March 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 3

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 1992, I announced a

successful Request for Bids that resulted in work expenditure commitments of

approximately $1.7 million for three petroleum exploration permits onshore

Western Newfoundland. Those permits covered an area of about 177,000 hectares.

A year later, on February 5, 1993, I announced a second

successful Request for Bids that resulted in work expenditure commitments of

approximately $5.7 million for an additional six permits. Those permits covered

an area of about 190,000 hectares.

A few months ago, on November 23, 1995, I announced a third

Request for Bids, at which time interested parties were invited to submit bids

in the form of work expenditure commitments on thirty-one parcels of land by

March 22, last Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to announce that I have

selected bids totalling approximately $21 million on twenty-eight parcels of the

thirty-one put forward covering an area of about 880,000 hectares.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: As before, the successful bids are in the

form of work expenditure commitments whereby the companies undertake to spend

the bid amount on exploration during the five year term of the exploration

permit.

The successful bidders are as follows:

For parcels #1 to 6, 12 to 13, 26 and 28 to 31, Sandhurst

Roxana Exploration Limited with total bids of $3,773,000; for parcels #7, 11 and

18, Vinland Petroleum Incorporated, with total bids of $828,000: for parcels #8

and 27, London Resources Incorporated, with total bids of $590,200; for parcel

#9, Gentry Resources Ltd. with a bid of $12,500; for parcels #16, 19 and 22,

Mobil Oil Canada Properties with total bids of $4,684,250; for parcel #17,

Canadian Trans Ocean Petroleum Corporation, with a bid of $511,111.77; for

parcels #20 and 23, Hunt Overseas Operating Company and PanCanadian Petroleum

Limited with total bids of $10,350,000; for parcel #21, Company 10486

Newfoundland Incorporated with a bid of $52,500; for parcel #24, Imperial

Venture Corporation with a bid of $185,440; and for parcel #25, Jay Construction

Limited with a bid of $28,700.

Mr. Speaker, certain requirements must be met before I will

issue the permits, pursuant to this Request for Bids. This includes the receipt

of a security deposit for each permit in the amount of 20 per cent of the total

amount bid.

Mr. Speaker, provided all requirements are met, the number of

onshore exploration permits issued since the regulations were put in place in

1991 will now total thirty-seven. Total expenditure commitments will amount to

$28.4 million.

Mr. Speaker, I note that momentum is building in offshore

Western Newfoundland as well. Currently, there are three exploration licences in

effect and the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board has issued a recent

call for Bids on eight offshore parcels, four of which are located offshore

Western Newfoundland. This call closes on September 30, 1996. In addition, Hunt

Oil and partners are planning to start an offshore well, 6 kilometres SW of Cape

St. George in May or June.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased by the level of interest

that the oil and gas industry is showing in Western Newfoundland, onshore and

offshore. We hope that this will lead to further economic activity whereby the

full petroleum potential of that area will be realized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We join with the government today, and all members I assure

you, in expressing the level of optimism that the Opposition wants to show for

the exploration industry in Western Newfoundland in the oil and gas industry.

Certainly, any news like this is welcomed and certainly welcomed with open arms

but I want to assure the government, as well, that we, on this side of the

House, while supporting that, will want to ensure that the maximum benefits are

received for this Province and the people in this Province. Maximum technology

transfer must be accrued, maximum jobs must be achieved and, in short, Mr.

Speaker, we must ensure that we get our full and fair share.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was awaiting with great interest the announcement of the

minister. Because the level of expenditure commitment, of course, reflects the

optimism of the oil industry itself, having already conducted considerable

amounts of seismic activity on the West Coast; that is room for a great deal of

optimism, particularly with certain of the bids. So I am encouraged by it. There

is reason to be optimistic. But I did not hear the minister tell the House what

plans he had for ensuring that the people engaged in this activity are in fact

Newfoundlanders. I know that they are bringing in seismic crews from elsewhere.

I know some Newfoundlanders are employed. I would like to hear more from the

government as to how it plans to ensure that Newfoundlanders get the full

opportunities for working on these exploration activities.

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

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, speaking in the capacity of

Minister responsible for the Status of Women, I am pleased to announce the

appointment of Members of the Provincial Strategy Against Violence Team and the

hiring of the provincial co-ordinator. One of the key elements of the Provincial

Strategy Against Violence Action plan was the establishment of a co-ordinating

team with representatives from the Departments of Health, Social Services,

Justice and Education who have at least 25 per cent of their work time dedicated

to co-ordinating initiatives that address violence. The team is led by a

full-time co-ordinator located within Women's Policy Office. This is truly a

co-operative effort with all initiatives to be carried out in partnership.

Co-ordination between government departments and collaboration between

government and community groups is central to the successful implementation of

this Action Plan. The team members are as follows: Jim Oldford, Co-ordinator;

Joy Maddigan, Department of Health; Rosalind Smyth, Department of Social

Services; Mary Hatherly, Department of Justice and Phyllis Mullowney, Department

of Education.

For information of members, I would like to provide some

background on these people so that you can get some indication of the depth of

expertise that will be dedicated to this: Mr. Oldford holds a Masters of Social

Work from the University of Toronto and has most recently worked in child and

adolescent mental health with Janeway Mental Health Services. Much of his

clinical work has been in working with victims of violence.

Joy Maddigan has a Master of Nursing from Memorial University

and is employed as the Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing Co-ordinator with the

Department of Health. She has worked as a staff graduate and clinical nurse

specialist in psychiatry and as a community mental health nurse.

Rosalind Smyth is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Division

of Social and Strategic Planning, Department of Social Services. Her educational

background is in child development and adult education.

Mary Hatherly holds a Masters of Law from Osgoode Hall and is

currently employed as a Solicitor with the Civil Division, Department of

Justice. While employed as a Senior Policy Advisor to the New Brunswick

Department of Justice, she assisted in the Administration of the Crimes

Compensation Program and was responsible for the development of internal

policing and correctional policy, including aboriginal policing and women's

abuse protocols.

Phyllis Mullowney is a Career Education and Cooperation

Education Consultant with the Division of Program Development, Department of

Education. Her training in the area of counselling and educational psychology,

combined with extensive work with youth at the Brother T.I. Murphy Centre,

allows her to bring both a theoretical and practical background to the team.

The Action Plan is based on a recognition that solutions to

the problem of violence must be a collaborative effort between governments and

the community. It is very encouraging to learn how much input was received from

throughout the community in developing this Action Plan. We all have an

important role to play in eliminating violence in our society, and it will be

important to their ongoing evaluation process for the team to receive feedback

from members of the community who are directly impacted by the initiatives that

are being set in motion. The vision of this strategy, which is the foundation of

the Action Plan, is that the people of our Province will live in a safe, caring

community, where there is an inherent respect for each other and where violence

is unacceptable.

The Provincial Strategy Against Violence is a five-year plan

which involves the coordination of service delivery to women, children, the

elderly, and other vulnerable adults who have experienced violence, and the

coordination of violence prevention initiatives. Strategies to achieve these

goals are recommended in four areas: legislation and policy; service delivery;

public education; and research and evaluation.

During their first meeting, the coordinating team focused on

developing a working process, reviewing progress made to date, and they began

developing a clear implementation plan for the initiatives outlined in the

Action Plan. One of the priorities is to complete the planning phase and begin

implementation of pilot projects to test a number of service delivery models

that promote a coordinated approach. These include: a multidisciplinary service

centre; crisis intervention, assessment and referral services at a district

social services office; an intervention and treatment centre which deals not

only with individual victims but with other family members; and co-location of

staff from one agency to another. Another priority initiative will be the

development of regional coordinating committees. Priorities also include the

development of a multi-phased, multi-year public awareness campaign concerning

violence.

Mr. Speaker, this strategy was developed over a three-year

period, under the leadership of the Women's Policy Office in conjunction with

the Departments of Social Services, Justice, Health, and Education. The process

involved the release of a consultation paper, a year-long consultation process

with community groups, including five regional workshops, and the finalization

of the Strategy which was released last June.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased

today to support this initiative of the government. I am certain that the

minister brings to this task the same kind of dedication that she has shown in

her community prior to her taking the office that she now holds. I can say to

all members of the House that the minister has shown great leadership in this

initiative within her own community.

I'm pleased to hear words like coordination and integration.

I only say to the minister that I hope that these words are really going to

result in strategies that will help us reach solutions to violence, particularly

violence against women and children. I refer the minister to the programs that

are ongoing in provinces like Alberta where they have a family policy grid in

which all departments of government have to place all of their legislation

before a family policy grid that will examine them for their impact on families

and particularly on the delivery of services. There are many examples across the

country. However, I would like to point out that one of the examples of

community involvement in the resolution of violence is right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I refer to the initiatives that have taken place in

Port au Port, and based on the New Zealand model. I say to all hon. members that

the research shows that if we are going to solve problems that relate to

violence we have to make sure that it is community focused, community monitored,

and community controlled.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. the minister, this is a

welcome initiative. I know of Mr. Oldford, I worked with him when I was a high

school principal, and he has made presentation to the Select Committee on

Children's Interests. I can't think of a better person to coordinate the effort.

I compliment the minister on her initiatives and I wish the process great

success. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to commend the

minister in making this presentation to the House. I think she set very high

standards for this process. Certainly with the compliments of the Member for

Waterford Valley the expectations are going to be very high. The people who have

been appointed, some of them are known to me, they are a highly qualified group

of people. As an action plan of course it is the results that people are going

to measure it by. I think public education in the area of violence, violence in

general but violence against women and children in particular, is something of

very high importance. It has to be made perfectly clear to members of society

that it is totally unacceptable and ought to be highly negatively treated by all

members of society including officialdom.

I look forward to good success. We will be looking of course

to ensure that we do get the kind of success created by the expectations here. I

wish the minister well in the process.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we call Oral Questions I would like

to take the opportunity to welcome to the public galleries on behalf of all

members Mr. Boyd Noel, Mayor of St. Anthony, in the District of The Straits &

White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome on behalf

of all members eight students from the Truman Eddison Memorial School in Griquet,

and their teacher Ms Bonnie Bussey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions

today for the Premier. Since the Premier did not answer my questions in Friday's

Question Period and insists he has to wait for more information from Ottawa I

would now like to focus on aspects of UI reform that are within the direct

responsibility of this Province.

In the proposed EI-UI legislation the federal government will

no longer purchase training courses whether from this Province or from public or

private institutions. This will severely affect enrolments at institutions

around this Province. I ask the Premier: What arrangement is the Premier making

to prepare for this downturn in post-secondary enrolment? Will he ensure that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will have the same access to post-secondary

education as they did before?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of

the Opposition for his continuing interest in the subject. Before I respond to

him, I know the Leader of the Opposition would want to join with me, with you,

Mr. Speaker, and indeed with all members in welcoming to the House of Assembly

today the Member for Windsor-Springdale who has taken his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: May I say, Mr. Speaker, we are always

pleased in this place no doubt to have such an experienced, sure-footed member

take his place on the front bench to assist all of us in the conduct of our

responsibilities and duties.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: We would be absolutely lost without the

member; there is no question about it.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition on Friday asked a

series of questions about the proposed UI reform. At that time I responded by

come from a wide variety of sources. Come from this side of the House, and

indeed come from that side of the House - to look at the reform package that was

tabled, with all of its components, and to make changes to it that ensure that

seasonal workers are not discriminated against. Indeed, the minister who has

that responsibility, the Honourable Doug Young, has said that with respect, in

particular, to consecutive weeks of work, and with respect to the intensity

rule, which affects the maximum insurable earnings of anybody who draws UI, that

he is prepared to introduce new changes. The consequence of introducing those

new changes is to affect the fiscal package around which the total UI payout

occurs, and I think the Leader of Opposition knows that.

The Leader of the Opposition, on Friday, was comparing the

proposal as it affects Newfoundland and Labrador compared to the proposal, or

the tentative proposal, that was put down as it affects the Province of Quebec.

If you look at the proposal as originally tabled - and I know the Leader of the

Opposition has looked at it because the proposal is public information; it is

not any kind of a state secret; it was made public some months ago - you see a

package that has Newfoundland receiving a total of $162 million in assistance

under the Employment Measures budget, on the HRIF program. That compares with

$30 million in P.E.I., as proposed, Nova Scotia $102 million, New Brunswick $133

million, Manitoba $77 million, Saskatchewan $57 million, Alberta $172 million.

Now the Leader of the Opposition, inadvertently I am sure,

gave us just a comparison with the Province of Quebec where Quebec, with its

population, receives $747 million; but you can see by the numbers I have just

made available that Newfoundland does quite well relative to all other similar

or larger size provinces.

My point is simply this: Until the minister responsible

concludes his deliberations on the points that I and the Leader of the

Opposition both, and many others, have asked him to reconsider, we don't know

what the final dollar figure is going to be for any of these programs. And I say

to him, with great respect, let's give the minister an opportunity, I hope,

within a matter of weeks, to come forward with his decision with respect to this

program, and at that stage be quite glad to exchange views with the leader on

its impact on Newfoundland and what, if anything, more the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador should do.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, welcome the Member for Windsor - Springdale, and

congratulate him on his election victory.

I did not ask the Premier about consecutive weeks, or

intensity; I asked the Premier, in light of the announcement that the federal

government will no longer purchase training programs from this Province or from

public or private institutions, I ask the Premier: What is he going to do to

enable this Province to compensate to ensure that there is an equal access to

post-secondary education that there is right now; it is a provincial

responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, once again the Leader of the

Opposition sets up a scenario where he sets up this great big injury to the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and then, having set it up, wants me to

join with him in this quick attack to knock it down. Last week it was comparing

Newfoundland's total funds to that of Quebec, which he did, but neglected to

point out that while Newfoundland receives $162 million under the proposal that

has been put forward, that is more than has been proposed for P.E.I., more than

has been proposed for Nova Scotia, more than has been proposed for New

Brunswick, more than has been proposed for Manitoba, more than has been proposed

for Saskatchewan; but he neglected - I know inadvertently - to point that out,

and I am glad to have this opportunity given the Leader of the Opposition's

interest in dealing with numbers in an exact fashion, to make that information

available to him today.

Today he set up another great injury to the Province. The

federal government, says the Leader of the Opposition, is going to stop funding

certain programs for Newfoundland and Labrador. He hasn't told us that the

proposal is one that applies to the whole of the country. And I say to the

Leader of the Opposition: When we see the full impact of the proposals that are

forthcoming, when we see the changes that are suggested by the Minister

responsible for HRD, the Honourable Doug Young, when we see what is left in the

fiscal pie at the end of the day, we will sit down with the federal government,

look at the full range of programs, and I would be happy then to ask the

minister responsible to give a full report of the end result of those

deliberations to the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, to the House. Until

such time, for me to sit here and speculate out of thin air the full impacts of

proposed changes is more than I can do or should do.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, in an area of provincial responsibility, I am

asking the Premier, will some community college campuses now close in this

Province? The federal government no longer funds those institutions; it has been

indicated that they will not, and that is not one of the areas that is now under

review for consideration, that is a factual statement that has already been

dealt with. Now Bell Island and Bonavista, areas like Port aux Basques,

Springdale and Baie Verte campuses are some of the ones that are dependent on

HRD funding. I ask the Premier, will some or all of those campuses now close?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the question and the interest of the

Leader of the Opposition in it because it is an important question. All of the

information, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the community college system in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador run by the government through the

Department of Education, is a matter like all of the other program areas that

are under review in terms of the Budget of the Province.

It is true that some of the courses and some of the students

in some of the courses are there under funding arrangement with different

federal programs. HRD, the regular UI Program, TAGS Programs in some cases and

there are many other private institutions that have arrangements, Mr. Speaker,

where some of their funding come from some federal sources. That is not new, it

is not unique, it is not different, it didn't start with TAGS, it didn't start

with the UI Program, it has been going on for years and from time to time, the

federal government and other agencies withdraw some funding from certain

programs with which they are involved, the government then makes adjustment in

terms of what is expected student population is to be in those campuses and

whether or not there is a need, regardless of where the money is coming from for

the students who are in the campuses. The judgement, Mr. Speaker, is always

whether or not there is a need to have the number of facilities that exist at

any one point in time, continue into the future regardless of what is happening.

The main decision is made on the basis of the potential

student population regardless of where they are accessing their money and the

ability of the Province to provide for the continuation of the facility, the

staff and the programs to meet the needs of that potential student population.

That exercise has gone through every year, Mr. Speaker. There is no particular

crisis this year. We are examining the college system at this point in time and

we have been examining it, Mr. Speaker, for a considerable period of time

largely in terms of trying to have increased efficiencies -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

-increased efficiencies particularly at the administrative

level so that any monies that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is

putting in to the community-college system, will have the maximum impact on the

students that it is designed to serve.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Education must be living in a different world

because there is a change. The federal government has announced that it is no

longer going to continue the current program of purchasing seats at those

colleges. It is not going to do it any more, period.

Now, adult basic education is another example, even though it

is a provincial responsibility, many Newfoundlanders, young and old alike are

relying on seats purchased by HRD in order to be able to attain a high school

education, and there are many students now who just need a couple of credits and

four and five credits to complete that, but with a discontinuation of those

programs, I ask the Premier what he intends to do to ensure that those students

who are close to graduating, are able to continue and to receive a high school

education?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, and not to downplay the seriousness of the issue that

the Leader of the Opposition raised, there is an issue because there is no

question that at any time you find a student in any program regardless of the

source of funding, who finds himself or herself part way through the program and

then has difficulty completing it, it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I think the characterization and the representation of it by

the Leader of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, needs to be clarified

and redirected in some way. What we have, is a number of initiatives ongoing,

where different funding sources of the federal government are in some duress and

under some stress. They are trying to make arrangements in some instances, Mr.

Speaker, to close out certain centres and have the students who are part way

through a program move to other nearby centres and complete their courses where

that can be done. At the end of the day, that is what all of the players

involved, particularly the TAGS related training and others are now in an

exercise where the representatives of FFAW, who are very concerned about this,

are working with their own members to try to make sure that the facilitation and

ease of transfer does not cause difficulty for the students in the middle of a

program.

The whole issue though, Mr. Speaker, to try and represent

that in fact there is a major problem that has been caused here in some way that

the provincial government should be stepping in, regardless of what is

happening, and making sure that nobody is impacted in any negative way. That has

never been within the realm of capability of the Province to 100 per cent deal

with all the problems all the time. We are working with the affected parties, we

are trying to minimize any direct negative impact on a student who is in the

middle of a program, Mr. Speaker, and we have every confidence in working

together with the organizations involved, with the individuals and with the

federal government so that we can manage to make sure that the students are not

disadvantaged.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What the minister

is saying is that some of these are going to close out. That is the inference

that the minister is making.

I ask the Premier, will he provide alternatives to the HRD

funded education centres, like the sixteen that the FFAW union has across this

Province, so that people will not be left high and dry?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, again, I think we

just answered that question posed in another way.

It is not the intent of the Province to try to step in to

make sure that a particular building or a particular location stays open. The

focus for the Province, working with FFAW - the organization representing the

workers in the program - is to make sure that the students themselves, to the

maximum extent possible, Mr. Speaker, have an alternate location where they can

continue their training. There might be some slight dislocation in terms of

physical location where they actually do the training, there might be some

slight inconvenience but the biggest concern is to make sure that, if at all

possible, that all of the students get to finish their programs.

It is the same kind of thing that we deal with from time to

time in the community college system, in the day school system, where when the

student populations decline and other factors come into effect you don't just

arbitrarily decide to keep all of the facilities open regardless if there are

any bodies in them or not. There is a restructuring, a rearrangement going on

with the FFAW centres that the FFAW officials, Mr. Speaker, are doing a very

good job of trying to work cooperatively with the federal government officials

to minimize any negative impacts on the students.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier, I

know the Premier met with the federal Finance Minister, Mr. Martin, on Friday. I

ask the Premier, did he discuss the impact the EI program is going to have on

this Province with the minister on Friday and if so, what steps is the federal

government going to take to address this projected $140 million shortfall out of

the Newfoundland economy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did meet with

the Minister of Finance, discussed a variety of questions with him, including

the need to get a decision early from the Minister of Human Resources

Development on the matters that have been put before the minister, the question

of ensuring that the reform, if it proceeds, does not discriminate against

seasonal workers. The Minister of Finance has taken that aboard and we discussed

a variety of other matters as well.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minster of Social Services. They relate to the need for an emergency shelter

for children in the St. John's region and the proposed closure of Presentation

House. While I agree that foster homes have their place in our community, I

remind the minister that an adequate supply of foster homes may not eliminate

the need for emergency shelter for children. Presentations made to the Select

Committee on Children's Interests last autumn did not show an over supply of

foster homes in the St. John's region. I ask the minister: if foster homes are

so readily available why has the Department of Social Services left three

children waiting for a long term placement at Presentation House since December

26, 1995, one day short of three months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

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

In response to your question concerning why the children have

been in Presentation House for as long as they have is really to facilitate

their re-entry into the normal family environment. As you are probably aware,

there is a pilot project going on at Presentation House whereby these three

children have been a part of a process whereby the family come in and do the

actual parenting to allow them to return to their normal home. It is a process

to minimize disruption and as you know, that is part of the policy of Social

Services to try to re-establish a normal home environment as soon as possible.

With respect to the number of foster homes, there are a

number of foster homes waiting to be licensed. I think there are fifty-one that

are in the process of being licensed, and we are very pleased with how that is

progressing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

What the minister has given is an excellent rationale for the

continuance of an emergency centre for children, which is what Presentation

House is all about. I say to the minister, that prior to the opening of

Presentation House in 1980, children who were in need of emergency care were

placed in the Janeway where they occupied acute care beds even though they did

not need direct medical intervention. I want to ask the minister what assurances

she has today that children who are at risk will not be forced to be admitted

unnecessarily to the Janeway or placed temporarily in some local motel or hotel

without adequate resources of counselling or have access to a nurturing

environment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Well, to reiterate, I guess, the most

important part of the process of re-entering children back into the home is

trying to put them back in a normal family environment as soon as possible, so

my previous response to your question would not facilitate the need to create

other centres like the Presentation House. In fact, it would lead to the other

conclusion, and that is, the sooner we can replace children in a normal family

environment, the better.

In terms of a guarantee of not putting children in an

institutional environment, from our perspective we feel we can give as much of a

guarantee that children will be placed in foster homes as much as we can

guarantee people will receive any services that they need. We are in the process

of facilitating the licensure of a number of foster homes and it is our

intention to keep children out of institutional settings. It is our intention to

maintain a normal family environment. The front line workers and the staff of

Social Services are working very effectively to do that, and we are very pleased

with that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

My supplementary is to the Premier. In December, 1994 the

government of Premier Wells appointed a Select Committee of the Legislature to

hold hearings throughout the Province on how government and its various agencies

can better address the needs of children and families. Technically, this

committee ceased to exist at the call of the February election; however, the

problems encountered daily by children and families are as obvious today as they

were a year-and-a-half ago. What provisions have government made to complete the

mandate of the Select Committee on Children's interests?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for his question. I know of his genuine

interest in this matter and I want to assure him that the work of the committee

is one that I am reviewing. I am well aware that the committee has heard from

700 participants from communities all over Newfoundland and Labrador, and that

many of those participants await now the consequence, the final result, and the

recommendations of this committee to government, and I want to assure them that

I and members of the Cabinet, and particularly the ministers most concerned with

the work of this committee are going to have a look at where it is in its

mandate, consider extending that mandate so that the job can be finished and so

that government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can have the full

benefit of the great deal of work that has already been done, and the amount of

work that yet needs to be done to complete the mandate that was formerly given.

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

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

My question today is to the Premier. Initiatives by the

Federal Government to centralize government operations are having somewhat

disastrous consequences for many regions of this Province. In particular, Mr.

Speaker, this Province has lost many jobs and services over the past two years

to the provinces of Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Has the Premier met, or does the

Premier plan to meet with his federal cousins in Ottawa to discuss this very

important matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a problem.

The problem he refers to is the loss, I think, he said, of jobs generally to

other provinces or other regions.

MR. E. BYRNE: The centralization of -

PREMIER TOBIN: - and centralization. I take it as a

serious representation by the member, but perhaps I would be better able to make

representation to `federal cousins' if you can give me some specific examples of

the kinds of job losses you are talking about?

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the federal Department of

Supply and Services announced recently that thirty positions would be moved to

Halifax from this Province and that people holding those positions would not be

given the opportunity, or the chance, to move with those jobs or to relocate.

Does the Premier, in asking for specifics, support this latest export of federal

jobs from this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as a general rule, this

government supports the maintenance of jobs in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that is why I hope and expect the member opposite, and indeed, all

members opposite, will support the initiative by this government to put in

place, in essence, a federal forestry centre in the City of Corner Brook, so

that the federal forestry jobs which were scheduled to go as part of a

consolidation to the Province of New Brunswick can be retained in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I know the member opposite knows that this

was a very important part of the platform that we put forward in the recent

election campaign. It is an example of the kind of initiative we are taking to

consolidate federal and provincial expertise, to maintain jobs in the Province.

If the member has suggestions as to how we can employ those kinds of initiatives

- certainly we will be looking for them ourselves - to maintain jobs in this

Province in the future, we would be very glad to have his constructive

suggestions.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows full well

that when he was the federal minister, over fifty jobs left this Province in the

sector of forestry and went to New Brunswick with a maintenance of only

seventeen jobs left in this Province. I mean, the reality is this, that over the

past three years, the Provincial Government has stood by and watched hundreds of

jobs and many, many services by the Federal Government leave this Province.

The question for the Premier is this: Will he take a more

pro-active approach than his predecessor? Will he take immediate action to meet

with the Prime Minister or whoever is necessary to meet with to ensure that the

maintenance of federal jobs and/or services for people in this Province remain

in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, may I say a couple of things,

in response to that question, to the member. First of all, you know, I think all

of us in this House have a responsibility to transcend, and all of us are

tempted, including me, and all of us give in to the temptation on occasion,

including me, to practice politics as usual. But the reality is very simple.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a legitimate question.

PREMIER TOBIN: And a legitimate answer. I would ask the

member to listen. The reality is very simple. We have in this Province a $230

million deficit that we have to deal with this year. We have a projection of

negative growth this year for a variety of reasons, some having to do with the

number of people on TAGS who will be moving off that program, some having to do

with the fact that the Hibernia project, which has been a major provider of

income for many people, is entering a wind-down phase, some having to do with

the fact that the national government has reduced transfers in order to deal

with its deficit, just as we are reducing program expenditures to deal with our

deficit. Now, that is the reality.

If the total sum of the debate in this place on members on

both sides, not only one side, is merely to pick up rhetorical questions or

rhetorical answers and to lob them back and forth, the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador won't be well served. Because the reality of the Province and the

reality -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I say to the Member for Baie Verte, he

should give me a moment to finish. The reality of this country is that we have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the question.

PREMIER TOBIN: I am addressing the question,

fundamentally. It doesn't matter whether we are talking Municipal Government,

Provincial Government, or the Federal Government; we have substantial fiscal

problems to deal with. And it requires some co-operation, it requires some

partnership, and it requires some honesty in coming to grips with our

circumstance.

So, in answer to the question, no, I am not going to make a

career out of looking at every single dollar the Federal Government cuts on

every occasion and jumping up and down and being alarmist about it. As for my

record as a federal minister, I think the party opposite tried to make that an

issue in a recent election campaign and the results are obvious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this afternoon is to be directed to the hon. the

Minister of Justice. It is with respect to the Whitbourne boy's home and the

Pleasantville Youth Centre. I wonder if the hon. the Minister of Justice could

indicate to this House this afternoon the true rationale for the transfer or

change in jurisdiction with respect to the Whitbourne boy's home and the

Pleasantville Youth Centre as I have mentioned, from the Department of Social

Services to the Department of Justice. What is the reasoning, Mr. Speaker, with

respect to this transfer and change of jurisdiction from one department to

another?

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

MR. DECKER: I thank the hon. member for his question and

congratulate him on his maiden speech in the form of a question.

The rationale was explained very clearly. I would recommend

that he read the last edition, I think the Weekend Edition, of The Evening

Telegram . There are two components to this issue. One is the rehabilitation

of the children who are in these facilities, the corrections aspect, and that

will indeed continue and be carried out by the same people who are doing it now.

The other reality is that the people who occupy these

facilities are either in the remand centre, waiting to go through the justice

system, or they are people who have been incarcerated for a period of time, and

there is an element of that which is clearly that which falls under Justice.

There have been some problems, and we are not suggesting that they will all go

away because it has been transferred to Justice, but there have been some

problems with the custody out there with children. We had some escapes, as the

hon. member knows - we did have a guard who was attacked; and we are hoping that

we will be able to deal with these matters better under Justice. But I assure

the hon. member - I know he is concerned - that there will still continue to be

the same level, and quite possibly a higher level, of rehabilitation. Because we

don't look upon them as simply a place to secure a child - they are awful

places. We hope to rehabilitate the people who are there so that they can go

forward and be contributing members of society.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the hon. minister is, simply: What is the

rush? It is certainly my understanding that as recently as October, Dr. Inkpen

was asked to review this whole situation, and I understand from reports, that in

April of this year, just less than a month away, the report will, in fact, be

finalized and obviously disclosed to the public. So my question to the hon.

minister is: Why has this transfer taken place now from the Department of Social

Services to the Department of Justice when, in fact, we are only a matter of

weeks away before this report will be tabled, which was, in fact, requested by

the hon. members on the opposite side?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: If I may respond to the member's question,

I want to point out that if the member takes a look at the structure of

government, and I am sure some of those who have been around a little longer

than both you and I will note, there has been significant restructuring of the

responsibilities of many of the departments of government, not just this one. We

have just gone through a change of administration. We have gone through some

change, clearly, in the personnel of Cabinet, and members of the House

generally, and we have gone through some restructuring in the senior civil

services and, as well, in government, not just in this department.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has taken on new

responsibility. The Department of Forestry and Agrifoods flows from what was

part of the responsibility formerly of the Department of Mines and Energy, which

was Natural Resources. The Department of Development and Rural Renewal flows in

part from what was formerly the responsibility of the Department of Industry,

Trade and Technology.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, there have been many structural

changes. Those changes have occurred for the sake of efficiency, and this change

has been made, amongst many, in that context, nothing more complex than that. If

the member has other information that I don't have, I would be glad to have it.

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

Notices of Motion

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

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

I rise today to give notice that on tomorrow I will move the

following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, since it has a monopoly in the

delivery of essential commodity in this Province and is not at risk of becoming

non-competitive; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, having made some $27.8 million in

profit last year, is not in extra need of revenue from consumers; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, in passing corporate income tax

increases on to consumers, will be defying government's intention of ensuring

corporations dip into their own profits to help bear the costs of public fiscal

responsibilities; and

WHEREAS the expanding low energy youth market is a situation

that Newfoundland Power helped create by advising consumers to reduce their

demands for electrical energy and it would be wrong for the Public Utilities

Board to try to alter this situation by penalizing the consumers who heeded the

company's advice; and

WHEREAS many Newfoundlanders who do not use Newfoundland

Power-delivered electricity to heat their homes, instead use wood furnaces

because they cannot afford to do otherwise; and

WHEREAS differential rate increases, while penalizing the

poor for not using electric heat, will do nothing, Mr. Speaker, to provide them

with the money they need to pay for electric heat so as to increase the

company's competitiveness but will force many to dip into their food budgets to

pay for the electricity they need for lights; and

WHEREAS it is Newfoundlanders on low and fixed incomes who

use the smallest amount of electricity, since they have the fewest

electrical-run amenities, and it is therefore the poor who will bear the brunt

of a differential rate increase; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders suffering from the fish resource

crisis, the general economic downturn, the deep government spending cuts, can

ill afford increases in essential commodities at this time; and

WHEREAS not having a rate increase since 1992 is no

justification for a rate increase today, in 1996;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador do whatever is required to ensure that an increase in electricity

rates does not occur at this time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A petition to the House of Assembly. I am pleased to present

the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, since it has a monopoly in the

delivery of an essential commodity in this Province, is not at risk of becoming

non-competitive; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, having made some $27.8 million in

profit last year, is not in need of extra revenue from consumers; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power in passing corporate income tax

increases on to consumers would be defying government's intention of ensuring

corporations dip into their profits to help bear the cost of public fiscal

responsibilities; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders suffering from the fish resource

crisis, the general economic downturn and deep government spending cuts can ill

afford increases in essential commodities like electricity at this time;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable

House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador do

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak in support of the petition as presented

by my colleague, the Member for St. John's East, and certainly ask the

government of today to intervene in the rate increases being sought by

Newfoundland Power. The Government House Leader might say that we cannot

intervene, that that is not our role as a government, that we are putting

forward a consumer's advocate and it is his role to intervene and speak on our

behalf. Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, then I remind the Government House

Leader, if the former House Leader, who didn't mind intervening on another

process that was taking place across this Province a few months ago, when we saw

the Government House Leader travel to Clarenville and intervened in a process

that was taking place to look at the redistribution of the boundaries in

Newfoundland and Labrador. They didn't see it beyond their mandate at that time

to intervene for their own political reasons, so I ask them now, Mr. Speaker, to

intervene and to come forward and speak out on behalf of the power users, the

electricity users in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Every time we turn on our televisions, Mr. Speaker, there,

for a while, every time we turn on our televisions, turn it over to a certain

channel and you will see an ad being put forward by Newfoundland Power, that had

somebody rolling up a bundle of dollars and throwing them in a furnace in

competition with the oil companies and I asked who was paying for those ads. It

was a great setup. All they had to do is, charge out the ads and go back to the

Public Utilities Board for an increase. What a business to be involved with,

what a business I say to the members opposite, to go and be able to do exactly

what you want to do, make $27 million in profits and to be able to go back and

say because we haven't had a rate increase since 1992, now we need one because

it is 1996, and even though, Mr. Speaker, we have a monopoly on what we are

doing, there is no competition, we still have to have an increase.

I ask the government of the day, how many public servants out

there have had a wage increase, or how many people in private enterprise have

had a wage increase since 1992? Not very many, and when you look at the

commodity being supplied, and when you look at this particular company, Mr.

Speaker, having a monopoly on that commodity that they are supplying, then it

makes us wonder why they should expect to earn more than $27.8 million, almost

$30 million profits in one year. A few short months ago, this government tried

to stop people from going in and cutting firewood, tried to lower their needs

down from eight cords of wood to six cords of wood, a need that many people out

there needed, not only to heat their houses but to provide heat for cooking and

other needs as well.

I am wondering now, it is all coming together, Mr. Speaker,

it is all coming together because now those poor people who were out there

burning firewood to heat their homes, are now going to be charged a higher rate

because the utility of the day feels they don't use enough of the commodity that

they sell, that we are going to charge you more than the person who can afford

to heat their houses with electricity. I say this is shameful, Mr. Speaker. It

is shameful and it is only right for the government of the day to intercede on

behalf of all the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out there,

unable to pay their light bills, unable to meet the demands for food and to

clothe their children as they try to attend school.

Many of our younger people today, I think my colleague for

Waterford - Kenmount said in excess of 40,000 people are going to school today

hungry, and now we are going to say that we are going to up your electricity

rates. We are going to up your electricity rates and allow the entity,

Newfoundland Power, to make a profit in excess of $28 million a year. I say, Mr.

Speaker, that is shameful and I am certainly happy to add my two cents here to

this petition that was so ably presented by my colleague from St. John's East.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of over some 300

citizens of the community of Westport on the Baie Verte Peninsula. This was

passed to me during the election campaign and they have asked that I present it

in the House of Assembly and it reads:

We, the parents and citizens of Westport are concerned about

the new changes that will come about when the new Schools Act is brought into

effect. This act states that, No. 1) students in Kindergarten to Grade VI shall

be required to spend no more than forty-five minutes one way en route to school

under normal road conditions. No. 2) No students in Grade VII to Level III shall

be required to spend more than sixty minutes one way, en route to school under

normal road conditions. What this means to our community is that our schools

will be closed. We, as a community, will not let our schools close without a

fight.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions of course circulated throughout

the election campaign as many members here know during the election. Many people

were very concerned with some school closures throughout the Province. We all

stood in this House time after time and talked about school reform. I don't

think there is anybody in this House who would disagree that we need education

reform, and there has to be a better way of spending money so that we get the

best bang for our buck, I guess, when we talk about the students and school

reform in this Province.

We also have to remember that many parts of rural

Newfoundland depend and live around their schools. Not just as a school to

educate children but also it becomes a focal point in the community, a centre

for the community where they do their meetings, they do their social activities

with sports and so on in the community. In simple terms I guess, it is the heart

and soul of the community.

These people are talking about their children of five and six

years old, getting on a bus, for example in Westport in particular, that would

have to travel over a partly dirt road, poor road conditions and so on, with a

six-year old, seven-year old. Parents are very simply saying that they will not

let their children do that. In order to have an education which everybody has a

right to in this Province they believe that a forty-five minute bus ride for a

seven-year old at 7:00 in the morning and go to school, spend another forty-five

minutes in the evening or even wait longer because of the high school students

who have to get out, when you think about the details in these changes, how they

would affect a six- or seven-year old, parents just simply say to you that they

will not let this happen to their child.

No more can we blame them for saying that. These parents are

very concerned that the education of their children is going to come down to a

fiscal act, not really taking into account the effect on the student him- or

herself. These parents, although they now say of course, and the Premier said

during the election that it is basically on hold, the new Minister of Education

will have to deal with that, he knows the concerns that are out there. That is

why these students and these parents and so on are saying: Give us a say.

According to the Premier and the new government they are saying that they are

indeed going to do that and listen to the people.

When we talk about criteria for schools and the viability of

schools, of course we talk about distance from the next school. We also talked

about the number of students who are enrolled in that school. Those are the

details. We also have to take into account road conditions in this Province,

which was pointed out in this particular petition. Then also schools in Seal

Cove, Pacquet, in my district, also some of those schools that are being

considered to close.

The parents from Seal Cove from my district also put together

some statistics; I will read a few of those statistics. They say: During our

research we have found evidence to support a very negative impact closing school

and busing children. Findings such as lack of participation in extra-curricular

activities. Teachers attributed 35 per cent of learning problems of students to

busing. That was a study by Ryan in 1976. Students' scores were lower when the

students completed the bus journey before taking the test. That was a study by

(inaudible) in 1977. And so on.

Of course, there are lots of examples of this as the minister

knows. The bottom line here is that before any schools are closed in any part of

rural Newfoundland I hope the consultation is done with the student in mind, and

also involving the parents who want to have the final say in where their child

achieves his education. Of course, they achieve the fullest education possible

in the Province. That is the underlying fact. When this debate on whole

education reform started we found that the student was left out. We talked about

all kinds of things without focusing back on the student and what a particular

family with the child aged six, seven or eight, what they have to go through if

in fact 100, 150, or 155 schools, or however many schools, close in this

Province.

People in rural Newfoundland want to know where their child

is going to go to school, what services they are going to get -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - and the type of education. If I could just

clue up, Mr. Speaker. These parents, along with other parents in many parts of

rural Newfoundland, are just simply asking that everything be taken into

consideration before any schools are closed. Because it isn't just a building

that is closing down but it is a way of life in rural Newfoundland. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interfere with

the member in the presentation of the petition, but it struck me that when he

read the petition it was not in the proper format that petitions are presented

in this House, and I think it is proper that we straighten that out at this

particular time in the Assembly, at the beginning, that if petitions are to be

presented that they be done in accordance with the rules and the regulations of

the House. There is a proper format and I think these petitions that the hon.

gentleman presented were petitions that were presented to everybody during the

election and they were not done in the proper format for presentation to the

House.

I think that is a matter that ought to be straightened out. I

did not do it before because I wanted to give the hon. member the chanced to

present the petition, but I believe there is an onus on all of us, if we are

going to be presenting petitions, to do it in the proper format.

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

point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the point of

order raised by my hon. colleague, we have to keep in mind that many of the

people in this Province who wish to express an opinion do not have access to the

formal documents and to all of the material that the member would have access

to.

Mr. Speaker, we have no hesitancy in saying that we would

wish that every petition that is presented to this House would be done according

to the proper procedure that is laid out in the rules of the House. However, Mr.

Speaker, we have to keep in mind that if we are going to come here as elected

members and fail to present a petition because the wording of the prayer is not

exactly according to the rules that are laid down in this House, then certainly

what we are saying is that the prayers we hear from people before we get here

are substantially different from the prayers that we are willing to listen to

after we get here.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member, or if you, as Speaker of the

House, wish to establish some guidelines, we would be happy to participate;

however, we have to understand that tolerance and understanding, and the access

of the ordinary person to this House is paramount. We cannot go laying down

rules that say that the ordinary person cannot go within his community and take

up a petition and because it is not written out according to a precise format,

we are not going to hear it. We are the people's servants; therefore, we have to

make sure that we are accessible to the people. We have to listen to what the

perfect we are not going to say to them we will not hear your voice. When that

day comes, this House will be reduced to a very sad state of affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

want to speak to the point of order.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would just like to say that the

hon. the Member for Terra Nova is correct when he says - and our Standing

Orders, I think, are clear on this - that a petition has to be in a standard

form, an acceptable form, when it is presented to the House, and that is why

over the years that I have been here, we have asked members, and particularly we

met with the new members and indicated to them that here is a standard form that

a petition should be in and it should follow this particular form. And we have

asked them, before presenting petitions to the House, to consult, at least with

the Clerk, so they will know if there will be any objections to the form of the

petitions they are presenting.

I ask all hon. members for their co-operation in this matter.

The rules are there and if you wish to change the rules, then, that is up to the

House, but the Chair has to abide by and follow the rules that are set down in

our Standing Orders.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the Chair has already ruled on the

point of order.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just

briefly like to respond to the petition as presented by my learned colleague,

the Member for Baie Verte. As Education critic, obviously it is with interest

that I read the petition and note the points that have been made with respect to

the petition by my colleague. The parents and citizens of Westport are obviously

concerned with the fact that with the proposed changes in legislation concerning

schools, and the governance of schools in this Province, it may very well be

that schools will be closed, particularly in our smaller communities and, in

fact, very young children will have to be bused over a significant distance to

travel from their community, to a school in another community.

I mention the proposed changes in school reform, and I say,

if and, in fact, when we have school reform in this Province, because the

uncertainty which appears to exist at this time is quite confusing and

perplexing to Newfoundlanders regardless of the side in the education debate on

which a particular person may stand. Certainly, it is interesting to note that

points that have been made publicly, and statements that have been made public,

make it very unclear and uncertain what, in fact, the position of this

government is.

Nevertheless, the issue of busing, the issue of school

closure, the issue of life as we have always known it in this Province in rural

Newfoundland, these are issues which are of grave concern to the electorate of

this Province and, as my colleague indicated in the presentation of this

petition, a school in a small Newfoundland community is the heart and soul of

that community. We only have to think of the parish hall, or the school hall, or

usually a building which is affixed to or adjacent to the school, once that

school goes, in all likelihood, if the statutory recommendations are, in fact,

followed, the properties go with it. Therefore, it is only a matter of time

until, a school in a small community, once having been removed from that

community, goes the heart and soul of that community as well. So, it is indeed

an interest that all of us have to take interest in, and it is an area that I am

pleased to respond to in seconding the petition as brought forward by my

colleague, the Member for Baie Verte.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a couple

of comments with respect to the petition presented.

First of all, I was delighted with the ruling that you made

that we should really respect the rules of the House. I am certain that the

members opposite, and members on this side, will concur with the ruling of the

Speaker because this petition, while the nature of it, as expressed and as

signed during the recent election, is serious, the fact that it is shown here

today, when it is not in proper form, unfortunately, would lead me to suggest

that the member opposite is more interested in a little bit of political

coverage than dealing with the issue. Because there is no question that the hon.

the Member for Baie Verte could have, like all members in this Legislature, and

all candidates in the previous election that was just run, could have told the

people of the Province honestly that the issues that were raised in that

petition about busing distances and times were off the books. That was a

decision that was taken by Premier Tobin before the election was even called.

The day that he became Leader of the Liberal Party - and I am glad that the hon.

member said what he just said, and I will repeat it so Hansard picks it up - it

was clear that those viability criteria had been absolutely withdrawn. Then, of

course, the slant of the Opposition was, `Oh, you cannot trust them.' And I

heard it throughout the election myself, in going door-to-door. They said, `Oh,

you cannot trust that crowd'.

Now, as if in putting a reflection on members on this side of

the House, that if you were a Liberal you could not be trusted, but if you were

a PC you could be, once any member suggests that you cannot trust a politician,

they call into question the trustworthiness of all of us or any of us, and it

doesn't do anybody any good to suggest, `He cannot be trusted, but I can.' That

is a self-defeating argument, a useless, political argument, and I am

disappointed and saddened that it has entered into this debate by taking a

political opportunity to present a petition in an improper form on an issue

which is serious.

Mr. Speaker, to raise the spectre that there might be, again,

in speaking to a petition, to suggest, and to use language suggesting there

might be 100 or 150 or 155 schools closing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

and he should keep his remarks relevant to the prayer of the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the Opposition critic, in supporting the petition,

talked about the government being unclear on its position on education reform,

anyone who wanted to, Mr. Speaker, could have read parts of what I call the

`ready' book. "The people have spoken. Educational reform will proceed." They

could have given this document to anybody they chose. Instead they say: Don't

trust that crowd. Then we had such things as: "The new Liberal government is

committed to dialogue and discussion on all elements of implementing educational

reform before decisions are made" right in front of everybody's nose to see. The

answer instead was: Don't trust that crowd, you cannot trust them.

"There will be no new school viability rules for September

1996." It was in red and white on a piece of paper. The answer and the approach

instead, from members opposite: Do not trust that crowd, you cannot trust them.

Suggesting that people who were running to be members of this Legislature were

nothing short almost of being absolute liars. Mr. Speaker, it does nothing to

present it here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that he cannot use that phrase in this

House. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again I withdraw

the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, withdraw the remark,

but again if you check in the context - I didn't call anybody a liar and would

never do that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - but I have withdrawn, without doubt, no

question, that remark.

"There will be no change in the current times for busing

students." All these things were laid out on a piece of paper that anybody could

see. Instead, the people honestly signed a petition because they thought there

was some risk. Members travelling about the districts like the hon. member who

presented the petition knew the difference, could have presented a document that

showed the difference, but chose instead to encourage the people to believe that

there might be a problem - you cannot trust that crowd - and then presents a

petition in an improper form in the House, and would only lead you to believe -

I am very concerned about the parents and the students in Westport.

They have written to us, they have agreed to work with us as

the government, we are going to meet with them and consult with them, and it

doesn't do anybody any good for a member in the Legislature to present a

petition that is pass, it is over, it is done with. It was presented on an

improper basis because people were misled to believe there is a problem when

none exists. Then, Mr. Speaker, we have this kind of a situation here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of

Newfoundland in legislative setting convened. The petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that:

Whereas Newfoundland Power has

asked the Public Utilities Board to approve an increase in electricity rates;

and

whereas many Newfoundlanders who do not use Newfoundland Power-delivered

electricity to heat their homes, instead use wood furnaces because they cannot

afford to do otherwise; and

whereas it is Newfoundlanders on low and fixed

incomes who use the smallest amount of electricity since they have the fewest

electrical-run amenities and it is therefore the poor who will bear the brunt of

a differential rate increase; wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your

hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

do whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the issue that people are

concerned about today, and in terms of the increase that has been requested by

Newfoundland Power to the Public Utilities Board, it is a serious issue because

of the economic and fiscal times that we live in. Nowhere today has anybody in

this Province seen an increase in the extent of their living conditions, in the

extent of the wages they receive, in extent in terms of municipal services that

are provided, to the extent that they have seen an increase in Federal

Government service or Provincial Government services, because that has not

happened.

In questioning the Minister of Mines and Energy on Friday on

this very important matter, he really said that government has fulfilled its

role because it has appointed a - what is Mr. Brown's name, Denis Brown; they

have appointed him as the consumer advocate. And their role in terms of their

obligation to the Public Utilities Board and people who are concerned has been

lived up to. The minister went on to say that we should not prejudge in any way,

shape or form what the increase will be, or if there will be in fact an increase

in electrical power rates in this Province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, anybody - any member in this House, or any

person living in this Province, if they take the time to look at the decisions

of the Public Utilities Board over the last twenty years, they will see clearly

what the trend is. They will see clearly that Newfoundland Power, each and every

time that it has requested an increase has gotten one, maybe not to the extent,

Mr. Speaker, that they requested, but an increase nonetheless. So while I do not

prejudge what will happen at the Public Utilities Board, I do have grave

concerns about what the increase will be. Maybe it will be 4.9 per cent, maybe

it will not, but if we look at the past history and the past record of what the

Public Utilities Board has done in rendering their decisions, upon request by

Newfoundland Power, it will be clear, Mr. Speaker, that there will be an

increase once the hearings are over some time in June.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is another issue at hand here that

all of us have an obligation to put forward. There is nothing, and I repeat, Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing stopping the Minister of Mines and Energy from

personally intervening. There is nothing stopping the Minister of Education from

appearing before the Public Utilities Board and asking, on behalf of his

constituents, that there will be no increase granted. There is nothing stopping

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology from going before the Public

Utilities Board and requesting of the Public Utilities Board that no increase

take place at this time on behalf of the constituents whom he represents. There

is nothing stopping the Member for Terra Nova from doing the same and certainly,

there is nothing stopping members on this side of the House from doing the same.

Mr. Speaker, I say to all members, ministers and otherwise,

this is an issue that we must look at seriously. Those of us or those who can

afford a 4.9 per cent increase, it may not mean much to them, and maybe there

are people inside this House that it may not mean much to.

AN HON. MEMBER: It does to me.

MR. E. BYRNE: But the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that the

people who will be asked to bear the brunt of this increase are not those who

use electricity the most. There are those who cannot afford to use electricity

so they use alternate forms of energy, and believe me, Mr. Speaker, there are

many, there are many in my district who cannot afford it. And I know, Mr.

Speaker, from my own experiences and my own travels in this Province, that there

are many in each member's district who cannot afford a 4.9 per cent increase in

power rates. It is not a flippant issue. It is a serious issue. It is one that

all of us, individually should take stock in and it is one, that all of us,

individually, as members of this House should respond to.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Public Utilities

Board was enacted by a statute in this House. It was enacted by legislation in

this House. It is governed by the rules and regulations emanating from Cabinet.

It is governed by the rules and regulations coming out of legislation that was

put in this House of Assembly by the members of the day, and once this debate is

over, because I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, if the will exists in government to

interfere in a process in what is really, a quasi-judicial board, a board

nonetheless, but I am not sure if the will is there to interfere in the process

because it is now underway. But, there is nothing, Mr. Speaker, stopping -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: There is nothing, Mr. Speaker, stopping

this House and the members who presently sit in it from looking at that

legislation, reviewing it, overhauling the rules and regulations associated with

the governance of the Public Utilities Board, to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that, this

House has a little bit more direct control over increases, so that public

utilities that have a monopoly on a situation in terms of a resource and a

commodity that we all need to have and need desperately, that they cannot, year

after year, or on their wish, Mr. Speaker, apply to the Public Utilities Board

and say: `We need an increase,' without any real justification.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I stand in my place to support the

petition put forward by the Member for Kilbride. Of course, the petition opposes

the rate increase requested by Newfoundland Power and, Mr. Speaker, I myself

have a petition that I am planning on presenting in due course to the House of

Assembly. It contains, at this point in time, 103 names of people living in and

around my District of Cape St. Francis.

I have also requested to be an intervener at the Public

Utilities Board on the rate increase for Newfoundland Power. I agree with the

Member for Kilbride, that every member of this House of Assembly could do this

exact same thing.

Now the government has appointed Mr. Brown to be a consumer

advocate on this situation and that is basically making it arms length for the

government but if they would recall back a year or two ago, when the commission

on the electoral boundaries was being held in the Province, the former Minister

of Justice and the former Government House Leader made a presentation to that

commission when it was to the basic benefit of the government themselves. The

people of this House, all members of this House of Assembly are elected to look

out for the welfare and the well being of the people in their districts, Mr.

Speaker, and that is why I made a presentation, wrote a letter to the PUB and

asked to be an intervener at their hearings, and as I said I am planning to do

so.

Now the reason why Newfoundland Power asked for an increase

of 4.9 per cent was because they had not had an increase in four years, since

1992. Now when you look back at it and you see the people of this Province,

especially the civil servants, Mr. Speaker, people working in hospitals and all

government departments, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and what have you,

have not had an increase in pay since 1989, which is six years. Before that they

had a very, very minimal increase in pay, maybe one or two per cent over

probably four or five years before that. So actually the people in the Province

are in - the amount of expendable monies that they have at the end of the month,

they are probably - as you recall, in financial reverse.

Newfoundland Power last year had $27.8 million after they

paid their shareholders and paid their expenses and what have you for the year.

$27.8 million when people in the Province are actually going reverse with

respect to the amounts of money that they have to spend. So it is just basically

ludicrous that they would even request such an increase at this point in time. I

believe that it is morally wrong that they would request an increase at this

point in time. Even Newfoundland Power themselves got a program on the go that

is called 'Share the Light' I believe it is referred to. So they themselves know

how hard it is out there for people to pay the light bills at the end of the

month and to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know how much they contributed to

'Share the Light' program last year?

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: $15,000.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well Newfoundland Power with $27.8 million

in profits contributed $15,000. That is not a very high percentage, Mr. Speaker,

for 'Share the Light' for people in this Province. I know in my district and I

know in other people's districts in this Province that we have people's lights

being cut off to their houses because they have missed two or three months

payments. I have had to go to bat for a number of people in my district to help

those people out, to try and work out a deal with Newfoundland Power. Often

times I had to deal with the Department of Social Services, Newfoundland Power

and the individuals themselves to try and work out a deal to get the people's

electricity put back on, Mr. Speaker. So to say that Newfoundland Power needs

$27.8 million is absolutely ridiculous. I would certainly oppose it and I do

oppose it and that is why I am standing here today, Mr. Speaker.

Now Newfoundland Power, I have to say, I don't know if they

were trying to pull a fast one here or not but they promoted the conservation of

energy. They put out literature in your envelopes that you received each month.

They put ads on television that you should conserve energy; conserve, conserve

and people went and did that Mr. Speaker. They conserved energy as much as

possible. Now they want the people who pay less to end up paying more. So they

are penalizing people for paying less and I have a serious problem with that

approach. When the people started to oppose this approach then they came out and

said basically that they would look at maybe an across the board increase for

everybody. I think it worked out to be, for every household, something like

seven dollars a month. So now you have to wonder, was this part of a plan in the

first place, that we go with the worst first and then we will have some

negotiations and get what we want in the end, Mr. Speaker, and that is something

that the people in the Province will have to have a look at.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would say that again, I would have to go

back to the members of the House of Assembly in fighting this. We are elected to

be the mouthpiece of the people of our districts and for any member here to sit

in their place and not oppose the rate increases for Newfoundland Power, at this

point in time, maybe a year or two or five years down the road -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would just

like to encourage each member of the House of Assembly to get up and say their

piece and support the people living in their districts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I did not want to raise this point of order

during Question Period, or during Notices of Motion, but in view of the fact

that a number of questions were put to the specific ministers today, and many of

the answers that were given were long-winded, not necessarily to the point, I

think it is incumbent upon each minister, as it is incumbent upon members who

ask questions, to be to the point and to answer the question as is.

On page 120 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms ,

it clearly says, "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should

deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate."

While this is the beginning of a new session, I only raise it

to, I guess, remind all members that when questions are asked - we have many

questions to ask, as an Opposition, and Question Period is there for that. It is

meant to be a time when we can ask government questions, to hold government

accountable, and it is also a time for government to deal with our answers, but

not a time to chew up a half-hour period so as to limit the number of questions

that members in the Opposition may ask.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. The

hon. gentleman may be new here, but he must realize that a minister, if he wants

to, does not have to even answer a question - he must know that - and it is not

for the Opposition or the hon. member to tell a minister, or anybody else for

that matter, what they must say in this Legislature. It is up to him to ask the

question, and I would remind him -

AN HON. MEMBER: It must be brief.

MR. TULK: It must be brief; it must be to the point, and

so on. He has had great latitude in that over on the other side of this House. I

would also remind him that it is up to a minister of the Crown how he answers

it.

It is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and the hon.

gentleman should not be allowed to go on with this kind of thing and use up the

time of this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, really there is no

point of order. The Chair is in control of Question Period and will determine, I

guess, at what point in time an answer becomes too lengthy, or a question

becomes too lengthy; and, in that regard, of course, the Chair will make those

decisions.

I just want to remind the hon. member that the Speaker's

rulings relating to Oral Questions are not debatable or subject to appeal.

Orders of the Day

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole for the purpose of Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (P. Barrett): Order, please!

Bill No. 2; shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture adjourned debate, so I would...

CHAIR: In Committee, members can speak for ten minutes,

can speak as often as they like. Normally there is no such thing as adjourning

the debate. Whoever is the first to be recognized...

MR. EFFORD: I apologize to the Chair, but I cannot hear

one word you are saying - not a word.

CHAIR: We are in Committee on Interim Supply. Normally,

if we were in second reading on a bill and a member would adjourn the debate, he

would be recognized in the next debate to speak, but since we are into Committee

of Supply, it is ten minutes and members can speak as often as they want. I

recognized the first member to rise, which was the Member for Bonavista South,

and I recognize the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is about time

we had some fairness here in this House. When you control the Chair I can see a

difference in the attitude of the House, and I can see a difference in people's

mannerisms on both sides. You are to be commended, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, my first time speaking, I guess,

since this new sitting, the 43rd sitting of the Legislature, and I would like to

begin by offering my congratulations to everybody who got re-elected on both

sides of the House, and especially members elected for the first time. It is

certainly nice to be able to sit here and see new Cabinet ministers stand at

their seat. The very first day I came in the House I know how I was intimidated,

and to see those people come in and have questions popped at them and so capably

answer the questions, I commend them and I say that very sincerely right from

the bottom of my heart.

Mr. Chairman, it was certainly encouraging to see the

Minister of Development and Rural Renewal the other day stand in her place and

talk about her plans for rural economic renewal. She went on to talk about

decentralizing government, moving government departments away from the centre of

the city, away from Mecca and out into rural Newfoundland, a place where they

should be. If we believe in rural Newfoundland, and if we believe in the

information highway and I think the new term over on the other side now is the

seaway, then there is no reason why this cannot happen.

Mr. Chairman, the greatest fear I have is that those

ministers with all their good intentions will be swallowed up by the old fellows

in the front rows. That is my greatest fear. Once the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs gets his claws into them, and the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, then I fear they will go back to their old ways of thinking. I fear

they will go back to the old ways of not allowing members in Opposition to come

and meet with them, not allowing members in Opposition to bring their councils

in to meet with them.

I fear this is what will happen but I will give them a chance

and I hope they will change the old boys instead of allowing the old boys to

change them, and get off their plan, because it would be nice to see a new

approach to government. When people went to the polls on February 22 they voted

for people to give them hope, they voted for people to go forward and get away

from the pettiness and bring their problems and their frustrations here to this

House where they could be acknowledged and addressed.

Mr. Chairman, if I were to look after the seating in the

House of Assembly, if I were to look after the seating over there, I would have

the second row in front and I would have the back row in the second row, and the

front row would be so far back that you would have to feed them with a

slingshot. They would be so far back that the hon. gentleman up operating the

electronic equipment would have to use spyglasses. That is the only way you can

bring about any change in this Legislature. That is the only way to bring about

change.

When I see some of the people overlooked and some of those

old faces put back in it makes you wonder where the Premier was. That makes me

doubt the integrity of the Premier, when I see people like the Minister of

Justice sitting there, and the hon. Chairman who went out and bought two suits

of clothes because he thought he was going in Cabinet, and deserved to be there,

I might add, was overlooked. The hon. Member for Port au Port, the smartest man

in the House of Assembly, bar none, should be in the front benches and given a

chance. The Member for Trinity North is another fellow I have great respect for

should be in the front benches. They have done their tour of duty and they

should not have been overlooked.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, all that be as it may I have no power

to change it. It is not for me to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Bellevue?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Member for Bellevue, the Chairman, I

already said, Sir, that he should be in the front benches. He deserved to be

there and he would have made a perfect Minister of Education. He should have

been there because I know he would have treated everybody fairly. He would have

treated them with respect and he would have been there for Newfoundland and

Labrador, and not just for the district of Bellevue, Harbour Grace, Carbonear,

or the district of Bonavista South, he would have treated everybody with

respect, fairness and balance. That is what he would have done and I regret, Mr.

Chairman, that he was overlooked.

Mr. Chairman, then we heard the new Government House Leader,

whom I might say is a breath of fresh air as compared with who was there before

him, doing a good job, but then again we come in and we see the ghost from

another age here, the other day when the House opened, the old House Leader

himself, still here calling the shots and we talk about a new government and a

new leader and a new approach. Where is it? Where is it, Mr. Chairman, where is

it? Still operating the controls upstairs, making all the moves, who goes here,

who goes there, he is still at the top, he is the fellow who is making the

decisions, he may be hidden away in the back room but he is the fellow who is

still calling the shots. If you are going to start anew, start fresh. The tired,

old faces - give them their pay cheques, they deserve it, they went out and were

re-elected but don't put them in charge any more. You see all the mistakes that

were made in the past and I am sure that they won't change. It is a job to teach

old dogs new tricks.

Anyway, I stand today to address Bill No. 2, Interim Supply.

The House Leader said the other day that he thought we were going to get up and

ask all kinds of questions, that he thought we would get in to the nuts and

bolts of Bill 2 and find out where the monies were being spent. In fact, I think

if we had listened to them he would have wanted us to send over our questions

for the next six weeks so he could prepare for them, but it was some food for

thought and there are some things that are especially dear to me in my District

of Bonavista South and one is, Route 235, and Madame Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation, I don't know if you have been brought up to speed on Route

235 or if you have been briefed on it or not but, it is a road in my district

that extends from the Route 230, which is the main highway leading from

Clarenville to Bonavista, and it is the old road that goes out around over a

very picturesque area of my district, down around the coast and in to Bonavista.

It is a route that is used by school buses going both ways, part of the district

goes up to Musgravetown and Lethbridge and the middle of my district travels

towards Kings Cove and the lower part travels down to Bonavista and all of Route

235 is used to transport children to and from school.

There have been many petitions brought here in this House

over the dilapidated state of Route 235. I had the minister down there last

summer but he saw fit to fly down in a helicopter rather than drive down, but to

be very honest with him, he did take the tour over part of the road once he got

there; we had a fellow drive him over the road. It is to the point where many of

the students refuse to have breakfast because they get ill on their way to

school over the bumpy bus ride. Bus operators have threatened to take their

buses off the road and when you drive down over this Route 235 especially at

this time of the year, it is almost like driving through a Robin Hood Bay out

there, you see mufflers and tail pipes and hub caps and everything else all the

way down this route. The people in the area have had public meetings, they have

pleaded with government to come out and try to upgrade this Route 235 which has

been in existence now for about I think, twenty-eight, twenty-nine years, and

the life of any rural roadway here in Newfoundland, I think you will find it is

probably twenty-five years at the most.

Madame Minister, I don't know if you have looked at Route 235

when you brought forward your estimates here in the interim funding or if you

have been briefed on it at all, but I think that you should Madame Minister,

because it is a route that handles a lot of traffic and it is very instrumental

to other businesses in the area, and if you haven't already been brought up to

speed on it, I would only be too glad to meet with you privately or to have

representatives from the area come in and meet with you to tell you exactly

first-hand what is happening there. Because it is certainly in a deplorable

condition. I think we deserve more.

The people in the area there have been very patient in that

they haven't come out and said: We want block funding or we want funding now to

complete Route 235. They haven't done that. They have come out and said: What we

would like to see is a beginning made on Route 235. If you came forward and did

a kilometre or two kilometres this year and a couple of kilometres another year,

that is all they are asking for. They are asking for their problem to be

identified, number one, and number two is that they are asking for the solution

to be brought forward, and they would like to see a start made.

The Department of Works, Services and Transportation in

Clarenville, which is the local area that looks after that particular area, has

identified that particular strip of roadway as its number one priority. But

prioritizing things and getting funding as you know, Madam Minister, are two

different things altogether. For the sake of the schoolchildren, for the sake of

those children getting on their bus, not being able to eat breakfast in the

morning, for the sake of the bus operators and the people who have to use this

particular roadway to go and buy groceries, to go and visit government offices,

it is the only way to and from their communities. Madam Minister, I think they

deserve more, and I'm sure you with your new approach to government will allow

them the opportunity to come forward and receive your ear and your understanding

in having funding directed to have this particular piece of roadway upgraded in

the near future.

Route 230 that I just referred to - and here is the mentality

of that other minister who I talked about - this particular roadway was a

roadway that was identified under the Roads for Rails Agreement. There was X

number of dollars brought forward in order to compensate for taking away our

railway back whenever. Up until now there has been a fair amount of work done on

this Route 230 but there is still $10 million left to be spent. Leading up to

1997 they tell us we are having a big celebration. Bonavista is supposed to be

one of the focal points for the 1997 celebrations since that is the place where

Cabot landed, that is the landfall of Cabot. Everybody there is optimistic; they

are upbeat about what will happen in 1997. Haven't seen a lot to be optimistic

about up until now, but nevertheless they are optimistic. They feel that finally

they will be given their chance to show off what they have, the beauty that we

have, and the hospitality of the wonderful people who live there.

Madam Minister, there is $10 million left to be spent on this

particular roadway which I understand cannot be transferred to Route 235. Not to

confuse the two. But now here is where the minister comes in. The minister says:

We aren't going to spend any money on Route 230 either, not going to spend it

until after 1997. I don't know why. I don't know if he is afraid to put economic

prosperity in the area there. I don't know if he thinks that all the

construction crews are going to be busy doing other things, or there is some

hidden agenda there to have the route closed down altogether, or to have

Bonavista South or the Bonavista Peninsula taken off the map. Because you would

think with those thousands of visitors who are expected in 1997 that if we

believe in tourism we would want to do one of two things. We would either want

them to come back as tourists again and spend their money, or we would want them

to leave as goodwill ambassadors and tell other people about their wonderful

trip to Newfoundland and Labrador. About the beautiful town of Bonavista, about

the beautiful town of Trinity, about the beautiful communities and the

hospitality of the people as they drive down through.

No, the minister says that he will not spend any money; he

had no intentions of spending any money in 1996. I don't know if he is afraid

the pavement would be worn out by 1997 or not. In my judgement, we should go out

and we should upgrade those roads if we have the money there. Those roads where

we don't have any money - I know we are living in hard times, but I still think

people deserve a decent road to drive over. When you consider the taxes that

people pay for gasoline and when you consider the cost of people's driver's

licences, and the cost of insurance, then you will find very quickly that a lot

of people need and deserve better roads to drive over than we are experiencing

out there in that area today.

The Member for Terra Nova knows what I'm talking about. I

would say that the Premier knows what I'm talking about. Because I think during

the election he drove up that way on a bus, and he would certainly be very

familiar with the conditions of this particular roadway that I'm talking about.

Mr. Chairman, not to hog my time frame here, I will go and

allow somebody else to get up and have a few words, and sit down and take

part

in debate again as the week rolls by.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure

today to stand up and have a chance to have a few words publicly since the

election.

I would first like to congratulate all returning members to

the House of Assembly. The Member for Terra Nova, certainly the Minister of

Mines and Energy, and all others, and congratulate them honestly on their

successful returns to the House of Assembly. I wish them well. I also want to

say congratulations to the new ministers. Because I know that being first-time

newly elected is certainly one experience, but being appointed to Cabinet for

the first time must be certainly another experience that I know some day all of

us on this side will get an opportunity at some point in the very near future to

have the same experience.

Sincerely, I would like to congratulate certainly the Members

for St. John's Centre, Mount Pearl and Gander, and the Member for Grand Bank in

her absence, not only being elected as new members of the House, but certainly

being appointed to Cabinet.

It was indeed a very interesting election. Many issues that

came up in my district certainly are ones that I've tried to deal with over the

past two and a half years as a member of the House. They are ones that we have

had some successes no doubt, in areas of recreation, but there are other areas

that over the next two to four years, between now and the next election, that I

certainly will be knocking on the doors of ministers and government to request

their help. Certainly in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs' door was open, at least to

this member. I can't speak for anybody else. It certainly was open to this

member and I appreciated the time that he afforded to me, but more importantly

the time that he afforded to the people of my district through me as their

representative.

There are many issues that face my district, and I'm sure

there are other districts in this Legislature that have similar problems. I

don't think that many districts in urban Newfoundland have the problems that my

district has. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, in terms of

Interim Supply, can he tell me this year for example that there will be monies

allocated again for water and sewer? Will it be the same as last year? Will it

be more than last year? Will it be less than last year? Does he know that yet?

Are those budget requirements allowed to be talked about, or can he talk about

them yet?

They are serious issues in my district. In one-third of the

District of Kilbride, predominantly in the Goulds and some areas in Kilbride,

there is raw sewage that runs in the street today. Certainly down in Petty

Harbour Road, Walsh's Lane, Old Bay Bulls Road. These are areas where residents

are paying significant taxes, especially the old Metro Board area and the old

town of the Goulds since it has been amalgamated, but have seen zero increase in

services. It is to the point that many people in the area - we have formed a

water and sewer committee that we are considering applying to a fund through the

federal government that provides water and sewer infrastructure development for

developing countries outside of this country; that we, a group, are considering

applying to that. Because there is a serious health hazard and a serious

environmental concern.

Before I go on, I must congratulate the House Leader on his

appointment as House Leader and on his appointment as the Minister of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods. An elevation that was long overdue in my opinion, and I

want to congratulate him publicly. To say to him that as a resident of my

district he can be assured that he will get great representation from this

member right here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Mr. Chairman, not looking for anything,

just offering sincere congratulations.

This member knows, and this minister knows, living in the

Goulds, understands and knows fully the situation in terms of the infrastructure

problems that lie in that district. He is in an area where there is no water and

sewer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I suspect you would have met the same fate

that the Liberal candidate met.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Did you really? Good for you.

But he knows. He shops in the area. He buys local vegetables

in the area. There is no doubt about it; people tell me all the time they saw

the Member for - what is it, Bonavista North now, I believe; yes - the Member

for Bonavista North, all the time in the district buying a few vegetables, down

picking up some supplies for his wine, red, white, et cetera, but he knows the

district. He lives there, and he knows what I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he vote for you?

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he vote for you?

MR. E. BYRNE: I doubt it very much, I say to the Minister

of Education, but I believe some of his family might have.

MR. TULK: Do you have somebody chasing me around all the

time?

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a great grapevine in the district.

The reality is the same, there are services required. If

government deals on a priority basis - yes, go ahead; I am sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is that the services in my

district that are required are immense. The taxes that they pay, as residents, I

think, are second to none in terms of the highest amount of taxes they pay for

the inferior level of services that they receive for those taxes. I don't think

there are many members in here - there are exceptions, of course, but there are

few who can say that in one-third of their district there is raw sewerage

running in ditches alongside the main road. It is a serious, serious concern.

I want to say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation that there is an issue that has been developing over time. It has

been in the environmental process, the environmental assessment process right

now, dealing with the Goulds bypass road. Will it happen? When will it happen? I

know that the environmental assessment process has taken an extraordinary amount

of time. It has been, I think, some three years now, which is at least twelve to

sixteen months longer than: Will that bypass road begin this spring?... is a

question that is on the minds of many people in the area.

If you come down the main road in my district, it can be

described only as a cow path. The former minister, now the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, said to me time and time again that if there is

one area in this Province that needs a bypass road, because of the amount of

traffic that comes from the Southern Shore and from other areas, it is the

District of Kilbride.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There are very few cows that go across that

road, but the reality is that it is in a terrible and deplorable state. It needs

to be resurfaced, and it needs to be widened, but the reality is that the now

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is within her jurisdiction and

her department to ensure that road begins to happen.

There is zero money required from the provincial government

for that road. It was a piece of work that was negotiated under the Roads for

Rails agreement. It does not require one penny of provincial money. The plans

are set. The route that road will take is already predetermined, and the studies

that have been done in terms of traffic flow, et cetera, have been done. It will

alleviate a huge concern, a safety concern that is on the minds of every

constituent and every resident in the District of Kilbride. It literally came up

hundreds of times during the election at public meetings, privately at doors,

and it certainly has been a concern over the past two-and-a-half years.

I say to the Minister of Education, who talked about the type

of representation they receive, at least they see me. At least over the last

two-and-a-half years they have been able to contact me and see me, unlike some

other ministers, or unlike some other members, but maybe that is a debate for

another time.

Mr. Chairman, one of the other concerns that arose during the

election in the district, certainly, I think, is an area that is not just

focused or is not just a concern of the District of Kilbride, but is a concern

of each and every one of us, and that is jobs; that is employment. The amount of

jobs that are required in this Province is phenomenal.

We can stand here every day and debate changes to the Canada

Health and Social Transfer Act. We can debate changes to unemployment insurance,

and the impact that will have. We can debate changes on declining transfer

payments, on less money coming from the federal government in terms of

federal/provincial agreements, whether that be in agrifoods, agriculture,

forestry, mining, fishery or whatever but, Mr. Chairman, the priority for this

Legislative Assembly here today must be finding employment for Newfoundlanders.

There is no greater social safety net than a job. A job that provides a decent

level of income so people can live, pay bills, pay their taxes and move on. I

think that should be a priority for all of us, Mr. Chairman, as we, throughout

the coming months and years, continue to debate legislation that impacts this

Province and the people who live within it.

I know that Interim Supply is part of the budget process and

I will get more time to be more specific, as it comes to Interim Supply and

specific questions dealing with the Departments of Education, Mining and Energy,

Employment Services and certainly the Department of Environment and Labour.

Maybe when the Minister of Environment and Labour drops back - I was going to

talk to him now on it but certainly what he sees as the future of the Department

of Environment and Labour, new department with two distinct, specific roles, now

coming under one department and how he sees his job, as the new minister of that

department proceeding over the next four to five years and how he sees on the

one hand, promoting labour peace and on the other hand streamlining the

environmental process.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down. Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to stand here today and say a few

more words on the Interim Supply Bill but I did neglect the other day to

congratulate the members who got re-elected to the House of Assembly and I will

do that now. Mr. Chairman, I also congratulate all the ministers and former

ministers who got their Cabinet positions again this time and the new ministers,

I certainly congratulate them. Actually, I have letters of congratulations on

the way to you people. You should receive them today or tomorrow.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Interim Supply Bill of

course - and that is directly related to the policies, the financial policies of

the government and the new administration and that of course is a direct result

of the Throne Speech. I am going to say a few words about the Throne Speech, Mr.

Chairman. The two things that I saw in the Throne Speech that probably will

happen and there are certainly no reasons for them not to happen of course, is

the name change from the Province of Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador

and I have no problem with that. I certainly support that, Mr. Chairman.

The volunteer medal, Mr. Chairman. I think it is very

important to recognize volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have been a

volunteer myself. I have served on a municipality as a mayor for seven years.

Completely volunteering my time, using my own vehicle and spending as many as

thirty to forty hours a week as a mayor of a local town. There are very many

people across this Province, Mr. Chairman, who do the same thing; mayors,

deputy- mayors, councillors and what have you and they play a very important

role in the running of the Province. As a matter of fact, they play a very

important role in the running of any country, volunteers. It is not only

volunteers with respect to municipalities but different groups that try to raise

money for the poor in the Province and in the country itself, Mr. Chairman. So I

believe that a volunteer medal is a very good idea as long as they are not

passed out with any type of thing, that they are considered to be a medal of

distinction and that people have to work hard to receive them. I am sure there

would be some criteria set down for a person to be able to receive such a medal.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said these are probably the only two

things that I seen in the Throne Speech that probably will actually happen. What

I did see though, Mr. Chairman - I was wondering, when the Lieutenant-Governor

was giving the speech, I was wondering who actually wrote the speech. I seen the

former Premier sitting on the floor of the House of Assembly here and I was

wondering if at times he had actually written the speech himself because it was

so close to the goings on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, the Throne Speech, the one that was

given a few days ago. Yes, I will get into that. Just listen and you will hear

my reasoning for that, Mr. Chairman. I thought that they were so close and then

I saw the Cabinet in the front benches here, I looked across and saw all the

same Cabinet members there in the front benches, the same people making the same

decisions type of thing. The only bright light I saw I suppose was the second

row, Mr. Chairman, and the new ministers who were appointed. Hopefully they will

have some impact upon the former ministers and ministers who are there now in

the front benches. Hopefully so they will be.

The new Minister of Education. I can understand why the

Premier appointed him as Minister of Education. Because they needed a

mouthpiece, they needed somebody who could stand in his place for five, ten,

twenty minutes or half an hour, be asked a question, and say nothing after

twenty minutes. The man is perfect. He couldn't get a better person to do it. He

had a prime example today. That is why he was there. The Minister of Education

was all upset today because the Member for Baie Verte presented a petition on

the closing down of schools.

He neglected to say that two days - I believe it was two,

maybe three; give it three, say three to be fair - after the election they had

the former Minister of Education and Training and the former Minister of

Justice, who was in the gallery the same day the House opened type of thing, in

Ottawa trying to meet with the Liberals in Ottawa to try and force through Term

17. After the Premier himself - he was Premier at the time, during the election

- made a statement that he would be open to consultation and negotiation and

what have you with respect to education reform in the Province. Then two days

after he has his ministers in Ottawa - his minister and... what would I call the

other person? The remote control person.

MR. E. BYRNE: They were ministers at the time.

MR. J. BYRNE: Was he minister? So he was, he was minister

at the time, that is right, the former Minister of Justice and Government House

Leader. In Ottawa, trying to force through Term 17, or trying to get support for

Term 17. That is why I would say the former Premier probably wrote the speech

for the Lieutenant-Governor this time around.

My fear with respect to this Administration is this, that it

will basically be an extension of the federal government. We know the new

Premier was in Ottawa for sixteen or seventeen years type of thing as a Cabinet

minister. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the people listening, whoever is

listening, that the government before this Administration was bad enough with

respect to being yes men for the federal government. We saw no opposition at all

from this government. Whatever they sent down, whatever they wanted to cut, or

whatever they wanted to do with respect to Newfoundland, the Premier would stand

in his place and say: We would have to be responsible and accept our

responsibilities and accept our share and what have you. No opposition now.

The former premier also went to Ottawa looking for cuts with

the ISG program. The Premier today was a part of the silent s