a big deal. There has been no analysis of the cost and benefits of this and

no opportunity for public discussion before it has been announced and passed out

to the oil companies in Calgary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour.

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

I rise in the House today to announce that the Environmental

Assessment Committee review of the Goulds bypass road, and the Environmental

Preview Report has been completed. Mr. Speaker, the report has been accepted by

my department and no significant environmental impacts are indicated. The

proponent of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation will not be

required to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation first registered the Goulds bypass road project n 1992. The

project is the construction of a two-lane undivided highway through the Goulds

from Route 2 at the Commonwealth Ave interchange to Route 10 to the northern end

of Bay Bulls Big Pond.

An environmental preview report was ordered by my department

and a draft copy was submitted in October 1995. This draft report was not

satisfactory and a proponent was provided with a list of deficiencies and

revisions in November 1995. The required changes were received by my department

in February 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that farmers in the Goulds area are

concerned about the project. I have met with them and discussed their concerns

at length, and also met with my hon. colleagues the Ministers of Works, Services

and Transportation, and Forest Resources and Agrifoods on several occasions, and

have reviewed the environmental preview report thoroughly. After careful

consideration we have determined that the report is acceptable and further

environmental assessment is not required. The proponent, however, must prepare

an environmental protection plan, and this plan must receive the approval from

my department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to see that it is a go from an environmental

perspective, and I say to the minister back four years ago, in August 1992, the

minister from Works, Services and Transportation, and Environment, deputy

ministers and officials, met with all the municipalities in my area at that time

and they raised a very important concern, that the area where the road is going

to end is where the trouble really starts in terms of passage there and a safe

thoroughfare around Big Pond even though the road - I don't think it has been

addressed at all in the particular report or is in the construction plans that

now we will still have to navigate around Big Pond, the most dangerous part of

that district. I am delighted to see it is going to help in alleviating traffic,

the only thoroughfare from my district into St. John's, except for Witless Bay

Line that circumvents and goes around there and is a much longer distance. It is

important that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is important that the ministers

look at addressing the problem that was voiced by people unanimously there,

every municipality, in dealing with the concern around the Big Pond area to

ensure that it is not only a traffic problem and that the environmental problems

are addressed in that area too because we have just stopped short, several

hundred metres, of addressing the real need in the area. I compliment the

minister on getting this out today and announcing that because the people in the

district who depend on this transportation through that area are delighted to

know that now it is going to proceed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

I would like to revisit an issue I raised with the Minister

of Mines and Energy on May 31. If this Province has the power to tax the

electricity we export or to impose a minimum export price then we also have the

power to get back some of the $800 million we loose each year on the sale of

electricity to Quebec under the horrendous Upper Churchill contract. Now will

the minister tell this House if he knows for certain whether the Constitution,

as amended in 1982, gives Newfoundland the power to tax the energy output of

Churchill Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would not say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. minister.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would say I don't know

anything for certain, in that regard. I would not know anything for certain. I

would not claim to know anything for certain but the issue of the Upper

Churchill contract has been taken to the Supreme Court of Canada twice by

previous governments of this Province and I am not proposing to my government

that we take it a third. We got shut out the first two times, 9-0.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This debate is

about

Section 92(

a) of the Constitution. A

section that the minister said on May

31: is not new but has been there since 1867.

I ask the minister now: Will he confirm that

section 92(

a) was only added in 1982, 115 years later than the minister said it was there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not a constitutional

lawyer, I don't know when these amendments were made, but in answering the last

time, the minister next to me, who was a lawyer, said: That is 1867. So I said

1867. If I am wrong, I apologize. Let it be 1982.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the minister missed it by 115 years, I would say to him.

Section 92(

a) was not in effect when the reversion act was passed in 1980. This

section was not in effect. The whole purpose of adding this

section in 1982 was

to give some authority to traded goods like energy to the Province, especially

after Saskatchewan lost a court case in 1970, a similar case. Will the minister

confirm that contrary to what he would have us believe, the Supreme Court has

never rendered a decision on whether Newfoundland and Labrador can tax energy

output because that specific issue has never been raised with the Supreme Court?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am not the

constitutional lawyer. I haven't gone back and read the two court cases so I

don't have an answer for him on the specifics and the details of all that. I

would say that a lot of lawyers in this Province and elsewhere have researched

all that in great detail in the last many years, and if there were an avenue, I

am sure it would have been taken.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, there exists an opinion from a

constitutional authority that this Province may well have the power under the

current Constitution to tax the electricity we export, or to impose a minimum

export price - nothing to do with the price you pay under an agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We have the power - I will get to you in a

minute - to set a minimum price for energy output regardless of who buys it.

Surely, we can leave no stone unturned in seeking a full and fair share of our

energy resources for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will he and his

government institute a tax on the energy output of Churchill Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we will see in due course.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will provide the minister with a copy of a legal opinion on

the matter from the associate professor, William D. Moull, of Osgoode Hall Law

School as published in the prestigious Supreme Court Law Review. Will he, at the

very least, have his government legal experts examine this legal opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: I will pass it on to them, Mr. Speaker. I am

sure they have it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if the Province's legal

experts determine there is indeed an avenue of taxation, then will you impose a

tax on energy output?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speculate on

that at all, at this time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Won't the minister concede that we have

nothing to lose but a heck of a lot to gain from finding out for certain whether

we can tax energy output? Won't he admit that getting back a fraction of that

$800 million we lose to Quebec each year on a bad deal, wouldn't it be a lot

easier to justify using those funds for issues like health care and education

and so on? Won't the minister even try, if the legal opinion says we can?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: I think, Mr. Speaker, that is what I said.

Let's wait and see. If there were something there, it would have been found long

ago. We don't need the hon. member bringing it to our attention today.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Health. In the Budget

the government announced a change in the maximum amount payable by individual

residents in nursing homes from $1,510 a month to $4,000 a month. I understand

this information has been communicated to all of the administrators of nursing

homes in the Province. However not all nursing homes, according to our

information, have a total cost per month of$4,000. Yet, the language used in the

memorandum talks about a universal rate.

What measures has the minister taken to assure that residents

have not been billed for more than the average cost per resident per month?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new upper universal rate - maximum rate - that we have

set is $4,000. That is based on the average cost to government of a nursing home

bed throughout the Province. As a matter of fact, the actual cost is $4,017; we

rounded it off at $4,000 to make it simple for all of our purposes, including

the hon. member. The rate has been set on that basis.

Some of our nursing homes cost us slightly more than $4,000

to run the beds, in some of the facilities that we fund, the church homes and

the interfaith homes, etcetera. Some cost us less, obviously, because some are

at a different age in their life and they have different costs to maintain and

operate the homes, but on average it is $4,000, and that is the universal rate

that we have set based on that factual and actual cost to the Province of

funding, on average, a nursing home bed.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered

the question. In cases where the average cost in a particular nursing home is

less than $4,000, is the minister then going to permit the home to charge $4,000

in spite of the fact that their average cost is less than that? Our information

says that there are homes where the average cost per month is as low as $2,800.

Will he give that benefit to the resident and to that resident's family?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the government has to operate

on the basis of the provisions it makes in an overall sense to the long-term

care sector in the Province. I suppose there is a proposition that could be made

that the cost could be attached to the actual home, but people do not

necessarily go into homes because it is their home of first choice. They go into

a home through a single-entry system based on the availability of space at that

particular time. So a person should not either gain or lose as a result of

having to take a placement when that space becomes available wherever that space

might be and it is reasonable to expect that person to go. What the hon. member

is really suggesting is that we charge some people $2,800, and I would

extrapolate from that that he would want to charge others $5,000 or $6,000. We

do have some sense of fairness and balance, and we intend to apply that

equitably to the extent that we can in all of our policies, including this one.

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

supplementary.

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

What the minister is really saying is that he is going to

permit these certain nursing homes to charge $4,000 when, indeed, their rate per

person, per resident, is as low as $2,800; and there are homes where the cost is

$4,900 a month, I say to the minister.

Some nursing homes have made representation to the minister

for a grandfathering clause to exempt current residents from directives

contained in the May 28 memorandum. I want to ask the minister: Is he

considering such a grandfathering clause that would mean that the approved new

rates of $4,000 would not take effect until after May 24 of this year, and for

residents admitted after that date? And will he respond in the immediate future

to the nursing homes who have made that request?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to the question is: No, we are not considering a

grandfathering clause, either in terms of new entrants or people who live, at

the moment, in those homes. To the extent that that question has been put to me

by nursing home operators, they have already received that response from me.

I am not aware of any written request I have for that. If I

have it, I can assure you that the response has either gone or is in the process

of going, but the simple answer to the question is no.

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

supplementary.

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

I say to the minister, fundamental principles of Medicare in

Canada are the concepts of universality and equal access. Nursing home residents

have prolonged, severe, and often debilitating medical difficulties. Does the

minister not admit that his latest budgetary measures, which are based upon an

ability to pay principle, comprise, if not contravene, the basic intent of

Canada's Medicare system?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the member asked that question because the answer

is: absolutely not. The universal medical care system that we enjoy in Canada

that was introduced in the late to mid-60s, was envisaged to do two things. The

Canada Health Act ensures that it supports the vision that Medicare was based on

and that is this: To provide for doctor services and to provide for hospital

services for people on a universal basis without regard to their ability to pay

and such that they would not be forced to experience a catastrophic financial

disaster if they couldn't.

Everything else, Mr. Speaker, that we have added in the name

of health care, has been added to the health care menu as an option or as an

addition and has nothing to do with and is not a part of, is not mandated by the

Canada Health Act, and one of the things that we have added to the very

extensive menu that we have now created and is considered to be part of health

care is long-term care facilities, but in no way are we compromising the Canada

Health Act, in no way are we compromising the basic principles of universality

in terms of Medicare.

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

supplementary.

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

An eighty-five-year-old gentleman in my district whose wife

is a resident in a nursing home has been told his monthly rate will be changed

from $1,510 a month to $4,000; in other words, $48,000 a year. In addition, the

family pays $100 a week or $5,200 per year to assure, in this case, the man's

wife and mother of a child, is assisted with feeding and personal care, but it

doesn't stop there.

Mr. Speaker, the home charges approximately $140

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

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

The home charges $140 for drugs per month that the gentleman

could get at about half the cost at the local drugstore. Will the minister

assure that the cost of drugs that are administered in nursing homes are at

market value and at the lowest possible price?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to the question is, yes. We endeavour to ensure

that the best cost is made available to recipients of things that we have to pay

for. There are two types of drugs or - not two types of drugs, there are many

types of drugs but in the context of a nursing home, the nursing home provides

some types of regular drugs that are non-prescription in nature to patients as

part of their ongoing care.

The other type of prescription drugs that are provided to

people are drugs that are provided on an individual basis through payment from

their own health plans or, if they have a drug card as a senior by virtue of

qualifying for a drug card, the Province pays for the full cost of that in any

event, so there is no proposition or no circumstance where I would envisage

anyone having to pay more than the lowest possible price for drugs in terms of

accessing it for their care.

People can buy drugs at any drugstore they want if they have

a drug card but for the most part, as the hon. member would know, nursing homes

do make arrangements sometimes with specific pharmaceutical outlets for purposes

of convenience in servicing their clients so that they have ready, easy and

quick access to pharmaceutical products, but the lowest cost is the principle

that we espouse and that we support.

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

final supplementary.

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

Will the minister appraise the House as to the requirements

of nursing homes to go to public tender for the purchase and supply of drugs to

the home, and how often does the policy require the home to call tenders for the

supply of all prescription drugs?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: There is a prescribed time within which

they have to go back to tender for specific services that they have in their

homes and these things are covered under the Public Tender Act. I am not sure

whether it is on a yearly or bi-yearly or tri-yearly basis, but whatever it is,

they follow that.

We have had no difficulty whatsoever, absolutely none, I have

never heard a complaint or proposition put forward where a nursing home was not

following the proper procedure in terms of tendering and/or accessing

pharmaceutical products, but to the specific time requirement, whether it is

one, two or three years, I will check that with the people who administer the

Public Tender Act, my colleague, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, with whom

you have some familiarity in terms of the district and the individual as well. I

can assure you that the hon. member who came from Mount Pearl, the superb

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will provide me with an accurate,

a timely and an answer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - that will not only satisfy you but that

will be concise and fair.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Government House Leader.

Will the minister confirm that a company based in St.

Catherines, Ontario has been awarded the contract to repair and refurbish six

metro buses, even though the local bidder, East Coast Fleet Repair, had a

competitive bid that under the provincial procurement program should have been

the winning bidder?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the

question for the hon. gentleman but it seems to me that he might very well be

asking the wrong minister or even the wrong government but if he cared to repeat

it - some of his colleagues over there were rather noisy - if he cared to repeat

it I will try to distinguish exactly what he said.

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

MR. OSBORNE: I asked, will the minister confirm that a

company based in St. Catherines, Ontario was awarded a contract to repair and

refurbish six metro buses even though a local bidder, East Coast Fleet Repair,

had a competitive bid that under the provincial procurement program should have

been granted the award?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the provincial

preference policy and the right to purchase services in this Province belongs to

an old minister in this House and it seems to me that the metro bus belongs to

the city of St. John's. If he provided more detail we might be able to answer

his question a bit better.

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess whoever the

deputy minister is - the acting minister, as this government's left hand does

not know what the right hand is doing. The minister knows that under the current

provincial procurement policy that local firms can deduct 10 per cent of their

bid price when competing against firms outside of Atlantic Canada for work

publicly funded projects in the Province. Will the minister confirm that his

government ruled against the local company and sent the work to Ontario based on

a simple technicality?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman

that I will assure him, meet with him outside of the House, get all the details

on it, investigate it, get back to him with the kind of answer that I think he

is trying to get. I am not sure he is putting the right question to get the

answer but with the kind of answer that he is trying to get I will meet with him

outside, provide me with the details and like we did the other afternoon for the

opposition spokesman on fisheries when my hon. friend was out of the House,

provide him with so many details that he will sit over there for an hour

reading. I can do no more than that for him.

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I read this story in

the paper two days ago, `Doesn't the minister realize that the loss of work to

Ontario means that there is a loss of eight jobs to our Province, not to mention

the loss of income tax to our Province, the loss of payroll tax to our Province

and the loss of some $43,000 in retail sales tax to our Province? Will the

minister acknowledge that the government cost this Province jobs and revenue

when they could have kept the work right here? What are we going to do to ensure

that in the future we keep the work here?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do to keep

the work here? What this government has always done, bring in good -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Does the Member for Ferryland, the Leader of

the Opposition, need his road to keep him quiet again? Mr. Speaker, what this

government has always done, implement good economic policies, good tax policies

and good developmental policies. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that I will

take his question under advisement, give him all the details. If he wants to

stand up and keep going then he should feel free to do so but I will take your

question under advisement, which is a perfect parliamentary thing to do and get

back to the hon. gentleman.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is

for the hon. Minister of Education and it is regarding budget cuts at the

Newfoundland School for the Deaf.

The Budget reduction since 1994-1995 for teachers salaries

has been $35,2200 less than the average salary for one teacher. Teachers

salaries have remained the same for several years, as we all know. A maximum of

six teachers presently on staff are entitled to salary increments for next year.

Why are there reductions in teacher allocations for the Newfoundland School for

the Deaf at this time when it appears that there is sufficient funding to

support at least thirty-three teaching positions, as opposed to the thirty

positions which have been allocated for 1996-'97?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the School for the Deaf, it is a school that

is not run by a separate school board, it is run directly by the Department of

Education acting as a school board, as are the hospital schools in the Province

and a couple of others. In these special schools, particularly the School for

the Deaf, rather than use the same teacher allocation per pupil-based, as we do

in the school system, where you take the number of students, divide by

twenty-three and decide how many teachers are allocated - because the School for

the Deaf is known to be very different and houses the students with a residence

complex as well as provides for their education, provides for transportation to

and from the home for the students on weekends so that they can be with their

families on Saturdays and Sundays - instead of going the traditional way of

funding and allocating teachers, there has been a block budget given to the

School for the Deaf. And through the principal and the administrative staff,

they run the full organization, the residents' complex, the transportation

system for the students, the housing accommodations, and all of the teaching

that goes on with the special needs in the School for the Deaf.

They are given a block budget and in that block budget this

year they were reduced very minimally compared to all of the other reductions in

education, because we wanted to give them the opportunities and the flexibility

in their own global block budget to make the least harmful decisions with

respect to the students, both in their instruction, in their accommodation in

the residence, and their return to visit their families. We have every

confidence, Mr. Speaker, that the administration at that school is able to do

that without damaging the program for the students.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Would the minister confirm, however,

that the percentage in reduction in cuts with respect to monies being allocated

to the Newfoundland School for the Deaf are approximately three times the amount

of cuts and expenses with respect to primary, elementary, and secondary schools

in this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest

that it is exactly the opposite to what the hon. member just proposed, that

there were very minimal cuts to the budget for the School for the Deaf compared

to what happened in the primary, elementary, and secondary system, what happened

in the college system, and what happened at the university. We were very

cognizant and very aware of the special needs at the School for the Deaf, and in

fact there are whole program areas in the Department of Education that have been

deleted and taken off the books rather than have major cuts in an institution

like the School for the Deaf.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Would the minister confirm again that

there have been sixteen positions cut with respect to the Newfoundland School

for Deaf, including the two teaching positions that I mentioned, and does that

not indicate to the people of this Province that there is a change in the

philosophy with respect to the existence of an institution which devotes itself

exclusively to the needs of deaf children?

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

MR. GRIMES: Again, the representation made by the hon.

member is incorrect. In fact, there was great sensitivity paid to the fact that

the School for the Deaf does perform a very special role in the Province, and we

wanted to make sure that the budget reductions were kept to a minimum so that

the service to that special group of students would not be unnecessarily impeded

or downgraded in any way.

We have every confidence that the administration of that

school, following again the lead of the government generally, will find the

majority of the savings at the administrative level rather than at any program

delivery level that will have a negative impact upon the opportunities for the

students.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that there have been sixteen

positions cut with respect to the School for the Deaf?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we dealt with the issue in some

detail in the estimates with respect to the School for the Deaf. I cannot

confirm a particular number at this point in time because I don't have

documentation in front of me and I don't recall it off the top of my head. I do

know there were reductions - reductions in terms of such positions as a

vice-principal, who did no teaching, being eliminated or the position being

reduced, a teacher going on leave and not being replaced at the administrative

level, some supervisory functions at the residence.

But in terms of teaching staff who impact and interact

directly on a daily basis with the students, that teaching force is intact, to

my knowledge. The basic components of all of the supervisory personnel who are

needed in the residence for the evenings and the nighttimes, just to guarantee

the safe residence of the students on a day-to-day basis, have been kept intact.

There are other matters with respect to purchasing, payroll and so on that were

offered to be done from other sources, such as being done directly from the

Department of Education, rather than having a separate bureaucracy and

administration established at the School for the Deaf.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to take his place.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods. With the spray program for the Summer about to get started, could the

minister tell me how many sites there are now, overall, and could he tell me if

all of those sites have had the final okay and the final green light to go ahead

with the spray program for those areas?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, most of

the spray that we are doing this year is on the Humber Valley, and there is

contention on the West Coast about some of the West Coast watershed areas. The

Minister of Environment and Labour and myself are dealing with it.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the

minister that as late as this morning I talked to the mayor of Steady Brook.

They still have some very serious concerns. They are wondering if the

departments of Forest Resources and Agrifoods and Environment and Labour, will

be in that area to speak, not just with the council, but to a public meeting out

in that area for some concerns that they want to address before the spray

program goes ahead.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman must obviously

be running out of questions again this afternoon. I want to assure him that the

Minister of Environment and Labour and myself will do whatever is necessary both

to protect the environment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) you would provide the

ministers we would have more questions (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: We will provide you all the ministers you want!

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they?

MR. TULK: They are here!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the hon.

gentleman and answer his question. Let me assure the Opposition House Leader

that we will provide whatever answers are necessary and whatever answers are

needed, and I am sure the quality of them will be about 2,000 per cent better

than the quality of the questions.

Let me assure the hon. gentleman that we will do whatever is

necessary to protect the forests of this Province, to protect the environment. I

mean, with a Minister of Environment and Labour like that you would have to make

sure that the environment is protected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has elapsed.

Petitions

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

Springdale.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to this hon. House of

Assembly on behalf of approximately 2,500 people from the District of Windsor -

Springdale. Specifically, the petition comes from the Green Bay part of the

district, and it is with regard to the closing of the Springdale campus.

The printed prayer on the petition is this: We, the

undersigned, strenuously object to the closing of the Springdale campus of

Central Newfoundland Regional College effective June 1996 in light of the

devastating effect that this cut will have on the Green Bay area, and call upon

the government to immediately reverse this decision.

Mr. Speaker, I spent a lot of time in Springdale and the

Springdale area at the time of this closing. I want to tell this House that this

petition speaks to the level of concern and the level of disappointment and

actually, the level of shock that was felt in the Springdale area when the

announcement was made.

The closure of the Springdale campus has had two major

effects. There are two major aspects with regard to the closing as it relates to

Springdale and area. The first is the effect that this is seen to have on future

education in the area. It is seen as a loss of opportunity to continue, to

further, to upgrade education at home. Most people, when they can attend a

college situated within commuting distance of their own home, feel they are

attending a university, college or trade school at minimal cost.

Students, potential students, parents and others feel that

because of the added cost - board and lodging, and other costs associated with

attending school or college away from home - their opportunity and hope to

further their education is lost. They will have lost the opportunity, they

believe, to continue to pursue their education, to upgrade their education, and

to train for future job opportunities. Those opportunities would be lost

forever, and that is very difficult to accept, very difficult for the people in

the Green Bay area to cope with.

The second aspect is the devastation this will cause, or as

is seen by the people who signed this petition, and by people I have talked to

in Green Bay on the economy, on the Town of Springdale itself, on the economy of

Springdale.

I am told - I cannot verify this, but I have been told - that

the closing of the campus in Springdale will cost the Springdale economy about

$1 million, and that, I guess, is determined by the loss of the teachers, loss

of boarding houses, the goods and services provided in the immediate area to the

students and the people who maintain the university.

Springdale is a service town, and it is a service town for

most of Green Bay. It is a fully serviced town with all the amenities, all the

municipal services, and Springdale pays its own way, and as we continue as a

Province to deal with our own financial problems, with our own difficulty in

budgets, we are forced to reduce the amount of money we make available to a town

like Springdale. Therefore, it gets tougher and tougher for a town like

Springdale to cope. Then, we announce the closure of a campus that will, they

think and they say, and the say they can prove, cost their economy $1 million.

So we should understand and we should sympathize with the reaction that comes

from the Town of Springdale as a result of this closure.

No doubt, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of, and I believe

government recognizes, the difficulty the decision to close the Springdale

campus causes for Springdale and the Green Bay area. This petition can be seen

as a plea to government to try to salvage something from the situation. There

are local committees putting forward proposals to government to try to find ways

to preserve the Springdale campus with a course delivery method or on a

cost-recovery basis, and every other possibility is being pursued. Obviously,

any level of service that can be salvaged and maintained will be important and

valuable to Springdale, both from the educational aspect and from the financial

aspect.

Mr. Speaker, on the same day that the closure of the

Springdale campus was announced, it was also announced that first-year

university would be cancelled at various centres in Newfoundland, and as a

result of compromise and discussions between the various boards and government,

and the Department of Education, I understand that these courses are being

revisited, have been reinstated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FLIGHT: Just a minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FLIGHT: I understand that first-year university has

been reinstated in various centres, and it is based on that kind of

co-operation, on that kind of understanding, that I hope that the people

representing government, the Department of Education, dealing with the

Springdale committees, can find a solution that will recognize and allow the

government to deal with and recognize its own fiscal restraints but will, at the

same time, provide a solution that will maintain a community college presence in

Springdale and the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased today to rise to support the petition presented

by the hon. the Member for Windsor - Springdale. I, too, of course, being a

next-door neighbour to the Springdale area - not only that, but with the

electoral boundary changes now many of my constituents from the King's Point -

Little Bay area also attended that community college, and many throughout the

year have done that. I was also at the protest rally which they held right after

they found out about the closure of their college there.

I would like to reiterate a few of the points the member has

already made. The closing of this college is more than the closing down of a

building. We are not talking about a building of brick and wood; we are talking

about how it affects that entire community, the economics of it, the spirit of

the community. When you have a community the size of Springdale, much like the

community I come from, Baie Verte, when you have a community college, the spirit

of the community is that when you see young people - and older people - who have

decided to return and do courses, or do certificate degrees or whatever at the

community college, this does a great deal for the spirit of that community. You

see young people stay there for one thing. For a lot of people who have low

income families they have available for them the courses that they can travel to

in their own community or short distances away to do these courses.

The fact of the matter is very simple, because of these

college closures around different parts of the Province, specifically today we

are referring to Springdale, is that a lot of these low and middle income

families who have children will now decide not to do any further education, Mr.

Speaker, it is as simple as that because they cannot afford to go to St. John's,

Corner Brook or places further away. It gave them a real opportunity to go and

do first year courses, which the member also mentioned, first year courses and a

stepping stone to go on to do further education. The thrust is, Mr. Speaker,

besides the deterrent to education, which this does, it also has a magnificent

impact on the economy of a small town such as Springdale and that is the fact of

the matter. I did not get all the statistics from the member but I can tell you

that I have been speaking to people over the last few weeks out there and it

just seems like the whole town has just died. With that college closed down -

they had children going back and forth there and of course adults doing courses

there. The gas stations have noticed the difference, the hotel has noticed the

difference and the grocery stores have noticed the difference. So, Mr. Speaker,

it has an impact on a lot of people.

Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about this is the amount

of consultation that was done before this decision on colleges was made. If you

want to see the real epitome, the real best example of lack of consultation, the

member of the government, the member on the side of the government did not even

know that this college was being closed down. So where did these students who go

to these campuses and where did the parents get a chance to have an input? They

did not have a chance to have input, Mr. Speaker, they did not and that is the

whole problem behind this.

It is a real shame that the Government House Leader could

even make a comment that this is dull or boring when he realizes - he should go

and talk to the Member for Windsor - Springdale, ask them if they find it

boring, if they are going to yawn about it? It is very serious I say to the

member.

MR. TULK: On a point of order. I did not find the

presentation of my colleague boring. The only thing I find boring in this

Legislature is the hon. gentleman.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order, the hon. the Member for

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, he makes those comments, while

I am trying to be very serious on this matter and put forward the same views as

the Member for Windsor - Springdale did. I will make a comment about it. Now,

Mr. Speaker, the point of the matter is that this is very serious and it really

has impacted on places like Springdale, Bell Island and those other places. They

did not have their fair chance for consultation on this. It was a shock to a lot

of people and it has affected the economy in the town and the surrounding area.

It has affected the education of a lot of people who would have went through

that college to upgrade themselves with education and so on. So, Mr. Speaker,

the impact is very, very serious, I say to the Government House Leader, and I am

glad that the people have decided on putting forward a petition. They have asked

for meetings and they are going to continue. I can tell the Minister of

Education, they have not given up on it yet either. It is something that it was

an institution, not just a building in town, it was an institution that a lot of

people relied upon. It was something that gave spirit to the community to see

young people go ahead and get educated and so on. I commend the people of the

district for getting together to put forward their views in a petition and other

ways and I hope they keep up that view, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Hon. Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: The hon. member ought to be very serious about

this himself, to ensure that what we do here is proper, and the reasons, that

there should not be objects on members desks - obvious reasons for it, and I

just bring it to the attention of the hon. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. member is correct, that it

has been ruled I guess, consistently in this House in the past, that objects

such as containers that were just mentioned are not permissible on the desks. I

think the hon. Member for Kilbride recognizes that and he has removed it.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few brief comments with respect to the

petition so ably presented by my colleague from the District of Windsor -

Springdale, and supported by the hon. Member for Baie Verte.

The issue is a serious one, Mr. Speaker, and as difficult a

decision as it was for the government to make with respect to the closure of any

campuses in any communities such as in Springdale, at least in this instance, I

am encouraged by the fact that while everybody in Springdale, Lewisporte, Bell

Island and other locations recognize that there is not much purpose and not much

point in coming back to the government to ask us to reinstate funds into the

Education Budget to reopen these campuses, that they themselves are continuing

in efforts to be creative, to try and find alternate uses for the facilities,

because of the facts, as my colleague points out, that it has been an integral

part of the community for some time and that while it served a very specific

educational need for students in the area and students around the Province who

took advantage of certain programs, there was also a certain economic benefit

that is undeniable to the community with respect to the operation of the

college, and the hon. member for the area, Mr. Speaker, has been instrumental in

working with constituents and residents from the area, representatives of the

town, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, staff from the college itself

in having meetings trying to find other uses to take the facility and use it as

a government service centre of sorts for the whole area.

To see if that could be a possibility to have other

programming moved into the building other than just educational programming

through the community college system and that they are continuing to try and

find ways to creatively do that and to generate enough revenue from the campus

so that they could continue to operate in some capacity even though it won't be

supported by a sustaining grant from the provincial government through the

Department of Education, so it has been one of the very difficult decisions that

the government, Mr. Speaker, had to deal with in this budgetary process and I

can only commend the hon. member for bringing forward the petition on behalf of

the constituents and residents of the area and for his continuing work with them

to try and find some other reasonable and creative way to use the facility for

some other purpose, since it is not going to be provided with subsidies from the

provincial government to sustain it as part of the community college system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a

petition.

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

I am pleased to rise today to present what I am led to

believe to be one of the largest, if not the largest, petition ever presented in

the House of Assembly, some 74,000 names that have been collected from all over

the Island dealing with the increase or proposed increase for Newfoundland Light

and Power in electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, day after day, for the last three weeks, I have

stood in this House each and every day to present a petition. We have spoken to

petitions on it, urging the government to do whatever is required, to do

whatever is in their power to insure that an increase in electricity rates does

not occur. Four, maybe five weeks ago, all members in this House, passed

unanimously, a private member's resolution that dealt with giving the Consumer

Advocate all the necessary resources both human and financial to insure that the

consumers of the Province were represented to the best of their ability and to

insure that an increase in electricity rates would not occur.

Subsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, we have seen Newfoundland

Power say they didn't need a 4.9 per cent increase in electricity rates, what

they really need was a 2.9 per cent increase, and we agree, Mr.Speaker, that the

Public Utilities Board will handle that in due course. But, Mr. Speaker, what

has happened since then and what was going on behind the scenes at that time is

what really concerns me and it deals with the PST, GST harmonization.

Government has within its power, and what this petition is

asking, is asking government to do what is required to ensure that there is no

increase in electricity rates. But as a result of the Goods and Services Tax,

federal tax, and the 12 per cent retail sales tax being harmonized next April,

what will happen immediately as a result is that electricity rates in this

Province will rise automatically by 8 per cent. That is not just some idle talk

by a Member for Kilbride or some idle talk as a member of the Opposition. That

is confirmed by the vice-president of Newfoundland Light and Power and has been

confirmed on a number of different occasions.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House that government has

within its power to exempt a basic commodity like electricity rates, home

heating fuel, but especially with respect to this petition, to exempt that from

the GST-PST harmonization. Because no matter what income bracket we come from

all of us, each and every one of us in this gallery and each and every consumer

of power in this Province, will see an increase of 8 per cent across the board.

Where do the 40,000 families who are on Social Services right

now who are experiencing cutbacks due to the budgetary situation find that extra

8 per cent? Where do people who are working for minimum wage and below, families

who are surviving on next to nothing, find that 8 per cent?

The Minister of Mines and Energy stands in this House today

and says there will be an exemption for oil companies in terms of the

construction materials that they will buy related to exploration in this

Province. When will the Minister of Mines and Energy stand in this House and say

there will be an exemption under the harmonization of tax for people who use

power who need electricity? That is each and every one of us.

If the Public Utilities Board grants a 2.9 per cent increase

in electricity rates to Newfoundland Power what we will see by April 1 of next

year, flat across the board, is a 10.9 per cent increase in electricity rates.

Frankly, that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the 74,000 people who have

signed petitions willingly, and there are more on the way. It is unacceptable I

think to each and every home owner, consumer, and I think it should be

unacceptable to each and every member in this Legislature that because of a

direct government action we will see automatically an 8 per cent increase across

the board in electricity rates.

Make no mistake that while government does not usually, and

nor should it, get involved in the Public Utilities Board process, because that

is an arm's length quasi-judicial board that is set up to represent the consumer

and to look at rate increases based upon the submissions made by utility

companies. If we are going to interfere in that process then we should abolish

it altogether. But government has at its disposal, and government has the power

through Cabinet if the political will exists in Cabinet, to exempt by a stroke

of the pen a basic commodity that people, especially people who cannot afford it

and there are many of them, there are thousands of them in this Province today -

such an increase, that this government can exempt automatically from the

harmonized tax, GST-PST, that they can exempt that 8 per cent increase. What

this petition is asking is that government do exactly that. Thank you very much.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in

support of the petition from some 74,000 Newfoundlanders who presented this

petition here today to the House of Assembly. I sat through part of the session

yesterday afternoon and I listened to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

talk about: Did you write a letter to the consumer advocate, have you made a

presentation to the Board?

I didn't write a letter to the consumer advocate. I have no

intentions of writing a letter to the consumer advocate. What I am going to do -

because I got elected by people, people who I came into this House to work for

and to try and help out over the next four or five years while I'm here - I

intend to appear with my constituents - who, by the way, played a very large

part in gathering the names for this petition of 70-odd thousand names. And I

will be at the hearing of the PUB, and I will put forward the concerns of the

people from my district, and the individual in particular who worked, and worked

extremely hard, to see that this petition got into every part of this Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, from Labrador to Port aux Basques to St. John's,

and throughout the whole Island.

The 8 per cent that is in this, as my hon. friend has said,

at the stroke of a pen the government can eliminate the part that is now going

to be added to this if these people are granted their 2.-whatever percentage. As

far as I am concerned they should be granted absolutely nothing. Any

organization that makes a $28 million profit, I think that is more than

adequate. You take your money today and try putting it in a bank, and see what

kind of return you will get on your money; and you certainly will not get the

kinds of returns that these people are making in their exorbitant profits.

I say that, number one, there should not be GST added onto

this. That should be stopped. There is no way that the 8 per cent should now go

onto the light bills of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is no

way that Newfoundland Power should ever be granted - ever be granted - an

increase in their rates while they make the exorbitant profits that they make

and are continuing to make in this Province. They should not be allowed, and

when the time rolls around there should be no increase added to the power bills

of the people of this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to simply add to what has been said by the hon.

the Member for Kilbride, which was supported by my colleague, the Member for

Conception Bay South, by presenting yet another petition from the constituents

who reside in the district of St. John's East. As the Member of the House of

Assembly for St. John's East, some time ago petitions were placed in strategic

places throughout the district, and I am pleased to say that I have, in addition

to what has been presented, another 1,500 names -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - by residents of St. John's East who,

like other tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders, abhor what is being done with

respect to the claim that it is justified to have an increase in electricity

rates in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply unacceptable to expect ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to pay more for electricity in this Province

when Newfoundland Power had a profit margin last year of close to $28 million.

It is simply unacceptable, and nobody in their right mind can expect that it is

right or acceptable to have Newfoundland Power, in fact, be granted any

increase. Therefore, that is why we see tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders who

are standing up, speaking loudly, commenting through the media, and voicing

their opinions in any way that they can, to make it clear to Newfoundland Power,

to make it clear to the Consumer Advocate, to make it clear potentially and

hopefully to the Government of this Province, that this is not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, another point which is worthy of mention is the

fact that Newfoundland Power has a monopoly; therefore, people do not have a

choice. We have only one company that can distribute the power and this

particular amenity of life which is relied upon by so many hundreds of thousands

of Newfoundlanders. We have only one; therefore, there is control. There is no

option, there is no choice for ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, again, on behalf of 1,500 residents of the

District of St. John's East, I am pleased to add to the many thousands of

Newfoundlanders who have just spoken with respect to the 74,000-name petition

that was just presented, and on behalf of the people of St. John's East I trust

that this particular petition will be taken seriously and will be a part of a

voice that has been heard loudly in this Province in opposition to what is being

done in this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and

support my colleague, the Member for St. John's East when he adds another 1,500

names to the list, and to say that, I too, put out a petition in my district for

people in the district to sign, and there were 2,800 names from the district of

Kilbride that were part of this petition. But I am appalled that the Opposition,

or the critic for Energy has presented a 74,000-name petition and nobody in

government seems to want to respond to the issue.

The reality is that 74,000 names have come from all of our

districts, not just from St. John's East, not just from Kilbride, not from Cape

St. Francis; they have come from Terra Nova, from Bonavista North, from Port de

Grave, from Carbonear, from all areas in St. John's, from the West Coast, the

Southwest Coast, the Northern Peninsula, and from Southern Labrador. They have

come from each and every part of the Province, Mr. Speaker. When you look at a

74,000-name petition that has been presented in this House, which represents

about one sixth, I guess, of the population of the Province, I don't know about

anyone else, but I find that significant. And I say that the people of the

Province are speaking out loudly and clearly on what their feelings are about an

increase in a basic commodity, a necessity for each and every one of us - that a

10 per cent increase, which will amount to about a 10.9 per cent increase

through harmonization, and if the Public Utilities Board okays or approves a 2.9

per cent increase, it is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, there are many people today, and we know them,

members in this House know them, people who are on fixed incomes, older people,

who cannot afford a 10 per cent increase, who cannot afford to pay the rates

that Newfoundland Power is extracting from them right now. There are many people

in this Province, and I believe the Minister of Social Services can confirm it,

but about 35,000 to 40,000 families who are in receipt of social assistance are

living far below the poverty line right now, and they cannot afford to pay

another 10 per cent increase in electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am supporting another petition.

The reality is also that there are many people working in

this Province today who would qualify as the working poor, people who are

working for the minimum wage, husband and wife with one, two, three children who

are barely getting by. They cannot afford a 10 per cent increase on a basic

commodity that is a necessity. They cannot do it.

I say again, say it for the record, that we cannot interfere

in the Public Utilities Board process. That is why it was established, and we

should not interfere with that process, but government has right now before it

the opportunity to intervene directly and exempt the 8 per cent on a basic

commodity such as electricity rates where the base has been broadened, because

that is what this government's action will do on harmonization.

It is as simple as that; because of tax harmonization,

because of an initiative that was dealt with by the Cabinet and the Federal

Government, a federal/provincial arrangement that has been made, there will be

an additional 8 per cent on everyone's electricity bill at the end of the day.

That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to the 1,500 who signed the

petition in St. John's East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, this is a provincial affair, I say

to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is not acceptable to the 74,000

people who signed the petition and presented it here today, and it is certainly

not acceptable to any of the people in this Province.

With that I will sit down. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support another petition on the food fishery.

Of course, they are still rolling in; even as of this morning, I got another few

hundred, from Upper Island Cove, Mount Pearl, Makinsons, Seal Cove, Pouch Cove.

I heard the minister this morning on Open Line , Mr.

Speaker, and you could have sworn the minister took notes on me on Wednesday and

then presented them on Open Line this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I will read this petition now. This is another

petition, and here is their own prayer; I will read it for the sake of

technicalities. I don't want to get caught with blue boxes, or not doing

everything properly, so I will read the petition: `We, the undersigned residents

of ' -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I was going to use the line that my

colleague, the Member for Bonavista South used but I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: They are in my own pocket, anyway.

Mr. Speaker, here is the prayer of the petition: `We, the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, do hereby petition the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support our petition to open a food

fishery for the people of this Province. Every ocean bordering province in

Canada - they should have put down, too: and St. Pierre et Miquelon - `except

Newfoundland and Labrador, has a food fishery. We, the undersigned, take strong

exception to the treatment we are receiving from this government. We did not

destroy the fishery and object to the fact that, as a people, our heritage is

being taken away from us. We do not believe that a small hand line fishery would

damage the recovering stocks.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, you hear this day after day, more and more

because people are getting to a point now where they are saying they are going

to go fishing - this Summer they are going to go fishing. They phone me day

after day from all over this Province. Phone calls that I have gotten have come

from Labrador, right on up and down the Northern Peninsula. This morning again I

got more calls, and every day I get another example, another story from around

the Province. This morning I got a call from Ming's Bight, where last night the

caplin were rolling and the children were down on the beach and there were

codfish rolling in on the beach with the caplin. There were codfish rolling on

the beach. You could catch codfish, I say to the minister, to set another story

report from Ming's Bight, one like he told this morning on open line. The caplin

were rolling in Ming's Bight last night and codfish were rolling in on the beach

with the caplin.

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is starting to come around.

I will say this about the minister, that I hope he continues to listen. It seems

like he is listening a little bit now and he is starting to really search his

Newfoundland heart, his Newfoundland background. He is not worrying about his

profile or backing up the Premier who was ultimately responsible for turning

down this food fishery. He is starting to search his Newfoundland soul now, Mr.

Speaker, and he is starting to say: Yes, you're right you know, here is St.

Pierre et Miquelon, a foreign country, 3 kilometres off our coast they have

their water boundaries, they are out jigging the fish and we have to sit home on

the shore. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know with all due respect to the Minister of

Fisheries, that he is really saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I know, I realize that and I wouldn't blame

him, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, he is starting to search his soul now and he

is starting to say: Yes, you know, that is right. His principle is going to

override this standing on the soap box on government side and this Premier. I

know it, he is going to come out and say: Yes, you are right. It makes logical,

practical, common sense to allow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to go out and

jig a bloody fish with a hand line, do it properly -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Bloody, yes fish are bloody once you cut

them open, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with that is there? That is not

unparliamentary. If he has ever split a fish he knows that fish are bloody once

you split them open.

They can't catch a bloody fish, and meanwhile, not only can

our friends in the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec and so on, catch them, that was

bad enough, Mr. Speaker - but, I mean, a lot of people could handle that; but

the minister knows that this is the thing that rubbed salt into the wound, this

was the final straw, when we saw people in St. Pierre et Micquelon - and God

bless them, I am glad they can catch some. But for the people in Newfoundland,

that was the final straw. They said: We could handle, almost, Nova Scotia,

Prince Edward Island and so on.

I am also glad to hear the minister make a point, and I hope

he is going to follow up on it, on the difference of bay stocks. Well, I have

been saying for two years that I could not find scientific research for it, the

bay stocks, the difference with them as compared to the offshore bio-masses. A

very good point, I say to the minister, and it should be researched, because the

truth is that the bay stocks are so different from the offshore. The fish that

are in the bays spawn and reproduce and go on. They don't go chasing the

bio-masses around the Grand Banks and come back to Conception Bay, White Bay or

Fortune Bay. Their stocks are rebuilding in the bay. So let people have a hand

line, go out and jig a few fish. Do the right, sensible, honourable thing and

put a bit of a morale booster back in this Province.

Any Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. Speaker - and I say

this for the man who got me started on this, the eighty-year-old who fished all

his life and now he looks down at his boat and can't row out a few feet offshore

and jig a few fish. That is who I stand on this for, on principle. Mr. Speaker,

I know there are fishermen, in my own district who don't support it. They

support it for some different reasons and I respect their opinion but, Mr.

Speaker, we are not doing it as a popularity contest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - we are doing it because it is right. It is

the proper thing to do. It is the Newfoundland and Labrador thing to do, Mr.

Speaker. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to support the petition

presented by the Member for Baie Verte. I said before in the House and I will

say again - I have said it publicly before outside the House - that I believe in

a food fishery. The question that I have asked before, and I ask again now is:

Why is there no food fishery in this Province?

The answer I gave to that question, of course, was it all had

to do with public relations. The minister sitting in someone else's seat here

said there is no food fishery because of fishery conservation in the Province.

But we all know now that there are plenty of fish in the bays in this Province.

I don't profess to be a professional fisherman who knows all about the fishery,

but common sense tells me there are enough fish in the bays to allow a food

fishery. When we know the number of seals out there that are eating the fish -

and I believe the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture himself said there is 4

billion pounds a year being eaten by the seals - was it 4.7 billion? If you

permitted a food fishery in this Province, there would be no comparison.

I think the petitions that are being presented in this House

by the Member for Baie Verte are finally starting to pay off. I think the

provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is starting to see the light.

He is starting to understand that there should be a provincial food fishery this

Summer. My concern with this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, of course,

is that he is so biased with respect to Liberal districts that if he opens the

fishery in the Fall, it will be in Liberal districts only.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Liberal districts.

MR. J. BYRNE: There, he said it. Let it be known that the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said in the House of Assembly that if he

opens a food fishery this Fall, it will be in Liberal districts only. That is

right out of the horse's mouth, I say to the public of this Province, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: One end of a horse. He is one end of a

horse - I won't say which end.

Mr. Speaker, the petitions are finally starting to pay off.

The minister is changing his mind. One of the big reasons I think that he is

finally changing his mind is when he sees now that the people in St. Pierre et

Miquelon can go out, and if they are three miles off the coast of Newfoundland

they can jig a fish. As a matter of fact, I suppose, if the people in

Newfoundland, on the Burin Peninsula, decided to go three miles off and anchor

their boats, they themselves could jig a fish. Really, it is, I suppose, a

question now of the moral rights or the moral wrongs of a food fishery in this

Province.

We have seen the provinces in Atlantic Canada being permitted

to fish. We have been saying all along that it is not right, that the people of

this Province have been discriminated against in not being permitted to jig fish

in this Province.

I want to get back to the point of why there is no food

fishery in this Province. It goes back to the days when the present Premier was

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It has to do with public relations and the

Estai . The Premier, at that time the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,

went out and decided to have the Coast Guard arrest the Estai and bring

her in to St. John's. I remember there being thousands of people down on the

waterfront, making a big hullabaloo of it. What happened? The Estai was

let go in the dark of night, and we paid $140,000. There was one cheque written

by the feds, I believe, for $100,000 and another cheque for $40,000 to send the

fish back to Spain. What do we get? The Spanish are still out there raping the

Banks of the codfish, and all public relations.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of the day wanted to go

over to Europe and say: Listen, I want the Spanish, the foreign fleets, removed

from the fishing grounds, and I am not even permitting people in my own Province

to jig a fish. Therefore, we are looking at it from a conservation point of

view, and it all has to do with public relations.

Again, to get back to the subject of the seals, there is no

comparison to a food fishery with the amount of fish that is being taken from

our waters by the seals. We now see seals going up salmon rivers and getting

salmon. I remember people standing here and saying: Seals don't eat fish. There

is no proof that seals eat fish. The scientists told us that. Can you believe

it? making such statements. Now, we know that the seals - and not only how much

they are eating, but they will go and take probably a bite out of a cod and the

cod will sink to the bottom, and they will go and kill another fish, and it goes

on and on. So it goes up, I suppose, exponentially, the amount of fish that has

been taken. So there are no real figures with respect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suppose there

are no real figures on the amount of fish the seals are eating.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, just a few quick comments about

the petitions.

There are a couple of things I would like to do and I plan to

do it some time in the near future. I am going to ask somebody, either the Clerk

of the House or Hansard or whomever can provide me with the information on the

number of times that the Opposition members have presented petitions in support

of a food fishery. I am also going to ask the same people to get the information

on how many times they have presented a petition in the House in support of a

commercial fishery; then the first group of fishermen that I meet and I will be

meeting lots more these summer months, each and every one of them, I am going to

show them how responsible members on that side of the House really are, how

dedicated they are in supporting the tens of thousands of people who are not now

working in this Province, the thousands of people who are coming off TAGS.

The people who are coming off TAGS and have, in a lot of

cases, to go to the Department of Social Services to find an income, so these

people on the other side, day after day after day are presenting petitions in

support of a food fishery, to go out there and jig cod with absolutely no

concern for the people who derive a living from the ocean, not one time have

they presented a petition in the House of Assembly in support of a commercial

fishery.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Can't take the truth.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point. I am

not letting the minister stand in this House and say that members who presented

these petitions have no concern for the fish stocks. That is absolutely false,

Mr. Speaker, it is not true and he cannot continue to say, and every time he

continues to say, I will stand on a point of order and say you are not telling

the truth. He can't do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I said, Mr. Speaker, was very clear. I will repeat it

again. I will ask for the House, the Clerk or the Hansard people to provide me

with information as to how many petitions have been presented by members

Opposite in support of a commercial fishery. If that is twenty-five or thirty, I

will congratulate them for it, if that is nought, I will condemn them for it.

That is a fact, Mr. Speaker, so I am not accusing I am pointing out a fact.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, on a point of order.

MR. SHELLEY: A point of order.

If you want to know the number that was presented on the

commercial fishery by me, you don't have to ask the clerk, it is zero.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: That goes to show how responsible members

Opposite are, how much they care about the thousands of people in this Province

not now earning any money, don't see any light in the future, no way to earn a

living, don't know if there is enough fish stocks out there; all he is concerned

about is how many of his friends getting out on a Saturday morning in his khaki

pants, going out there jigging cod and laughing at everybody else. I am not

going to comment on that any further, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at five o'clock not

adjourn.

Motion, that the House do not adjourn at five o'clock,

carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to continue debate on the Budget. I had

the opportunity the other afternoon to speak on the motion of non-confidence and

I would now like to make some comments on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, over the last little while we have had lots of

comments here in this House as it relates to the Newfoundland Dockyard, and I

would like today to touch on some issues that deal with the Newfoundland

Dockyard especially as it relates to the rights of the employees of the

dockyard, and whether the dockyard stays opened or whether it closes, Mr.

Speaker, one could only hope that it will stay open and that it will continue to

provide employment for some 500 Newfoundlanders who work there.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is also the problem with

Newfoundland Dockyard of employee rights and severance packages and pensions,

that these people who worked there, some of them for some thirty-odd years,

certainly have a right.

Over the last little while - I have constituents, of course,

who work at the Newfoundland Dockyard and who have approached me concerning

their pensions, their rights, what they have been offered. It seems rather

strange or rather sad that these people have certainly not been made the same

offer as was made by CN Marine to their workers before - or CNR, I should say -

before the dockyard went under the control of CN Marine. Of course, one only has

to look at the severance packages that are now being offered throughout Atlantic

Canada to CNR workers, and indeed to Marine Atlantic dock workers.

A very interesting story comes from somebody I know at the

dockyard who has worked some thirty-odd years there and who, some time ago, I

guess, was offered a package. Now, a year later, the package seems to be less

than it was a year-and-a-half ago. So I guess it seems there is a set of rules

again for us, and a set of rules that deal with other people in Atlantic Canada.

The people in PEI who were involved with the fixed link, and

who are now going to lose their jobs, have been offered a much better, a much

stronger package than we have been offered here in this Province. Again, I think

that is totally wrong. We might very well say that is really not our

responsibility; that is the responsibility of the federal government; that is

the responsibility of CN Marine, and some people could probably live with that.

I cannot because of some of the horror stories that I have heard about lengths

of time it has taken people at the dockyard to even receive their packages and

so on. We have met with management of the dockyard, I have met with the labour

people at the dockyard, and it seems to be very strange that again, for whatever

reason, we do not seem to be given the same right as other people in Atlantic

Canada seem to be getting.

I think that is totally wrong, and I have had the opportunity

to talk to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and was very glad to

hear him say that we certainly should not be treated any differently than any of

the other people in Atlantic Canada. I guess as this story unfolds, as we get

closer to the end of June and the actual shutdown date of the CN dockyard in

this Province, it is very interesting to see exactly what will transpire between

now and June 30, which is supposedly - supposedly - their closure date.

I was very glad the other day to hear them finally say that

they have given the dockyard permission to bid on work. We have already lost one

contract when, indeed, we were the low bidder, a contract which we could have

won, a contract which could have kept many people at the dockyard employed for

some months. The first threat was to not allow us to bid on the next contract.

Of course that has been withdrawn, and now the bid will go forward. So I would

hope that we are successful in our bidding process with that, and in the end the

dockyard in St. John's will win that contract and will keep people all over the

Avalon - and it is not only the people who work there, but also the companies in

and around the Avalon Peninsula who do work with the Newfoundland Dockyard, so

we can only hope for the best there.

As well today we have presented some petitions, as usual,

concerning Newfoundland Light and Power, and I touch on those again very

briefly, I guess probably the largest petition to ever be presented in this

House, some 74,000 names, followed by my colleague here, another one for 1,500;

so it can only be hoped that somebody is listening, that somebody will get our

message, and that somebody will do something about it. It will be a shame if the

utility bills in this Province go up something in excess of 10 per cent; it will

be a shame.

As well, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked some questions of

the Minister of Education as it relates to the Seal Cove Campus in my district,

which I'm going to mention again today for the third time in this House, which

seems to be being butchered and stripped apart, torn apart.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Luckily. They are probably going to mine,

sir, what they did to yours on Bell Island. They will keep chopping till they

eventually close it.

I've met again, Mr. Speaker, with the people at the college

in Seal Cove. I've met with them once. They have made it abundantly clear to me

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, you are right. That is why we are

closed, I think. I have to agree with my hon. friend across the way. My college

in my district, Mr. Speaker, was self-supporting. It was a campus that went

seven days a week, offered courses in auto-body mechanics, mechanics, welding,

sheet-metal and business administration. Those courses are now gone. The

instructor who has instructed the business administration course at Seal Cove

was lucky, I guess. The lady gets to keep her job. She gets to bump somebody at

Cabot College here and she goes on to employment.

But I would hope, and I await very anxiously, the report from

the minister. He did tell me yesterday in Question Period that he would write

the people at Cabot College of my concerns and ask them exactly what their

long-range plan is for the Seal Cove Campus. I can only hope it doesn't get the

same fate as Bell Island and some others around this Province. For a campus that

paid its own way, certainly paid its own share, and the economic impact that it

had on the area will be drastic. I can only say that I hope that Cabot College

decides to leave the Seal Cove Campus alone.

It seems rather strange though that we are now down to the

instructors who are left there and one secretary, as I asked in my questioning

yesterday, one secretary who is going to do all the work for all the instructors

at the Seal Cove Campus. I find that rather difficult. I would love to know who

is going to be in charge. I guess it will be somebody at Cabot College. My only

hope is that the old saying will be true, out of sight, out of mind, and they

will forget that the campus in Seal Cove is there, and the campus will continue

to be able to function as a unit and will be there for many years to come. I

trust that is what will happen to the campus in my district, and can only hope

for the best for my area.

The other thing I would like to touch on, and I touched on it

briefly the other day, was the involvement of sport, recreation and tourism to

this Province. In 1994 there was a major world class event held. Of course, in

1995 there was one held. In 1996 there will be another. In 1997 there will be

another one. The impact of that on the economy of the Province is tremendous.

The minister seems to have an ear for these type of things and I can only hope

that this will continue as we go forward.

That is about it for me. I've had some disappointments, I

must say, in the Budget. I'm not happy with it at all. I certainly can't support

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I'm always happy in that regard, Beaton. I

always have a smile on my face. I'm one of these fellows who doesn't have a lot

of sleepless nights. I apologize for calling the member by name, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: That is okay. Well, it happens once in a

while. A slip of the tongue is not always a slip of the mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Is it?

MR. TULK: I've been called far worse.

MR. FRENCH: So have I.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even here.

MR. FRENCH: Even here, has he? Very good.

I can't support the no tax increase but all the fee increases

in this particular Budget. When the time comes I will vote according to my

dictates.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time in the House this

afternoon. I'm sure we are here for a lot longer today and I certainly don't

mind that. You come ready for that when you are elected to this place; and we

will be here tonight as the debate continues and however long it takes, it will

take.

I guess, before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

touch on a topic in the House that it seems, in the last day or so, has

certainly created a fair bit of controversy, and that is the one on education. I

would gladly give up my time on any other debate that I have the right to speak

on, to see education reform brought into this House. I would gladly give up my

time right now. I would sit down right now if the legislation on education were

to be introduced into this House. I guess the smoke and mirrors thing in the

Senate, I guess we have fifty Conservatives, fifty-one Liberals, they tell me,

and three Independents - two of three who normally vote with the Liberals. So I

am not so sure that everything in the House or everything in the Senate is

Lowell Murray.

I understand that a certain lady who headed the Liberal Party

in Winnipeg at one time is very concerned and may well have some scores that she

would like to settle. I would like to know why but I am sure they are there. So

the spin that is put on that over the last few days is not totally correct

either. The legislation that is before the Senate, if the will is there, Mr.

Speaker, can certainly be passed. If this member here - and this is not a

position of my party but a position of me personally - had his way, there would

be no Senate. I have a personal feeling about that. I think it is the biggest

waste of money in Canadian history and would vote tonight, would vote today and

would vote anytime day or night to have it done away with. I don't even look at

an elected one, Mr. Speaker, that is not in my agenda either. It has been a

place that we have been able to (inaudible) Conservatives and Liberals in and

out of and it has cost us a fortune.

I remember some years ago being interviewed by a local

television station as it relates to the Senate, and I had such very strong

feelings and very strong comment on the Senate that it didn't get aired. I

certainly didn't expect it to be aired because my feelings were very clear, Mr.

Speaker, that I totally oppose it. I totally oppose the Senate, whether they are

Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Independents or whatever they are, holding up

anything that this Province or any other province in Canada would send forward

to it. That is my position. I am a person who voted in the reform, who voted

yes. I realize that people on that side of the House and this side of the House

voted no. I happen to be a person who has very strong feelings about education

reform in this Province and it will take a lot of talking on somebody's part to

change my mind. It is time that it was changed, that's why I agreed with the

rest of my colleagues that day for the emergency debate in this House. That is

why I agreed for the proposals to go to Cabinet and that is why I agreed,

because I have no choice, for them to go to the Senate in Ottawa. But, Mr.

Speaker, I am totally opposed to that part of our government.

I guess there are people who have feelings about it and say,

well, we should all have checks and balances. Well, in this House we make our

decisions and we live and we die by the decisions as our own political futures

are. We live and die by them in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker. I think that once

you are elected to the House of Commons, then the members there should live and

die by the votes they cast and the positions they take on various issues. As I

said, Mr. Speaker, that is not a position of my party. I don't really know how

some of my own members probably feel about it but I do know from people that I

talk to in my district that I would probably have about a 95 per cent rating if

I, tomorrow, had the power and authority to disband the Senate in Ottawa.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time. I

thank you for listening and I will sit down and leave it over there to the

Government House Leader who I am sure later on today will get up and have his

say on the Budget. I don't believe he has spoken on the Budget yet so hopefully

he has been elected for a lot more years than I have and sometime, I hope,

before the Budget is passed he will get up and give us his words of wisdom and

his words of advice as it relates to the Budget.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise for a few minutes just to make a few

comments with respect to the Budget and take

part in the Budget Debate.

The day before yesterday, I had an opportunity to speak on a

few topics with respect to our position as a party in response to the motion of

non-confidence which was brought by the Member for Cape St. Francis. At that

time, I had an opportunity to touch on some concerns and issues in response to

the Budget, particularly in the Department of Justice and in the Department of

Education.

With respect to the Department of Justice, the area of

concern to which I gave some attention was the reduction in the Province's

police protection program. I would just like to be a little bit more specific

and give you some figures on that reduction of our police protection program

here in this Province. It has been reduced by 10.8 per cent, which represents

some $3.6 million, and when you look at the overall reduction in the estimates

with respect to the Justice Department we see that that particular area, the

area of police protection, has singularly been the area to which this government

has created the most significant loss.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there are some sixty-five

positions lost and, of course, the level of service and closure of offices will

result in public services being reduced and the overall feeling by the public in

this Province, that police protection is just simply not there. Again, just for

clarification, out of the sixty-five positions that are being reduced, thirty

positions are eliminated from highway patrol, and I wish to reiterate that that

is something which has to be taken very seriously by all citizens of our

Province, and by all members of this House regardless of what side of the House

we may sit. The fact that there is a reduction in police presence on our

highways has to be taken very seriously, and as I indicated the other day, I

fear what the consequences of this particular decision may be.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, before I leave the Department of

Justice once again, there is a reduction of $1.2 million in funding to

correctional facility operations, and it has seen staffing allocations cut by $1

million. Again, we have to look at what the overall effect of this reduction may

be. It is difficult to predict what these correctional facilities are, in fact,

going to face down the road, because these are institutions which have to deal

with the reality of the day.

If, in fact, there is a significant increase in crime,

whether it be adult crime or juvenile crime, and if, in fact, incarceration is

the result of this increase in adult or juvenile crime, the extent to which

those correctional facilities have to operate, and the extent to which these

correctional facilities have to accommodate the need, is governed by what the

situation is at that date. Therefore, I find it somewhat confusing to see that

there has been a reduction in funding to correctional facility operations when

we do not know what the need may very well be for 1996-'97.

Mr. Speaker, those two areas with respect to cutbacks in the

Department of Justice raise a source of concern for me as a person particularly

interested in this area, and I think I am correct in saying with respect to the

issue of the reduction in services on our highways, this has to be a concern of

all members of this House, regardless of party alliance.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would like to return briefly to an

area with respect to the

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is correct.

As a person who travels those highways, just to conclude

that, I am sure anybody would have to agree that it is a source of concern.

I wish to return to the area which was brought up during

Question Period today, with respect to the Newfoundland School for the Deaf. I

indicated that the reduction for 1994-'95 for teacher salaries is $35,200 less

than the average salary for one teacher, and that teacher salaries have remained

the same for several years.

The question that I ask, and the question which I feel was

not adequately responded to, was: If there appears to be in the estimates

sufficient funds for up to thirty-three teachers at our School for the Deaf, why

is it that only thirty positions have been allocated?

Also, historically, the budget for the Newfoundland School

for the Deaf has been approximately three-quarters of 1 per cent of the spending

for all of the expenditure in primary, elementary and secondary education. In

fact, this year there has been a departure from tradition and from what the

historical norm has been. This particular year, the reduction is less than .0072

per cent, or .0072 per cent of the expenditure relating to primary, elementary

and secondary education, so in percentage terms it does not sound significant,

but in overall terms there is a reduction in hundreds of thousands of dollars to

that particular institution.

Again, the overall reduction to the Newfoundland School for

the Deaf is 10 per cent of what it was last year. The overall reduction in

education generally in this Province is closer to 6 per cent. The overall

reduction with respect to expenditure in primary, elementary and secondary

education is close to 3 per cent. Therefore, we see that particular institution,

namely the Newfoundland School for the Deaf, being affected by approximately

three times the amount in allocated reductions - three times - and one has to

question the judgement, which is why I ask the minister today: Is there a change

in philosophy? Is there a change in direction with respect to where this

government sees the Newfoundland School for the Deaf going in the future,

because clearly these reductions cannot continue.

The student population has remained the same. If, in fact, it

could be argued that the number of students who attend the School for the Deaf

is significantly lower for September coming as it is this year, that is a

legitimate argument; however, the number of students who enroll at our School

for the Deaf on a full-time basis is identical to the number of students who

were enrolled for the academic year of 1995-1996. So, clearly, the Newfoundland

School for the Deaf is an area of concern.

I would just like to indicate to members of this House the

positions, and the number of positions eliminated. I asked the minister today to

confirm whether or not there were sixteen positions which were cut in this

year's budget. It is clear that there were sixteen, and I would like to refer to

them very briefly. We have: food service workers, numbers of positions

eliminated, two; utility worker, one, number of positions eliminated at the

School for the Deaf, two; cooks, one; nurses, two; residence counsellors, three;

supervisory counsellors, two; storekeepers, one; switchboard operators, one; and

teachers, two, for a total of sixteen positions lost at our School for the Deaf

located here in St. John's.

Other reductions include: $44,000 in transportation and

communications; $18,000 in supplies; $43,000 in purchased services; $2,500 in

furnishings and equipment; $15,000 in information technology, which essentially

translates into computers, for a total reduction from last year in non-salary

expenses of $122,500.

To add further to that, Mr. Speaker, next year there is an

indication, according to information I have in my possession, that a program

referred to as Telephone Pioneers will substantially reduce their financial

support for the school library. Since the school moved to its new facilities in

1987, almost all purchases of library books have been funded by the Telephone

Pioneers.

This is a significant loss to students in our Province who

require special need and who require special attention. These children are

hearing-impaired, they have to come and live away from their homes in many

cases. These children live in remote areas throughout our Province. They have to

live in St. John's away from their parents, away from their families. They

require special concerns, they require special attention. A voluntary program

such as Telephone Pioneers, their particular availability of funds is apparently

reduced dramatically. I would submit that when a school library is affected in

this way, this has to dramatically affect the job that the School for the Deaf

has in meeting the needs of children who are hearing-impaired.

In addition, the withdrawal of support from the Telephone

Pioneers could mean an additional shortfall of from anywhere between $10,000 and

$15,000 a year. So this particular institution is one which has been

significantly impacted upon as a result of this year's Budget, and it is an

institution which cries out for more assistance and attention. Therefore, I felt

it was necessary to raise this issue and to at least make a few comments on it

during debate here this afternoon.

I would like to return briefly to an issue which I spoke on

the other day concerning the public examinations. It was an issue that I didn't

really discuss because time didn't permit me. It had to do with the whole

argument by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association that at first,

when requested by government to assist government in the marking of the public

examinations, that it indicated that it would not cooperate simply because it

was not invited to participate in discussions; in other words, this famous term

that we keep hearing as part of this government's agenda, consultation with the

people.

Government did not consult with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association. Therefore, I would suggest that it is wrong for

government to place blame on the professional association of teachers when, in

fact, it has to admit that there was not previous consultation and discussion

with those individuals who ordinarily, having been adequately and properly

briefed, would have been pleased to sit down and work out an arrangement which

would be held to be in the best interests of the young people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

As I indicated in the past, and I am sure, as all members

present are aware, the Student Education Alliance represented the wishes of

students in a very professional and organized way and the impact of their

presence on Confederation Hill two or three weeks ago was felt by people

throughout this Province. Unfortunately, it was too late for them.

Unfortunately, the decision that was made to abolish public examinations for

this year had been made. It was clearly too late to make any changes to that

decision for this particular year.

I only hope that government sees fit to revisit this issue,

to abide by the recommendations of its own consultation paper on the senior high

school program, and to make adjustments to its thinking and to reconsider the

abolition of public examinations, in that this decision does not recognize the

concept of standardization, does not, Mr. Speaker, recognize the importance of

standards to young people in our school system.

Mr. Speaker, another area which I wish to refer to briefly,

is the area of school busing. It has been presented, Mr. Speaker, and

representations have been made by numerous speakers in this House. I know my

colleagues, as members of the Opposition, have presented numerous petitions on

the issue of school busing and how busing or the abolition of busing in certain

areas will detrimentally affect families and young people.

As an example, in the area of Brophy Place, Kelly Street,

Hunts Lane, Blackwood Place, this particular region of the city, there were

approximately ninety families who sent their children to school on school buses,

eighty-six children travel on the Pius X bus, sixteen travel on the Gonzaga bus,

twenty-eight children ride on the MacDonald Drive bus, a Seventh-Day Adventist

bus takes four children to and from Eugene Vaters Academy and Collegiate.

This means that a total of 140 children from this area depend

upon busing for transportation to and from school each and every day. One

hundred and forty children and, Mr. Speaker, this area is representative of the

types of concerns and of the many families in this Province who have voiced

their objections to this somewhat cruel decision by government to simply say,

again without consultation, again without any deliberation, again, in a

spontaneous and arbitrary fashion, to say to Newfoundland people: this decision

is going to be made, we don't care how it impacts upon ordinary Newfoundlanders,

the decision is made and you have to live with it.

Well clearly, Mr. Speaker, that thinking is unacceptable.

That thinking, Mr. Speaker, is totally contradictory to what is in the best

interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and when you have 140 children

from just these three or four streets, who live in a certain part of this city,

when you have 140 children from this small region, again representative of the

types of concerns that are being expressed, one can only see why there is

widespread opposition.

I heard the other night for example in, I believe it was in

Happy Valley - Goose Bay area of Labrador, where parents, hundreds of parents

came out to a public gathering, again with no official representation by the

government ministry, who opposed quite effectively I thought, the decision to

discontinue busing in their area. Of course, their added concern was the extreme

weather conditions that exist throughout many of the months during the school

year, a very legitimate concern, a very valid concern, and my question to the

government is: Will government listen? Will the Ministry of Education take this

into account and view this as a special consideration for the people of

particular areas of Labrador where, not only is the decision fundamentally wrong

to begin with, but where weather conditions and the whole question of lunch-time

busing in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area has to be seriously considered.

Will the government, for example, seriously consider the 140

children in the Brophy Place, Kelly Street, Hunts Lane, Blackwood Place area,

who too, view themselves to be victims of special circumstances. Many of these

families are of very limited means. They are low-income families, Mr. Speaker,

they do not have the resources to put children on a metrobus. Many of these

families do not have their own transportation which would allow them to

obviously take their children from one school to another. It is a situation

which requires, Mr. Speaker, a second look; it requires special attention and as

of yet, I have not heard this government come close to making any decision which

would of course, respect the views of these hundreds and hundreds of parents in

this Province who have voiced concern on a regular basis, on a daily basis.

So, Mr. Speaker, the area of busing has to be reviewed by

this government. It is a feature of this Budget which I cannot accept; it is one

of the many features of this Budget which will allow me to not vote in support

of this Budget. It is a provision in this Budget which clearly, is not in the

interest of the young people and their parents throughout this Province.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of education I had the opportunity

a couple of nights ago to attend a meeting at Mary Queen of Peace School. It was

a meeting which was sponsored primarily by the teaching staff of St. Agnes

School. It had to do with the discontinuance of a kindergarten program which was

scheduled to come on stream for September of 1996. This program is referred to

as Literacy 2000 and it was a program which had received almost unanimous

support by teaching professionals, by program consultants, by school

administrators and by the classroom teachers themselves as to what really was

the answer in curriculum and in instructional materials for children at a very

young age.

As I indicated, the name of this program is Literacy 2000. It

was piloted very briefly, and in fact there was a two-day workshop for primary

school teachers in this region held during the past school term. It received

unanimous approval by the teachers, by the administrators, by the program

consultants. What I find alarming is the fact that this program is now being

rejected by government, being discontinued by government, and the savings to

government are very minimal. It was quite inexpensive. It was driven by

teachers. Teachers themselves, and in fact PTAs, would have been a part of those

individuals who would contribute to the program. But for a very minimal amount

government, had it not decided to simply pull the carpet out and leave people

high and dry, had it not been for that, primary schoolteachers would have had a

program which they could have been proud of. The ultimate beneficiaries of that

program would have been the young people of our Province.

At that particular meeting there were three tables which were

set up in front to try and recognize what the kindergarten or primary school

program is all about. One table had this particular program referred to as the

Literacy 2000 program, with all of the materials, with the materials which form

part of this program so that those in the audience could view it and assess it

for themselves.

The second table included the kindergarten program which is

in existence today, and this is a startling statistic. It has been in existence

for the past seventeen years. The program which the four-, five- and six-year

old children are using in our schools - whether it be pre-school or kindergarten

level - has been in existence, has been a part of the primary school curriculum,

for the past seventeen years.

It has been proven to be so ineffective teachers refuse to

use it any more. In fact, teachers bring in their own materials. In the

curriculum program which is presented by the Department of Education and which

outlines what materials are used for each grade from kindergarten up to Grade

XII, the reality is that under the kindergarten breakdown what is truly being

provided by the Department of Education is absolutely nothing. Obviously they

couldn't leave that blank, they had to put something down, so they put down this

archaic program which has been in existence for the past seventeen years.

The third table, which was in front of the audience for all

of the parents, teachers and administrators to see, had on it what the

Department of Education provides the primary school teachers teaching in the

kindergarten area. Do you know what was on that table? Absolutely nothing. The

symbol was quite effective. It was easily seen exactly what government, what

this government, provides in terms of teaching materials and assistance to

primary school teachers. It is a sad reflection of the reality of what is

existing in many areas within our Department of Education today.

I made a comment some while ago in this House that the

education system in this Province, both secondary and post-secondary, is in a

state of crisis, and I stand by that comment. The reductions in a program like I

was just referring to, Literacy 2000, the withdrawal of busing, the sudden

withdrawal and unnecessary withdrawal of public examinations, the

discontinuation of first-year university in many of our communities, the closure

of post-secondary institutions in communities which relied so strongly on the

existence and the presence of these post-secondary institutions, all add up to

what I view to be a crisis in education.

There are so many people out there, not only educators, not

only professionals, but just ordinary parents and students, who just shake their

heads when they examine what is being done to education. The sad consequence,

too, is that our young