May 25, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 31


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin routine proceedings the Chair would like to rule on a couple of points that were raised last Thursday on May 21.

The hon. Member for Topsail rose to present a petition on behalf of the Topsail Catholic Women's League. When the hon. member had finished speaking, the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi raised a point of order, while speaking to the petition, questioning whether the petition was in order.

The hon. the Government House Leader then raised a point of privilege concerning the use of the words "deliberately distorted" by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi in connection with the presentation of the petition by the hon. the Member for Topsail.

To start with the point of order of the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi...having examined the petition of the hon. the Member for Topsail, the Chair finds that there were two documents presented, one bearing the names of three petitioners, under a prayer which is in the proper form but which differs from the prayer on the second document, which is signed by seventeen petitioners but which is not in proper form for presentation to the House.

It appears to the Chair that there were two separate petitions presented. The petition bearing three signatures contains a discrepancy as the signatories are not members of the group petitioning. Neither can it be considered a page of the petition from the Catholic Women's League since the prayer is different. The discrepancy is such that the petition in out of order on the basis of its substance. The other document, bearing seventeen signatures of members of the Catholic Women's League, is out of order because of a defect in its form. It is not addressed to the House of Assembly.

The hon. member could have asked leave of the House to present the petition from the residents of his district. In such cases, leave is usually given. To reiterate, then, the Chair must rule that both petitions are out of order.

On the second point, that of the hon. the Government House Leader, the Chair finds that the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi was out of order in uttering the unparliamentary words "deliberately distorted". The hon. the Member for Topsail has said that he did not intend to change the petition but simply to make it conform to the requirements for presentation in the House. The House must accept the word of the member about his intentions. There was therefore a valid point of order raised by the hon. the Government House Leader but not a point of privilege. The chair must ask the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi to withdraw his claim that the hon. the Member for Topsail "has deliberately distorted" the petition.

I ask the hon. the Member if he would withdraw.

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

MR. HARRIS: Your honour, I wish to withdraw the remark that the Member for Topsail "deliberately distorted" the petition by naming himself and two other members as members of the Catholic Women's League of Topsail.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The chair is asking the hon. member to withdraw the remarks without any qualification.

MR. HARRIS: I withdraw any suggestion that it was deliberate on his part, Mr. Speaker. I would say that if he had asked for leave to present the petition (inaudible), it would have been accepted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the member to withdraw his remarks without qualifications.

MR. HARRIS: Your Honour, I have withdrawn the remarks twice. But I wanted to add, as a point of order, that if he had requested to present the petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member to withdraw his remarks without qualifications.

MR. HARRIS: I do, Your Honour, and I wish to rise on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ruling on a point of order. I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

Perhaps this would be an opportune time for me to remind hon. members about the requirements for petitions and to suggest that they re-read the relevant Standing Orders: 90-97 but particularly Orders 90-92. Petitions must be addressed to the House of Assembly and be signed by the presenter. Because questions are sometimes raised about the form of petitions, the Chair is of the view that members must consult the clerks-at-the-table before offering petitions. The Speaker is sometimes asked to rule on a petition which has not been seen and after it has been presented. From now on, in order to ensure that petitions are in order before time has been wasted in the presentation of a petition, which is not in order, petitions will not be heard unless they have been certified by the clerks-at-the-table. If a petition is found to be out of order, hon. members always have the option of asking for leave of the House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is only appropriate at this time that the official Opposition, during petitions, give leave, on behalf of the people who petitioned, to be heard here. We will give leave to the Catholic Women's League of Topsail District to have their petition presented later today. We will certainly give leave to that, of course knowing that it is not directly addressed to the House of Assembly. I think it is only fair as they took the time and effort and should have an opportunity to have that presented in an unaltered fashion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that I was going to ask about the appropriate time we would do that. I want to say to him that I think it is the right move to allow that to be presented even though it is not in the right order, even though a mistake had been made in its presentation, so that the - we have an altercation here; the Premier almost drowned.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that I think that is the right thing for us to do, and by all means leave should be granted to him.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it is the same point of order that I was attempting to address to Your Honour. If the Member for Topsail had asked for leave to have the petition of the Catholic Women's League presented, leave would have been granted instead of having to distort the facts by presenting them from the Catholic Women's League. So if the Catholic Women's League would like to have their petition presented in a proper and appropriate fashion, I would certainly be willing to give leave and indeed would like to speak to that petition, in support of it.

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the National Child Benefit Program is a bold social initiative designed to ensure that all of our children have the best possible start in life. It represents the collective priority of our federal and provincial governments to reduce child poverty, and is an important first step in improving the life chances of hundreds of thousands of Canadian children.

The federal government has committed $1.7 billion over the next three years to increase the support benefits for low income families with children. This has enabled provinces such as ours to make strategic, long-term investments in services and benefits for children in low income families. The prevention and early intervention programs, as well as the work incentives we are putting in place this year, are essential to addressing child poverty and the social problems associated with it.

From the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, all governments have agreed that the best way to improve the living standards of children across the country is to have a national children's benefit sufficient to remove them from the welfare system. This would create a more secure and uniform level of basic income support for children in low income families that does not depend on receiving social assistance. It would also provide provinces the financial means to establish or improve programs targeted at improving work incentives, benefits and services for children and their families.

By design therefore, the National Child Benefit frees up provincial income support money for reinvestment in programs and services. Without this infusion of federal funding we would not, today, be planning a $4.6 million enhancement to the licensed child care services in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: We would not be preparing to spend $1.5 million to extend the network of family resource centres which have provided such valuable supports and services to needy families and their children throughout forty-five sites across the Province today. We would not be developing a $2.8 million network of critical supports to youth who are at risk of not making a successful transition from school to adulthood and independence. We would not have the opportunity to start exciting, new employment initiatives such as the wage supplement for single parents and extension to the drug card benefits valued at $1.6 million. Mr. Speaker, with all of the competing social needs we have in this Province today, and our constrained financial resources, we simply could not have taken on such a major new initiative.

So I felt very proud of our government, when we were finally able to make the start that social advocates who work on the front lines of poverty in this Province, have so long awaited. We assured members of this House, the advocacy groups, and the people of the Province at the time, that the present financial commitments were just a start and that government would make every effort to find more resources to devote to the NCB as our financial resources improved.

This fiscal year our government acted immediately by increasing social assistance rates by 7 per cent over the next three years, providing a $150 monthly cost of living allowance to families on the Coast of Labrador, increasing the earnings exemptions for families on social assistance, and also raising the rates of child care subsidies and exemptions. In addition to this, we gave a $1 million grant to the Provincial Children's Food Foundation to help them increase their programs across the Province. In total, Mr. Speaker, an incremental investment of more than $7 million to low income families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the public has responded very positively to the National Child Benefit Program and to these additional measures. I am particularly impressed and indeed touched by the support we have received from advocacy groups such as the members of the Community Alliance for Better Solutions, especially knowing their concerns for the financial circumstances of families receiving social assistance. They recognize, probably better than most, what a little extra income means to these families. Yet they also understand that the cycle of poverty will only be broken when we eliminate its root causes, and this we can only begin to do through the kinds of early intervention and prevention programs planned for the National Child Benefit Program. I want to thank them for their continued understanding and support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: But for all that, Mr. Speaker, there was not one of us who did not struggle with the need to recover the benefit from social assistance families. To a person, we all knew the individual cases of parents and often single parents on social assistance who struggle every day just to provide the very basic necessities for their children. They are people who either because of lack of work, lack of necessary skills and abilities, or in some cases the sheer combination of life circumstances, are unable to support themselves at this point, but they so desperately want something better for their children.

As members of this House, I know we all share a deep concern about the current situation which sees one in every four children in our Province living in families which receive social assistance. Compounding this problem is the fact that we have one of the lowest social assistance rates in the country. While poverty level comparisons between provinces are difficult to measure accurately, it is still troubling to see the statistics such as those published a few weeks ago by the National Council on Welfare. They show that in 1996, 72 per cent of single parent families in this Province lived below the poverty line - the highest rate of all the provinces. In the face of such concerns, we felt compelled to respond.

So the announcement I am about to make today has great significance for all of us. It is a decision that we have reached not after any great ground swell of public pressure but rather after much soul searching collectively as a caucus and as a Cabinet. It is a decision that reaches to the very core of our Liberal values. It says that even though our financial resources remain constrained, and will continue to be for the next few years, we are confident enough about the future that we are prepared to make a dramatic investment today in some of the poorest children in this Province.

I am pleased to hereby announce that government has decided to permit families who receive social assistance to keep the full National Child Benefit supplement this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: This amounts to the equivalent of a 13 per cent to 14 per cent increase in the basic rate that most social assistance families currently receive. In fact, it represents the single largest increase in income that social assistance families have received in close to twenty-five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: This increase will provide the over 13,000 families who receive social assistance, greater financial capacity to respond to their children's basic needs. In real dollar terms, families with two children will see an increase of $84 per month in their income on July 20. When combined with their existing child benefit, this amounts to a separate cheque each month of $250 to help them care for their children.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very substantial improvement in the financial circumstances of social assistance families and their children. With this decision, our government has taken another major step toward reducing child poverty in this Province. Combined with the $10 million annual program investment targeted at improving work incentives, benefits and services for low income families with children, I am confident that we can greatly improve the life chances for all poor children in this Province.

But we know there is still much that we have to do. It is essential that the federal government continue to increase its investment in the National Child Benefit until we reach the goal of having an adequate and secure level of basic income support for all children in low income families across the country. Here in our Province we must continue to change our income support system so that people who can work are always better off working. Government's singular thrust in this regard remains to knock down the welfare wall that traps people in dependency and actively support them to become as self-reliant as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: This means that we have to remove the barriers and disincentives that currently exist in our system that keep people from work. But most of all, we must continue to increase employment so that parents everywhere in this Province can find and keep work. This will in turn enable them to build a better future for themselves and their children.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government will this year provide more than $23 million in National Child Benefit payments to over 41,000 children of low income and social assistance families in Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition, the Province will provide a $10 million annual investment fund for early intervention and prevention programs and services, as announced in the Budget, as well as $7 million to fund the other initiatives aimed at low income families and their children.

Mr. Speaker, with the magnitude of these investments I feel confident in saying that we have arrived at a major turning point in securing better lives and a brighter future for all of the children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement. It feels though, somehow, that the statements that I have been making in the House since the National Child Benefit was announced have been plagiarized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: We have loudly applauded the initiatives that were to be introduced with the National Child Benefit, but we have always argued that the National Child Benefit was intended to provide direct help for children and it should provide direct help for children in families on social assistance as well. Yes, money for programs for poor families and children should not be taken from poor children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: I have presented this petition to this House of Assembly numerous times, and I have to say that the statement the minister made today seems to be an about-face from the statement that was made on April 6, 1998. Make no mistake about it, this announcement today would not have come without the public pressure and pressure from this Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: I notice that the Premier is shaking his head, but I also recall the look on his face when I stood in this House not long ago and reminded this government that 72 per cent of single parent families in this Province live below the poverty line, and the minister refers to that today in her statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You had presented a private member's resolution.

MS S. OSBORNE: I had presented a private member's resolution on this very thing.

So while you say that it is not public pressure, and that it is a lot of soul searching, I would like to think that the soul searching was prodded by private member resolutions, petitions, and statements made by the Opposition in this House of Assembly. We are pleased to be able to impose on this hard-hearted Liberal program, sound Progressive Conservative values.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The fundamental flaw in the Canadian Child Tax Benefit has been the claw-back with which the provinces have followed this. In fact, we were told it was part of the deal.

I am pleased to see a reversal of the government's position, but I think it is important to point out to members of the House and to the public that we are talking here about a six-month program. For this year, the government intends to give back about $500 per child to social assistance recipients and I could not but welcome that, Mr. Speaker. That is very clear, what the minister says; this year they are going to allow them to keep the full Child Tax Benefit. There is another year coming up in January, and we do not have any assurance whatsoever that the social assistance recipients are going to be able to keep this money.

Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is a short-term relief for people who are suffering from a long-term problem. Obviously any increase has to be welcomed. The people who are required to live on that amount of money have a very difficult time with it, as everybody knows.

Mr. Speaker, this government has shown, in the last three years, a decrease in the public debt of $900 million. There is plenty of room in government fiscal resources to look after people who are poor, not just on a two- or three-month basis but on a long-term basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order under '348 of Beauchesne, which indicates that a Ministerial Statement be a short, factual announcement or statement of government policy. It goes on to say in '350 that the issue be brief and factual.

Mr. Speaker, ministers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We support it. We have been calling for it for the past month.

Mr. Speaker, this statement is two pages of history, of federal contributions - others - a very brief reference to the statement. So I am going to call it to the Speaker's attention, several minutes here in the House. I think they should be to the point, they should be very factual and brief. I will keep my notice of this point of order fairly brief in line with it, because we are only wasting the particular time of the House by regurgitating what is given in a package on Budget Day to each particular member of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me read to the hon. gentleman the rest of that statement to which he just referred. There is a last line in that: The Speaker may limit the time for reply as seems fit.

Let me say to the hon. gentleman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Or statement.

Let me say to the hon. gentleman that I know that when he hears good news he gets terribly upset and rises on a point of order. The truth of the matter is that this is good news.

PREMIER TOBIN: The most important public policy statement in many a year.

MR. TULK: The Premier just made the statement that it is the most important public policy statement in many a year. It shows an increase for social assistance recipients like we have not seen - in how many years was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Twenty-five years. It shows that this government is concerned about the welfare of young people in this Province, the children in this Province, and the best that he can do is to stand up and try to tell the Speaker how to do his job.

The truth of the matter is, the Speaker has it in his hands to say: Yes, this Ministerial Statement is too long. But of course, Mr. Speaker, you will your own self judge what the merit of the statement is. In this particular case, the statement has great merit in that it does more for young people in this Province, and more for people on social assistance, than has been done in a long, long time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: If the hon. gentleman cannot accept that then he should leave the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will just take the point the hon. member raised and have a look at it and report back at another time.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More good news.

The diversification of the fishery has been the focus of many research and development efforts undertaken by both the provincial and federal governments for some time. This is especially important for Labrador, where a shortage of raw material for fish plants has long been a chronic problem.

I am happy to inform the House today that for the first time in seven years the fish plant in Red Bay will be back in operation on June 1, and that seventy direct and indirect jobs will be created in the harvesting and processing of sea urchins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: This is a partnership between the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company and Labrador Gem Seafoods.

It is encouraging, Mr. Speaker, to know that the majority of the workers are young Labradorians who are determined to stay and make a living in their home region. Both divers and plant workers have received special training for the harvesting and processing of sea urchins.

This is also a good example of encouraging results of development work that has been undertaken by both government and industry.

Markets for sea urchin roe from the Red Bay operation have been confirmed with the assistance of Bell Island Ventures, one of the leading producers of sea urchin roe on the Island. Labrador Gem Seafoods anticipates that it will produce quality sea urchin roe for up to six months each year.

This will also lead to further opportunities for Labradorians. The Shrimp Company and Gem Seafoods also plan to extend the business into Mary's Harbour and Cartwright in September. At that time, about 200 new jobs will be created in this emerging fishery.

I am proud of the accomplishments in the sea urchin sector of our fishery. Six years ago, we had virtually no sea urchin fishery. This year, we have upwards of 200 harvesters, with approximately another 200 employed processing roe at Winterton, Glovertown, Bell Island, Wareham and Grand Bank. As I have already indicated, the Red Bay operation coming will bring additional employment benefits. Furthermore, this activity in Labrador will complement Island operations by extending the overall harvesting and processing season for sea urchins in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Province is committed to further development of our fishery as a multi-species industry that is not reliant on two or three species. We are also working to further develop markets in key areas such as Japan where around 450 species of fish and seafood are available at daily auctions. Complemented by our quality assurance initiatives, our diversification efforts will pay big dividends for the long-term benefit of our fishery. This is critical in rural areas that have traditionally relied on our marine resources for their livelihoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for sending a copy of his statement here on good news. Any time a fish plant can open with sustainable employment, I say to the minister, good news, and particularly in many parts of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: In Southern Labrador, everybody knows too well, like other parts of the Province, the fishery failed in that area before it failed in other areas of the Province. The fish plant has been closed for seven years. Out-migration has been devastating not only to this area but other areas in the Province. To see new species like sea urchins and others creating new employment, and hopefully long, sustainable employment here, is very important.

To make sure too, I say to the minister, that in any other avenues where there is an opportunity for the development of new species there it has to be encouraged and promoted. We have to be very cognizant, too, when we are dealing with the fishery here in our Province. We are dealing with a renewable resource, but any renewable resource can get to the point where it becomes non-renewable, as we are almost seeing with certain species.

We have to use the utmost caution, not only in our responsibility as a provincial government but in dealing with the federal government that controls the harvesting of these particular species here, to ensure that it is sustainable there, and it will employ people not only in Red Bay and Cartwright and other areas, but many other areas of our Province in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I am very much pleased to see the diversification efforts in Red Bay. It is very important that throughout that whole Labrador Straits area there be opportunities, and this is a further example of the work of the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, I only wonder, I suppose, why we need a Texas company with an investment, a small investment, I guess, really of $4 million or $5 million at the most. It seems to me there is plenty of expertise in this Province to develop this kind of fishery with the expertise in the shrimp industry and in marketing and elsewhere. That is something, I suppose, the details of which I do not know much about, but I was certainly delighted to see this kind of development in the Labrador Straits area.

 

Oral Questions

 

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

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

Last week, in the House of Assembly, or I believe the latter part of the week before, I asked the Premier about a particular piece of legislation that was going before the House of Commons with respect to the Millennium Fund, Bill C-36.

Publicly, after the Question Period, the Premier indicated that: Look, there are at least 1,000 files the Premier deals with each and every day. This one, he did not have particular or specific knowledge on, but he would ask for a briefing from officials within government.

I would like to ask the Premier today: Has he received that briefing yet?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Had the Leader of the Opposition been in the House on Friday morning, he also would have received a version of the briefing that was given here in the House.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition was in the House on Friday morning, and the Speaker will notice that reference to any member being or not being in the House is unparliamentary.

Whatever the case may be, I would like to ask the minister: What conversations or representations has his department or government made to the federal government with respect to this issue, and particularly the changes that are about to be made with respect to bankruptcies as they affect students?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I apologize to the hon. member if there was any inappropriate reference to attendance or lack thereof on Friday, but if he would check with the Table and Hansard, he will find out exactly what was said about this issue on Friday morning and the fact that we have made a statement to the federal government. It is in Hansard for Friday.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister this: Has he received any response from his representations to the federal government and what have the federal government officials told the Minister of Education with respect to the bankruptcy laws as they are about to be changed in Canada, for all students?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No response yet but the full context of the approach that we did take to the federal government is in Hansard for Friday.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Minister of Education this then: Is he aware that this particular piece of legislation is about to go to third reading in the House of Commons, and if so, does he not think that it is about time that some response comes back from the federal government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I think the point has been well made. Any one individual provincial government in Canada in the federation we work in cannot control and dictate what happens in the Parliament of Canada.

The Parliament of Canada, if the hon. member would read Hansard, knows that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador thinks that this legislation is unnecessary. That is the point of view taken by this government, However: Can we control the Parliament of Canada? The answer is no. Have we gotten a response, Mr. Speaker, to the letter we wrote last week? The answer is no. Will it pass in the Parliament of Canada despite the representations of this government? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. But I will gladly answer any other questions that are raised.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the point that is well-taken is that, up until a week ago, this government knew nothing about this particular piece of legislation until it was announced, even though it was announced in February when the Budget came down.

Minister, let me ask you this question: In view of the fact that this particular piece of legislation highlights a bigger problem and a more severe problem, what measures is government going to take, outside of the ones that have already been announced in the Budget, to address opportunities for young people, to address loan remission and to tie loan remission to job creation? Is government going to move forward in that direction?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this year, we will have the biggest job creation program since Confederation for students in Newfoundland and Labrador to help them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We are one of only two provinces in the country, Mr. Speaker, that have a remission program that puts a cap on the amount of debt that a student can have, after a successful completion of a full degree program at the university.

Mr. Speaker, there is no limit to the range of initiatives that are being explored by both ourselves and the federal government to try to bring some real reason and to alleviate some of the indebtedness for students. It will take some time, Mr. Speaker, for the initiatives that were announced by the federal government to work their way through the system in the next few months. It will take some, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the committee that has three student representatives on it from Newfoundland and Labrador, to develop the final criteria for the $4 million fund that is available here provincially, is starting to meet this week. It will take some time for them to announce exactly how that will apply, take place and take effect beginning in September.

So, there are a whole range of initiatives, Mr. Speaker, all pointed in the direction of trying to reduce student indebtedness, and to alleviate the whole issue for students who must, and want to, continue with their post-secondary options. They know and recognize, Mr. Speaker - and I will conclude here - and have given credit, actually, to the Premier of our Province who has brought this issue front and foremost to the head of the national agenda in the country.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is startling is the Minister of Education is beginning to believe some of the policies of his own rhetoric. Because the reality is that of 1200 bankruptcies in Newfoundland and Labrador last year, Premier, 600 of them were students. The reality is that the initiatives announced by the federal government will impact on about 1,000 students, out of many more in the Province, Mr. Speaker. The reality it that the initiatives brought forward by this government are in no way addressing the concerns of young people in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the reality, I say to the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask him a final question: Surely he does not believe that the initiatives, in terms of student employment, are impacting on the opportunities that this government has been able to provide for young people? When will your government, Minister, and your department take a more proactive approach to do two things: One, to offer opportunities to students in this Province where there are none today; and secondly, Mr. Speaker, to curb the serious out-migration problem escalating to about 45 per cent amongst our students who are between eighteen and twenty-eight, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All l can say, I guess, is that the Leader of the Opposition would know that no one particular group in any few months or year creates all of the problems of the world, nor to they have to solve them all instantly.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the initiatives undertaken by this government in just over twenty-four months have led us to a circumstance where we have the best economic prospects in Newfoundland and Labrador in decades. In fact, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the so-called facts that the Leader of the Opposition would espouse and throw out and state as if they were actually true - I am not suggesting they are false - but as if he knew something, and that he is there as a definitive authority in espousing these particular statements.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that opportunities are better in Newfoundland and Labrador today then they have been for a long time and the initiatives of this government, Mr. Speaker, are aimed particularly at the unemployed young people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. I am sorry if we do not solve all of the problems in a few weeks or a few months, but, Mr. Speaker, the impetus and the direction is targeted more so at that group then any other group in our population.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education stands and says and apologies. He is sorry that he has been unable to solve all the problems of young people in a few months or a few weeks. I would like to remind him that he has been in government since 1989. That is nine years, I say to the Minister of Education, not a few weeks or a few months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this: Is his department contemplating looking at student loan repayment and tying it directly to income. That is, if a student or a graduate finds a job, that the amount that particular student pays back will be directly related to the amount that they are making. So that if someone is making $19,000 a year their loan payment would be lower, if someone is making $40,000 or $50,000 a year, it would be higher? Can he confirm or would he contemplate his department looking at some sort of scaled model whereby many students in this Province will be able to avoid bankruptcy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, maybe to put the answer in context: The Leader of the Opposition raises the issue of the changes to the Bankruptcy Act In Canada; part of an overall plan. Again I would invite him to please read Hansard from Friday and get the whole issue laid out in context.

Mr. Speaker, there are a range of initiatives that are in place with respect to that. The bankruptcy issue, while a concern, is of least concern in Newfoundland and Labrador because in our Province the history and record shows that our students make a greater effort to repay their loans than in any other part of the country, despite a difficult economic circumstance. It is an issue but it is not nearly as big an issue in this Province as it is in other parts of the country.

Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to income contingency repayments -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to income contingency repayments; when we are in a position to have that as part of the Canada-Newfoundland Student Loan Program, it is an initiative, part of one that this government proposed that was not fully adopted in the last round of changes in the federal budget. Any time they are willing to do that, along with the three or four other initiatives, that again are laid out in Hansard as a reminder for the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the statement that I made on Friday in answering his question from a week or so ago, Mr. Speaker, this government will gladly participate in that kind of a program as well. But he knows that we are not in a position to unilaterally -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - make that kind of a decision with respect to student loan repayments.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is in fact in a position to act unilaterally when it comes to this program.

Let me remind the minister that it is under Liberal administration for the past ten years that student tuition has risen 300 per cent. Student debt has gone, on average -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - from about $17,000 to $40,000. It is this government that has stripped grants from students and the minister can act unilaterally if he chooses to see fit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question, please.

MR. E. BYRNE: A particular spin that he likes to put on it is that this is a joint provincial-federal program and that he can't, but he can minister and he knows it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the idea of a scaled model or matching income to loan repayments is a concept that the time has come.

I would like to ask the minister directly: Will he move in that direction? Will he move on behalf of the students of the Province, who by the way, minister, are the highest per capita bankruptcies in the country, not the lowest as the minister would like to elude. But will he move in the direction of looking at tying income and student loan replacements and move on it today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe if a point in time comes somewhere in the far distant future where the member opposite is the government, forms a government, makes the decisions, he might want - maybe he is suggesting to us today, Mr. Speaker, that the position that will be taken by the official Opposition is that we would act unilaterally without the Government of Canada on a range of issues including student loans.

Mr. Speaker, he might know - maybe he does not know - that the bulk of the portfolio is borne by the Government of Canada. Students are delighted that the Government of Canada is making some money available along with the provincial governments because otherwise none of them would have the amount of money they need to continue their post-secondary education. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have committed to - as had, by the way, Conservative governments in a province like Ontario, Conservative governments in a province like Prince Edward Island - is that we are all trying to harmonize how we deal with the student loans so that there is consistent treatment in the provinces and that we don't have a very different student loan system in Newfoundland and Labrador than we do in Ontario, than we do in Prince Edward Island, than we do in Western Canada and Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, maybe he should check with his leaders at the small table that they meet with, as to how provincial Conservative leaders feel about the idea of harmonizing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - the Canada Student Loan Program so that we all deal with it consistently across the country.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Education. The (inaudible) School Board, School District No. 8, decided earlier this year to continue its program of school restructuring by consolidating schools in Sunnyside, Arnold's Cove and Southern Harbour. The current schools in these communities are small and rural in nature and the proposed consolidation would save teaching units and preserve the integrity of the school programs.

Can the minister advise the House as to the reasons why this particular consolidation will not occur in time for the September opening of the school year next year and why the school board has postponed that decision?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and again, from time to time, the group opposite suggests that there are certain things that I should do, even though it is not my jurisdiction to do them. Other times they question why we don't do things when it is somebody else's role to perform them and so on.

In this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the hon. member, as the Education critic, would stand in the House of Assembly and ask me to defend what decision making process a school board went through on an issue that is 100 per cent in their jurisdiction. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, in December of 1997 the hon. member opposite and his colleagues stood in this Legislature and voted unanimously to support a schools act of which a section says that which schools remain open and operating in any one school board jurisdiction is within the authority of the board to make the decision, not for the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the school board did make the decision. The truth as well is that there was interference from the Premier's Office through his parliamentary assistant with the school board to alter that decision. What we have is changing from a church-run system to a provincial MHA-run system. If this is the new order of things, I want to ask the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: - will the minister today assure the Newfoundland and Labrador Investment Corporation becomes much more than a rubber stamp for the Premier and for his Liberal caucus?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I should set the record straight, first and foremost. As I understand it, I am not even sure the school board has yet made a final decision as to what they are going to do about the Arnold's Cove-Southern Harbour-Sunnyside area at this point in time. The last time I discussed matters with the chair of the board and the director of education, who were exploring different options for that region of their board, to my knowledge they had not convened the board to actually finalize a decision.

Again, it is typical that the hon. member, as the Opposition Education critic, stands and states as if it is fact - and this is problematic in dealing with issues in the House - he stated as if it was a fact that the board had made a certain decision with respect to schools in that area. They made no decision, and we can table from the board if he wants in the House exactly what they circulated in the area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: They circulated a notice to the parents saying: We are contemplating doing the following. This is your public notice so you can come and talk to us in public meetings as to whether or not you think it is a good or bad idea. This is what we are thinking about doing. So, Mr. Speaker, they did the prudent thing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: They put out a statement, they made no decision. They have been reviewing all the information since, including, Mr. Speaker - I understand that the MHA, as an interested member, has even probably called the board and given his views on the matter. which they have at their disposal. I have also spoken to the board -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - because they have asked me about the issue.

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

MR. GRIMES: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, I can stand here today and tell you they have not made a decision with respect to this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the school board informed me they have made a decision. In fact, they have reversed their previous decision, and the schools will now stay open for the next year.

I say to the minister: Will the minister today take steps to assure that the elected schools boards of this Province, when they make recommendations on the expenditure of the $50 million allocated in the provincial Budget to the Newfoundland and Labrador Investment Corporation, that it will not be used as a political slush fund for the Liberals in the next election, and he will take steps to assure that no member of this House will individually be able to exercise veto power over the schools boards' decisions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It hardly warrants an answer. However, it was mentioned by a previous questioner that I personally have been here for nine years, it is true. Every time I have heard those kinds of accusations from members opposite I can understand them, because that is the way they used to operate for seventeen years when they were here. We will not do it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Will the minister confirm that the proposal that the school board put forward would have saved 6.8 teaching units next year? I ask him: Can he also confirm that the money to keep those units in place will indeed come from the school board's assigned money for construction? Or he can perhaps tell the House: Where will the money come from to keep those 6.8 units in place that would have been saved to the teacher allocation if the school board's proposal for restructuring had been accepted?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member would not mind, I might take a minute to answer the question. It is very important. It will show the difference between what this government is willing to do and willing to accommodate, if the board wants to do it, versus what he just suggested.

He just suggested, as the Education critic for the Official Opposition, that the most important thing is, at all cost, take 6.8 teachers out of the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Do not consider any other options, Mr. Speaker; do not consider any other options. He said, Mr. Speaker, take the teachers out of the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, at no point did I say that I disagree with keeping those units in place. I am merely asking where the funding is going to come from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, very quickly, Mr. Speaker, because it can be a short answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The fact of the matter is that the board is considering a couple of options, and still considering them as far as I know, because I will repeat for the record that to my knowledge the board has not convened and passed any motions to what they are finally going to do.

The options that they were exploring, Mr. Speaker, were to close a school, which would then not require 6.8 teaching units, get five additional buses, at the cost of $125,000, do $400,000 worth of renovations to two other schools - so the cost is now almost $600,000 in total - and that in fact they are looking at exploring other options whereby we may in fact find a mechanism to let them leave the teachers in the school while they are awaiting other things to develop in the area.

The member opposite is suggesting: Don't explore any other options with the school board; take the teachers at all cost.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have one question, and it is for the President of Treasury Board. It is with respect to Mr. Thomas Eagan, who has been protesting outside this Chamber and has been doing so for a number of days.

It is my understanding, Mr. Minister, that there has been an arbitration award. That arbitration team consisted of three experienced lawyers, the decision was unanimous, yet Mr. Eagan still awaits reinstatement of his position. So my question to the minister is simply: Why has he not been reinstated? And when can he tell Mr. Eagan when he expects to have his job back?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter is under appeal to the court. It is under the jurisdiction now not of Treasury Board but of the Community Health Board, I believe, on the Burin Peninsula, if that is the correct area. All I can say at this point, as the matter is before the court, is that the Department of Health and Community Services and the community board do not wish to take action on reinstatement of the individual until the matter is reviewed by court.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

Recently, a number of hospital boards in the Province received permission from your department to engage in training medical laboratory technologists to do basic, diagnostic X-ray procedures. That is a service that is now provided by medical radiation technologists who are trained to a Canadian standard and are members of the CAMRT. This cross-training is considerably shorter than that required to be a radiation technologist and it provides minimal clinical training.

I ask the minister: Is she concerned that certain parts of this Province are now going to have X-ray departments without fully trained and CAMRT accredited technologists?

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

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

Whatever resources we place in our system, whether it be from the physician to the nursing resources to the medical technologists or the lab technologists, they would have to meet the approval whereby they are able to provide the types of services that they have been hired to provide.

I think the hon. member opposite knows that in our health care system we have a number of ways of transferring function. Anyone under the proper auspices who have received the proper training can have a function transferred provided it is an acceptably transferable function. In this particular case, and I would say that in many places in our Province, Mr. Speaker, we have many specialists, whom I do believe fear sometimes for the loss of their skills.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, over the years we have seen a cardiac paediatrician, for example, moved to do his services in another province because of the lack of cases and the inability to maintain one's skills in this level. So, if you are asking me: Should a person be without any service because they live in rural Newfoundland, or should they have an approved course so they can have access to the types of services to which they are allowed to provide, then I would certainly say that is an acceptable option, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not what I am talking about at all, I say to the minister. You stated in a letter on January 7, 1998 - I have a copy here - that technologists completing this course will not be qualified to work in major centres.

Why, Minister, are you subjecting rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to a lower level of service than provided to those in urban areas? Why the two-tier level of service, I say to the minister?

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

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

Again, I think it is about a level of understanding. Just to give an example, we do not do brain surgery out in Bonavista hospital. We do it in St. John's because we have the type of skills and services and expertise that is required.

In this particular case, obviously, I would imagine it would be very similar. I will use the nurse practitioner regulations as an example. Nurse practitioners are able to provide a set of skills within a set of regulations and a set of guidelines. Another health professional, for example, in a personal care home or in a person's own home, can do tracheotomy suctioning under a transfer function. There are so many examples.

So, Mr. Speaker, while this is not specifically related to transfer function, nobody will ever be required to practice outside of their scope of practice. That is how we operate in a Province like Newfoundland, in a country like Canada. We have our regulations and guidelines, and people work towards their expertise within the realm of acceptability and within the realm of regulation and policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is the answer, Mr. Speaker. It is the answer, if you choose to listen.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It might be an answer, but not to the question I asked.

In 1995, the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists accepted that in the future, educational preparation should be at the baccalaureate level for anyone coming out and starting practice in the year 2005. Even the president representing the radiologists of this Province, the specialists in the field, I say to the minister, have said they felt that technologists working in remote locations -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: - would probably require additional training than is offered now, than qualified members of the CAMRT have right now. Why, in view of what the experts are saying, are you allowing people to be trained to a lower level than is currently the practice, and sacrificing the health of patients in an effort to cut costs?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the word `pathetic' is unparliamentary, but quite frankly, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - this is not in any way an attempt to undermine the services that we provide to rural Newfoundland. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is the opposite. It is an intention to provide the types of services that are needed in rural areas of the Province where we do not have major tertiary care centres. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it is insulting to those people who have gone through the courses, I think it is insulting to the people of Newfoundland that he would make that sort of statement, because this is about accessibility. It is about providing the types of services that people in rural areas need and do not have to travel to tertiary care centres or major centres to get. We did this in the past and we are doing it in the future. Because while the real issue might be job security here behind the question, the most important issue is the type of services that we are able to provide to rural residents as well urban residents of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A poorly trained X-ray worker would not have the knowledge or expertise to spot abnormalities on a radiograph that they could bring to the attention of a physician. It could be misdiagnosis and it could have serious repercussions for the patient and for the worker, I say to the minister, because they only have four months of clinical training compared to fourteen months -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: What is your motivation in doing it? Are you buckling under to the health care corporations and boards that want to cut corners, I say, and save money, rather than hire more qualified people to fill a few unique job descriptions that are there now.

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

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

We are finally getting down to the point again, criticizing the boards for their decisions. Because quite frankly, this process is in an effort to provide the types of services that people in rural communities have a right to access. I will say it again. If he is going to talk about misdiagnosis, as long as we have a system that is run by human beings there will always be an element of human error. I will stand by that statement, because we are all, to the best of my knowledge, in that category.

I will say that I believe in the work that is being done in the hospitals, in the clinics, by our nurses and doctors and lab technicians, and by our boards. I still have to say that people practice within the scope of practice and within the regulations set out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about two tiers of health care and buckle under to the types of insinuations that have been made here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

 

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before I move Orders of the Day, I would like to inform hon. members that there is quite a bit of work that needs to be done yet this spring, Budget Estimates and so on. In order to see that gets done, we intend to sit Tuesday and Thursday nights of this week, so if there is something in people's schedules that they might want to get off, they could have an opportunity to do that. To be frank, I think I should tell hon. members that we will sit Tuesday and Thursday nights maybe for the rest of the session until we get the work done.

I call Order No. 2, and move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader has called Order No. 2.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am glad to get up and start debate again today where I left off from last week, and some points raised by my colleagues on this side of the House. I thought we would be waiting a little while longer. I thought there would be more petitions on behalf of the Catholic Women's League today to be presented in the House, and done right this time, but I guess we will look forward to that coming back in the next little while, maybe, from the Member for Topsail. I am sure they will have it on the Table any time at all now.

I want to make a few comments with respect to Executive Council, and the way that all government funding is being spent these days in this Province. A lot of people in this Province are starting to ask the questions: Where, how much, and what policies government is putting in place now to redress and address problems, especially in rural parts of the Province but indeed the entire Province, of how money is spent, where the money is going, and what policies are putting us in the right direction.

I had a couple of points I was going to address today from where I left off the last time I spoke in this debate. That is back again to rural renewal, and what policies are affecting rural parts of this Province this year. A little while ago I started to mention a topic I want to bring up here again today and make a couple of more points on, some place where the Executive Council and government in general can put more money and more dollars, that will be better spent by people in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, that group of people are the young people in this Province; not necessarily students, because at this date, Mr. Speaker, they are in transition from high school, trying to get into secondary education, and I guess they are en route to hopefully becoming employed in the Province. That is what they hope for, Mr. Chairman. But now we have to deal with the reality, I guess, not the hopefulness.

The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that the young people in this Province, who are either trying to get into post-secondary institutions or trying to get employed in this Province, have a very big problem when it comes to their attitude towards staying in this Province. That is what is starting to bother a lot of people. Even today, Mr. Chairman, I spoke to another parent who talked about her son who has just finished a Degree in this Province. When they sat down to discuss whether he was going to leave and where he was going to go, there was no consideration that he was going to stay in this Province to work.

While the minister stood and spoke today about how the Newfoundland students are the best group of people in the country for attempting to pay off their loans, he forgot to mention something that is connected to that. They may, in fact, be trying to pay off their student loans, but they are doing it from Alberta, Toronto, Vancouver, Fort McMurray and all over the country. They are not doing it because they are staying at home working in Newfoundland and Labrador; they are doing it from far away. That is the statistic, Mr. Chairman, that we seem to miss a lot in this Province.

The truth is, students in this Province have given up, in large part due to the spiralling debt that they encounter as soon as they leave these institutions and the fact that the job market is just not there for them. That is the shame of it all, that they are heading in that direction.

So the point I raised the last day - and I will make a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman - is, what Executive Council or any part of government can look more strongly towards is how we can get the students to get hope back in their Province, to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, I believe, and a lot of students have said to me on many occasions, that if they had some kind of insurance, some kind of security, if they knew that once they finished their three, four, or five year program - it doesn't have to be a university degree, it can be a two or three program - if they have some kind of insurance, some kind of security whereby they knew that they could go from an institution, whether it be the College of the North Atlantic or the Baie Verte Community College or anywhere in this Province, Mr. Chairman, and could move on into the workforce, they would feel more secure about this Province and would probably be talking to their parents about another alternative, instead of going to Alberta, Toronto or out West, anywhere. They might consider setting up in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, we can speak about our mega projects as much as we want. There is nothing more crucial to the recovery of this Province than a young person deciding, yes, I will give it a shot here, and yes, I am going to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador, and yes, I going to try and set up a business here. Everyday, Mr. Chairman, in this legislature, some member, either on this side or on the other side, receives a call from a young person or has a visit from a young person in this Province who is finishing a degree or some kind of post-secondary education in this Province and considering starting up a business.

Mr. Chairman, the first thing they will say to you - they will come in with a good business plan. They have learned how to put together a good business plan, they have a good concept, they have a good idea, because that is where the fresh, good ideas come from; our young people in the Province who are enthusiastic and have the vigour, I guess, to get out there and try to perform, be an entrepreneur and start their own business. Mr. Chairman, that is an attitude that we all should be trying to facilitate.

What happens, Mr. Chairman, is that when they look at their debt load, and then they look at the job prospects and then when they try to set up a business in this Province, it is the same story over and over again. I have had them in my office and I am sure the other members have had them here also. A young person comes in with a good solid business idea, a good concept, has done his homework, gets his research together, lays the business document on the table, Mr. Chairman, but after that the trouble starts. That is when the trouble starts.

How many young people in this Province have come forward with good business ideas, their homework done to start up a business and find the rhetoric and the bureaucracy that they run into. Mr. Chairman, within days or weeks those young people who have good ideas and have lots of enthusiasm about what is going on decide it is too much trouble: I would rather give it all up. They lay their business plan on the table and they are on a plane to Fort McMurray or out to Vancouver or they are lining up at Port aux Basques ferry to leave this Province. They have given up hope. That is what they have done, Mr. Chairman.

First of all they are looking at a $30,000 debt, maybe $40,000 for some at Memorial University. Look at some of the private colleges now, the debts that students are coming out with when they leave there.

Mr. Chairman, a suggestion from some of these students who I have spoken to many times, and one of the debates that I had at the Community College in Baie Verte with about forty students one day and their instructors, was: What they would really like to see that would improve their chances is an Entrepreneurship Program, Mr. Chairman, that would take them from doing the courses, spending their money at these colleges and universities so that they know they have a link into the workforce, so that they know that when they finish their three or four years, when they have a $30,000 or $40,000 debt, they have a link to get into the workforce.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more disheartening for a young person in this Province with a degree or some kind of program from any institution, to walk into an employer, lay his cards on the table and say, this is what I trained for, this is what I've done, this is what I'm good at, and the first response they get back from the employer, in a lot of cases is: Do you have any experience? That experience, Mr. Chairman, is simply just not there because they have to start somewhere. Most young people find that very frustrating, after years of school, years of studying, to go to an employer and for an employer to turn to them and say: Sorry, we are looking for people with experience.

Well, Mr. Chairman, that is one program that the Minister of Education and the government should look into very seriously. As a matter of fact, the Government House Leader one day did respond to me by saying that they were looking into some kind of program on that but I have not heard anything about it since.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SHELLEY: The Entrepreneurship Program, where you go from an institution into a job; and that the government would do something in that vein, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be an excellent policy move, for the government to do something where a young person who finishes three or four years - either that or university or some type of college - that they have a program they can look to where the government will assist them in getting into the workforce; so that when they walk into Hibernia or any industry in this Province the employer will not look at them and say: I am sorry, we need somebody with experience. That is the most disheartening thing to a young person who, after years of training and mountains of debt under his belt, looks to an employer and they say: I am sorry, you need experience.

So what we really need in a policy is something that is proactive, Mr. Chairman. The government should look into that stepping stone where the student goes from a college or university into an entrepreneurship program and finally into the workforce. Because there is not a more important factor in the economic recovery of this Province than trying to keep some people here. Imagine next year if we could turn and say - what is it, 11,000 who left this year? - if we could turn next year and say only 5,000 left or only 4,000 left.

Remember now back in 1989, the first slogan of the previous Premier. We will go back a few steps. Now his first slogan was: We are going to bring them all home. Then we went to this Premier where we are going to try to keep what we have here. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have 11,000 a year leaving. I think that is negative impact. There is nothing positive about that.

You can talk about Voisey's Bay and Hibernia all you want, there is nothing more important in this Province than if we can keep our young educated people in this Province. It is a morale boost more than anything else.

How many parents in this House of Assembly today, Mr. Chairman, would like to look at their daughter or their son and be able to say next year: There is something for you here? There is something so that you can stay in this Province. If you have a good business idea we are going to help you get to the next level.

Those are the two most important things that this Province needs to address in the short term, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the young people of this Province. Number one, the entrepreneurship program that gives them that linkage between school and a job and, Mr. Chairman, also to address their mountain of debt that they acquire when they come out of these institutions; some type of relief that can help them get through that burden, Mr. Chairman.

The Leader, today, brought up questions about bankruptcy in this Province. That is not something that anybody wants to talk about. It is not something that a student is very proud of, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, I have dealt with two people who have gone bankrupt, in the last two weeks who have claimed for bankruptcy, Mr. Chairman. One was a student and one was an adult who had been in the workforce but who had been laid off. One was a student, Mr. Chairman. I am going to tell you that the last resort - well I thought it was the last resort - was to go to bankruptcy. He was not very proud of doing this, Mr. Chairman. It was something that he was forced into doing. As a matter of fact, he was so down about it that he did not even want to talk to me about it. He did finally, on the advice of his parents, come to talk to me about getting some advice for him on personal bankruptcy. I said: This is a shame when it is the last resort for a student in this Province to claim personal bankruptcy. He looked at me and said: Mr. Shelley, it is not my last resort, it is my second last resort. My last resort is that I go to welfare. After three years in an institution to better myself in education, after $30,000 in the hole, because I was trying to get an education, I have to go to bankruptcy.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if anybody in the House did not understand what we were talking about today in Question Period, they should look into it. The truth is, up to June of this year - if this change goes through in Ottawa - a student in this Province, once he realizes that he is finished university and $30,000 in debt, could not get a job, had all of these bills backing up, in some cases married with children, Mr. Chairman, he had the option, after two years of leaving an institution, of going to any association or firm in this Province and applying for bankruptcy. Basically what that does is give you another start. It is not something you would like to do but it is a reality in a lot of cases.

So a student in this Province, up to June of this year, after two years could go and file for personal bankruptcy. With this change that is coming here, Mr. Chairman, by the federal cousins in Ottawa, they will now have to wait ten years. They cannot even claim personal bankruptcy. It is not like they wanted to do it in the first place, Mr. Chairman, but they cannot even claim for personal bankruptcy until a ten year period is up.

So, can you imagine a student of this Province who has to demoralize himself to come and even apply for a personal bankruptcy, being told now that he can't apply for personal bankruptcy: No, I'm sorry, that is bad enough for you but your only resort now, as I said - it is not the last resort, it's the second last resort; personal bankruptcy. The last resort is that a student with a degree - and this has happened, I've been told, by the people at the agency that handled this bankruptcy. People with degrees in this Province have gone in to see this gentleman. They have one or two children.

There is one case in particular - I certainly won't use any names in the House - but there is one couple in particular, both of them have degrees. One of them is substitute teaching, the other one hasn't any work at all, is not in teaching but is in engineering. They have two children. Now, Mr. Chairman, he had to file for personal bankruptcy. Luckily he got in before this new rule change. He had to apply for personal bankruptcy, because that was what was left to him, that was the reality of it. You take the same couple after June 2, if this legislation goes through in Ottawa, in the situation this man found himself in, which was demoralizing to him, he was dejected about the whole situation, now he won't even be able to do that. So that couple that just applied for personal bankruptcy last week, after June, if we get a similar situation, and I'm sure there are going to be similar situations, do you know what his resort is? His resort is to go to welfare; a family with two degrees.

Actually, there won't be that resort, because with her substitute teaching it's just enough to keep them from the welfare rolls. As far as the debt they have piled up with Visa and CIBC cards and anything else that piles up as a student, or expenses... You sit down and deal with these individual situations, sit down with some of these students. I've sat with some of these students. They don't have the parents' support, because it's just not there financially. They aren't all coming from rich families. When the debt they encounter goes over - now a lot of students remember, while they are students don't have these cards, but once they finish school and hopefully are going into something that they are hoping is supportive, they end up with credit cards, they end up with any type of credit. Anybody does, when you have a family and you are trying to support the family, because your outlook is good. This particular couple had a good outlook. They thought both of them would be working within a two-year period. It's not a situation they expected to find themselves in. As a matter of fact, the lady had a full-time teaching job in the beginning, but of course with the lay-off of teachers she lost her job, ended up substitute teaching, and the husband was just getting a spot of work here and there.

When they got that spot of work when they came from university is when their debt started. They had their debt under control as far as the student loans go, when they finished their degrees. It's afterwards, when they thought they were going to be getting jobs, they bought their home, and they figured they would be working in two years. The lady who was teaching thought she had a permanent job. Of course, with the seniority and everything she got bumped out of that position. Like any other couple when they have children, they started to believe their jobs were going to give them enough money to survive on, and they started to go into a way of life.

They readily admit, by the way - and this is only one example. Everyone is particular, every example specific to that couple, or maybe it's an individual or whatever. In this particular case I was just explaining that up to June of this year this gentleman could do that. It's the last thing he wanted to do. The reality is that now he has to claim bankruptcy. He plans to leave the Province and leave his wife and children here until he gets situated in Alberta. I guess at the end of the day they will have to move there.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose the point of it all is that there is a build-up of debt. There is nobody who can deny that. There is a 300 per cent difference in tuition in the last five or six years. I'm not sure of the statistic exactly. The provincial grants have gone. I'm one person in this House of Assembly - and I think my colleague for Kilbride is still paying his student debt. I finished mine a couple of years ago, but the Leader is still paying some of his student debt.

I was one of the students in here who attended Memorial University for some five years. The provincial grant money we got, it wasn't a lot of money, but for a person in my situation, when it came to the end of my loan - and we aren't all that responsible when we are in school. I know I could have been more responsible with my money when I was a twenty-year-old in here in St. John's for the first time. I knew I could have been more responsible with it, but when you are a young person in school, you are not.

That provincial grant, when my loan ran out, when I could go down to the Thompson Student Centre and get that $1,200 or $1,400 at the end of a term, that was the make or break for my term. That's what pushed me over the top, when you went down and got that provincial grant. Even if it was $500, it was something from the provincial government in the Province that said: Here, we know these are tough times, we know that tuition is high, we know you can do something with that? We know it is something you can work on.

That was a commitment, no matter how small or how large, it was something you could work on. It was some kind of incentive from the provincial level that showed you that the government was caring about you again, showed you that they were interested that you were doing your education. It was not a lot of money.

I am trying to remember exactly the amounts. Maybe when the Member for Kilbride comes back he can refresh my memory. It was a few years back for me. I graduated in 1987, some eleven years ago now, but when I received that provincial grant money, as little as it was, it meant a lot to me. I know people who lived with me in my residence, and apartments here in St. John's, who even got less, depending on their income and their families and so on. I think they used to get like $400 and $500 of provincial grant money. But it is not the amount of money; it is just knowing that the provincial government was throwing in that little bit to get you over the hump for the next part of the semester. I know it because I lived it. With all due respect, I did not have the support of my family because they just did not have the money, so I put myself through university through summer jobs and so on.

What I am saying is, that little bit of provincial grant money, whether it was a kicker from the provincial government, it was just a little incentive, it was a little sign, that the provincial government was committed to the student. I am going to tell you, whether it was $400 or $1,200, at the end of the term when you saw no groceries left and you knew you had to buy one more book and you had this other expense that came up in your classroom while you were in your studies, or you had to buy something else - there was always something else to buy - $300 or $400 or $500 can make a big difference to a person in need, Mr. Chairman, when you are a student.

A student's life, if we all think back for a little while and remember, small amounts of money - it was a funny thing in those days, Mr. Chairman. It seemed like when you were a student you were very careful over your money. Although you had little money back then, you always managed to get through and you managed to get the extra books you had to get. You managed to do the extra things you had to do in order to finish your courses, whatever it took. If you had to travel a little bit, you did that. But as a student, Mr. Chairman, you always remember that little thing of when you went to the TSC, the Thompson Student Centre, upstairs to that office, knowing that you were dry when it came to your resources for loans and so on, but you knew that little bit of money was there for a provincial grant. Also, I guess, knowing that you did not have to pay that back was even a little bit of a boost, Mr. Chairman, a spiritual boost for you as you did your courses throughout university.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is something that I guess a lot of students in this Province look at now and say: You had a provincial grant a few years ago. I think it was 1993, if I am not mistaken. Was it in 1993 that the student provincial grants were changed? I think it was somewhere in the area of 1993-1994, though, that was changed. Maybe it was even in 1992. It might have been a bit earlier. I am not sure what year that was, but I know it was taken out.

I do not remember either the statistic overall of how much that was costing government on an annual basis. Maybe some of the other members or the Finance Minister can refresh our memory; I cannot remember exactly how much it was costing the government. I suppose the whole thing behind it is that now when you look at students, the statistics we have show that over 400 of the just over 1,200 bankruptcies in Newfoundland last year - 400 to 500, somewhere in that area - were students who had decided to go for personal bankruptcy.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the couple of people I have dealt with who filed for these in the last few weeks certainly never thought they would have to turn to personal bankruptcy to get back on track. Like you said, a last resort. Then again, others say it was a second-last resort; they would have to go to welfare. To be making a little bit of money - of course, all members know here that the amount of money you make, even though it is a small amount, even welfare is not a last resort because you cannot get there, Mr. Chairman.

There are people in this Province going around with trades and degrees and so on who are not working anywhere. A lot of them have left, but I guess the whole point of the debate is that a key component of any policy of any government in the next couple years leading up to the millennium change has to be what you do to address the problem of students leaving the Province, student debts, and student transition into the workforce. That was my key point that I want to raise today, the transition from student to workforce. There is a gap there.

The Government House Leader stood, I think it was about three weeks ago now, and addressed it when I spoke about it, that there was something being worked on by government. I don't know exactly, he was not very specific. He said he would speak to me about it, but we have not talked about it since. There was something in the works, something that government was looking for, where you get that transition so that you are not demoralized as a student, after doing your degree and you have a debt, that you go to an employer like Hibernia, or some major industry like that, and they look at you and say: Yes, your resume looks good, your educational background looks good, but we cannot hire you because we need experienced people.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is something that would enhance students ability to be able to stay in this Province if the government had some kind of program, an entrepreneurship program that basically linked the student from their institution into the workforce and they could go on from there. That is one aspect of it, Mr. Chairman.

The out-migration in general I want to talk about, besides the fact that I tied it to the students, was: Yes, there were 9,000 so-called new -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Do you want to go?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: I will go again after. He wants me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I will yield and let the Member for Terra Nova have a few words. I will speak again later.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: The hon. member has motivated me to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I heard the beginning part of the hon. member's speech I was just hoping that he wasn't speaking at many school graduations in the past little while. Because the speech was so full of gloom and doom, so manifestly uninspiring, without any kind of an optimistic philosophy for the future. I don't know how a person could talk in such demoralizing terms, when we realize today that we live in a world with a population of in excess of 4 billion people. With all of the needs which it takes to cater to the needs of these 4 billion people, to say that here in little Newfoundland we have students who have given up hope? What a demoralizing statement to make, to say we have students who have given up hope in a world that has so many needs, in a world -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Newfoundland.

MR. LUSH: Newfoundland is not separate from the world. Newfoundland is a part of the world, Newfoundland is a part of Canada, and this world has so many problems!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I am inviting our young people to take on the challenge to help with the solution to these problems throughout the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: With the technology we have today, the starving people, the environmental problems, right throughout the world, and to look at young people and say they have lost all hope. I would like to challenge these young people to stand and take advantage of the challenges in Canada.

The hon. gentleman mentioned that they were in Alberta, that they were in Ontario paying off their student loans, as if there was some great sin to that. Thank God we have Alberta, thank God we have Ontario!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: I have two sons, both of whom worked in other parts of Canada, because I was glad to see them there, because that is what Canada is about. That is why we are a part of Canada, Mr. Chairman. I challenge any student who has a student loan to pay off, and that student can get a job in Alberta, that student can get a job in Ontario: Take the first plane tomorrow and go there.

Mr. Chairman, that is not to say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: That is the kind of unmitigated twaddle, Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of humbug, that is the kind of flim-flam that (inaudible) preach to Newfoundland today. We want optimism spoken to our people. We want to let them know the challenge that is out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask that the hon. member be given the right to debate in silence, as the other hon. members have been.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter is this. Nobody wants to see our students leave the Province unwillingly. Nobody wants to see our students leave because -

AN HON. MEMBER: You just told them to get the first flight tomorrow!

MR. LUSH: That is exactly... If they cannot find a job here to fulfil themselves, if they cannot find a job here in Newfoundland that meets their needs, if they can fulfil themselves to the maximum by finding that job, if they can develop themselves to a maximum by finding the job in Alberta, go there, Mr. Chairman.

It is that kind of nonsense, that insular, parochial nonsense, that tells people there is a job for them here in Newfoundland, that nobody ever should have to leave because a government cannot find a job for every student who graduates today, because the government cannot find a job for every person who is eligible for the workforce, that somehow the government is failing? What unmitigated nonsense. That is why we are a part of Canada, and Canada wants to solve the problems of the world. Canada wants to be a part of the world, and we as Newfoundland want to be a part of that.

Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of comprehensive philosophy, that is the kind of optimistic philosophy, that is the kind of challenging philosophy, we should be giving our students today. That is what we should be preaching to our students today, not that narrow, parochial, insular, uninspiring (inaudible) that young people have lost hope, young people have given up hope. I expect they do, Mr. Chairman, if that is the kind of philosophy that has been espoused to the graduating program throughout Newfoundland.

Mr. Chairman, there is nobody more concerned about the student debt load than this hon. member; nobody. Nobody has put more work in it, in trying to reduce the student debt load, but we are not going to solve the problem by giving these speeches of gloom and doom that the hon. member specializes in. No, Mr. Chairman, what we need is to place before our young people the challenge and the opportunity that Canada provides to them today for their development, to fulfil themselves, to develop as productive citizens of Newfoundland - the opportunity. We have never had more opportunity in Canada today than what we now have, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Canada?

MR. LUSH: Yes, in Canada. The hon. gentleman, in his narrow buttoned-down mind, forgets that Newfoundland is a part of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, when I talk to young people, I like to tell them of the opportunity that is available in Canada today. That is what I tell young people, and to make sure they train and educate themselves so that they position themselves so they can get the jobs that are available throughout Canada today, and indeed throughout Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with respect -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: I just want to make a concluding remark, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to hear the hon. Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Okay, Mr. Chairman.

I expect the thing that has the hon. gentlemen all excited in the last couple of days is that they saw the initiative being taken by Mr. Charest in Quebec. Mr. Charest has recommended, or has told his flock of people, that when he becomes government they are going to adopt the income contingency payback plan. I think that is where the hon. gentlemen got their extra energy in the last couple of days, to come after the government on its initiatives with respect to student loan.

Mr. Chairman, there is no question, that is a good model. I have been espousing it for some time, the income contingency payback. It is the fairest way that I have been able to see. We, on this side, are committed to ensuring that the students of Newfoundland are not denied access to education, that they are not denied an education, that they are not denied the opportunity to train for all of the opportunities that are made available in Canada today. Mr. Chairman, I am sure, I am certain, that when the economic times are sufficiently turned around so that we have the money to spend, and when we can sufficiently get the federal government to see eye to eye with us on these student loan programs, that we are going to see the income contingency plan in this Province. I am going to be working until such time as we do have it.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the student debt load -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. LUSH: I just want to finish by saying, Mr. Chairman, that it is the greatest problem in Canada today. There is no question about it, the student debt. We have to put our heads together -

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. LUSH: We have to put our heads together to ensure that our students are not loaded with that financial burden that pulls the rug out from under them before they begin their lives, Mr. Chairman. I want to be with the government that is going to change that, and I believe I am with the government that is going to change it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I will say this, I will give the member a comment to start with, as opposed to the Member for Humber Valley. At least he has the guts to stand and make a few comments every now and then.

Most times you can stop the heckler in the back. Most times the Member for Terra Nova gets up and I listen to him on some very good points. I have a lot of respect for the Member for Terra Nova, I will say. I will say this to the Member for Terra Nova at the very outset, before I go on with my remarks. He should have had his earphones in, because obviously the worst thing that can happen - and he is very experienced at this - with the media, or even debates in this House, if you don't get the whole story you don't hear it all.

Obviously the Member for Terra Nova never had his earphones in when I started the conversation about hope and students. I will go back and say again, I will do another thing. I will commend you again for talking about what Mr. Charest talked about, a good policy that should be brought in place to protect students. Then I will make this other point: A 300 per cent increase in tuition in Newfoundland and Labrador today; your government is not doing a good job, I will simply say to the Member for Terra Nova.

The other one I said, which you did not even mention, was the provincial grant. I do not need the Member for Terra Nova telling me about getting an education, because I got it on my own because of circumstances that were there. Like a lot of members there, and I commend them for doing that. I have no problems with any of that.

What I have a problem with is that the reality is this. If I could use their names today I would, but I would not certainly in this House without permission. In the last two weeks I have gone to a bankruptcy firm in this city to deal with two bankruptcies, one from a student and one from an individual. The student told me - so this is where you got your remarks wrong - they had given up hope. I just repeated what the people had said to me. That is all I did. The member should have listened better and he would not have lost his cool and jumped up and said things he should not be saying in the House.

By the way, I speak at many graduations. I spoke at one this weekend. I will give it to you word for word, if you want it. I always talk positive at graduations, and I try to make sure they have hope in it, I say to the hon. member. I do not need him to lecture me on being positive to students. As a matter of fact, when I finished teaching I was given a diploma and a shirt that said positive attitude. I do not need the Member for Terra Nova telling me about a positive attitude.

I just told him of a circumstance where a couple in this Province with two degrees in the family looked at me and said they had given up hope and went to personal bankruptcy in this Province. That is a reality. He can jump up and down all he likes in this House about the government and what they are doing, and his solution. If you want a solution, address what Mr. Charest said there. Address the student debt load, address the entrepreneurship you said you were going to talk about later on. Address all of those things; then you will be talking about students.

I will go with this member or any member or this government any day in front of 5,000 students and talk about what I think about students in this Province. You do not need to tell me about it, about lecturing students, and hope. I give them all the hope they want, but I give them something else, reality. Don't go giving them pie-in-the-sky, that Voisey's Bay is going to put you all to work, or Hibernia is going to put you all to work, and everything else.

What the people in this Province respect, and I found out in my short time - the member has all the experience - but I found in my short time in this Province, what works is reality. I believe the Newfoundlander and Labradorian is having a hard time in this Province, when you sit down at his kitchen table with him and say: There is no work coming; no, welfare is not going to take care of you any more; no, you can't get another student loan. I think that when you deal with reality with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians they accept it, then they make their move.

Don't tell me about going away to all parts of this Province. I have seven brothers and sisters stretched from Vancouver to Fort McMurray to Labrador. I do not need the member telling me about people going all over. I will send my son and daughter away - I hope I do not have to do it - and wish them well and pay for their fare and everything else if they have to go to Alberta. All I am saying is, I hope they do not have to go. But I am not willing to give up as quick as that, that we are going to put them on the plane tomorrow if they can go there.

The other couple, by the way, who had the bankruptcy, had their son and daughter who were about to leave to go to Alberta. So don't go lecturing me about giving up on hope.

The member sits down for three or four months, and jumps up because he heard just one word and did not listen to the rest of it. He should have listened to the whole thing, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't that the same speech that he gave last year?

MR. SHELLEY: The same speech that he gave last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I did not give up hope, but you have to look at reality too. That is part of the combination to the solution, to explain the reality of it and try to address the student loan, Mr. Chairman.

Now, the two points I made on it, I believe, were good, Mr. Chairman. One was the program that the hon. member brought up as Mr. Charest was saying. The second one is that personal bankruptcy-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: This is the point I was making. I do not know why you got on this hope thing. You just picked hope, Mr. Chairman, from one sentence and jumped on it. I certainly do not go out through the Province, to the gradates, telling them that there is no hope. I was telling you that the students themselves told me that there was no hope for them and they had to leave.

It is pretty bad when you are sitting in a personal bankruptcy office, Mr. Chairman, when a fellow who has a degree and he says he has to go away. Maybe the member should have come and sat down with me and told that fellow that he had lots of hope, and that going on the Alberta flight was alright. That is what I was speaking about, Mr. Chairman, and it bothers me.

I respect the member for saying that nobody cares more about students or tries to do as much as he can. I have no argument with him there. He probably does, and he has probably done a lot over the years, especially as he served as a Cabinet minister and did a good job of it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, are you hearing any of that? That is okay, is it?

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Can he use that in the House? We were called to order on it.

Mr. Chairman, I was talking about students and the fact that I had sat down with two within the past two weeks, which is a fact, and worked with personal bankruptcy. Because of the change that is coming to the House of Commons by June 10 - right now a student can go after two years, when they realize that they are going bankrupt, and declare personal bankruptcy. They do not want to do it, but they have to do it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the change is there, as of June 10, if a person finds himself in that situation he has to wait for ten years before he can declare personal bankruptcy. That was the only point I was making. That is the change that is going to be there, whether we like it or not. What I am saying, and what the Leader of the Opposition was asking the Premier and the Minister of Education, was, under those circumstances whether they agree that people should be allowed to file for personal bankruptcy, and what the circumstances are. That is all that I was asking, Mr. Chairman.

Students in this Province - there is going to be a revival of young people staying here, not going to Alberta because they have to go there, Mr. Chairman. Now, on the other hand you must be contradicting the Minister of Fisheries because he stood in this House the other day - and it is in Hansard. You should read that one. Maybe the member would have jumped up that day.

The Minister of Fisheries jumped up in this House and said that the 11,000 who left last year had an option, they could have stayed here. Now you tell him to pick ten people out of that 11,000, find their telephone numbers and telephone them in Fort McMurray and Vancouver, pick up the phone and say: Excuse me. Why did you leave? You had an option, you could have stayed home. You tell me what kind of response he is going to get. So, one of you is wrong. Find out who it is.

The Minister of Fisheries said that they had an option. He had an option, he said. Yes, I did too. I was lucky, I had another option. I was a substitute teacher. That is what my option was. I had a job offered to me in Oshawa, Ontario, a job ready to go to, but I decided to stay and try substitute teaching, finally got into a full position and then ended up in this, for some reason. That is still the thing that I cannot figure out. I had the perfect job, Mr. Chairman, across the street from my house, phys ed and music -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can go back to it.

MR. SHELLEY: I might save it for you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to stick to the point here. It is not always an option. So, which one of you are right? I mean one day one of you got up and blasted over there, the Minister of Fisheries-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: I cannot say that. I should not have to get up and blow up about this anyway. It is a very sensitive issue for anybody in this Province and for the member and for my parents when they saw their sons and daughters leaving this Province. I was not (inaudible): Yes, go to Alberta, boy, good for you. I was saying: Too bad you have to go. That is what I was saying to them, Mr, Chairman. There should be an alternative.

I will tell the member, since he has me going on this, another little story. Maybe he will disagree with this one. I just spoke to a gentleman last week from Placentia, who just came back to the Placentia area for the third time, because he heard two years ago that the smelter was announced. This is his third trip back. The first time that he came back, he pretty well sold off everything that he had. They had smelter parties all over Argentia. That is what they called them, smelter parties. They are all coming back: Come back. Bring back your sons, your daughters and your wife. Sell your home and come back to Argentia. This is his third time back, Mr. Chairman. He has gotten himself so far in the hole now - his job is not secure where he was before because he quit to come home, home to Argentia for all the jobs. This is his third time. He said: I am coming back now, boy, because I have nothing left. I hope that something is going to happen. He said: What is going to happen with the smelter? I said: I do not know? Nobody seems to know where it is going.

You talk about pie in the sky announcements, Mr. Chairman, and false hopes for people! Deal with a Newfoundlander and Labradorian up straight and he will deal with you; not to give them false hopes and go on and on about the great dreams.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The Government House Leader is big enough to carry around false hope. That is for sure. The only false hope here is the Government House Leader.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, just a few comments on the Executive Council portion of the Budget.

Just in looking through the Budget and through our committee meetings and so on, we have had a number of questions. We have to question parts of the Executive Council area as well. There are many questions that this side of the House have, many questions on the Budget, which is why we are going to use up all the time that we are allotted in the House to debate the Budget itself.

Mr. Chairman, one of the questions that I have to ask - and while it is not directly related to Executive Council it is to a certain degree, because it is money that is coming out of the provincial budget, Mr. Chairman, and that is money that we have put into companies under the EDGE program.

You look at one example, the Call Centre, that we heard just a week and a half ago was closing its doors. Mr. Chairman, it is ridiculous! The employees of the Call Centre were doing a fantastic job, and that was admitted by members of this House on both sides, admitted by the Premier, admitted by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; that the employees themselves were doing a fantastic job. Yet, as of this morning, on a call-in radio show, one of the employees said: They still have no idea when they are going to receive the two weeks and two days pay they are owed.

Mr. Chairman, this raises a lot of alarms and raises a lot of questions. These employees were dedicated. Some of those employees left good jobs because they thought the job at the Call Centre was a better job, a long standing job. They were guaranteed this job for five years, they were led to believe, and now they are stuck eight months later not knowing where their last cheque is.

These people have mortgages to pay, they have bills to pay, they have children to feed, they have families and they cannot afford to go without this money. Moreover, they cannot afford to go without their employment.

This money that we are putting into these EDGE companies, this new call centre - the government now is looking at putting $1,000,000 into a new call centre, a call centre that is being operated by one of the partners in the original call centre that just closed its doors. Government saw fit to put $1,000,000 into this new call centre.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, HRDC, Human Resources and Development Canada, are holding back their funding for this new call centre pending the review, the audit. Yet government sees fit to pass out this money, pass it out, Mr. Chairman, because they feel it is a good project. Yet they are not sure what the outcome of this audit by HRDC is.

Mr. Chairman, it is probably a good project, it is probably a safe investment, it might be secure, and that raises another question: Why the money put into the first call centre was just given as a forgivable loan. There was no security taken on the equipment, the machinery that was purchased, Mr. Chairman, no guarantees to the people of this Province, the stakeholders, the people who owned the money that was invested; no guarantees at all, no security on the machinery. Is there security on the machinery in the second call centre where we are investing money? That is a question that has yet to be answered, Mr. Chairman.

What we are wondering here really is: After the money is put into the second call centre, if HRDC find reason not put their investment into the second call centre, where does that leave the investors, the people of the Province, the taxpayers?

Mr. Chairman, this very same government thought that investing money in Bre-X was safe and we all saw what happened to the money that they invested in Bre-X. It was not a safe investment at all. The taxpayers of this Province trusted this government with their money and they invested it in Bre-X. So we can see the planning and forethought that is put into investing the people's money, of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, there are companies in this Province with a long-standing tradition of service, of creating employment, of creating economies in small communities, even in larger urban centres, that would love to have government funding. In fact, some of them apply for government funding but are turned down. Now these companies have provided employment and a base for our economy for decades and decades, yet when they go to government for funding, government turn these companies down. Yet we are willing to invest money in a company where we do not know a lot about the company's background. Some of the companies are, in fact, brand new companies.

Take Abbacom, as an example. We are willing to invest the people's money in new companies, foreign companies coming into this Province to set up and we do not know what their track record is like. We have no idea, with some of them, what their track record is like. Yet our very own companies who are asking for help, who are asking for government assistance, are turned down.

I had a call from a company representative in Central Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, just this morning, and he was talking about the call centre getting $800,000 and then one of the partners of that very same call centre getting $1 million to start a second call centre. He went to government only a couple of years ago to start up a brand new company in Central Newfoundland where there is no other such company in that area, to create employment in that area. He went to two or three departments throughout the provincial government, he even went to ACOA and was turned down for funding. That is a local company, Mr. Chairman, a company that is in business but wanted to expand into a new business, with a new idea to create employment. He was turned down and he was wondering why our government is willing to give foreign companies, foreigners coming in to start up a new business in this Province, money, when he could not access money and he lives in Newfoundland and has lived here all his life, is creating employment here and wanted to expand. He has an existing company here, a company that feeds our economy.

I could not tell him why he was turned down. I told him I would look into it for him. But now, while it has not yet been confirmed, he finds out that a competitor of his, in St. John's, is being given funding for the exact, same purpose for which he was turned down just a couple of years ago on his application for funding. So this was even of greater concern to him because he had applied for funding and now, only a couple of years later, government is willing to put the funding for which he was turned down, into a competitor's operation that will create competition for him; a company already creating employment in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, we have to look at: Are there any other areas where government can benefit these companies, companies with a long-standing tradition of solid service, solid employment and a solid base for our economy here in this Province? What can we do to help these companies? The answer is fairly clear: It is something that our Party has advocated strongly since the payroll tax was brought in, and that is to eliminate the payroll tax or at least make strong cuts to the payroll tax. Now we saw some small cuts to the payroll tax in this year's Budget, but it is not enough.

You look at the money that is invested into EDGE companies, you look at the success rate, the employment that is generated as a result of EDGE companies, and you look at the long-standing companies that have kept this economy in our Province going for years, decades, some of them in excess of a century, and what can we do to reward these companies? Remove the payroll tax or at least make strong cuts to the payroll tax, Mr. Chairman.

If you look at the money that we are investing in EDGE companies and the employment that is created there, if you work it out and eliminate the payroll tax and look at the employment that would be generated as a result of eliminating the payroll tax, for our own local companies as opposed to just eliminating it for foreign companies coming in to set up, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that we would create a heck of a lot of employment.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, over and above the benefits of creating employment by eliminating the payroll tax, if you look at the equalization payments and the claw-backs to the equalization payments based on the fact that we are collecting a payroll tax because it does affect our equalization payments as well - if we were to eliminate the payroll tax, not only would we create employment, Mr. Chairman, but we would eliminate some of the claw back due to equalization payments because of the fact that we are collecting payroll tax.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave. Just a couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman, to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just a couple of minutes, thank you.

So, Mr. Chairman, if we were to eliminate the payroll tax the benefits are two-fold; we would create employment here and we reward the companies with a long standing tradition of service and employment; the companies that are driving the economy in this Province. An added bonus, we will save on the claw back on our equalization payments because every dollar we collect on payroll tax, Mr. Chairman, affects the equalization payments. We are clawed back on equalization payments based on the taxes that we collect, the revenue that we collect in this Province.

So, Mr. Chairman, maybe we can look at eliminating or making further deductions to the payroll tax. The Canadian Independent Business Association are advocating the same thing, Mr. Chairman. The Board of Trade are advocating the same thing. If you look at local companies in this Province, Mr. Chairman, they are all saying the same thing, that the payroll tax is a regressive tax. It is a damaging tax. It is harmful to employment. It is a regressive tax, Mr. Chairman. Instead of putting all of this money into EDGE companies - and I am not saying that that is totally bad, Mr. Chairman, but we are rewarding brand new companies just starting up when we should be rewarding the long standing companies, helping to keep them in business.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at companies - the Halley Premises, one example, who have been around for years and years and years. Just last week, Mr. Chairman, they were given notice that they are shutting their doors. I don't know if the payroll tax would have saved them but it would have helped to allow them to keep their doors open; a company that has been around this Province for decades, creating employment here for decades, driving the economy in downtown St. John's, and they are closing their doors while we are giving millions of dollars to foreign companies to come in on a gamble that they may survive or they may not survive. Why don't we help the companies that are here existing and have been here for decades? Why don't we help them to survive, Mr. Chairman?

Again I advocate that we take stronger cuts to the payroll tax with the focus on eliminating the payroll tax, Mr. Chairman, because that would be of benefit to every company, every employer, in this Province.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for extending my time.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to take a few minutes to join in this debate on the Executive Council, Mr. Chairman, and a number of points as pointed out in the Budget debate, in the Estimates debate and the debate here in the House of Assembly.

I listened with some interest, Mr. Chairman, to the debate and the exchange between the Member for Baie Verte and the Member for Terra Nova, and it seemed to me that there was really a point that had been overlooked by the hon. Member for Terra Nova, when he responded to some of the issues that were being raised by the Member for Baie Verte.

The exchange centred around whether or not in Newfoundland and Labrador, young people today ought to have a sense of hope and optimism for the future as it relates to their job placement and as it relates to the establishment of a new career. As the Member for Baie Verte has indicated, it is obviously important that there be at all times a sense of hope and optimism. I am sure that he has expressed this view when speaking to graduates, as I understand he did just several nights ago in his home town of Baie Verte.

Mr. Chairman, what is missing, and what was missing in my opinion from the comments made by the Member for Terra Nova, is: What is being done to ensure that that hope and that optimism be instilled in our young people to ensure that at first, at least, their choice would be that they stay in this Province? It is fine to say that Canada is an option. It is fine to say that Western Ontario or Western Canada and Central Canada, whether it be the Province of Alberta or Ontario, are options for our young people to consider. It is fine to say that. However, it is a denial of their rights I say, Mr. Chairman, when young people do not even consider as an option that right to stay in their native Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What we are seeing today - and it is a sad commentary as to how young people must choose and decide what their next move is - what we are seeing today, sadly, is young people not even considering staying in our Province, not even viewing as an option the possibility of staying in this Province. What is sadly happening today, particularly in our rural communities, is that young people are saying: There is no choice and they quickly overlook and bypass the possibility of staying in their native Province and are looking at other regions of this country as a destination.

I agree with the Member for Terra Nova that there is nothing wrong with that and to seek other alternatives is, in fact, something that ought to be recommended. However, the component that is missing is: Why is it that a viable option to our young people is first and foremost that they give valid and due consideration to the option of staying, number one, in their community, or at least, number two, within their Province. That is an element, unfortunately, which I think has been overlooked in the debate and in the discussion, and that is where really, we must focus our attention. We must really concentrate and encourage young people to work hard and we must work with them I say, Mr. Chairman, in trying to find and seek out other options and alternatives so that at least that option is a possibility.

How is that done? It is done by the types of, I guess, optimism and outlook which is essential at graduations, in post-secondary programs, in families, in communities, to instill in our young people at least the possibility that an option exists for them to stay within their community or their Province. Again, how is it done? By sending the right message to begin with, by sending a message, Mr. Chairman, that there is at least some hope in staying here. These young people need help and that help, Mr. Chairman, must come from not only the family, not only the community, not only the educational institution, but the government as well.

We have been elected to lead. We have been elected to provide opportunity to the young people of this Province. And when we see so many of our young people not taking into account that possibility of staying in our Province, the only conclusion that I can come to, Mr. Chairman, is that this government has failed in its mandate, this government has failed in its leadership role in providing young people the option of staying, first and foremost, in their native Province.

When that option does not exist, that in and of itself, Mr. Chairman, is an admission of failure by those very people who have been elected to lead, to show example and to provide opportunity to young people in our Province. It is an admission of guilt. It speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman. The statistics, the trends, the choices of young people speak for themselves in terms of how effective or ineffective a particular government has been or has not been in dealing with the real plight and concerns of our young people.

Mr. Chairman, that is what must come first. It must take a special effort by government, by the various ministries, by each and every member of this House, but particularly government members, to find solutions and to address the very serious problems that are being faced by our young people today. We see at graduation time this problem, perhaps, being highlighted because we only have to speak to graduates. As my colleague from Baie Verte indicated, this is the message that is being conveyed to him on a regular basis, I am sure in most communities within his own district where there are, unfortunately, no options available to young people who, first and foremost, want to stay in Baie Verte and want to stay in a variety of communities in our Province.

We all have experiences, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, of our own family members who too have found it necessary to leave. I have a son who, by necessity, is outside the Province. I have a second who, my prediction is before this summer is completed, will also be gone. It would not surprise me if a third son, by the end of this summer is gone. The only reason why perhaps the fourth son is not gone is that he is only in Grade VI.

It is a real problem, Mr. Chairman. We are going to be a society of senior citizens, a society of grandparents, whose children and grandchildren have found it necessary to leave their roots, to leave the Province that they love and the families that they want to be with. It is, once again, a sad commentary on a government of a province that just simply allows this to happen without a serious attack, without an aggressive attack, to deal head on with ways to keep our young people, our children, our most natural resource within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an absolute shame, Mr. Chairman, that we sit idly by and allow this trend, this trickling of a resource, to continue to the point that our communities are rendered essentially as places where people no longer (a) can live and (b) want to live.

We saw an example in this week's telegram: The community of Long Harbour, a full story and several articles in yesterday's edition of the telegram, a once thriving community, built on industry, built on hope, built on, to a certain extent, prosperity, now a community without industry, a community, in fact, without a school. Its school has been lost. The school has been shut down. Young people are now bused for forty minutes to a school some twenty-five or thirty miles away.

Mr. Chairman, this is what rural Newfoundland has come to and it is an issue which, in my view, simply is not being dealt with aggressively and effectively and ought to be number one. The issue which ought to be the priority issue of this government has to be: What do we do about the continuing trend, the relentless trend of the losing and leaving of our young people? The issue is simply not being addressed. Although some interesting comments were made by the Member for Terra Nova, that very fundamental element of the equation, in my view, was missing.

Again, it is incumbent upon all of us, but in particular government, in particular its ministers, in particular those members in leadership positions, to focus its attention on: How do we deal with this very real problem?

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other issues that I would like to refer to, and they deal in particular with some points that were raise last week in debate. In fact it was, I think, a resolution from the Member for Labrador West, I believe, a resolution that dealt with the Youth Internship Program.

This is perhaps just one small example of what I have been talking about for the last few minutes. Here we see a program which has proven to be most successful, has proven to be enjoyed and appreciated by each and every student who has been a participant in this program throughout a variety of high schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We see the diminishing of a program, the weakening of a program at a time when all resources ought to be applied to ensure that this program continues.

This Youth Internship Program - in fact I am attending two high schools in my district, both Holy Heart of Mary High and Brother Rice High School, that have dinners on two different nights this week, where employers throughout this City, who have been active and regular participants in the Youth Internship Program, are being thanked by the two schools, being thanked by, in one case, over 100 students who participated in this program.

We see a program, such an essential, important and successful program being watered down simply because funding, primarily from federal resources, is not being provided to the level that it once was, Mr. Chairman. This is just a small example. In the minds of these students who participated, certainly not a small example, a very significant example. But in the overall scheme of things, an example to show that what was successful and what worked and what young people appreciated is no longer at the level where it once was.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just a few minutes to conclude if I may, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The resolution that was put forward last week by the Member for Labrador West is essential. It is a critical example as to how we must do whatever we can in our power, rather than just pay lip service. I wonder what steps were taken?

I ask the Member for Labrador West: In response to the unanimous passing of what was really a very important and fundamental resolution, have steps been taken either by the Minister of Education, by the Premier, by the member himself, by cabinet, by this government, to put its position forward and make strong representative to their federal colleagues in Ottawa to ensure that adequate funding is (a) maintained, and (b) increased.

We had a relatively short discussion during the resolution last Wednesday, short because we all agreed. But what happened afterwards? What was the follow-up, I say, Mr. Chairman? Just a small example, because this kind of program creates interest among students, creates interest among employers, and may very well deal with the problem that I had spoken about earlier, by creating a relationship between a employer and a student, to allow a student to, perhaps upon graduation, maintain that relationship and quite possibly maintain a position and a job within this community, thereby allowing this young person to stay within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My question, in conclusion, to members opposite: What was the follow-up? Was it done in a genuine industrious way to keep the program alive and well, to ensure the stability of the program, which in the long term will ensure, perhaps to a greater degree than what we see now, the preservation of allowing our young people to stay in the communities that they want to remain in?

Upon that small point, Mr. Chairman, but hopefully important point, I will now ask my colleague for Conception Bay South to continue in this debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take a few minutes again this afternoon to touch on some various points. I listened, while out this afternoon making a phone call, to the comments being made about young people having to move out off the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to find work. I guess the question arises: What has this government done, if indeed anything, to keep these young people at home, to create employment for them. Where? What has it done? I am afraid that we probably will get a very disappointing answer.

When we see our young people having to go out of this Province to find work, or we hear answers today such as the ones we heard from the Minister of Education concerning young people and student loans, then I guess it is appalling that we have young people in this Province who are coming out of university with the debts they are having.

It is appalling that we have done nothing, and we are now going to watch this legislation go through the House of Commons, probably without any representation being made at all. The rhetoric today was the usual, spin doctors. We certainly cannot run this Province, we certainly cannot run our education system, and we certainly cannot have young people coming out of university today owing the amounts of money they are coming out owing. It is appalling.

I know of one young lady today who is in Calgary who went to university on scholarships, but scholarships alone were not enough. She found herself having to go out and borrow money to complete her education. She did that and she worked hard, and I would say she is very proud of what she has done. She certainly has a right to be proud of what she has done, but ended up in Calgary, and this is very sad. A person who certainly tried within this Province to find work, could not find it, and with, I might add, a fairly fair size debt. What is going to happen? How many years is it going to take for this young lady to pay off what she owes?

The Member for Terra Nova is not the only person, I say, in this House who has family who no longer live in this Province but who work outside this Province because there is nothing here for them to do. You know, that would affect any parent. As my colleague for St. John's East said, we are getting an older generation, and the majority of our young people are moving on to such places as Ontario, British Columbia, Calgary, Edmonton. They are looking for work.

That, of course, is very sad. We should not be forcing our young people, and some of our best young people, out of this Province because we are doing absolutely nothing. As I said, we heard all the rhetoric today, the same song and dance, and I guess it is like a record. After awhile you get sick of listening to the same rhetoric and the same garbage, because that is what it is, pure and simple, garbage. Because our young people should not have to go away, but they do, and that should not be allowed, and this government should not be proud of itself because of that. As I said, today the answers to the questions to the Minister of Education were ranked with some of the most arrogant answers you could probably hear in this House. Again, that is ridiculous.

Mr. Chairman, we can only hope that something is done, and something is done very soon, to rectify this situation. The private member's motion that was presented last Wednesday here in the House... I had the opportunity, I guess in another life, to be part of that school program. For many years in my own business, at no expense to me except to look after them when they were around my place of business, every year for quite a few years I took two of those students, brought them into my business, gave them a job to do what was in their capabilities to do. Each year we would be approached by the teacher from Queen E., because we lived in that area, to take on a couple of students and, as I said, every year we did it. We would have gladly continued to do that because it gave some of our young people the opportunity to get out to work in private industry, to understand private industry, and to do work; and hopefully at the end of the day it could only lead to help the people who came out on this program and who worked in various businesses around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is very sad, and we wonder sometimes - and I agree with my colleague from St. John's East - what was done? Was there any follow-up to last Wednesday? I wrote the federal minister personally, and I expressed my displeasure with the cancellation of this program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I feel as much a man as the Minister of Fisheries does, and at least I have them in my own pocket and not in the pockets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When they come out, whatever is in them is my own and nobody else's, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well, I would. I know how I live my life; I cannot comment for you. So, when mine come out, whatever is in them belongs to me.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well, the next time you get up, don't put your hands in yours, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I hope he is listening; he might learn something this afternoon.

Again, Mr. Chairman, those are some points I would like to make. I hope, Member for Labrador West, after last Wednesday there was certainly something done -

MR. J. BYRNE: The `resolutor'?

MR. FRENCH: By the `resolutor'. I am hoping that this motion was not just presented here and allowed to die here. I hope that somebody took the time to take his motion and do something with it.

As I said, I was contacted by one of the school boards and I certainly wrote a letter of support on behalf of the board and on behalf of some school principals who expressed their displeasure as to what was going to happen when this program ended.

I can only hope that something was certainly done with the resolution by the Member for Labrador West because it was a good resolution. There was no objection on either side of this House for people to support it, for people to make sure we try to do something to have programs such as that reinstated.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. I think my time is probably just about up. I will sit down and concede to my colleague for St. John's West.

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

MS. S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.

I have been out of the House of Assembly for four or five days but I noticed, when glancing over Hansard, there was a question asked by my colleague for St. John's East last week, and it referred to the French language salary, $247,000 to provide language training and translation services for departments, Crown corporations and agencies to better serve the population.

The question I would like to ask today is: How many teachers are involved in this salary amount? I do not know if there is anybody -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Translation services. Teachers' salaries and translation services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

Alright, I will rephrase that. How many people are involved in this salary amount? How many people receive salaries out of the $247,000?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Sheila?

MS S. OSBORNE: Pardon?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: It is on page 29, section 3.1.07. How many people receive salaries for French translation and/or -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: French lessons?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MS S. OSBORNE: 3.1.07, page 29.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I wore that today in honour of the Liberals finally answering our request and not making the poorest children of the Province pay for services for the poor.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I did.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the amount?

MS S. OSBORNE: $247,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: I cannot find that (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Well, it is on page 29 in Estimates.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, okay. Do you think you could provide an answer for that tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't see why not.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. What I would like to know is, how many teachers or translators are involved, and how many -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) go up and answer her question. Find out how many people are involved in (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay.

MS S. OSBORNE: - and how many people are being serviced by the translation/French lessons?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. I want my questions recorded so he will know which questions to bring back answers to: How many teachers/translators are involved? How many people -

MR. TULK: Ask that (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: It is going on record. How many people are the recipients of the translation/tutoring, okay? Because under this heading alone for French lessons there is a total expenditure of $486,000 to the taxpayers of this Province, so it does pose a little bit of a concern as to how many people are -

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could get the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, the Member for Bellevue, over on this side of the House where he belongs so that he can look the hon. lady right in the face, and write down and get the answers to the questions that she is asking. Get over here, boy, and do your job.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.

I trust that the answers to these questions will be forthcoming tomorrow because, as I said, it is a major concern that $486,000 would be expended on French lessons. If the money is going to serve the population of this Province, that is wonderful, but I would like to have a breakdown on that.

Now this morning I attended hearings of a joint committee on child custody and access. I did not hear about the hearings until late this morning and I had a meeting so I only had an opportunity to hear a couple of people presenting, but it appears that a common thread of concern is the lack of a Child Advocate here in the Province.

One of the presenters, after she had presented her brief, was being questioned and a Senator said, in reference to some problems that children were having: Well, wouldn't your Child Advocate take care of that? But we don't have a Child Advocate. A Child Advocate was recommended by the special Committee on Children's Interests, a committee of both sides of this House of Assembly, and that report was presented to the House of Assembly in June, 1996. That is almost two years ago.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: That's a lot of air points.

Anyway, back to the report from the special Committee on Children's Interests. That report was presented to this House in June, 1996. That is almost two years ago. That is breaking the record of the Inkpen report which sat around for eighteen months. It was agreed by both sides of the House of Assembly that it was necessary to have a Child Advocate. When we are talking about a Child Advocate we are talking about somebody to advocate on behalf of children.

MR. TULK: Sheila, what was that number again, 3.1.02? Seriously now.

MS S. OSBORNE: 3.1.07, page 29.

MR. TULK: 3.1.07, French Language.

MS S. OSBORNE: French Language, yes.

MR. TULK: Okay.

MS S. OSBORNE: See the Salaries, $247,000?

MR. TULK: Yes, I got that.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, now the question is, a breakdown of how many people, translators/teachers, are being paid? How many people are receiving the services of a translator/teacher?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Crown corporation.

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, yes. Just a breakdown, because my colleague from St. John's East asked that question last week some time.

MR. TULK: And nobody answered him. Somebody (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Anyway, back to the Child Advocate now. It was agreed by people on both sides of this House that we should have a Child Advocate. The people we are talking about are children who are victims or products of broken marriages. These children are the ones that we are going to be educating and hoping to send out - not out of this Province - hoping that by the time these children are educated we will have a change of government and there will be a few more jobs here.

Anyway, we are behind. The Senator was really amazed that we did not have a Child Advocate. We are behind the rest of the provinces in Canada. I think there are probably one or two more of the Atlantic Provinces that does not have a Child Advocate, but we are behind in this. We have children whose parents are having a marriage split up, they are fighting over the children. Nobody is responding on behalf of the children as to who we should be taking care of. The parents are using the children as pawns, and the children are trying to please both the mother and the father.

Whereas, if you had an Advocate to speak on their behalf, then their concerns could be addressed. They could be taken care of because really they are the ones that suffer most when a marriage breaks down. That is not only for in a marriage breakdown but there are children who are victims of sexual abuse and there isn't an Advocate on their behalf. Once again, this has been brought to the House of Assembly several times.

Anyway, I would like to move from that now to the claw back. I said a few words about the claw back in response to the ministerial statement. I would like to say a few more words about it. I am extremely pleased that the poorest children of this Province will not be suffering as a result of a claw back to a national child benefit which was theirs in the first place. The Opposition has been advocates since the Budget was announced. Since it was announced federally and provincially that their money would be clawed-back, this Opposition has been advocating that the poorest children in the Province not contribute to programs that were to become available, to not only them but to children of low income families as well. There were job incentives that were to be put in place as a result of the money that was being clawed-back. We are glad to see that the children of social assistance families will not be contributing to job incentives of people who are in low income.

The minister said that this was after a lot of soul searching but once again, I would like to reiterate that I think it was as the result of a lot of browbeating. This was a pretty inhumane policy, to have the children of social assistance families pay for benefits. The benefits are very commendable: Family resource centres; job incentives; day care; and advocates on behalf of youth. It is really commendable, and from day one I commended these programs. I was very glad to see that they would be happening. As a matter-of-fact there should be more of them.

My concern was that the people who lived in rural communities would be contributing to programs that they would not be able to take advantage of. As the minister said, it was soul searching and bringing them back to Liberal values. I am glad to see that some Progressive Conservative influence was put into play there.

The other thing: I am just wondering if we are in the middle of doing a poll or just about do a poll, or maybe there is a poll going to be done in July around the time that the people receive their cheques, when we will be having a `feel good' population out there and the polls will swing the way the government is hoping that they will swing. Maybe it is an omen of the forthcoming major poll that will happen in the Province sometime the fall, when all the people will go to the polls. But I hope that -

MR. TULK: Now listen, Sheila, any questions you have (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: I will read them in Hansard.

MR. TULK: No, you take them now.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. TULK: No leave. It creates too much work for me. No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If he thinks that creates work, I will give him plenty of work now, lots of questions to jot down.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ask him how come he did such a flip-flop today?

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I mean I am delighted to see a flip-flop today, in fact. I am delighted to see it.

My colleague from St. John's West has been on this. She said they plagiarized. It is a point that I made today in the House on the statement. Read the first page or two of the statement. I mean what the federal policy, what they are doing here, nothing related to the specific statement. But I was delighted to hear -

MR. J. BYRNE: Twaddle.

MR. SULLIVAN: Twiddle, twaddle, whatever you call it, Twiddledum, whatever it is. There are names for it. People characterize it better than I can do, I am sure.

I must say, we have to tip our hats to the Member for St. John's West in keeping up a persistent fight to have that changed, that claw back -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The reason they did not do it before is that the Premier was anxiously waiting to get the results of his little poll audit to find out what the people were thinking. When he found what the people were thinking, no doubt about it, he made no bones about it. Because we wanted to make sure what we do is not against the wind. We want to look out the door - the premier get's up in the morning and looks out the door and he says: What way is the wind blowing today. Then he takes a look and he says: I will go this way today. If he does not know it, if there is no wind there, he will do a poll and then he will find out which way the wind is going to blow tomorrow. Then he will go out again and he will go in that direction tomorrow. I mean, one thing about the Premier - I have got to give him credit - he is flexible, I can tell you, he is very flexible. I can tell you his basic principle's have a great degree of flexibly, I might add.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell the member, a year ago we were heading the poles. Four per cent - the first time since 1989 we were heading the poles.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were leader then.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can say to the member, I have just refuted his statement by a poll paid part for by this government, that you were behind in the polls last May, paid for in part by this government, I might add.

MR. J. BYRNE: Loyola, ask him where they were in the polls before the last election as compared to now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Anyway, John Diefenbaker said what polls are for.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that. Tell us that.

MR. SULLIVAN: John Diefenbaker said: You should not be speaking from you seat, you should stand and get recognized if you want to ask questions. John Diefenbaker said there is a parliamentary process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what he said.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is history - The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is not very well versed in parliament and the history of our great political figures; John George Diefenbaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: When? You can read that, I say to the member. The member wants to start a little discussion here. I would say you should do what the Government House Leader said you should do. You should get back like a good little servant of this public House, serving the Premier. Get back and do what the former parliamentary assistant did so well, I would say, get back there. I hope you get the same fate in the next election as the former person who did such a good job at what the Premier wanted him to do. Yes. He did such a good job, the people in the District of Eagle River, now Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, said: You did too good a job for the premier, you forgot to do a job for us!

Is that why the same member, working out of the Premier's Office, went out and twisted the arms of school boards, tried to use his influence as an assistant in the Premier's Office here, to change the result in what are supposed to be independent boards that we supported here? Yes. The minister (inaudible) we supported the autonomy of boards to make decisions, not the twisting by politicians.

I can tell the minister, I have in my possession a copy of a minute of a board in Labrador that said, before they decided last year what schools were closing, before they blackened it out of the copy that went public, I got a copy that said: We are waiting to hear back from Mr. Marshall, the man responsible for Labrador. When they circulated the official copy a week later the secretary said: We forgot to delete that part.

I have a copy of the prior one, and one after it, that shows there is political influence exerted right from the Premier's Office and so on, and right from politicians, in decisions of the school boards in the Province. I have it on my file. I treasure it. I might get it laminated, I would say.

There was another example today by my colleague for Waterford Valley about the political interference in our education system that we all said we should give autonomy to out there. That is it.

What schools will remain open? Is it that what schools will remain open now will be determined by the political stripe of the member who represents the district? Is that what we are resorting to? Absolutely. The Member for Humber East said politicians will be determining what schools will open in this Province. I say to the Member for Humber East, the sandbagger, the person who got sandbagged by the Premier, that is a downright shame. In fact, I would recommend he run back to his seat and stand and apologize to the people of this Province to say school boards should be manipulated by politicians of the day. That is wrong, I disagree with that.

The Member for Humber East, he stated it here in the House, we

all could hear him here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, you mean that MHAs are actually out there (inaudible)? That is terrible.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is terrible. I can tell you, I consider people who are given autonomy - that is correct. People who are given autonomy and make a decision in their best interest. Let me tell you, people were elected by the people to go on a school board and they should respect their wishes. If they do not like them there, when we have school board elections again, go out and kick them out. There should not be interference, I would say, no interference on this particular issue, where it should go. It should be a responsibility of the elected school boards who were discharged with that under the act we passed here in the House, and there should not be political interference. If we want to change that, if we want to control where they go, we should change the act. There is nothing wrong, Mr. Chairman -

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Penney): The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Just simply, will Hansard for the whole of today's debate be available tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

MR. TULK: Will it be available tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Hold on now, hold on. I am not sure if it is printed. Is it available in print form tomorrow?

CHAIR: The Chair will check and will inform the hon. Government House Leader within a few minutes.

MR. TULK: Well, if it is, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the Hansard - I am sure when it was, but I would to have the Hansard from 4:30 p.m. until 4:45 p.m., so I can just make sure I have the hon. gentleman correct in what he is saying.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking to the point of order. The Chair has not ruled on the point of order.

CHAIR: There is no point of order, but the Chair will undertake to get the answer for the hon. Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell the hon. Government House Leader again, Mr. Chairman, in case he is not clear, when we pass an education act -

MR. TULK: One of your colleagues made that mistake before, telling me again.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell him again for his benefit.

MR. TULK: Good, go ahead.

MR. SULLIVAN: When we pass an education act, we pass an act here in this Legislature, and give a school board autonomy to be able to make decisions, we should not interfere with the autonomy that we give to those boards. That is what I say to the minister.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Would he also want to make the same statements about health boards in the Province?

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. TULK: Health boards in the Province?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will make -

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will make the same statement about health boards when the minister stops appointing and you elect health boards in the Province. The health boards in this Province are appointed by the minister of the day, and while the minister appoints the minister is responsible. The day -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Education has less autonomy according to the act on elected school boards than -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am talking about the parliamentary assistant. If he wants -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) in any way, shape or form. Is that right?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is not what I said.

MR. TULK: Yes, you did.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say it. No, not at all.

Mr. Chairman, if he wants to speak, let him stand. Otherwise, I would like to finish what I am saying. The minister asked me, should the same apply to health boards? I said to him: Yes, when you elect your health boards. The health boards are appointed, education boards are elected. When you (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: You've got yourself -

CHAIR: Order, please!

First of all, the hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Second, to respond to the question of the Government House Leader, Hansard will be available tomorrow, if that is what the question was. If there is any portion of the transcript that is required before tomorrow, it will be available only in tape form.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Tomorrow? It will be available at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, by leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will answer the question of the Government House Leader. He asked: Should the same apply to health boards? I said: When you give someone authority to elect and make a decision -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am getting to it, Minister. Be patient, let me answer your questions one at a time. He doesn't want to hear the answers.

When you give the health boards the same basic authority and elect the members, they should be treated the same as elected school boards - elected health boards. Until you are willing to do that, right now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I finish, let me finish. Don't get excited, I say to the minister. No interference? Sure, the minister is responsible to introduce legislation to change those authorities. Do you call that interference? Sure, the minister has certain powers - I am well aware of the minister's powers - but you do not have a parliamentary assistant out of the Premier's Office going out arm-twisting and trying to influence boards to make a different decision than they have already made.

Right now I do not consider the health boards of this Province to have the same autonomy as education boards for the simple reason that the minister hand-picks who she wants, or who he wants in the former minister, to go on those boards. The former Health Minister knows quite well they are selected, they are appointed there, they do not have the same legislative authority as education boards. That is a fact there, it is in legislation there, and therefore they should not have the same responsibilities.

Furthermore, the minister is even more liable and responsible for the action of boards in health than they are in education for the simple reason they have not given the same powers to those two boards. I have said from day one, I say to the minister, health boards in this Province should be elected. If there is a transition period -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you want to ask questions, you stand and be recognized and ask questions.

I say that we should hold the minister to the highest degree, because if she appoints it, if you have the right to appoint, the right to hire, the right to fire, then you have the right to be responsible for what these people you hire and appoint do. That is where accountability comes in here. You can twist it whatever way you like out there. Just because a person who is working as a member, a parliamentary assistant in the Premier's Office, tries to influence decisions out there, and tries to get around it by trying to play with words, as they so commonly do, he is guilty as charged, I would say to the member. That is shameful, that the public would elect a board -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He is responding. He is even being bothered by it now. It even affects him. He must feel guilty, he is trying to create a defence. You do not need a defence when you are not guilty. You do not need one. The truth speaks for itself, I say to the minister. We do not need a defence, and he is trying to create one. You are guilty as charged, I say to the member. Accept it. Plead guilty and get a lighter sentence, I say to the parliamentary assistant, and you might survive political defeat in the next election. The other guy in your place who sat there would not plead guilty, so the people in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair give him a death sentence. They sentenced him to death. They threw him out of this Legislature and let an independent - drove him out of there, hundreds and hundreds of votes, out of there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sometimes. I tell him, it was not by the people of my district, not yet anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) close Baltimore High School (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They are not going to close it; it is the only high school up there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you something about my district. They went to Renews several years ago about closing the school, and they fought for it, and I stood on the floor of that gymnasium and said: Some of my kids drive all the way to Ferryland. I have no problem with my son going to Ferryland instead going close to home here to a school, because by consolidating we can provide economies in providing equipment and that. I stood at a public meeting and said that. What happened? Renews school closed! I will say here again, there are only two other schools -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: There are only two other schools in this whole area open. I said the reason they are not closed is because government would not allocate the capital funding to close them and built on to the one that is there, and I support that too. That is what I said. That is what I know in my area. You cannot economize any more in my area without capital expenditure and we support it, the people support it, and I can tell you that people will take it every single time. In my district, I can speak for it, they will take the choice of a better opportunity for education than having to go to a school close to their home. They will sacrifice that to have better opportunities for their kids, and I commend them for it. I think it is very honourable and very noble of them and very conscience of what is best for their children in the area.

I can tell you, I did not go in and twist arms and play politics with the issue. I stood up and said what I felt is best for education, that is why. Petty, silly decisions, that is what is wrong with the education system in our Province. There is too much political interference in it. We should let the best decisions be made by people who are (inaudible) to do the job, and not getting on with that nonsense, I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what is wrong with our system today. Stand up. So what if they throw you out in the next election. If you are right in what you are doing, you think it is right - throw you out the next time. I don't care if they kick me out if I do what is right. I will do it whether I am here the next time or whether I am not. That is right, I don't care.

MR. TULK: You ended up (inaudible) the top half of the leadership, he's the bottom half.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not come in here to run around and jump on every little political bandwagon here and there. That is not why I came in here. That is right; I came in to serve the best interest of the district and you should, too, of all the people in your district. That is what is wrong with him.

Now when he crawls back on his hands and knees to the Premier's office this evening, he will say: Premier, I am sorry for getting into this trouble. I did not really mean to do it. Forgive me, I should not have said I am the parliamentary assistant to the Premier; I am calling from the Premier's Office. I should not have said that. I should have said: I am the Member for Bellevue and I did not mean to implicate the Premier in this issue.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ask him, will he walk the Premier's dog?

MR. SULLIVAN: The last member in that job used to walk the Premier's dog. I want to ask him: Do you walk the Premier's dog? Do you? That is what I would like to know. Does he walk the Premier's dog? That is a good one, because the same fate may come to you that came to the last member who walked the Premier's dog and he was not prepared to walk him any more. That is what he said, and what happened? He walked him right out of this Legislature, I can tell him.

Better still, not only did he not walk the dog any more, he went down South to get a suntan, an election on the go, and he comes home after the election is started, and he had a colour that was darker than the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and in Southern Labrador in the dead of winter knocked on the door and said: Will you vote for me?

What a contrast, the audacity. Now the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is trying to get him re-elected. He has done everything he can to get him re-elected. My, oh my, oh my. Can you imagine now to have that person come back? He went through about four shades of colour in about two weeks there, and the biggest colour we saw was on polling day, February 22, when they said: Independent member declared elected in Labrador. Basically that is when he turned a different colour, a colour we have only seen once, and I am sure if he runs again we will see it again.

With that I adjourn debate, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn. I just want to inform hon. members that tomorrow, again, we will be proceeding with the debate on the three heads. I guess we will close for supper at 5:00 p.m.?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pardon?

MR. TULK: Do you want to shut down for supper at 5:00 p.m. and come back at 6:00 p.m.? Or shut down at 6:00 p.m. and come back at 7:00 p.m.?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Shut down at 6:00 p.m. and come back at 7:00 p.m. Okay.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.