The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome today to our galleries a number of students.

First of all, we have sixty Grade V11 students from St. Pius X Junior High School in the District of St. John's East. They are accompanied by their teachers, Ms Linda Lee and Ms Sharon Power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, there are twenty-six Grade X students from Holy Heart of Mary High School in the District of St. John's East, and they are accompanied by their teacher, Patricia Goulart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, the Chair would like to welcome today to the Speaker's Gallery, all the way from Sydney, Victoria, MP Peter Mancini, the NDP Justice critic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on February 4, 1998 Mr. Adam Okkuatsiak died while an inmate at the Labrador Correctional Centre.

I wish to inform the House today that the Department of Justice has received a report from the Chief Medical Examiner, and the RCMP has also submitted a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions for review.

Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that there is ample opportunity to examine the circumstances surrounding Mr. Okkuatsiak's death, I have advised the family and I now advise the House of Assembly and the public that a judicial inquiry will be conducted into this matter.

Government takes such matters very seriously. We want to do everything we can to create as safe an environment as possible for inmates in secure custody. Mr. Speaker, a death is not always avoidable. However, it is important that we closely examine a death in a secure custody facility so that all reasonable measures are taken to ensure avoidable deaths do not occur in our institutions.

I would like to say further, Mr. Speaker, that since this matter will now be the subject of a judicial inquiry, it would be inappropriate to make any further public statements on the matter. Therefore, I will not be making any further public statements.

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

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

Obviously we support the initiative launched by the Minister of Justice today, into a very unfortunate incidence. I would just like to add that obviously the Department of Justice most have conducted an internal review on this situation. I ask the minister: At some point, whenever he is in a position where he feels he can do so without jeopardizing the process that he has established today, can he indicate what measures the department has taken prior to that, that would, I guess, go towards seeing that another incident of this nature would not happen in the future?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased that there will be a public inquiry into this death. Concerns have been present ever since the death and we were awaiting the operation of the new procedure under the Medical Examiner Act to follow through, and I see that it has resulted in a judicial inquiry. I think we look forward to a full public and open examination of all the details, to ensure that if it possible to prevent a death of this nature that it can be done in the future.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I guess my question today is for the acting Minister of Finance. The government knows full well that some of the major revenue sources in this year's Budget will soon start disappearing.

Under the Harmonized Sales Tax deal, Ottawa agreed to compensate the Province for the hundreds of millions in lost revenue the Province will see under the reduced tax rate. Under the compensation formula, Mr. Speaker, we applied $127 million in last year's Budget and we are applying $127 million in this year's Budget.

Will the minister confirm that this revenue will be dropping from $127 million to $63 million in next year's Budget, $31 million from $127 million the year after, and zero in all the years following that? Once confirming that, can the Minister indicate what government has done, and has it yet determined the impact of this loss of revenue on the provincial budget?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague will be along shortly.

I do know that we have discussed the impact, as the hon. member has pointed out to us, I just do not have the figures in my head right now. So, I will take the question under advisement until my colleague arrives. He should be along momentarily. Maybe the hon. member might want to let one of his colleagues go with a line of questioning and come back to the Minister of Finance when he arrives. I do not have the details in my mind.

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

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

My questions are to the Minister of Education. In the last several day parents of students in school District 2, the Northern Peninsula - Labrador South Board, have closed schools in order to bring to the attention of the government the need to have greater numbers of teachers assigned to assure that the sound educational program continues to be offered in their communities. Today, I say to the Minister, two more schools in that district have been closed by the actions of parents.

I want to ask the minister if he has had discussion, or will he be having discussions, with the school board with the aim being to resolve the differences and the difficulties that these parents are encountering with school-teacher allocations.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is most unfortunate that parents have decided to take the actions that they have, in withdrawing the students from school.

Mr. Speaker, I have been dealing with the school board. I spoke with the Chair of the Board a week or so ago. They had been dealing with officials of the department for a couple of weeks before that. We are having a meeting later this afternoon with the Chair of the Board and the Director of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want anyone to expect that the answer is likely to be additional teaching resources provided from the government to that school board or any school board.

We heard the representations, Mr. Speaker, in the last year or so, from the school boards as to what the impact of teacher reductions would be, and that lead the government to the conclusion that we could not take out the 450 teachers that would have normally left the system as the result of matching the student decline. Therefore some, in excess of 200 teachers, were reinstated into the system.

The school board has had some difficulties in satisfying parents with the allocations that they have done. Some parents have a disagreement - for whatever reason the parents think their disagreement is with the government. The government has assigned the teachers to the board and the School's Act gives the school's board the authority to decide into which schools those teachers shall be assigned. It is not my duty to decide whether they should be in Hawke's Bay, St. Anthony or some place else.

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

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

Perhaps I should say to the minister, when he meets Dennis Parsons and Pius Walsh at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon, he might tell them there is no point in their coming to see him because he has already said in the House that the meeting he is having with them today is going to be totally unproductive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the minister: Why is it necessary for parents in St. John's to take the Province to court in order to get fairness in the allocations of teachers? Why is it necessary for parents of the Great Northern Peninsula to initiate boycotts to have the minister initiate the reforms we talked about at the classroom level when we talked about educational reform a year or so ago?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Neither action is necessary, Mr. Speaker, but the member opposite nor myself nor anybody here can tell a parent whether or not they would like to challenge a decision made either by the government, by a school board, by a town council, or by any other entity, Mr. Speaker. That is an individual choice.

The parent and the school board in St. John's has decided, which is their right to do so, to challenge a particular issue with respect to teacher services and allocations relating to special services, special education. That is their right to do so. I think it is totally unnecessary, in my view, but their view is that it is in their best interest so they have decided to pursue that action.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is most regrettable when any group of parents come to the conclusion that the best interest of their child is served by taking them out of school. I think that is poorly directed. It is misuse of the whole resource. It is not using anything or anybody to the best advantage. I think, Mr. Speaker, that maybe we are still on a learning curb where some people do not quite understand what people in this Legislature, including all the members opposite, voted upon when they passed a new Schools Act. The new Schools Act, Mr. Speaker, just to give one example, in section 75, which was fully debated clause-by-clause in this Legislature and endorsed at the end of the piece by members opposite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Under duties of boards it said, `A board shall appoint and assign duties of teachers'. It does not say that the Minister of Education shall do that. Everybody in this Legislature agreed that the government will provide the block number of teachers and it is better for the board to decide which school they are assigned to, and that is what they are in the process of doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is the insensitivity of the minister and the government.

Mr. Speaker, the parents in these communities tell me that they have forwarded petitions to the minister, they have written letters to the minister, they have worn out a fax machine faxing things to the minister, and they have gotten no response. Therefore, they have come to a boycott out of absolute frustration. Maybe the minister should be replying to his correspondence and that kind of thing.

Mr. Speaker, these parents were promised a better tomorrow. They were told that education reforms would be happening at the classroom level. It is not happening. When will the process of meaningful reform begin at the classroom level that will positively help the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly those who are in small communities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has begun, it is in process, but unless - and this is the point I will make with the school board representatives today in the meeting - unless that particular school board, or any other board, wants to pass a motion which in effect would say that they will give away their right to assign teachers to the schools in their jurisdiction to me as the minister, unless they want to do that, then everybody, including the parents, have to understand that it is the board's role to decide how many teachers go into which school.

We will have some very useful dialogue this afternoon with the school board representatives because there are dozens of options that they have with respect to the allocation of teachers, none of which include or need to include additional teachers above and beyond what they were allocated. That particular school board lost fewer teachers this year than any other school board in the Province.

Secondly, so that everybody would know for the record, the only teachers that were removed from District 2 were the twelve units that were put back in the system last year to accommodate the court injunction in the middle of the summer. Other than that, that board did not lose a single teacher.

If that is not a commitment to letting them go ahead - and even though they have had significant student decline - and make improvements, if for some reason they are doing the allocations which they are entitled to under the act in a way that is not satisfying to parents, the parents need not ask me. They should be in a dialogue with their school board members who live in their own communities who have gone to those schools and are in charge of the decision. The only reply I have given to the parents is that they are talking to the wrong person. Talk to the school board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Minister, as you are well aware, a very important economic generator of activity in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador each year is our municipal capital works program. It is always important that we try and get these things out early. I say to the minister, the construction season is fast approaching. When will you be announcing this year's program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I have circulated it to certain privileged members, like the hon. Member for Ferryland; he knows about his. Mr. Speaker, I may be in a position later on today. I am waiting for a report from Treasury Board that went on this morning. I do not have it yet but I should have it later on this afternoon. If I do not do it today, I will be doing it tomorrow, hopefully. I will not be able to do all the announcements on capital works because we have not dealt with all of them yet, but we will have a sizeable amount of capital works ready to be announced, at the latest, Monday. The latest will be Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, Minister, we all realize, and I am sure you do as well, that this summer in various parts of this Province, with the number of people coming off TAGS, we are certainly going to need some extra funding in there.

What I would like to ask you now is: How much money can we expect to see in this year's capital works program? And, will there be a little bit extra to help municipalities to keep up their infrastructure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: It is old news, Mr. Speaker. It was announced in the Budget that the capital works budget for my department this year would be $26.5 million, and that is what it stands at today.

Out of that $26.5 million, about $4 million or $4.5 million has to go immediately to industrial water systems upgrading, and passing it over to towns - I think most members of the House understand that - and there is a little bit of money that we have to flow through last year's contracts because of overruns and this sort of thing. But, generally speaking, you will be looking at about $20 million, $21 million, or $22 million in capital works that will be announced.

Over and above that, I cannot make any commitment; it is not for me to say. If the Minister of Finance were here and you asked him that question, I would probably stand up and clap for you if you got a few extra dollars from him, but I am not in a position to say that I will be able to provide, or this government will be able to provide, any more than $26.5 million this year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: I say, Mr. Speaker, it is too bad we cannot get the Minister of Finance here.

In past years, the Province has convinced Ottawa to do its part in financing infrastructure and community works programming. I would like to ask the minister now: Has any representation been made to Ottawa concerning the infrastructure program for the 1998-1999 fiscal year? If it has, can he table any correspondence that he may have had with the federal government concerning this? And, could he tell us if there has been any response to date from the federal government on the infrastructure program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, at the First Ministers' Conference, and I think this is general knowledge, too, because it was reported in the media, the Premiers - not only our Premier but the other nine Premiers as well as ours - lobbied the federal government first for a new transportation initiative, if I remember correctly, and then subsequent to that a new infrastructure program, but not for 1998-1999; for 1999-2000.

The reason for that was that there are only two provinces in Canada that actually have the previous infrastructure money spent. I wouldn't want to be quoted exactly, but there are still hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure from the old program that haven't been spent in Ontario. Alberta has, I think, just about all of their money not spent yet. We were one of the two provinces in Canada that has up to now spent all its infrastructure money. Most other provinces have a lot of it left. Therefore, the federal government doesn't see any need to make any long-term commitment as it relates to infrastructure, especially for this year, knowing that most provinces wouldn't have it spent anyway.

With that in mind, the Premier has lobbied, I think, to be quite honest about it, I can safely say twice if not three times, with the Prime Minister. I haven't written any letters. I have supported the Federation of Municipalities in their approach, and I am going to the FCM at the end of the month and we are going to talk about it at that particular point in time. I am going to let my views be known to the FCM and they will be doing another lobbying.

I have spoken directly to Marcel Massé and a number of other ministers every time I have gotten the chance to meet with them on other issues. The infrastructure program has always come up. In fact, I will say to the hon. member that I even said that maybe they could squeeze or try to find a few extra dollars to give Newfoundland because we were so conscientious in getting the program off the ground. I cannot provide you with any letters because I never wrote any, but I will say to the hon. member that there has been a strong lobby by this government for a new infrastructure program.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop picking on her, boy, give her a day off.

MR. SULLIVAN: She doesn't deserve a day off, I say to my colleague. She deserves a week off, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, the deal to compensate Hepatitis C victims is not acceptable and we have to do better. The current agreement, as the minister is well aware, only covers the period for people who contracted the disease between 1986 and 1990. Last week, Minister, you said the Province cannot afford to pay for people who contracted Hepatitis C outside the 1986 to 1990 period. You also stated yesterday that you are not in a position to take this to Cabinet until you have met with your provincial counterparts. I now ask the minister: Why isn't our Province defining its position before you go to that meeting?

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

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

The short answer is because our Province does not agree in unilateral action, whether it is by a province or by the federal government. This agreement that we made was made around the table with all my colleagues from all the provinces, as well as the federal government. I have made it very clear, I have called on Minister Rock, I have called on the Chair of the Health Ministers, to call a meeting as soon as possible. I will be very happy, articulate, and able to state our position in terms of where we are going with this when I get around the table with the people who made the agreement. We believe there is a process.

This is not about generating media activity and one province outdoing another. This issue is too important. The day before yesterday, Quebec had no money to put into the program. Then Ontario came forward and offered to pay their provincial money. Yesterday, Quebec came out and said now they are going to put provincial money in. The ground is moving. I believe the proper place to discuss that issue in relation to its importance is around the table where those deals and those agreements can be made appropriately.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister doesn't have to stand and tell the whole world what the position is, but to go to a meeting without going to Cabinet and knowing what the position of this Province is, I find that going ill-prepared, I say to the minister. You should tell your Premier the same thing you just said, and tell him to stop announcing federal programs before they announce them themselves. Apply the same principles here.

Now this agreement that was struck, I say to the minister, is not based on affordability. It is based on legal liability, the 1986-1990 agreement.

I ask the minister: Will she stand now and accept that there is a moral responsibility on behalf of this and other governments for the period prior to 1986?

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

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

I have been very clear in my position, as has been the Chair of the Saskatchewan ministers representing the Health Ministers across the country. I will meet with all of my colleagues around the table and I will discuss the issues at hand. I have made it quite clear. The difference though, Mr. Speaker, is that I like to know all the information; I like to have all of the facts. As we speak, things are happening.

I just gave an example: Two provinces have changed their positions. I think it is only appropriate, it is important, and certainly it is what one would expect, that you would have all the information before you make any sort of decision. That was the position we took on the previous arrangement, and that is the position we will take on this arrangement.

I am calling, and I have called, on the Minister of Health for Canada, as well as the other ministers, to meet as soon as possible. I have been told that we will be meeting next week. We are now in the process of finalizing a date, and those issues will be brought to the fore.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, Michael Harris has stated their position, and other provinces have indicated them publicly. Many have mentioned it today in The Globe and Mail, I say to the minister. It was Allan Rock who announced on Monday that there would be a meeting with ministers. It was in Tuesday's Globe and Mail. It was carried in the media on Monday. And you indicated before this House on Tuesday that you requested a meeting with Allan Rock, and he was going to have the meeting. Minister, you are a day late with the announcement. It is already out there and the meeting was scheduled.

It is becoming evident that the pre-1986 victims are going to receive compensation. It will be either through the courts, through the provinces acting on their own, as this letter here indicates, or through an agreement among all provinces, I say to the minister, with the federal government. I think that is the best approach.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Don't you agree it would be more compassionate to come to a quick settlement rather than drag those sick people through a lengthy court battle?

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

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

In response to his preamble, it was Friday afternoon when I, in fact, spoke with the Ministers of Health across the country and raised the issue of calling for a meeting, if you are getting into the chronological times. I have since spoken to Mr. Rock and reinforced that as well, Mr. Speaker, just so he has all the information.

I will say again that I am quite prepared to go and sit around the table and work with all my colleagues, as I have. I also re-state, for the importance and the information of those people who are listening here today, that the 1986-1990 arrangement for those people with Hepatitis C remains intact.

What we are going back to the table for, is to discuss the issues around Hepatitis C pre-1986. I am quite prepared to do that, and I will discuss those issues around the table. I do not believe in unilateral action, this government does not believe in unilateral action, and we do not support that on the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared, on behalf of this government, to bring those views forward around that table.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a couple of questions.

The minister knows that some of the major revenue sources in this year's Budget will soon start disappearing. Under the harmonized sales tax deal, Ottawa agreed to compensate the Province for hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the loss of revenue under the new reduced tax rate.

Under the compensation formula, last year we applied $127 million to last year's Budget, $127 million in this year's Budget. Will the minister confirm that this will be dropping to $63 million from $127 million next year, in 1999, and it will drop even further in the year 2000, from $127 million to $31 million, and every year thereafter - there will be nothing. If he can confirm that, can he indicate what action government is taking to prepare itself for the impact of this significant loss of revenue to the Province's budgets in the years to come, and thus to the provincial economy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The figures are close to what the hon. member says. Essentially, we received 100 per cent in the first two years and then it dropped to 50 per cent and 25 per cent. So the money diminishes after four years and, in fact, there is no money after four years.

It is the obverse of saving for the rainy day, Mr. Speaker. It has been raining in Newfoundland for the last two years, and Labrador. The difference is that two years ago we had a shrinkage in the economy of 2.3 per cent; the year past we had a shrinkage of 1.3 per cent; this year we will have growth of 4 per cent. So, as any person would do, you determine your finances and your cash flows depending on your intake. So it was wise and prudent for us to obtain the money that we would get over twenty years at a time when we needed it, and dispense with it at a time when we knew the economy would grow. That is the answer to the hon. member's question.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is even worse than what we have imagined, if that is the case, if we take the Minister of Finance's value. Let us ask him this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Education has no knowledge of what I am talking about, and I don't expect him to, but let me ask the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: He has no knowledge of what is taking place in his own department. Why should he have any knowledge of what is taking place in the Department of Finance, Mr. Speaker?

Combined with the reduction in harmonized sales tax, combined with the loss of revenue from Term 29 - in which the Province took $40 million in year one, $40 million in year two, and nothing from now till the year 2016; we also paid a $30 million penalty for doing it - let me ask him to confirm this: that in 1999, all things being equal, we will actually be short $104 million in revenue; in the year 2000 it will increase to $136 million in revenue that will be short; and in the year 2001 it will be $167 million in revenue that we do not now have. Can the minister confirm that, please?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have to review the hon. member's figures. What I can confirm is that, of course, the twenty-year quantification of the figure for Term 29 - as the hon. member indicated and I confirm -will decrease over the next four years. The HST compensation, however, will increase by 2 per cent per year over the four-year term, the amount to be quantified. So I would have to see his figures and where he is getting them from.

Obviously the HST figures are constant and in fact increase. It will in fact be reconciled at the end of four years, but it provides for a pre-quantified increase based on the assumed inflation rate of 2 per cent.

I am not sure where he is getting his figures from, but if he could add them all up and present to me I would certainly be delighted to take a look at them.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The figures are pretty clear, Mr. Speaker. In the 1997 Budget we took $127 million on HST, $40 million on Term 29, for a total of $167 million. Now, in the year 2001 there will be no money coming from HST, zero. There will be no money coming from Term 29, zero. Therefore, in that four-year period we would have lost $167 million in revenue.

The question I now ask the Minister of Finance: Is he so convinced today, as he was two years ago when they entered into the deal on HST, that the growth in the economy that would occur as a result of this deal - is he so convinced today that, as a result, the growth in the economy will more than compensate for that revenue? If he is convinced that is the case, what basis can he put forward and table in this House that that will actually take place?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am more convinced than ever, and it is based on projections that we may have been exceeded. As I indicated to the hon. member earlier, the GDP shrank in the last two years and it was prudent for us to front-end load the support mechanisms that were negotiated in some cases many years ago but in the other case more recently, to supplement any loses we might have. What we decided in the case of the HST, for example, was that we knew what our losses would be but the price that we paid was we injected into the taxpayers of the Province $105 million. Now frankly my belief - and it may run contrary to the hon. member's - is that if we want our economy to grow, the government should tax less and trust the people of the Province to use the money more wisely than we might otherwise spend ourselves.

So what we have done is, we made an assumption that if we allow taxpayers to utilize that $105 million, gave businesses the full benefit of the HST input taxes credits, that the economy would grow. Now, were we wrong? Because before we did this the economy shrank by 2.3 per cent; it shrank by 1.3 per cent. After we did it, the economy this year will grow by about 4 per cent if not more. Not only that; retail sales tax, since April 1 last year when we amalgamated the two taxes, what happened to retail sales taxes? Or what happened to retail sales (inaudible)? They grew by over 60 per cent. So, were we wrong? No, Mr. Speaker. Statistics support our position and I am firmly convinced, as is the government and my colleagues here before you, that the economy will grow, and that due to the measures we have taken there will be more than sufficient growth in tax revenues as well to offset the losses that we have sustained.

Mr. Speaker, I would rather see the money go back to the taxpayers of this Province than see government take money and spend it on things that might otherwise not be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this the type of voodoo economics that we have seen from this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality of it is that the last two Budgets have been built on a one-time flimsy measure that will get this government to the year 1999. Mr. Speaker, there is no way the Minister of Finance can stand in his place today and say that we will not be short that amount of money, because we will.

On top of that, will the minister confirm that the situation could even be far worse in next year's Budget because of the continued escalation of out-migration and the impact that will have on transfers to the Province? That in that respect we may in fact be $40 million on top of the $167 million less in next year's Budget?

What the minister should do, Mr. Speaker, is stand in this House, acknowledge there is a problem, and tell the people of the Province what this government plans do about it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - for the services that the people of this Province have come to rely on and expect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member speaks about voodoo economics, which is a wonderful phrase that George Bush made popular. Voodoo, in many of its adherence views, is a way of making the impossible possible. I think that the hon. member's assumption is that we cannot do it because he cannot. I say to the hon. House, and to members of the public -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: - that is clearly not the case. If it is voodoo then we are eminent practitioners of the art, because we are making what the hon. members consider impossible on that side of the House possible on this side. How have we done it? A 6 per cent increase in retail sales tax in one year; GDP growth backing off from over a 4 per cent decline in two years to a 4 per cent increase. They are not our figures, Mr. Speaker. The TD Bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal, all agree with us, Mr. Speaker.

There are two ways one can establish additional revenues in government. One is to tax more, which this hon. member obviously advocates, and the predecessor governments on that side of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: - or, you can make the economy grow. We have chosen to tax less and have growth in the economy, due to trust in taxpayers and businesses.

If the hon. member has a different recipe, let the taxpayers trust him to try it. We do not believe in it; the hon. member obviously does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the Province; some from St. John's, some from Stephenville, Kelligrews, Mount Pearl, Harbour Breton - dozens and dozens, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I can tell you where they are all from, I suppose. There are twenty-eight from Prince of Wales Street, Cornwall Avenue, all over St. John's. There is another dozen from Stephenville, another dozen from various places, all over the place.

People all over this Province, Mr. Speaker, are petitioning this House of Assembly on the issue of a school lunch program. Why are they doing that? They are doing that because they are concerned about the fact that there are children going to school hungry.

Now, members opposite might find that funny, Mr. Speaker. They might think that is a big joke but, I will tell you, it is not a joke to the thousands and thousands of students who are going to school hungry in this Province. It is not a joke to Dr. Patricia Canning, who submitted a report to the Minister of Education two years ago, or this time last year, which he released last October. It is not a joke to the people who are trying to provide a school lunch program in this Province but do not have the ability to do it because there are not enough public funds into it. It is not a joke to the communities concerned about the fact that not only is education receiving not enough attention from the Minister of Education but that the students going to the schools do not have proper grounding and ability to learn from the education system that we do have.

Mr. Speaker, it is recognized by every single study that has ever been done that there is a problem with hungry children in this Province and in this country. Mr. Speaker, if they want to make political ballyhoo out of that and laugh at me and laugh at the problem, then they can go right ahead and do it. The people in this Province do not think it is funny, Mr. Speaker, and this hon. member does not think it is funny, and I am going to continue to present these petitions as long as they keep coming in. Mr. Speaker, as long as they keep coming in, I will present these petitions.

The St. John's School Lunch Foundation, Mr. Speaker, is having an event on May 21 to try and raise attention. They are asking people to skip a lunch for the School Lunch Program and donate the amount to the School Lunch Program in this Province. That is what organizations have to do to ensure that hungry children are fed in this Province. Mr. Speaker, it is not right. The government should ensure that this social problem is resolved and resolved to the benefit of the children of this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, what these petitioners want is not a program based on charity but a program that understands the need for a universal, comprehensive School Lunch Program for every single school in Newfoundland and Labrador, in order to help end child hunger and to give our children a better chance in school. That is what we want, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to have what happened here two weeks ago with the Government House Leader and myself and other members of this House, on all sides of the House, including the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, going to Ottawa saying: We need a program for TAGS recipients because there has to be retraining, because 79 per cent - was it 79 per cent or 69 per cent? The Member for Ferryland knows the number. Sixty-nine or 79 per cent of the people in the TAGS Program do not have a high school education. They have not had the benefit of full education, Mr. Speaker, in this Province.

By preventing children from having a proper nutritional basis on which to learn, we are preventing those children, when they become adults, from participating fully in our society. So we have to solve that problem now, Mr. Speaker. If we solve that problem now, not only will we end the pain of hunger that children feel but we will also, perhaps, end the pain and the long-term problems that will be caused by those children not getting a proper education.

This is a very, very important issue, Mr. Speaker, not one that should cause laughter and merriment on the other side of the House; and I ask them to take it seriously. I know they have made some moves, Mr. Speaker, they have put another amount of money into the School Lunch Program for the next number of years, but we still only have 10 per cent of the schools in this Province that have any kind of a school meal program. Mr. Speaker, that has to change, that has to be fixed. The schools that need it the most and are the ones that are not getting it, Mr. Speaker, because their communities do not have the resources to put behind a program of this nature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am delighted today to rise again to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, in the last year or so, we have had about twenty-five different presentations on this topic made in this House. I have spoken on most of them and the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi has spoken on them an equal number of times.

Mr. Speaker, we want to again today, through this petition, say to the House that there is a connection between child poverty, child hunger and school achievement.

Mr. Speaker, the Williams Royal Commission report which was published in 1992, in their background studies noted that child poverty was one of the most pervasive barriers to educational attainment. Studies conducted for that Royal Commission by the Department of Health, the Department of Education and the Department of Social Services, now called Human Resources and Employment, they show that one child in four in this Province was going to school regularly hungry.

Mr. Speaker, these studies were conducted before the difficulties occurred with the cod fishery and other economic downturns. There is every reason to believe that in 1998 there are actually more children going to school hungry than the stats which were cited in the Royal Commission done by Dr. Williams. As the member has already said: The Patricia Canning report again cited the correlation between socio-economic status of the parents and school achievement of the children. Mr. Speaker, she placed the number at around 40,000.

Also, I should say to the members, that the National Forum on Health is quoted extensively in the 1997 report of the Social Policy Advisory Committee. Mr. Speaker, that report said that poverty is far more than financial deprivation, and that in the in-school system it leads to exclusion, isolation, and marginalization.

Mr. Speaker, their study said that children who grow up poor show almost three-and-a-half times the number of conduct disorders, almost twice the chronic illnesses, more than twice the rate of school drop-outs, hyperactivity and emotional disorders, as compared to children who do not go to school hungry.

On January 10, just last year, the federal Minister of Finance said: I believe child poverty is the great social policy challenge of this generation. He further said: I think we are now reaching the point of absurdity in terms of inequality. I remind the House, as I did just the day before yesterday, that ten years ago we had a commitment by the Parliament of Canada that we would eliminate child poverty by the year 1999, and nine years later there are 500,000 more hungry children in Canada today than there were nine years ago.

We in this Province know there is a cycle to poverty. We know what affect it has on children. While we commend the government for some initiatives through the children's food foundation, we want to say to the government that they have just simply done a little bit. They have been able to take a small initiative, but that is a beginning. We are pleased to compliment them on that. We want to say to them, however, that in St. John's right now there are seven schools offering a School Lunch Program. There are something like eighty-two schools in the Avalon East system alone. In terms of a percentage, not 10 per cent of the schools in the St. John's Avalon East system have a School Lunch Program. Mr. Speaker, there are some initiatives being undertaken now looking at school breakfast programs.

We know there is a direct connection between the fact that children come to school hungry and how they perform throughout the school day. We want to say, on behalf of those children, that we can't expect them to perform well in school if their minds are on the fact that they haven't had a breakfast or have had no lunch, or if they have to walk the corridors when all the other children are eating. They have nothing for their recess, they have no way of getting anything for recess. No wonder we have hyperactivity, no wonder there are school drop-outs, because every single day these children are reminded that school is a negative place, that school is not a happy place. When you are going to school and you can't measure up to the other children because you are not able to concentrate, then how can you expect to learn?

Mr. Speaker, we know that when children are hungry they have headaches, they feel fatigued, they are restless, they have difficulty concentrating, they are irritable, they are sleepy, and just plain crabby and cantankerous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we have to do something about it. If we don't, then the consequences long-term are going to be devastating to our Province and our country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to say just a few words with respect to the petition presented. I'm glad to have the issue addressed again. The government doesn't treat this issue as anything other than a very serious issue, which it is, which is why there was $1 million put into the Budget this year to enable the School Lunch Program in the Province to be expanded in a sensible, reasonable fashion.

Mr. Speaker, just in terms of some of the rhetoric, however, that the members opposite used, which has no foundation, there is a very good School Lunch Foundation in the Province. Some of the rhetoric from the members presenting their positions, has no foundation because they try to exaggerate a circumstance which is serious, but which is not of the scope that they suggest.

Mr. Speaker, just to point out, for example, that the Canning report did not do any new research on hunger in Newfoundland schools. They quoted pre-existing studies which were done that suggested there was a certain level of hunger. That is why the government, two years ago, acted by putting an additional $300,000 into the School Lunch Foundation, and this year reacted again and acted by providing another $1 million.

It is not an issue, Mr. Speaker, that this government treats lightly, but it is one that we have been acting upon consistently since we have been in a position to do so.

Members opposite, like the Opposition critic for Education, would suggest that there is every reason to believe, would make a statement with no foundation whatsoever, that there is every reason to believe that it is worse in 1998 than it was before. For a responsible person to stand and, out of thin air, suggest that he knows something is going on in the Province, where there is a better, more expansive, more expanded program than there has ever been in the history of the Province, and just for political purposes or otherwise to suggest, as if he knew, that there is reason to believe that it is worse now than it has ever been, the opposite is true, Mr. Speaker.

We have made tremendous in-roads with respect to this problem. We have taken it seriously, and will continue to do so despite some of the nonsense that gets included with the serious proposition we are discussing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I note for the minister that I was quoting from research documents done from 1973 until 1996 by officials of the government. Therefore, I am quoting from assessments that have been done by the departments and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - therefore I conclude that their statements might have a better chance of being right than the minister has of being right right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of order.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I did have a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair had called for further petitions. Nobody stood in their place, so the Chair then called Orders of the Day. I believe the hon. Minister of Justice -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The person who spoke - we had intended to present a petition. I said to the Government House Leader that I was expecting it today. We didn't present either one yesterday. With permission of the House, if we could revert to Petitions? Because we do have petitions on behalf of constituents we would like to present.

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, if we have unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to revert to Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: We return to Petitions. Is that an agreement? Yes.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I have a petition today, and again it is on an educational issue. This one is presented to the House of Assembly and it reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador:

We, the undersigned residents of the Province, petition the Legislature, the House of Assembly, to direct the Department of Education to direct or to legislate a paid adult bus monitor program for all school buses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the House's attention the fact that we have a real serious problem with our school buses in this Province. I was talking the other day to some people who are in the know on this particular topic, and they tell me that many of our buses are old, they haven't been inspected in a manner many people in the business find to be satisfactory. School buses are part of the necessity we have in this Province. We must have school buses because of the fact that our children live many miles, in some cases, from the location of the schools. As we have further -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to say to the Minister of Education that we have to stop the practice in this Province of permitting buses which are no longer eligible to meet the legislative criteria in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec be allowed to be brought into this Province and used here, buses that are eleven, twelve, and thirteen years old.

We are not satisfied to put our children on those buses without - well, because they are still within the law, so we need to have another look at school bus safety. We know there have been some accidents in this Province. We are told that the inspections that are done are often not done comprehensively in a manner that would assure the safety of the children.

Mr. Speaker, there is a whole issue arising as to whether or not there should be things like seat-belts. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we had consultation with the parents, the school boards in this Province, and the school councils, on the whole issue of school bus safety. It is time that we develop a dialogue and give parents in this Province an opportunity to say what they really feel, and to tell the government that they should be looking at school bus safety in a manner that will assure that every single child goes to school on a bus that is relatively new, that is safe, that has been inspected properly, and that in all reasonableness guarantees the safety of the child. Of course, Mr. Speaker, as well I have to say that in some cases we have to look at the way we handle driver education on school buses. These are issues that are all tied together and all deal with the issue of school bus safety.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government, it is time that we develop a consultation paper, look at the issue and decide whether or not we should have bus monitors; we should have a look at the issue of the age of the buses, the education program for the drivers of those buses, and also have a look at the whole issue of seat-belts and all other issues surrounding school bus safety.

Mr. Speaker, I present the petition on behalf of the people who signed the petition, and they are as far away as the Goulds, Colliers, Brigus, and that area.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition presented by the Member for Waterford Valley and I congratulate him on keeping this issue before members of the House. It is one that only seems to be an issue for government when somebody is unfortunately killed or seriously injured as a result of a school bus accident.

We have a situation in this Province where every single day there are hundreds of school buses travelling around the Province with students without seat-belts, where the bus driver does not have the capability of keeping order and discipline on buses, or even protecting young children who may be as young as five and six years old riding on school buses in large numbers, often under very treacherous conditions around the Province, in the wintertime, which we are not experiencing now. In fact, we have had a very favourable winter season this year.

This spate of petitions and public concern most recently arose, Mr. Speaker, with the death of a young student at Holy Family School on the St. Thomas Line. That was a very tragic incident that occurred and would not have occurred had there been proper supervision of children by full-time adult - not necessarily full-time but paid school bus monitors who would be able to ensure that the exit and egress of school buses, and the behaviour and situations of children on board the school buses were properly monitored. We are not looking at a terrible expense, particularly when it comes to the benefits of safety for our school children.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures in front of me, but at the time of this incident in St. Thomas Line, the school bus statistics on accidents in this Province were revealed, going back a number of years, and there were an appalling number of school bus accidents. I think there were some 250 or 300 school bus accidents reported over a period of ten to fifteen years, and a number of deaths occurring as a result of school bus accidents, so it is not something that happens only once in a lifetime, or is so rare an event as not to need the attention of government. I think that government must revisit this issue, must look at the actual danger that is occurring to our school children on an ongoing basis. We are not talking, as I indicated, about a terrible expense. We are talking about the safety of our children.

We have just been through, in this Province, after perhaps fifteen or twenty years of agonizing over the issue, a referendum and a major change in our school system to try to make it a little bit more efficient, a little bit less burdensome to the taxpayer in terms of the value for money, and we have made substantial savings because of the change to the school system.

I recall the current Minister of Justice, when he was Minister of Education, saying that as a result of the changes anticipated, as a result of the change in denominational education, we would save as much as $8 million per year in school buses alone. In school buses alone, we would save $8 million a year. I know the Member for Waterford Valley remembers that figure presented to this House, that $8 million a year would be saved on school buses alone if there was a change in the denominational education system.

Well, we have that change in the denominational education system, Mr. Speaker. What small portion of that $8 million would have to be used to provide paid adult school bus monitors to protect our children? I don't know if it would be necessary for high school students. Obviously they are old enough to look after themselves in the school bus situation. But certainly for primary and elementary schools it would be very appropriate to ensure their safety by making sure that any possibility of there being an accident, whether fatal or not, is avoided by the proper kind of supervision that children in this situation need.

It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the driver of a school bus, no matter how diligent, observant, dedicated or competent, cannot possibly pay full attention to the road and full attention to the children as well. It would be distracting enough - sometimes it is distracting enough in a car - when you have a couple of kids in the back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: It must be incredibly more distracting to have twenty, thirty or forty students in a school bus, and I ask government to take this issue very seriously.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the TAGS program whereby the federal government compensates fisheries workers for its mismanagement of the fisheries resource is due to expire in August, and many people entitled to funding have already been or are about to be taken off the program prior to that date;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take a lead role in convincing the federal government to announce and implement, without further delay, a successor program to TAGS which includes income replacement, licence buy-back, early retirement and economy diversification; and to give immediate consideration to those who are entitled to compensation and are now, or are about to be, taken off the program.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed not only by fishermen and fish plant workers. I see names here from Labrador City, I see names here from up and down the Labrador Coast, as well as names from my own district as well. I guess it goes to show that many of the comments that we are hearing on the radio, on the Open Line shows, are not indicative of what people are thinking out there. People who are not directly involved in this program are not necessarily against the people who are receiving a TAGS cheque.

The people I talk to, I can assure you, are not living in any lap of luxury because they are getting a TAGS cheque, especially when you look at - I think the average TAGS cheque for a fish plant worker is something like $266 or $262. If I recall correctly, the average TAGS cheque for a fisherperson is something less than $300, $280-$286.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are involved in this industry - you know them very well; they are in your district as well - have certainly seen much, much better times.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at people in Central Canada saying that maybe it is time for some of those people to get off the tit of Ottawa and move to other areas, it might be a situation where I am sure that they don't understand exactly what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There are people coming off this program every day. There are people coming off this program every week, people who are finding themselves - 25 per cent in fact - going to the department of social services in order to feed and support their families. It is no fault of their own.

Many people might say: Well why don't they move on? Why are they staying in their communities? Why don't they move on to Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta? Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not an option for a lot of those people. That is not an option for somebody who find themselves - in fact, over 40 per cent of the people directly involved with TAGS have less than a grade IX education. Going to another province to start a new life is certainly not an option when you consider that those people will have to bar up their homes, walk away from their worldly belongings, their worldly possessions; bar up their homes and walk away from them.

You can put all the `For Sale' signs you want on a house down in Catalina or Duntara or Keels, and I can assure you there will be nobody rushing in to buy. It is one man's castle, Mr. Speaker. It is the man's castle, it is his life's belongings and what he has worked for all his life. To bar that up and move to another province and start over again without an education, and to start a new occupation, is certainly a very frightening place to find yourself.

Mr. Speaker, there are some positive things happening out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but unfortunately it is not going to look after all the people that were involved in the fishery. I think the onus is on each one of us here in this Legislature to speak out for the 20,000 people who are presently on this program.

I commend the All Party Committee from the House of Assembly here. Each and every member of that committee went and pleaded the case of those Newfoundlanders, pleaded the case -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I say to the member opposite, a good Chairman, and pleaded the case of the 2,000 people who are off this week. Their last pay cheque went into the post office yesterday, over 2,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and out of those 2,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, 25 per cent plus are going to find themselves going to the department of social services. They are going to move into the department of social services, almost sneak in because they are very proud people and it is somewhere that they do not want to go. Those are people who made their livelihood by getting up 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m., getting in a fishing boat and working fifteen and sixteen hours a day. Now, Mr. Speaker, that has been taken away from them.

What those people are asking for is very reasonable, as far as I am concerned. They are asking for the Government of Canada, who was ultimately responsible for this catastrophe that has happened here in Newfoundland and Labrador, to look at early retirement. They are saying: Mr. Ottawa, would you look at reducing the retirement age maybe from fifty-five to fifty for people with a long-term attachment to the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: They are looking at licence buy-back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, just a second to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: They are looking at licence buy-back, Mr. Speaker, whereby people would have the opportunity to sell their licence and be compensated for that. They are not asking that their licence be able - I should not say they are not asking but I don't think it should be a situation that licences should be sold to another individual. I think if we are going to have to get those people out of the fishery then it is out of the fishery that they must get, and the licence has to be bought back by government and stay with government. I don't agree, Mr. Speaker, that we should treat fishery licences like we do a milk quota here in this Province, where people have been given a licence for little money or with no money and be allowed to sell it back to government or sell it to somebody else and make a lot of money. That should not be. If we are going to take people out of the fishery, they should come out of the fishery, but they should be compensated. They should be able to leave this particular industry with dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to pay particular attention to this petition and petitions that I have presented day after day. Hopefully, when the Government House Leader travels to Ottawa - I understand that he is, probably later today or sometime this week -that he will be successful in lobbying the ad hoc Committee of Cabinet up there to put forward a program to respond to this particular need.

Thank you.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here today to support my colleague on this petition, as I have done many times in this House, Mr. Speaker. I will just draw attention to the point that he made about the committee and commending the committee. I will do the same thing, as far as commending the committee, because everybody had the same interest, it was one focus when we went there.

I mentioned yesterday and I will mention it again, I will be honest: The first week we went - and I think a lot of the committee members felt like it - we were not sure what the effect would be. We were not really sure, of course, when you hear speculation and so on, what the effect would be. The second week was better, we were more organized and so on. But the first week we went up, Mr. Speaker, I really had doubts about whether there was anything done. Who do you believe, you know, when they say, oh, the announcement was already made or was not made? There was speculation going on.

The way I left the Province that day - I was in Grand Falls, Central Newfoundland, doing some constituent work with appeals and within three hours, Mr. Speaker, I had to pack a bag, jump on a plane and go to Ottawa on this emergency. Everything was up in the air and you were wondering who you should believe. There were different reports in the media and so. We knew one thing, that we had to go. There was no doubt about making the decision that you had to go. But at the time I doubted whether we would be effective and have the full potential of our meetings, how we would get our message across to Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, that week was a bit hectic.

The second time we went up, I will say, we were well organized, we had the meetings and we had more time. To be honest with you, after that first week I did not feel like going back, because we were rushed in and out of rooms and we did not know who we were meeting with. It would change on a moment's notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I will say it: It was George Baker's fault. Whoever's fault it was, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Sure it was, and it was ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. It was so unprofessional for elected people and for governments to be acting that way. You would go into a room and you were in the wrong room, you had to go to another room and then the media would call you out of that one. You would go into it with another group, all hyped up to make your big presentation on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - everyone of us were, all members of the All Party Committee.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker - and I said it before - the Member for Torngat gave one of the best presentations, better that his ministers, at the meetings we had. I say that in jest, Mr. Speaker. But the truth is, especially on one occasion when we had ample time, the Member for Torngat gave a really true picture with a lot of passion and a lot of meaning. I am telling you, I looked around the table and watched the ministers who were listening to him, and he gave a good example of what it is really like in his community. He gave the example, he really did, he gave the real home picture. You could picture it, Mr. Speaker, because if you closed your eyes and listened to the member from Torngat you could get a true picture as to the serious negative impact the cod moratorium has had in this Province. He told a true story. I believe the member did, Mr. Speaker.

He talked about a community with some 80 per cent - I cannot remember the number now, the member can correct me - 80 per cent social services when the fishery went down. They were left off the entire package, Mr. Speaker. They missed it altogether. Pardon the pun, but they missed the boat on the moratorium. That is what the member said. Here is the irony of it all: They sit on the shores of Labrador with the resources next to them, and at night-time can see the lights of the draggers offshore. Here they were, a Newfoundland community with 80 per cent social services - I think that is the number. Maybe it is 78 per cent, but there is a high percentage of social services in the member's district.

MR. SULLIVAN: He 98 per cent (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He told this story - I do not want to take away his thunder, but I am sure he does not mind if I use a little bit of it. He said: Never mind a man not being able to buy his wife a birthday present, he could not afford to buy her a birthday card, Mr. Speaker. He was just worried about how he was going to feed his family the next day. So, they sit on the shores of Labrador and see the lights of draggers from foreign ships, off the Coast of Labrador. He said there was something wrong.

The point he was driving home, as all of us try to drive home, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not up in Ottawa because we need a hand-out or because you should help poor old Newfoundland. Ottawa, the National Government of Canada, over the years has mismanaged an ecosystem and caused a catastrophe that has probably never be seen before, Mr. Speaker, on the planet Earth; the catastrophe caused in the fishery. That is why we were up in Ottawa, telling them about people who live in Labrador and people who live all around the coast of Newfoundland. We were up there because: You destroyed an ecosystem and put us in a state of economic disaster. It can't be classed any differently than that, Mr. Speaker.

That's why we all went to Ottawa. Yes, we were sceptical, the first time especially, the second time a bit more organized. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, after the second meeting was completed, I can honestly say that we had an impact on them re-thinking. I saw the ministers, Minister Pettigrew, and I met with Minister Anderson and sat around that table. I saw how they listened tentatively, Mr. Speaker, to the presentations made by all members of the committee, and I think the message was starting to get through. What I didn't like, Mr. Speaker, is the attitude of the national media -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - and everybody else.

We will continue with that same thing. We did it for the right reasons, everybody did it for the right reasons, and hopefully we are going to get a good result at the end of the day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a petition to present to the hon. House today on the claw- back of the Child Tax Benefit. These petitions come from all over St. John's, and in fact all over the Province. They are from Grand Falls, Flower Hill, York Street, Brophy Place, Hunt's Lane, Drake Crescent and Montague. These people have sent these petitions in to me and asked me to present them to the House of Assembly because they feel that the claw-back of their child benefit is not just.

This claw-back is intended to go into the $10.15 million to create programs which are to benefit the children of families on social assistance. Among these programs we have family resource centres, youth programs and job incentive programs. The people have said to me: If we are not in a position to be able to take advantage of these programs, why should our children, who are among the poorest children in this Province, contribute? We are clawing back from our poorest children.

One woman said to me: My children's money will be clawed back because we aren't working. Next door to me is a family who are low-income earners, and they will be able to keep their child benefit. My husband goes out day after day after day looking for work, and because he cannot find work, because there is no work to find, our children are being punished. How bad they feel seeing their neighbour go to work while they are out looking for work and can't find jobs.

One of the things -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: If you are trying to divert me at the moment from what I'm talking about, from the injustice of this claw-back, it has worked temporarily, but only temporarily.

We have our poorest children contributing to programs which they will never be able to take advantage of. We have people out in small remote areas, we have people in small communities all over our Island, who are on social assistance, whose children will lose the child tax benefit for a family resource centre, for job incentives. Give me a list so that I can give the people who call into my office complaining about this claw back and complaining because they can't find jobs - if the government would furnish me with a list of jobs that are available in these rural communities for the families of these children who are losing the child tax benefit, then I will be very glad to furnish the list of jobs to these people.

Here you have people out in communities where there are no jobs. There will be no family resource centres, there will be no child care programs, and the children of these families are contributing to these programs to make this government look good because they are putting $2.5 million into the programs. The programs will be elitist, they will be for a certain crowd of people, and not for the poorest children.

As I said, while the father goes out looking for work, day after day after day struggling to find employment, the neighbour next door, who is a low income earner, their children will be able to keep the claw-back while the children of the father who is struggling to find work will have theirs clawed back.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The Chair apologises for not recalling: Is the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South on a new petition?

MR. FRENCH: No, I am speaking on this one, supporting. She is the first speaker.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the petition as presented by my colleague from St. John's West. I find it reprehensible, Mr. Speaker, that in this day and age, this government is going to claw back the child tax benefits from people in our Province. We are going to claw it back, Mr. Speaker, from the poorest of the poorest of the poor in this Province. I don't know for the life of me how somebody can justify doing that. I think it is a complete and utter disgrace that we are going to do this to people in our Province.

Some of these people, Mr. Speaker, through no fault of their own, cannot find jobs. They would gladly change their position tomorrow from social assistance. Would gladly change their position tomorrow, today, this minute, if they could find jobs but they can't find any. They can't find any jobs, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to claw back this money.

I had a call the other night from a lady who is beside herself, who is now going to social assistance for help, whose husband cannot find a job. He worked in the fishing industry some months ago, came off TAGS and cannot now find a job anywhere in this Province. He is not a lazy man, Mr. Speaker, but a very energetic young man who wants to go to work but can't find any. We are going to say to that family: Well, we are going to give it to you in one hand but we are going to take it back from you in the other. That to me is ridiculous.

The poorest of the poor in this Province, we are going to take this money away from them, and somebody should be ashamed of themselves for doing this. When people say to you, I don't know where the money is coming from to buy next weeks groceries, there is only so much that can be done. Yet this government is going to claw this money back.

To say that the claw-back funding is for employment initiatives and for family resource centres, who are we kidding here? As my colleague said, we are going to punish the poorest people in this Province, and somebody had better start caring, Mr. Speaker. Somebody had better start worrying as to what we are doing with some of these people and to where we are going, because they seem to be a forgotten lot. Some of the things that are happening to some of these people who are now, through no fault of their own, drawing social assistance, and what we are doing to them today, is nothing short of ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support my colleague from St. John's West. Her petition, I believe, is very timely, certainly to the issue at hand, to the topic, and certainly very appropriate. I, as one member of this House, Mr. Speaker, have absolutely no problem whatsoever supporting her petition. I can only hope that somebody somewhere in this building is listening, and that somebody will take heed and do something to help the poorest of the poor in this Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise and present a petition on behalf of constituents in my district. I think I said the last day that I was expecting a few more petitions to come in. I do have one here and I will read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker. That will make it clear.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland to the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session convened:

WHEREAS the construction of the Goulds bypass road has been identified as a priority for development under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative; and

WHEREAS the construction of the Goulds bypass road has not begun despite repeated promises from government; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated that the construction of the Goulds bypass road will not begin this year; and

WHEREAS significant opportunities for development in the region are contingent on the completion of the Goulds bypass road; and

WHEREAS the viability of our communities and businesses is dependent upon an adequate transportation infrastructure that allows our region access to the opportunities and markets of the capital region; and

WHEREAS the growth of our communities is closely related to the ability of our citizens to commute to work within a reasonable time each day over highways that are in good condition; and

WHEREAS the financial resources to begin the Goulds bypass road have been identified under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to begin construction on the Goulds bypass road this coming year; and as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.

Most of the signatures on this petition, in fact all the signatures on this petition, I might say, are from the community of Calvert.

Mr. Speaker, this petition, and the series of them that have been streaming in from the different communities and different locations, was initiated by the Irish Loop Regional Economic Development Board or Zone 20 as we call it. It is an area that they have identified as a very important part of regional economic development, that we have a proper transportation system, sufficient infrastructure to be able to have reasonable access to the opportunities that develop in our region.

We have seen increasing numbers of people coming into our area over the past three and four years. Many of these have been well noted on the international scene. We have the boat tours of Bay Bulls, of Witless Bay and Tors Cove, and a new one is opening up in Ferryland this year. We have the Colony of Avalon attracting increasing numbers. We have in the tens of thousands of visitors who have been documented. The documented numbers have come and visited the attractions in Ferryland District this past while. And I might add, almost all of these gain access through the Goulds area.

Apart from people coming in the Trans-Canada Highway, coming either down through St. Mary's Bay or down the other way around, which is unlikely because of the distance, if someone is coming to the district for a specific purpose they access it through St. John's. Almost close to 100 per cent of the people access it through St. John's, through the Goulds area, and it is very important.

I get a lot of complaints from people about the condition of the road, the traffic congestion, the highways, and the mobility of traffic. It is causing great problems. People are trying to bring tourists back and forth to their businesses. There are shuttle runs ongoing to the boat tours in my district, back and forth. It is time consuming and makes things really difficult for their businesses. It is more costly.

Not only that, the factors affect many things, the environment, the pollution. You spend forty-five minutes driving when you could do it in fifteen in sections. I mean, that is an extra thirty minutes of consumption and pollutants going out into the environment. There are environmental considerations. There is the time saved for people leaving their families in the morning going to work and getting back in the evening, in addition to the business and economic spin-offs that can result.

We have a port up in Bay Bulls. I would say it would be in the millions of dollars going to be spent in that particular area. Right now, there is development going ahead, hopefully, to land a base for the offshore, to employ people in the area. We have businesses now who are shipping their products from the area and out to other parts of the world, in fact. Businesses in my district are shipping products to different corners of this globe and the transportation system is not very conducive for the growth and development of businesses in the area. That is why it is important that the earliest possible start - we would like to see it finished by now. We know that cannot be done, it is not finished now, but the least we can expect is to get something moving on it this year and hopefully complete it within the next year or two. That would not be unreasonable, because the money is earmarked, it is in the pot of funds, it is identified and it is clearly established. What we need now is to get the ball rolling and get something done.

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, you are right.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say, the guy who is (inaudible) as being close to getting to that Cabinet position there says I am right. I am glad he agrees with me. I am glad that the minister agrees with me, and I thank the minister for agreeing with me. We just want to see some action. I am sure the Member for Topsail knows what it is like, but I can tell him: You better get straight in there because people have gotten into that chair -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, come on! The record shows the Minister of Fisheries says no leave.

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I rise in my place to support the petition presented by the Member for Ferryland in trying to get the Gould's bypass started this year. He has presented many petitions in this House of Assembly. He is receiving them daily, I think. He is receiving those petitions daily from various communities from down the Southern Shore, and it is something that is long overdue.

The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the present Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, should have had this started years ago. If he knew what was on the go within his department, he would have it started.

The Minister of Fisheries says it was not a liberal district, that it why the money was not spent there, Mr. Speaker. The man should be ashamed to say such words. He is elected to represent all people in this Province, not just the people in his district. Especially being a Minister of the Crown, he should be prepared to share the funds equally, on a per capita basis across this Province. But, no, the man's mentality, the mentality of the Minister of Fisheries, would not allow him to do that. It would not allow him to see the overall picture and the needs.

When we form the government, in another few months, we will be fair. We will distribute the funds and revenues that come into this Province, Mr. Speaker, on an equal basis. To do that, we have to take care of the districts that have been neglected over the years by that administration. That is what we will have to do. For the first ten years of our administration, we will have to do that.

Mr. Speaker, that administration over there -

MR. EFFORD: We had to do that.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries says that is what they had to do. But I must remind him, from 1949 to 1972 there was a Liberal Government in power. What happened, Mr. Speaker? The Tories came in power in 1972 and they had to take care of certain districts that were neglected, just as this administration is doing.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, here we go again; the Member for Bellevue talking about bankrupting the Province. Let's look back at the history of this country. Let's go back as far as 1969, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau took over in Ottawa. The first deficit financing that took place by a Prime Minister of this country, it was a Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.

Here we are now on the Southern Shore trying to get a few dollars to do the Gould's bypass, and all those people can do on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Brian Mulroney tripled the debt.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, now, Mr. Speaker, this Province should thank God for Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie. They should get down on their knees over on that side of the House. We know what a Liberal administration in Ottawa is like, that you have to fight tooth and nail to get a penny out of them for the TAGS Program. When John Crosbie was there, when there was a deficit in place, they came up with money. But, not now, Mr. Speaker; they have a surplus.

Paul Martin is pointing to the Premier. I cannot comment about nobody being in the Premier's chair, Mr. Speaker. That is what he is pointing at.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a petition. I ask him to keep his comments relevant.

MR. J. BYRNE: The relevance, Mr. Speaker, is trying to get funds from the federal government and a provincial-federal program to put into the Gould's bypass. That is the point, Mr. Speaker. That is the relevancy of it.

We have members on the other side of the House making comments that we should not be trying to get funding for the Gould's bypass. We have a member on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, who is up on petitions daily to try to get funding, and we have people on the other side downplaying it and not saying it is very important; especially the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who is at it all the time.

Mr. Speaker, the Goulds bypass is something that is desperately needed. It is part of an overall network put in place by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. Obviously it must be an important part of the network if it is there at all.

Mr. Speaker, we have the Outer Ring Road that is being constructed now, and we hope that will be completed in the very near future; cross over Torbay Road and on over to Logy Bay Road for the people on the Northeast Avalon and people working in the area, coming from the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bypassing your district (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Cutting right through, right on the boundary of my district, the Outer Ring Road, Mr. Speaker. It is something the people in the area are looking forward to in the near future.

MR. FRENCH: The Member for Bellevue better watch himself driving through Whitbourne in the night-time. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes.

With respect to this, Mr. Speaker, and the funding for roads in this Province, I would like to know what is happening out around Whitbourne. The four-lane highway, Mr. Speaker, came to a dead end almost. What happened? We have people out there now who want an overpass and different plans put in place, but where does the Member for Bellevue stand on this? What does he want to see in the Whitbourne area? Does he want it to come to a single highway again, or does he want an overpass put in place? What does he want? I heard that the Member for Bellevue and the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's had a meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. J. BYRNE: I asked the member a question. Get up and have a say. Speak to the petition, I say.

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

MR. DECKER: Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker. The second attempt to get Motion No. 1 on the floor. That is the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1: The hon. Minister of Finance and Treasury Board To Move That The House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to Consider the Raising of Supply to be Granted to Her Majesty; otherwise known as the Budget Speech.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the acting Government House Leader is anxious to get to this debate, because this is the non-confidence amendment that is now before the House. For the record, I believe we are on the amendment to the motion.

The amendment reads: That this House acknowledge and condemn the government's failure to manage competently the Province's finances, its failure to live up to its duty or its promise to provide adequate direction and funding for social programs such as health and social services, its failure to secure the future of our Province by investing appropriately in education and students, and its failure to discharge effectively its responsibility to plan for and invest in economic recovery and employment growth in the Province, and particularly in rural areas so desperately in need of development and jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment which is condemnatory of the government in general and specific terms, condemning their approach to the whole matter of the management of the public finance and its spending policies. As such, it's a motion deserving of a great deal of debate and support from me and my party, who are totally appalled by the approach. Our caucus is unanimous in its condemnation of the government for its failure to adequately look after the social needs of the people of this Province and the educational needs of students at all levels; certainly not only the educational needs but even the nutritional needs of students; its approach to the School Lunch Program as one which should be done on a voluntary basis as opposed to a matter of government policy, and its approach to post-secondary education. We have as situation where one-half of post-secondary non-university students are forced to pay the full cost of post-secondary education in questionable programs with questionable instruction.

I see the Member - I was going to call him the minister, but not yet, next week the minister of whatever. The Member for Bellevue, not the Member for Topsail; he is not getting in yet. The Member for Bellevue has a particular interest in adult education, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the House. He knows about this. I want to ask him this question: Does he think that it is appropriate for a private college to have teaching the courses, the qualifications for an instructor in a course, someone who graduated from that course the previous semester? Is that the appropriate standard that he thinks should be applied in post-secondary education? Well, I say to him, Mr. Speaker, when he becomes the Minister of Education in the not too distant future, I will be calling on him to do what the present minister is not doing and to have a full examination of the qualifications of instructors in our private colleges.

Mr. Speaker, I had a student come to me the other day, a graduate from an IT program in a private college. There were eight students in the course, Mr. Speaker, and it cost them $10,000 for Information Technology. Out of the eight students, Mr. Speaker, and only two of them were working and the two that were working were working for that particular college teaching the course that they had just finished. They laid off the people who had the qualifications because they were not part of the cult. They laid off the people who had the qualifications and hired the recent graduates to teach the course they had just finished.

It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of when I was a student some thirty years ago. Thirty years ago I went to Memorial University and I remember a student in my first year university class who was as young as I was. She had gone to the first year of university, Mr. Speaker, not out of grade XI

AN HON. MEMBER: You went to university when I did.

MR. HARRIS: I went to Memorial University in 1967. It was a very good year. Mr. Speaker, in 1967, in my first year class, there was a student who had graduated from grade XI and the year after she had graduated from grade XI she taught grade XI. Not only did she teach grade XI, she taught grade XI, grade X, grade IX and grade VIII, after graduating that year. Now, Mr. Speaker, I was shocked, shocked that that was the state of our educational system at the high school level at that time.

I thought that in thirty years we had made some progress but now I find, Mr. Speaker, that we have thrown out all this progress because we have allowed the private education industry - and some of the owners and operators of these schools are very fond of saying: This is not an educational institution, this is a business. This is my business and if you are in my business you will follow my rules.

Mr. Speaker, what I find is that we have turned back the clock. We have thrown out progress and now we have people teaching courses at the post-secondary level who just graduated a previous semester. No other experience; no other educational experience. In fact, Mr. Speaker -

MR. WISEMAN: It's not required.

MR. HARRIS: It is not required, as the Member for Topsail says. Not required by this government! Not expected by this government! Not expected that people taking money from students under the Student Loan Program, to finance their education, not required to have the kind of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trade.

MR. HARRIS: I am not talking about a trade. We are not talking about a trade. What trade is he talking about here? The trade of animal care? The trade of pet grooming? What trade is he talking about, Mr. Speaker?

When we look at the recently, finally pried out of the Department of Education, post-secondary education - it took four months, Mr. Speaker, to pry it out of them and finally the report was delivered two weeks ago. In that, Mr. Speaker, it made perfectly clear that the instructors at the post-secondary level - in the private system, not the public system which the Member for Bellevue is proud to be part of as an adult educator; the public system, not the private one. But in the private system 60 per cent have less than a bachelor's degree. That is the kind of education system, 60 per cent have less than, not... There is no doubt about it, there are only 40 per cent with a bachelor's degree or better. Sixty per cent have less than a bachelor's degree, who are teaching in the private college system. That system provides an education to 11,000-plus students. Fully one-half of the students attending post-secondary non-university education in this Province are in the private system.

Their tuition pays the whole shot. It pays for the buildings, pays for the instructor, pays for the profit of the entrepreneurs, and pays for the advertising, I say to the Member for Topsail, pays for the lifestyle advertising that we have. We have a situation now where our high school students are being inundated with very expensive marketing campaigns, I say to the members, that are designed to entice them into the private college system.

I was in Port aux Basques three weeks ago to a high school youth parliament for the West Coast. These students at the youth parliament are your more engaged students. They are the ones who are involved in activities, public speaking, they want to get involved in public issues. I asked them what they thought of this public school versus private school controversy.

Do you know what I heard? Many of them said: The private schools seem to have a better image than the public schools. I said: Yes, that is probably true. That is because the tuition they charge pays for this very expensive lifestyle advertising that is promoted by some of these colleges, and they have a marketing campaign that the public institutions, up until recently, haven't been able to compete with. They are doing it now. People now even know the name of the college after all the advertising. It probably cost them $500,000 to let people know what the name of college is, they keep changing it all the time. The former Minister of Education kept changing the names and re-organizing this and moving this one around. After the big ballyhoo, after all that changing around, the shell game that he was playing for three or four years, what did we find out? We found out that $25 million per year from the public purse had been taken out of the public post-secondary system. The Member for Bellevue, the next Minister of Education, knows that.

He knows that because he was involved himself with one of the predecessors of the College of the North Atlantic, I believe it was the Avalon Community College. It was the Avalon Community College, wasn't it? He is sitting in the wrong chair to collect his pension, I would say. If he is hoping to collect a pension I think he had better move to another chair, because he won't be collecting much of a pension in that chair, I would say to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. SULLIVAN: The only parliamentary assistant never to get into Cabinet in recent memory is Danny Dumaresque. So I hope (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is a very interesting point. The Member for Ferryland says the only parliamentary assistant never to get into the Cabinet was the former Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SULLIVAN: Eagle River at the time.

MR. HARRIS: Eagle River at the time - its name changed - was Danny Dumaresque. I hope you don't aspire to follow in his footsteps. I am expecting, Mr. Speaker -

Maybe he will be saved from oblivion before the next provincial election by being put into Cabinet in the next week or so. I know the Member for Topsail is anxious to get in ahead of him but I don't think that is going to happen. I know he spent a couple of years sitting in another minister's chair and office before he moved into this House, but I think it is going to be a while before he moves into a minister's chair of his own.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the role of this government in supporting the students of this Province in education, there is very clearly a total lack of concern about the post-secondary students. I have given you one example of a student who just graduated, having a university degree himself and just graduated from an IT program. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask: Does anybody here know what IT is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Information technology.

MR. HARRIS: Two points for the Member for Bellevue. IT is information technology, but what does it mean? What is the content of information technology? Now, I am an educated man. I have a few degrees. I am an educated man.

I look at The Evening Telegram on the weekends and I see two or three pages of ads, everybody advertising IT programs. Can you make any sense out of what it is they are offering? What is IT? If you had a course called Automotive Maintenance, would you know what it meant? Could it mean everything from changing a tire to rebuilding the engine? If you called it Automotive Technology, it would be even more confusing. What is Automotive Technology? Changing a tire? That could be a course in Automotive Technology. You could have a course in rebuilding engines, Mr. Speaker.

What we have in the whole area of informative technology, Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity for people who are in it for the money to take advantage of the lack of regulation by this government of the post-secondary institutions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) money?

MR. HARRIS: In it for the money. The person sitting in the minister's chair over there, the Member for Topsail, knows. Does he know why we have 100 campuses in the private sector? What are they in it for, Mr. Speaker? He is a man whose government talks about entrepreneurs.

The Member for Placentia was up yesterday. He never had a job, he said, because he is an entrepreneur. This is the first job he has ever had in his life.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The first job I had was selling newspapers, I say to the Member of Bellevue, when I was ten years old. That was my first job.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are in the private post-secondary system are in it for profit. It is a business. There is nothing wrong with business, or having a business. There is nothing wrong with that in general. I do not have any problem with that at all. We need more people involved in business. We are talking here about post-secondary education, about the obligations that we have as a society, that government has to our young people, to ensure they have an adequate opportunity to learn and to get a decent grounding so they can pursue the opportunities that life has to offer.

We know, Mr. Speaker, we are behind the eight ball in this Province economically. We know that we are behind the eight ball with the kinds of policies that your cousins in Ottawa are promoting in the area of free trade, in the area of the MAI, and all of these internationalist policies that are designed to benefit the multinational and transnational corporations at the expense of ordinary people.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology knows that. The China syndrome herself knows all about that. She has been all around the world trying to get people to come here and work. Some of the policies that are being designed to support that, Mr. Speaker, are policies like the MAI. Now let us bring it back down to what it is really all about. The MAI is about what is called foreign direct investment. The MAI treaty, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, is about protecting foreign direct investment from the kind of policies that we unanimously supported here yesterday, the kind of policies inherent in this statement, in the resolution put forth by the Member of Labrador West, that we have a policy in this Province to ensure the maximum use of our resources, the maximum benefit to the people of this Province, the maximum secondary processing and tertiary processing of our resources, of our industry.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, that stands in direct contrast to the MAI proposal which will prevent places like Newfoundland, countries like Canada, from insisting, through legislation or otherwise, on making those multinational, transnational corporations which are involved in foreign direct investments in this Province, having any strings attached. No strings attached, Mr. Speaker. That is the problem we have with Inco. What are we doing with Inco now? Why is there no royalty regime in place? Well, the price has not really been negotiated. The price of the smelter has not been negotiated, I say to hon. members. That is what is going on right now.

Inco is saying: Well, we will build a smelter, and we will do this, but we expect a royalty regime that is going to make sure that our operation is going to be profitable. The fact that we overpaid $4.3 billion to somebody else - not to Newfoundland, to someone else - to have the right to that mineral resource, that has to be taken into account in our profitability and in our definition of economically feasible as well. This is part of the built-in cost; $4.3 billion is our investment. We have to make a return on that. That is what they say: We want to make a return on our investment, and our investment is $4.3 billion.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what if Inco gets bought out? What if the shares of Inco get bought out for their true market value? And the new company, the new owner, what is their investment cost? Is it $4.3 billion? Maybe it is $2.1 billion. We do not know what it is. In fact, I, for one, do not really care because it is not something that the people of this Province have been paid for the resource. It is something that somebody else had been paid for the resource. Mr. Speaker, we have to be very careful as a Province in not taking a stand on these important issues, such as the Multinational Agreement on Investment.

The Member for St. John's South has raised a number of times in this House, the issue of water and the export of water. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology knows nothing about it. I was shocked and surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was ignorant on the implications and the issue of the export of water as a national or international issue.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

I ask the member to take his seat. It is 4:00 p.m. on Thursday and I have to announce the questions for the Late Show.

The first question is: Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health re my question on paying for blood tests. That is from the Member for Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology re my question on water export. That is from the Member for St. John's South.

Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation re my question on carrier plates and truckers. That is from the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Official Opposition is very hard to satisfy.

I want to get back to where I was talking about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and her depth of knowledge on the implications of the export of water. I was shocked that a minister of such international renown, the minister who is better known in Beijing than she is in Burin, was not aware. She is better known in Beijing than she is in Burin, Mr. Speaker. That is what I say about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I was surprised.

AN HON. MEMBER: She doesn't represent Burin.

MR. HARRIS: Or even Grand Bank. She is better known in Beijing than Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever been to Grand Bank?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, indeed I have. I have never been to Beijing, though - certainly not as often as the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: She has almost as many Aeroplan points as Chuck Furey - oops, sorry, the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised that the minister was not aware of the international implications of the export of water that her federal cousin, Minister Axworthy, was jumping up and down in the House of Commons about the other day, when he found out that the Conservative Government of Ontario had issued a licence for someone to export water. I was surprised she was not aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Lake Superior.

MR. HARRIS: Water from Lake Superior? I think a mere 600 million litres instead of the sixteen billion litres that are being proposed to be exported from Gisborne Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I do not really have a problem with the export of bottled water; that is a product. In fact, I have one upstairs, I should bring it to the House some time, a little bottle about this big, not much bigger than that. Do you know what it is called, Mr. Speaker? It is called Labrador Water. Do you know where it comes from? Montreal. They probably even have a copyright on the trademark. It comes from Montreal, a little bottle like this. I got it on an airplane one time; Labrador Water, bottled at source, Montreal, Quebec. They are making money on this, Mr. Speaker, and I do not have a problem with developing a product. You know, we have Evian Water from France and we have Perrier Water.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gisborne Water.

MR. HARRIS: Gisborne Water will be a wonderful product, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem as long as there is enough water there to meet the needs of the environment in that location; we can bottle Gisborne Water. I am already getting water in my office from Mr. Speaker's district. I have a water bottle in my office from the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde; a good industry, a good product, a good development. It tastes good; brought in from Trinity - Bay de Verde to allow people in my office and visitors to have a drink of good, clean water. Not that there is not good, clean water here in St. John's, but bottled water is a product, Mr. Speaker, that has a great deal of market interest in many places, in cities and towns throughout North America and elsewhere in the world, Mr. Speaker, where their own water is not as good and clean as ours. I would like to see that developed, Mr. Speaker, but not in a tanker truck, not in a bulk carrier anchored off the South Coast for the sole purpose of filling up with our water and taking it somewhere else and then putting it in bottles; not that, Mr. Speaker. That would be very much against the principles of protection of our natural resources and use of our natural resources for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, some provinces have already put in legislation, a ban against the export of water. The Province of British Columbia, for example, has banned the export of water, Mr. Speaker, banned it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see us have legislation. I suppose the member would want to give away our fish too or our seals if there is any left after the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture burns them, destroys them, kills them or whatever else he wanted to do the other day with all of them, every single one. If there are any left after that, I suppose, we might have a sealing industry; I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, the issue -

AN HON. MEMBER: Water is a renewable resource.

MR. HARRIS: Water is a renewable resource, Mr. Speaker, if we can do something about the acid rain that is coming up from the States. If we had some sensible policies protecting the environment from acid rain, sure water is a renewable resource. But it has to be looked after and the environment has to be looked after and cared for. If we can care for the environment, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to enjoy our water for many, many years and millenniums to come. Mr. Speaker, this government is not taking proper care of our environment, and I will move to the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of the protection of our renewable resources is one which is very much in the forefront. It has to be; look at the fishery. We have a situation in the fishery where, for 500 years, people in this Province and countries all over the world - well not all over the world, mostly European counties - have come to these waters and fished and enjoyed the bounty of the sea to feed the nations of Europe for hundreds of years and developed an industry, developed a culture and developed a way of life, not just for people who eventually became what are now Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but for Basque fishermen, for Portuguese and for Spaniards.

The white fleet was sent here for centuries, Mr. Speaker. Part of the culture of Portugal is the fishery in Newfoundland and is still to this day, despite the fact that the Portuguese don't come here any more. The whole coasts of Portugal have a culture that is associated with the fishery in Newfoundland for generation after generation after generation, and here in this Province for generation after generation after generation relied on the cod fishery, the Northern cod stock. What has happened, Mr. Speaker, in the last twenty years? It has been destroyed. How, Mr. Speaker? By government policy, destroyed by government policy, destroyed by corporate greed, destroyed by the lack and unwillingness of political leaders to do what has to be done to ensure the survival of this.

There is a book just out, and I know the Government House Leader has made reference to it in our committee hearings in Ottawa, a book by Michael Harris; no relation, Mr. Speaker, to me or to the Michael Harris in Ontario, I understand. Michael Harris has written a book called Lament for an Ocean. In that book he describes, in great detail, the destruction of the cod fishery in the Province of Newfoundland which took place, Mr. Speaker, not by the international fleets, although a terrific amount of damage was done in the twenty years before 1977, before the 200-mile limit, but the destruction of the Northern cod took place, Mr. Speaker, when the Northern cod stock was virtually in the total control of the Government of Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is something that is not recognized by the Government of Canada, even today. It is certainly not recognized by The Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker. In an editorial this Tuesday, May 5, it says: It is time to bag TAGS. They do not recognize the responsibility for the destruction of this bread basket to the world, Mr. Speaker, the food basket to the world that was found in the Northern cod stock and the other stocks around our coasts.

(Inaudible) was famous, Mr. Speaker, for many years. I remember growing up as a teenager hearing about the prairie provinces being the bread basket to the world, the great prairies of the United States and Canada producing enough food to feed the nations of the world. Well, Mr. Speaker, here in the seas around our Province was the food basket to many parts of the world as well and that has been destroyed. But does The Globe and Mail recognize that? No, Mr. Speaker. What do they say in the mean spirited, nasty Central Canadian attitude? It says here: Coastal communities still want someone else to pay the cost of change. That is all it is to them, Mr. Speaker, a change from working in the fishery to working somewhere else in some other province. That is all they see it as, Mr. Speaker. They don't see it as the destruction -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he is just repeating himself.

MR. HARRIS: No, no. This is very important.

MR. SPEAKER: The member does not have leave.

MR. HARRIS: Just a few minutes to clue up. Can I have a couple of minutes to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty seconds to clue up. (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Minister of Justice is saying, but he was not listening to what I was saying. What I was talking about, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that the so-called national newspaper of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, Toronto's national newspaper, is talking about Newfoundlanders in coastal communities wanting someone else to pay the cost of change. What we are talking about in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is the destruction of one of the most important food sources in the world today, in a world where hundreds of millions of people are starving. We have destroyed and we have managed to destroy, courtesy of the Government of Canada, one of the most important food resources in the world today.

What The Globe and Mail continues to concern itself with, what it suggests, Mr. Speaker, is that the people of this Province are not willing to enjoy the cost of change, not willing to give up their way of life forever and move to some other part of Canada at the behest of the Central Canadian Economy, Mr. Speaker. We are not prepared to do that in this Province. We want to make this Province work and we are going to fight to insist that it works in the best way possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to finish up my few minutes with respect to the Budget debate, the amendment or the non-confidence motion, and say that I was interested to read on the weekend, in The Financial Post, an article that clearly said - the headline goes: Liberals and Conservatives, two views from the centre. I thought it was dead- on in terms of the difference between being a Liberal and being a Conservative. It goes on to say that: Liberals in Canada are really more about management than ideas. Genuine believers, Liberals are in the central role of government in creating wealth and redistributing it. They see government as a means by which economic growth can be moved along. Liberals in the Canadian tradition are centralists who believe our national government is the lead player in all matters as if Canada were a centralized federation. Liberals are generally condescending to the provinces which they do not see as equal partners and Liberals use federal spending power to invade provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, in the last little while we have seen that condescending attitude. We have seen the attitude that this Province is not necessarily the equal partner that we should be treated as. We have seen it with Port aux Basques. We have seen it with respect to the decision made on Marine Atlantic. Everybody knew. It was not as if Marine Atlantic or its headquarters and the jobs associated with it in Moncton, were being rifled from that region. Everybody knew that that decision would be coming down and that all of it should have been here, every single bit of it. I guess we are hopeful. The Member for LaPoile can certainly enlighten the House at some point if he wants to participate in the Budget debate, of what will take place.

It goes on to say: Liberals can and have spent like drunken sailors under Pierre Trudeau in the 60s, 70s and 80s and under David Peterson in Ontario in the late 80s. As long as tax yields grew, whether because of inflation, (inaudible) or economic growth, spending, borrowing and taxing made up the Liberal doctrine. It says: Liberals are troubled by tax cuts. The whole notion, money might be left in the people's hands or in the bank accounts of small businesses, is totally foreign to them.

How do you engage in (inaudible), Mr.Speaker? Liberals use government like a giant slush fund, it goes on to say, to advance the politics of what's happening now. Embrace free trade like it was your own idea. Why not, after condemning it? Impose price and wage controls after rudely condemning them. Why not? Procure helicopters you refused before after wasting half-a-billion dollars in cancellation fees. Why not? It is the Liberal way.

Mr. Speaker, they are dead-on when the article goes on to say that: Liberals manage their public relations like pros and know how to avoid 90 per cent of the media scrutiny directed at others. If there is a case in point, this government here is a case in point of that today.

Mr. Speaker, the Province that we live in today has many challenges. It has many opportunities but it faces many challenges. In the last two years we have seen government not borrow money so much, but to look at ways to get through the next two years from a budgetary situation. In 1996, we entered into an agreement shortly after Premier Tobin was elected, to harmonize the sales tax, to take it from a 12 per cent retail sales tax and the 7 per cent GST and harmonize it to 15 per cent. Mr. Speaker, in three provinces only did we do that. Seven provinces would not enter into the agreement and it is the first time in Canadian history, that from one end of our coast to the other, we have a dual taxation system. Depending on where you live, you pay a different rate of tax with respect to federal taxes and the provincial taxes being harmonized.

Now what price will we pay for it? As a result of entering into that agreement which saved some face for the Prime Minister of the day, Jean Chretién, on his promise to scrap the GST, a promise that was reneged upon, a promise that was broken and as a result of GST provided - that tax has provided - the type of money required by government to go into the federal government to put it into the fiscal position it is in today. As a result, one MP resigned, the Deputy Prime Minister of the country resigned, but we entered into it. What price did we pay for it?

As a result of saying yes, the federal government negotiated an agreement between the Province and the federal government. We would receive compensation for a period of time. We would get $127 million in year one, in 1996; we would get another $127 million up front in 1997; we would get $63 million in 1998, and we would get $31 million in 1999, and every year thereafter we would not get any money.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, the types of revenues that were coming in on RST - the type of revenue - for the Province to make it up, to make up that significant revenue loss, retail sales tax, or the growth of it, would have to improve by at least 70 percent, which is about $1 billion. We would have to sell trade goods of about another billion dollars to get where we were - not any increase, just to get to where we were in terms of the revenue that we could take from it.

HST, as part of that agreement, what did it do? It broadened the tax base. It put a tax on new cars; it put a tax on children's clothing; it put a tax on home heating fuel; it put a tax on educational supplies, no matter what age group you were in. It was so ridiculous, actually, many people said that in order to save the money on HST we would all have to buy new cars to be able to afford to put gas in them.

All of the tax breaks that the government of the day said would come to this Province and would benefit the people were on one-time, big-ticket items. But the year-to-year, month-to-month, week-to-week, day-to-day cost of living in this Province would be taxed in a greater fashion. It would be, on children's clothes alone, from zero tax to 15 per cent. Home heating fuel went up by about 8 per cent. Insurance costs for people who were driving every year went up. So, Mr. Speaker, there was no net benefit to the Province. What it was, was a net political benefit to the federal government of the day.

On top of that, we borrowed in the first two years from Term 29, which needs no explanation in this Chamber. Essentially what we did was, we took $8 million that was guaranteed every year to us in signing the Terms of Union, $40 million up front in year one, $40 million in year two, and then we would receive nothing from this Budget forward until the year 2016. To get that $80 million, Mr. Speaker, this Province paid a $30 million penalty fee. That is what we were charged, a $30 million penalty to access that $80 million up front. The question is - structurally we have a problem. In terms of increased revenue, where is that revenue going to come from?

Voisey's Bay: It was anticipated and expected that certain revenue would come in, and so it should. Two years after the fact, there is still no agreement, still no guarantee in respect to the smelter in Argentia, that it will be down there. They are starting to negotiate again, I understand. From that point of view, we need to evaluate where we are going to be next year.

Out-migration on top of that. This year we lost $30 million because of out-migration, in terms of equalization payments that were coming into the Province. If the trend continues we will be in a net loss next year of equalization - if it continues as it is today - of another $45 million to $50 million.

Realistically, the problems that we are facing are ones that we need to address, and need to address up front. But it requires an admission, first and foremost, that there is a problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture scoffs at the notion. He should read some of his own government's documents that talk about the number of young people leaving, and what he is doing for it. Absolutely nothing.

MR. EFFORD: You know that is not correct.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is it, then? Tell me why young people of this Province are leaving in -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) in Newfoundland and Labrador is the Port de Grave district. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: My brother?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is right, Bay Roberts.

MR. EFFORD: I can tell you one thing, he is a good supporter of mine.

MR. FITZGERALD: Did you read the piece that Ted Warren has in The Navigator?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, a good piece.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be clear. My brother, who the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture just said is a good supporter of his, I can tell you now that he is not. I know he is not. It is too bad that he couldn't stand in here today to respond to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture's comments. It is too bad he couldn't stand here today to refute what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has done for him. He is not a supporter of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: I am glad you said that, because he was looking for a meeting (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Definitely not. I think he has been looking for a meeting since 1989 with you and he hasn't gotten one yet. Is that the way you treat your good supporters, I say to the minister?

MR. EFFORD: I treat (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And how is that?

MR. EFFORD: No meetings.

MR. E. BYRNE: No meetings whatsoever, period.

MR. FRENCH: Let Hansard show that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Hansard has already shown a lot (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? Hansard in the future is going to show a lot more, I say to my colleague for Bonavista South.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that on HST this government paid a political price for friends in Ottawa, and that this Province has suffered. Next year, as a result of that agreement with this Province, we will be short in next year's Budget $104 million. In the Budget following that, we will find a structural deficit problem of $136 million, and the year after that $167 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Labrador just said: And we are taxing people less. Is that what he said? That is what you said. People who have children, are they being taxed less today as a result of HST? No. Are people who are paying insurances for cars, homes, recreational vehicles, being taxed less today as a result of HST? No. Are people who are on marginal incomes, social services, being taxed less today because of HST? No. So how the member could make that statement, that as a result of the HST we are being taxed less...

It is a very simplistic argument. It makes great public relations to say: We used to pay 7 per cent and we used to pay 12 per cent; that makes 19 per cent. Now we are only paying 15 per cent. It sounds like we are paying less. All we did was broaden the tax base, and we made more people pay, broadened it out, and as a result there is not going to be a net loss.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Bonavista South just passed me an interesting article: Attack On FRCC Unwarranted.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me be clear with the minister. I am passed an article that reads: John Efford's heart is in the right place. I don't know anyone who supports and defends Newfoundland sealers with more enthusiasm and vigour than the Fisheries Minister.

It says your heart is in the right place. The writer of this article says he doesn't know anybody who defends Newfoundland sealers with more enthusiasm and vigour than the Fisheries Minister.

But, while his heart is in the right place, his mouth needs some adjusting. The minister's public tirades against anyone and everyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with him cause more grief than anybody needs.

MR. EFFORD: So sit down, shut up, and just let the seals eat all of the fish. (Inaudible) seals eat fish every day and (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I agree with you. I will stand with you, and have, no question about it. Have you seen it, John?

MR. EFFORD: No, I am not interested in it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not interested in responding to it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you want it? I will give it you, sure.

Do you want to stand? I will give the minister leave if he wants to have a few comments on that. I don't mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Justice, leave the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture alone. He can take care of himself.

Mr. Speaker, really, when we look at the situation and questions I raised in Question Period today, it is a problem, coupled with the fact that the Province and the federal government are about to renegotiate their fiscal arrangements and relationships that will really redefine how federal governments and provincial governments will work financially, then we have to be concerned. Being concerned does not mean that we have to be doomsday, or preach that the sky is falling when it actually is not, but what we have to do is be prepared. If we are going to try to embrace Confederation in a greater way, contribute to it in a greater way, and receive from it in a greater way - because both things are possible at the same time - then we have to start making some solid arguments today. When we look at the equalization debate that is going to occur over the next twelve to eighteen months, by the end of 1999, then we had better be prepared; and I am not convinced today that we are.

Ten years ago in Ireland their out-migration per capita, percentage-wise, was almost exactly what this Province's was. They were part of the new concept called the European Union. They were receiving transfers per capita, almost percentage-wise the same as this Province has been, from the European Union; but they did something foresightful - not only the Irish government but those involved in the European Union - they bought into a long-term view, a concept, that Ireland could turn its fortunes around.

Part of that puzzle - while there were many aspects to its economic development return and its prosperity - part of the puzzle was that on equalization and transfer payments, as Ireland developed its economy, as new money was brought into the economy, the European Union did not deduct dollar for dollar from equalization. They allowed the economy to grow. They invested in it heavily. Ten years ago an out-migration, percentage-wise, close to ours, and today a net immigration into Ireland of some 6,000 to 6,500 people per year, not receiving any transfers from the European Union and, in fact, are contributing to the European Union in a financial way.

I was talking to a gentleman yesterday who talked about when he was in Dublin. The striking thing that he found in Dublin, outside of the industries that were there, was the number of young faces, the number of young professionals in cafes and restaurants, in the streets, in office buildings, wherever he went, the amount of young professional faces that are operating in Ireland today.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

I just want to remind the hon. member, does he want to adjourn the debate for now?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. I will finish up tomorrow morning when we return to this part of the debate.

Thank you.

[Late Show]

MR. SPEAKER: We are now into the Late Show. The first question is to the Minister of Health and Community Services on paying for blood tests. It is from the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the minister questions - I think that specific question was one I asked on Tuesday, I believe. I asked questions for three days on the same topic and, of course, the minister was in the state of denial; it was not happening. I was not satisfied with that answer.

I asked questions again Wednesday. I had that submitted earlier. The questions in the House - I still was not satisfied, but I did hear in the media that evening, yesterday evening, and outside - the minister might smile. I did hear in the media now that she is going to ask, or by now I hope has asked - I felt she should direct, not ask - a community health board to comply with what I considered to be a breach of the Canada Health Act, whereby you are denying someone access to an essential medical service when other people - because of the frequency with which they need that service. It is people who need it who are housebound. Some of these people have been in houses for two years and have not been outside. They are housebound and were not given a service there. I think that is a fundamental breach of the principles of the Canada Health Act under which we operate.

I must say to the minister, I am a little more encouraged by what I heard in the media yesterday evening. I read today that we hope to have a change, and I certainly hope it will go a step further, Minister. I am not completely satisfied yet with it, but when I do hear that they are going to reverse that policy - and it is not a change in policy, the minister said, it is a change in practice. Well, I always considered it a policy whether you apply the fundamental service to people out there, whatever it is, whether it is a policy, a practice - practices result from policies, I say to the minister, and if you change a practice and you do not change the policy you are violating the policy. So they are both the same and one, I say to the minister. I would certainly like to ask the minister too, if now she has heard back from the community health board. I would be interested in hearing, I say to the minister, if that Minister of Education there would stop interrupting. That interview he did out there at that time was something atrocious; what he said. Maybe the minister could tell us if she has heard back from the community health board. I would be interested in knowing if they are now going to provide that service. If there is a problem there, I ask the minister to issue a directive, as the minister responsible for people in this Province, that they will get that service if they are housebound, even if they only need that service once a month.

The minister knows quite well, from her past profession in which she was very active, that during certain months you may have to give blood twice a month. If you have just been released from hospital and you are on blood thinners, you may have to have blood maybe once a week or every second week. After a while, when they find your condition is stable, they may say once a month now we will do it. If, during the course of a month or three months, they detect certain abnormalities or changes, then they may have to speed up the frequency of testing to monitor your condition. I mean, that is standard, and people who are receiving it once a month now, it could be once every three months or three times a month. So those type of things there, I say to the minister.

Knowing her background and her work, the frequency of that, I certainly hope the minister - not for one moment do I believe that the minister really said something she did not believe, because I don't really think the minister knew, to be honest with you, I do not think she was told. In her department she was given the wrong answer. I really think the minister was lied to on Monday when she went to get her briefing on the matter. When she found out, I would say, and was pretty disgusted. She did admit yesterday, and I am pleased that she did come back and admit, to an extent, but admission is only one thing, requesting a correction is the second thing and the third thing I want to see is a reversal in that.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I agree with my colleague for Cape St. Francis. I feel that and I am sure the minister maybe just wanted to follow a conciliatory route first of all, in hoping that the community health would comply. If they don't, I am sure the minister will do what is necessary. I would like to hear on that very soon, very, very soon because I did receive a number of calls, I say to the minister - nine different individuals in person. I spoke with those who called in to my office and they said: We hope it is going to be changed. We would really appreciate it. I said: Well, now it is in the hands of the minister and hopefully now that she is aware of the problem, that she has now admitted to the problem, that she will correct the problem in the best interests of those people.

There are some sad stories, I can say to the minister, about these people and what they have to go through in their homes. Some of these people, I can tell you, their children are caring for them twenty-four hours a day. If you put them into a nursing home it would cost $50,000 to $60,000 a year to look after them, but their children have taken full responsibility, paying all costs, not even getting help to come in, caring for their parents.

I am glad some people came spoke out, because I raised the issues before and people did not want to come out because of their jobs. I am glad people came out and spoke out because it is by speaking out that those inequities in the system are brought to the public forefront and we are able to deal with these problems and have them corrected. I am delighted that people spoke out in this instance and I certainly want to congratulate the people who did that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - raised the concern.

I hope, when I sit down now, Mr. Speaker, to hear the minister stand and say the policy has now been changed.

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

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

I am very pleased to stand today and to say once more that the Department of Health and Community Services, as the member across the way knows, has delegated, under fourteen boards, numerous responsibilities and scopes of providing deliveries of services without the direct day-to-day influence of the Department of Health and Community Services. In fact, we do not micro-manage our boards and I think the member opposite knows that when you have an autonomous board, the board works within the purview of their budget and also in service delivery.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important to note that the community health boards and many of the functions that they perform are different from region to region, Mr. Speaker. It is a function of their autonomy. It is a function of the types of work that they do. Also, if the member across the way were familiar with the auspices of the Canada Health Act, he would, of course, know that.

Mr. Speaker, I will not stand up and admit what he has said, that someone out there lied to me. There is no malice, there is no intent to do anything other than in my mind and what I have said. I would like to say I have fulfilled my responsibility. In the future, Mr. Speaker - I will say it again, I have it on record in Hansard and I will say it again - had the member opposite provided me with the names twenty-four hours earlier, I would have been able to address the problem twenty-four hours sooner.

Mr. Speaker, I again say I want to thank the media. I did in fact put it in writing to him across the House, and I did ask for the names and to date I have to thank -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Hon. Minister to take her seat.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister rose in her place and said: Had I provided names to her this problem would have been corrected, when these very people, minister, two of them, called your office and were turned away.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

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

As I was saying, as I put in writing to the member across the way, I asked him in writing to submit the names of the individuals so that, in fact, we would get to the bottom of the issue and deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, to date, even to this very minute, I have not received the names. Again last night, after I did the interview, Mr. Speaker, a member of the media gave me another name and I want to thank that member of The Evening Telegram for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I did say that in any situation where you have an autonomous board you don't direct, you meet with people and try to give the suggestion, and that is what I will be doing. I think it is important to know and to state that this government, particularly, prefer to fix the problem and not fix the blame. Mr. Speaker, we will deal with the issues. I want to thank the member for raising the issue, but the next time, Mr. Speaker, if he does I am only to happy to have the information.

In a $1.1 billion system, Mr. Speaker, I can say I do not know happens with the tens of thousands of people that enter into the system everyday. Mr. Speaker, I will say, as minister, I am responsible for acting on information as I get it. The sooner I get the information - and again I thank The Evening Telegram for their assistance in allowing us to get to the bottom of it. I will restate again, Mr. Speaker, this government likes to fix the problem, not fix the blame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I asked questions a couple of days ago in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, regarding -

MR. FRENCH: You are in bad shape now when you have Grimes coaching you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are in trouble.

MR. FRENCH: You are in bad shape now, boy, (inaudible) your own constituents. They won't forget you in the next election.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Do you want to stand up now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I asked questions just a couple of days ago in the House of Assembly regarding water exports from Gisborne Lake. The amount of water that was proposed to be exported from Lake Superior was 600 million litres. What is proposed to be exported from Gisborne Lake is 15.6 billion litres. Quite a difference, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if she is concerned about the implications that the export of water from our Province may cause through the North American Free Trade Agreement and also through the World Trade Agreement. Because according to the lawyers that are acting on behalf of the Federal Department of Environment, they say that there are some serious implications. That is the reason the Federal Liberal Party, The Liberal Government in Ottawa, have fought the export of water from Lake Superior, because it would cause serious implications through the North American Free Trade Agreement and would allow other companies to come into our country and do the same thing, export water. We would not be able to refuse them.

According to the Canadian Citizen's Council, they say they once the tap goes on you cannot turn it off. If the minister had read the Globe and Mail from a couple of days ago, I would presume you have seen that article.

Mr. Speaker, the lawyers that act on behalf of the Department of Environment federally and on behalf of the federal government say that, yes, there is merit in that statement.

I ask the minister if she is concerned about the implications that would be caused through the North America Free Trade Agreement, if we were to export water from Gisborne Lake. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I ask her again to reconsider putting in place legislation to protect our water resources here in the Province, so that anybody looking to export water would have to do the secondary processing on that resource right here to give the maximum benefit to people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, here!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: I say, undertaker, brace yourself; you are in trouble.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised two issues. One is whether or not exporting of water from this Province - and I am presuming he means bulk water - would have implications for us under the Free Trade, under NAFTA.

Well, I know what has happening. I read the Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker, and clearly the water that is being talked about, that Ontario was interested in exporting, is water that is shared between that Province and the U.S. They share the water of Lake Superior. So, there is a boundary implication there, Mr. Speaker.

When you consider that 100,000 cubic meters of water flow into this ocean every second, there is an issue here in terms of our product.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take her seat.

The hon. Member for St. John's South, on a point of order.

MR. T. OSBORNE: According to the federal government, Mr. Speaker, it is not only border waters that are in question here, they have also raised the question of inland fresh water supplies in Winnipeg and various other provinces as well. It is not only border waters that would be affected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

No point of order.

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

MS FOOTE: They may have very well raised it, Mr. Speaker, but the point I am making is that if I were going to have a concern it would certainly be where there is a boundary issue.

I have no concern about fresh water, Mr. Speaker, when it is 100,000 cubic meters that flow into the ocean from Canadian waters, every second 100,000 cubic meters of water flow into the ocean. Now, I would much rather sell that water than have it flowing into the ocean. So that is an issue for us.

I am really surprised at the member opposite. We talk about rural development, we talk about jobs, employment opportunities for our people - the people in Grand Le Pierre want to see this initiative, they want to see this project get off the ground. You know, the Mayor of Grand Le Pierre has told you, fifteen people left that community last weekend, Mr. Speaker, to go off looking for work. Exporting of water, whether it's in bulk - they are also looking at a bottling plant. They are talking about sixty jobs in Grand Le Pierre.

I don't know if the hon. member realizes it, but the market for bottled water is only 5 per cent in the world, the total demand for water. People want water for irrigation purposes, Mr. Speaker. When they are asking for exporting bottled water, it's not to have that water value-added in some other country. They are using it for irrigation purposes.

We are looking at being able to supply if we can - but don't forget, even though we have two proposals on the table, first of all, that proposal will have to go through an environmental impact study. After that, it will then have to go through an environmental assessment study. Under that aspect of the environmental act, what they have to do is entertain public comments. So, it will be out there for the public to comment on.

This is ludicrous what I'm hearing here today, whether or not we are concerned about the implications under NAFTA. If there is a boundary issue, yes, it's an issue, but I would be prepared to say to Minister Axworthy and to anyone else that for our water to flow into the ocean, we get no benefit from it. It is a valuable commodity from an economic and social perspective. We get absolutely no benefit from it flowing into the ocean. I would much rather be able to export that water, create some jobs and make some money for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to make a few comments today with respect to the question I asked on Monday, May 4, in this House of Assembly to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, regarding carrier plates on the trucking industry, which used to be used as a regulator for the trucking industry.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stood in his place and said I should have asked the question to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. The Minister of Government Services and Lands got up and tried to answer the question, but couldn't. He sat down, and then the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation got up on a second question and couldn't answer the question. One arm doesn't know what the other arm is doing.

MR. SULLIVAN: Passing the truck.

MR. J. BYRNE: Passing the truck, Mr. Speaker.

The problem is this: Two years ago this Administration dropped the carrier plates on the trucking industry, to regulate the trucking industry. The rate that were being received by the independent truckers was $57 an hour. Shortly after that, in the past couple of years, the rate for independent truckers has dropped from $57 an hour to $35 an hour; not enough money to pay for fuel, licensing, salaries, and what have you.

I was asking the minister: What is he going to do about it? I asked the minister, had there been a study done to see what impact this had on the trucking industry and the independent truckers. No study done. I asked the minister if there had been a study done or had the trucking industry been asking the truckers about the impact it would have on them before they implemented the change? The minister basically said, no, they did not have a study done, but he wanted to go to the private industry to see what -

MR. SHELLEY: He is telling you to sit down.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who is telling me to sit down?

Yes, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said it was a question that would be more appropriately put to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. In the Estimates Committee, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Government Services and Lands specifically about this question and he said, no, I should not have answered the question. It should have been asked to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

So now I am asking the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Will he get up and address this concern and tell me what he is planning to do with respect to the independent truckers in this Province? This is a very serious issue. I have had calls from independent truckers. I have had letters from independent truckers. I can present the minister with a letter that I received from an individual who says that now it is getting to the point, Mr. Speaker, where they would have to get rid of their trucks; they can't survive. Who benefitted the most? Who benefitted the most from this change in policy, I have to ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation? Why was it implemented in the first place? It certainly was not implemented to benefit the independent truckers. So it had to be implemented to benefit the construction companies who now bid on government projects on a basis that the carrier plates system is still in place and they pay out probably 60 per cent of the rates that they put in for in the bid, Mr. Speaker.

So, in actual fact, certain people are benefitting and certain people are hurting. So why not just go back to the original policy, Mr. Speaker, in that the carrier plates be put in place, it be regulated by the Public Utilities Board and everybody is happy, except a certain few, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation? So would he like to address that and tell us what he is going to do for the independent truckers in this Province today?

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

MR. EFFORD: Old Mr. Wing-nut.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, colleague.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try and be succinct and brief in my answer because I have been taking lessons over the past five years that I have been in the House, from my colleague, the hon. Minister of Education and I have picked up a lot of tips. One is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: To answer the salient point of his question: What am I going to do? What is government going to do for the independent truckers? The independent truckers in the Province, Mr. Speaker, are subcontractors to a general contractor for the most part, and they are in no different circumstance than any other subcontractor to any other general contractor, whether it be in the trucking business or in the road construction business or in the building trade business or anything else.

The private sector out there operates as private sector does, on a competitive basis. There is no protection offered or even being asked for it by mechanical contractors in the Province, or by electricians or by plumbers or by drywall constructors or anybody like that. Simply put, subcontractors bid to the general contractor their services; the general contractor takes the best price he can get and goes forward and proposes a bit to the government who in turn gets the work done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) wing nut fooled up.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, the wing nut did not fool up. The wing nut did what he should have done and what should have been done years before. The former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation did what he did because he was responding to what the private sector wanted to see done generally, and that is to have them unfettered from government regulation, unprotected from government control, so that the marketplace could operate freely.

Are we going to interfere in the regulation of the dump truck industry, Mr. Speaker? No, we are not. Are we going to co-operate with the independent dump truck operators who ask us on occasion to try and facilitate meetings with the (inaudible)? Yes, we will do that. I have done that on a number of occasions. As far as I know, there is a dialogue between the independent operators and the general contractors, the road builders who use their services.

Obviously, when the market becomes unregulated, market forces take control, sometimes prices go down, but at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that we have a responsibility as government to ensure that the taxpayers of the Province get the best value for the money that we spend on their behalf, because they are the ones who pay it into the Treasury. Essentially, at the end of the day, if we can get a better price per mile or per cubic metre for roadwork that we do, then we are benefitting everybody in the Province, and it is unfair that we would protect one segment of subcontractors to the detriment of the population of the Province generally.

So if the deregulation direction is the one that we have gone in, it is the course that we will stay on, and in that context we will continue to work with the independent dump truck operators to make sure they have an open dialogue with the general contractors to the extent that they can get the best possible price for their services so they can be profitable contributors to the economy of the Province, as they have been and will continue to be. Way to go, (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, before you call the adjournment motion, tomorrow we plan to go back into Motion 1 on the Budget Debate.

The Leader of the Opposition adjourned debate on the non-confidence motion. When we have run out of speakers on the non-confidence motion, if that is done tomorrow, we will call that. If that carries then the Premier will go down to the Lieutenant-Governor and we will see ourselves into a next election.

If the non-confidence motion is defeated, we will go into the main motion. After everybody who wants to speak has had an opportunity to speak, then we will call the vote on that motion. If we get all that done tomorrow we will be calling Motion 2 so that the House can go into Committee of the Whole, and we will discuss the Consolidated Fund Services, the Executive Council, and the Legislature.

If we do all of that tomorrow, I will be quite pleased that we will close the House. If we do that by 10:30 tomorrow morning, we will have the morning off; if not, we will continue on and we will pick up on Monday morning. I believe the motion to adjourn is on the floor, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.