The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly twenty students from Improving Your Odd's at Holyrood with their instructor's Charlie Cheeseman and Sheila Fitzpatrick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Energy, both, I guess I'll direct this question to the Government House Leader. This morning on CBC's radio morning show the Premier admitted that the Province was close to a deal on an agreement with Hydro Quebec to develop the Lower Churchill and he said that he had no doubt the few outstanding issues could have been worked out in reading the transcript there. However, the Premier also clearly tried to create the impression, in the public, that government broke off those talks because Hydro Quebec wanted Newfoundland to pass legislation extending the Upper Churchill contract for an additional twenty-five years after the year 2016 which would reduce the price of Upper Churchill power from 3 mils to 2 mils. I'd like to ask the Government House Leader, does he really expect the House to believe that explanation?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, as we know, is on his way back from a speaking engagement in Moncton and my friend the Minister of Energy is in Gander, I believe, speaking to the Chamber of Commerce today in a previously arranged meeting. I didn't hear the interview with the Premier, I confess I may have slept in a little this morning perhaps because I was here later last night then was my friend the Leader of the Opposition. His House Leader was here with us until the end and I don't have a transcript so I don't want to get into that kind of discussion. What I can say, from my own knowledge as a member of the ministry, is that that was the Hydro Quebec position. That they wanted us to extend the preferential position. I would expect the House and the public to believe it because it happens to be the truth.

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

MR. SIMMS: Well I'd say to the Government House Leader, if he's going to depend on that - Mr. Speaker, let me quote for the Government House Leader what the Premier said, I'll quote for him, right from the - I have the transcript, he can look at that to if he wishes but here's what he said: what was not possible was that the Government of Newfoundland would ever ask the Legislature - that is go to the House - to reaffirm the existing stranglehold that Quebec has on the Upper Churchill contract. We would never have agreed to extend that stranglehold for a further twenty-five years, from 2016 to 2041, and have the power price reduced to 2 mils, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Now, I want to ask the Government House Leader: Isn't he aware that under the original Upper Churchill contract Quebec Hydro, in fact, already had the right, on its own, to extend the contract for an additional twenty-five years, and isn't it also true that the extension of the contract was totally at the option of Hydro Quebec, and that Hydro Quebec wouldn't need legislation from this Province in order to exercise the option?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the full transcript so I am not going to get into the business of debating a selected phrase.

The position, under the contract, as I understand it, is that Quebec Hydro has the right to continue to receive power at certain rates. What it does not have the right to, after 2016, the 40th anniversary of the start date, is continued protection from action by the Legislature using our power as a Legislature. That is conveyed in the collateral documents, if memory serves me. I haven't looked at them for some time, but it is contained in the collateral documents. This government is not prepared to extend that protection. The Premier has made that very clear. He is speaking for the Ministry, and we are absolutely firm on that. We are not prepared to extend the protection from 2016 on. That was one of the points on which the discussions with Hydro Quebec foundered well after, I should say, the Cabinet paper which hon. members opposite have chosen to make public and came by by whatever means.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know what the minister was talking about at the end. I asked him to confirm what the Premier had said this morning on CBC Radio, and the impression that he was trying to create was that the government, in fact, as I just said to him in the question, was going to be asked to pass legislation, that is why they broke off the contract. Well that isn't true.

The reality is, and I am sure the minister is aware - maybe he can confirm that the government should be aware, at least - that Hydro Quebec had already exercised its option to extend the Upper Churchill contract for that additional twenty-five years, until 2041, at that 2 mil price. That is a fact. And would he tell us, assuming he understands that's a fact, would he tell us, does he know when that option was extended? Could he tell us when the option was extended, and isn't it a fact that the option was extended, in fact, before the government even began development talks on the Lower Churchill a couple of years back?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have no doubt, inadvertently is confusing two very separate points.

One is the right to extend the contract to receive power. The second is the right to extend the portions of the contract that deal with the protection from the exercise of the power of the Legislature. The first, in my understanding, was extended in 1976, when hon. members opposite formed the government; that's when the option -

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked when the option was extended; I am giving him my understanding of it. If he knows better than I do because he was either in the Cabinet or trying to get in the Cabinet at that time, it was in 1976 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That's right, at that stage I was in the House, in Opposition but the government of the day made no announcement of the matter or didn't deal with the matter in any way. The hon. gentleman at that stage, I apologize to him, he wasn't in the House, he was carrying bags for a member of the House and, in due course, came into the House, but that is the answer to his question.

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

MR. ROBERTS: The other question, Mr. Speaker - the hon. gentleman has obviously had his unpleasant pills today and they have had their effect. Now, let me, Mr. Speaker, answer a serious question, seriously, if the hon. gentleman will permit.

The other issue is the question of the forbearance by the Legislature from using our powers to exercise our rights to tax, and other rights. This government has not extended that, they have not been extended. This government, Mr. Speaker, will not agree to come to the House to extend them, that was one of the rocks upon which the negotiations foundered back in 1992.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, here we have more fancy footwork, more tricks, more verbal trickery from the minister responsible for the operation of the government in the House of Assembly. What the Premier was talking about or implied, at least, was that we would not have agreed to extend the stranglehold for a further twenty-five years and have the power price reduced to 2 mils, that's what he was talking about. My question to the Government House Leader is: Isn't that already done? Hasn't that option already been extended? Can he answer that question?

MS. VERGE: Thanks to the Smallwood government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the bully tactics of my friend, the Member for Ferryland, who obviously would like to be a lawyer and hasn't made it, let me simply say that question was asked before, it has been answered before, I have answered it and I am not going to get into a debate on words of - I didn't hear the Premier's interview this morning, I am not going to get into debate on selective editing, I am very familiar with the hon. gentleman's technique of selective editing of transcripts. Now, what I have given is a very clear and straightforward exposition of the position as I understand it. If the hon. gentleman doesn't agree with that I regret it. I can only say to him, bring forward the arguments and the facts and we will deal with them. What I have told him is the situation as I understand it and I have said it as clearly as I can understand.

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

MR. SIMMS: Whether he understands the transcript, or my reading excerpts of the transcript, let me ask him the question very simply and maybe he can answer the question so we will all understand it. Under the Upper Churchill contract there already was an arrangement and an agreement, and Hydro Quebec had an option to extend the agreement, that covered the reduction in the mil rate from 3 mils down to 2 mils. That option had already been extended by the province of Quebec. Can the minister confirm that is accurate? That is all I am asking. How are they exercised?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my understanding, as I said two or three minutes ago, is that whatever option Hydro Quebec - not the Government of Quebec - Hydro Quebec possessed in its contract with CF(L)Co, a contract which never came before this Legislature in any form or at any time, or before the government, I might add, that whatever option it had was extended in 1976 at the time the original - the hon. gentleman is shaking his head. He and I may have to agree to disagree on this, but I am telling him what I understand to be the legal position, and with respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take my legal advice from the hon. gentleman.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me come back and say that the option was extended, in my understanding, in 1976. The option does not cover the point the Premier was making, one of the points upon which the entire transaction foundered which was the request of Hydro Quebec to which certain of our advisers at the time, in late 1991, had indeed recommended acceptance, suggested in the request by Hydro Quebec that its preferential position with respect to the use of the powers in this Legislature be continued after 2016. I have said before and I will say again, we are not going to extend that, we are not going to ask the House to extend it, we are not going to extend it, end of answer.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting Minister of Education, who I understand is the Minister of Health.

In the 1994 Budget estimates tabled by the Minister of Finance government eliminated $10 million-worth of student assistance for post-secondary students. The provincial grants were not just an incentive, Mr. Speaker, but a basic necessity to enable many students to get a post-secondary education. In this age, Mr. Speaker, when a post-secondary education is an absolute necessity, how can the government justify making access to post-secondary education more difficult for thousands of students and, in fact, impossible for many of them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

[Commotion in the gallery].

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would tell the visitors to the galleries that certain things are not permitted; among them is clapping or making noise in the galleries. It is difficult at times, as you know, to keep order in the House, let alone the public galleries as well. If people don't abide by the rules then we clear the galleries. So if you want to sit and listen you are welcome to do so, but not to make noise. Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The current system of student assistance has some problems with it. Two of the major problems are these. First of all, it puts, we believe, an inordinate strain on the families of particularly medium-income people. It puts an inordinate strain on them if they have students going to university, because they are required to contribute certain amounts to the cost of the education of the students. That is one problem. We have been told for quite some time that that puts an inordinate strain on some families, and consequently, there are families who cannot allow their sons and daughters to go to university because of this requirement. The second problem is that because of a lack of change for quite a number of years, costs have gone up and not enough money was being put in the hands of the students. So these were two very serious problems with the current system.

We do not have an extra $20 million or $30 million to throw into the grant program. We have been through some very difficult years and we simply do not have that free money. We are trying to make some adjustments and bring in a provincial loan program that would solve those two problems - first of all, not insist that medium-income families be forced to contribute these amounts to the education of the students, and secondly, it would increase the amounts that are available to the students.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are instituting a provincial loan program. That has to be done, Mr. Speaker, in such a way that it doesn't create other problems for the students. We've had some representation and we are now looking at these concerns.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that thousands of students who rely on both Canada student loans and provincial grants to pay for their education will now have to rely entirely on loans. That means that students who now have a debt of $10,000 to $12,000 at the end of a four-year university career will now face a debt burden of $22,000 to $24,000. How can the minister justify forcing students to take on a debt load in excess of $20,000 before they even get their first job? How can he justify putting them in a situation where they would have to spend most of their disposable income for years after graduation just to pay off their university debts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the draft proposal that has been put forward in terms of the new provincial student loan program we have indicated certain remission levels, and these remission levels have been stated. Again, there are perhaps some problems with the kinds of remission levels that were in that original draft paper.

We still have time to work out these problems, and there are some problems with that remission proposal. We still have time to work out changes to the remission schedule in consultation with the student leadership. Mr. Speaker, we intend to try to solve these problems over the next month or so.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, it is the children of the cash-strapped and often unemployed parents who have to access student grants, and the whole educational strategy of this government is to create an elitist educational system for the well-to-do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, why is this government excluding young people from the opportunity to get a post-secondary education when you should be doing the exact opposite? When will the government put in place incentives to make it possible for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian to have access to a quality post-secondary education?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, a lot of what the hon. gentleman said is useless rhetoric.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Useless rhetoric, and nothing more.

Mr. Speaker, we have embarked on a program to make university courses more available all around this Province, to lessen the cost to students and parents around this Province. We have embarked on a very ambitious program to do that, against the wishes of members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, this system, when it is finalized, and when the adjustments have been made, will make it possible for many more students to access a university or a post-secondary education in this Province, make it possible for many more of them who now cannot do it to access post-secondary education. That is one of the prime aims of changing the system at this point in time.

We cannot sit with the status quo. We have been sitting with the status quo too long. Since we have come in we have about tripled the amount of money into scholarships. We have made changes to the program to try to make more money available, and we cannot sit on the status quo. We must improve the system to correct the defects.

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

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

I have never heard such a cop-out in my life. Since this government has come in, university and post-secondary education has increased by over 50 per cent, the cost of living has increased by over 50 per cent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: And university tuition and student aid has not increased.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister this question. We all know, in this House that banks, as business corporations, are not as concerned as governments are supposed to be about the accessibility to post-secondary education. We also know that banks are very, very wary about lending money to people who have no assets or no collateral, and who have no credit history whatsoever. So is the government going to pay the bank to share the risk, allowing the bank to have a say in who is eligible for student aid, and thus eliminating some students entirely from accessing opportunity to post-secondary education.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the thrust of the hon. gentleman's question. His tone of voice indicated a confrontational attitude, but I agree entirely with the thrust of his question. We must ensure that there is accessibility. We must ensure that these things do not interfere with a student's ability to get funding to go to university, and I am sure we can work these things out.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: How will government deal with students who are refused loans by the bank because of credit history? How will government deal with students who are refused loans at the bank because they cannot find co-signers? Can the minister answer that question?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. We have said that over the next month or so we will consult with the student leadership and we will solve these problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: If I were now to give an answer and indicate we've already got our minds made up, the hon. member will come back and say: what about the consultation? You can't have it both ways. We'll solve that problem, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister another question, consultation? Why didn't you consult with the student aid or the student leaders who sat on the student aid revisory committee who were calling for a meeting of that committee for some eighteen months? Why did you meet with them after the fact?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister another question, how will government benefit from a generation of students and graduates who are so burdened with that, that they will not be able to contribute totally to the economy of this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'll repeat. Our intention is to make more money available to the students who need the money. To make more money available to the students who need the money. Now, that did not require a great deal of intellectual activity to come to that conclusion. That the students - because the costs have been going up - they need access to more money, that's self-evident. We've received many indications that the stress on the parents was becoming unbearable. So, Mr. Speaker, we have proposed in this draft student aid proposal a method of overcoming these difficulties. I said that there may be other difficulties created and the hon. gentleman has pointed out one of them, one of the very serious difficulties that may be created. I say to him again, if I were to give an answer to that today then that will be negating the whole process that we intend to go through. I would also say to him that if there were mistakes in the past, do we have to continue to make these same mistakes? Think about that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance concerning student aid. Will the minister finally admit that once adjustments for this year are made that the government intends to in fact take $15 million per year out of student grants and that his new program for student loan's and the increased borrowing requirements will create hardships for all students and in fact discriminate against rural students and lower income students?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. The answer to most of those questions is, no. The intent is to improve the system to make availability much more widespread in this Province in terms of students attending university -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having trouble hearing the hon. minister.

MR. BAKER: - and our record over the last couple of years speaks for that, Mr. Speaker. We're making university education more accessible in more areas of this Province to make it easier to obtain a university or a post-secondary education. We are instituting a student loan program with the objective to make more money available. Mr. Speaker, we'll work out the kinks in this system in the next month or so.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Minister of Finance and the government listen to the students who say that the borrowing requirements are going to deter students from entering university or post-secondary education in the first place and that they can't handle the debt load. Why doesn't the minister sit down with students, scrap this program and start from scratch and craft with the students a program that's going to guarantee access to all post-secondary education without the excessive debt loads that are set down here?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the obvious solution, I suppose, is to find $30 or $40 extra million to put into the grant program. That's the easy solution but, Mr. Speaker, it's a solution we do not have at our disposal at this point in time. We simply do not have the money. Within these constraints we have to try to find a way to provide the students with the money they need and, Mr. Speaker, we fully intend to do that.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I noticed that in the 1994 budget estimates an additional $1.2 million has been allocated to the department for older worker programs. I wonder could the minister inform the House, will this program be for a new early retirement program for fishermen and plant workers over the age of fifty-five years?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a budgetary amount there for a program for older worker adjustment, because there are already commitments that the provincial government has ongoing with respect to older workers who have displaced from all sectors. The kind of thing that happened with M.A. Powell and the closure of the Coca-Cola plant and so on. This is a program that is in place for older workers right across the country. There are federal-provincial agreements in place.

That is not the heading. I'm not looking at it right now. I don't believe that is the heading under which there is money in the Budget for a continuation of our present commitments as well to fishermen and plant workers who've retired under the retirement component of NCARP. There is an expectation that there would also be a retirement component of the program that is put in place after May 15 to deal with the fisheries adjustment for the next few years.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't answer the question. The federal present Minister of Fisheries like his predecessors wanted to lower the age for retirement in the fishing industry from fifty-five to fifty. The Province has opposed that in the past. I want to ask the minister, have you changed your mind? Will we now see a retirement program come into effect as of May 15 where the Province will participate for people between the ages of fifty and fifty-five years of age?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry; I apologize if I missed the real intent of the question originally. There is no question that in the discussions that have been ongoing and in the consultation that we have been involved with through our officials and otherwise, in terms of trying to come to grips with what will be put in place as a single program after May 15 - because there are currently three different programs operating for people who are displaced in the fishery - the intent is to have a single program operate for everybody in the Province and all of Atlantic Canada on a consistent basis.

One of the things again that was - there was some interest expressed by the federal government of a willingness on their part again to probably offer retirement at an earlier age than fifty-five. The provincial government again sent the message to them quite clearly that we are interested in participating at the same age levels for retirement in the fishery as are available for every other sector for people in Newfoundland and Labrador. So we have indicated to them clearly that unless and until the federal government is willing to put in place a retirement package for loggers, construction workers, and everybody else at age fifty, there will be no involvement financially by the provincial government at a different age for the fishery than for any other sector.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you. I will try to combine two questions in my final supplementary for the minister. Can the minister inform the House if people who have turned fifty-five, say over the last year or so, will they be included in the new program? Those who have reached fifty-five since the original program came into effect. Will those who have turned fifty-five since now be brought into the early retirement program? Could the minister inform the House if there has been a community or group of communities identified by the provincial and federal governments for a pilot project, such as has been identified in New Brunswick, where some income support program might be piloted? Has there been any discussion to that effect?

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

MR. GRIMES: On the first matter, Mr. Speaker - or maybe I will take the second one first. I'm not aware of any particular discussion looking at pilot projects targeting certain communities. I don't know if that is proceeding at any official level or not, but it is certainly nothing that I've been involved in or apprised of. Maybe if you could - again, the first matter you were talking about was...?

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

MR. GRIMES: Okay, yes, at fifty-five. In the original program those people who turned fifty-five, who were fifty-five when the program was implemented, were eligible for retirement. In the May 15 continuation that will occur the concept, as I understand it, is that people who are fifty-five years of age at that time will again be considered eligible for retirement. I'm not sure if there will be any other adjustment to that but that is the position as I understand it. That would be readily agreed to by the provincial government. Any other variation of that I'm sure we might entertain discussion on, but I couldn't give a definitive answer.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Why is the minister displaying tunnel vision, figuratively and literally, by proposing that the government build a four-lane divided superhighway right through the middle of Pasadena, and submerge it in an eighteen-foot deep trench? Why is the minister ignoring recommendations of three separate professional engineering firms, strong preference of the Pasadena town council, and a recent petition of 80 per cent of Pasadena voters? Why is the minister proposing to reverse a decision of his own administration three years ago, all of which called for the highway, the new highway to bypass Pasadena. Will the minister table his calculations?

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

MR. EFFORD: First I have to remember all the questions the hon. member just asked me and that's pretty difficult.

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

MR. EFFORD: That's hard to do. Let me give a short answer and say, Mr. Speaker, it's the right thing to do, and let me explain why it is the right thing to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Now, I sat and listened to your question, if you want the answer, you listen or I will sit down.

First of all, the proposed southern bypass around Pasadena will add on 2.9 kilometres to the distance coming around Pasadena. People in Pasadena realize this as a negative thing towards tourism and the business community in Pasadena. Secondly, the terrain, and the grade on the highway up there will not permit the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, or is not practical to build that type of highway. People in Corner Brook already are against the high grades going around Corner Brook, and another major factor in not putting through the highway where the proposed route was suggested to go, is $10 million.

Now we have a major financial problem in this Province, so much so that we pay out almost as much or just about as much in interest on debt retirement on our loans as we spend in the whole education budget of this Province, and it is time for somebody in this Province to make some sensible decisions that are going to affect the future of the people of this Province and not be irresponsible like the former government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the speaker's gallery, Mayor Lewis Rose and Ted Feltham from Glovertown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to table the answers to questions from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the air ambulance service that were recently asked and given to my department. I table the information for the hon. leader.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: I wonder if the Government House Leader could help us? Yesterday in the House, in debate, I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy if he could tell us the cost of the advertising campaign? He was going to have it for us today before the House closed. He is gone now - is there anyone else who could get that information for us?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the information, nor do I have any word from the minister. I know he is in Gander. I mentioned that earlier in the House. I can only say I will raise the question with him, and since we are presumably going to be adjourning this afternoon, perhaps he can provide the information to my friend during the adjournment. I will raise that with the minister and take it from there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for Grand Bank wants to stay tomorrow. He may be here alone, in that case, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 134 Newfoundlanders from all around the Province, Mr. Speaker, who are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They come from Grand Falls-Windsor, Botwood, Port Saunders, Brig Bay, Burin Bay Arm, and other areas of the Province, Mr. Speaker, and are amongst the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders who oppose the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard an awful lot in debate about the merits of private enterprise versus public enterprise. Well, it is interesting to note the most recent figures, as published in Atlantic Canada, of the most profitable corporations in Atlantic Canada, that one of the most profitable corporations is, believe it or not, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. In fact, Mr. Speaker, of the rankings of these major corporations, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro comes as number five, the fifth most profitable corporation in the Atlantic Provinces. In fact, the revenue and the net income of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on revenues of $369 million is $31 million, or 8.6 per cent. That is the figure that has been published in comparison to other corporations. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia Power Corporation, which the government likes to talk about, had revenues of $46 million on $673, which is 6.8 per cent, so Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is more profitable than the private corporation in Nova Scotia, and those returns are now accruing to the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that when members opposite throw around these things, and `Oh, you all know that private enterprise is more efficient than public corporations,' that is just rhetoric that comes from the other side and is not fact. It is not fact when one compares Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's performance to that of Nova Scotia Power, which is the most direct comparison that we have here in the Atlantic Provinces. That is only one of the many, many reasons. That is only using their arguments against them - their arguments don't hold up.

There are more important arguments for the maintenance of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a private corporation. The petitioners here say that the production of electricity is an essential service to the people of the Province and should be controlled by the people. I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, if I had my way, instead of thinking about privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro we would be trying to find a way of nationalizing Newfoundland Light and Power so that we would have one corporation controlled by the people that looked after this essential service. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a monopoly that has the exclusive right to produce and distribute power to the people, and it should be owned and controlled by the people. That would be my preference if we were in a position to do that, and not be talking about giving away this substantial, profitable corporation to private shareholders, most of whom are outside the Province.

That is what these petitioners here want, and as has been seen by the independent public opinion poll released yesterday, just a fraction shy of 80 per cent of the people are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, it's time the government listened to the people and not take the kind of position that the Member for St. George's took last night, in which he said that if 85 per cent of the people opposed to it then he might consider changing his mind. That is what he said, Mr. Speaker, if there was a vast majority, and he said in excess of 80 per cent, then he might consider changing his mind.

Mr. Speaker, if that's the idea of democracy that members opposite have, including the Premier, then it's time that we got rid of them and replaced them with people who believe in democracy and believe in the will of the people. That, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: In excess of eighty, he is not limiting it to 85 per cent. Maybe he needs 98 per cent in order for him to consider changing his mind.

Mr. Speaker, he thinks he was elected dictator of St. George's, just as the Premier thinks that he was elected dictator of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for members opposite to start listening to the people, and responding to the people, and not try to spend the people's money to convince them against their will, which is what they are now planning to do.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to support this petition, and if they don't support it, to get up and say why.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, Wendy and Billy Dixon, Jack and Ian Law, who are council members from Morecambe, England.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take my time allotted on petitions to the House to talk about a few of the things that the hon. the Member for St. John's East just talked about, and try to relate it to the students in the gallery, and their concerns, the legitimate concerns that they have, as people of this Province, the right to know the true facts.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East said that Hydro is a very profitable company that is returning millions of dollars to taxpayers and the people of this Province. Let me tell you where the money is going, the profits that Newfoundland Hydro now is making - $147 million a year is going out in interest payments to the financiers of Japan, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and wherever else - the world bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: In other words, $147 million is not profit? Well, where do they get it if it's not profit? Make no wonder the Province of Ontario is in the trouble it is; it is being run by an NDP leader. Where and when has Hydro returned any monies to the taxpayers of this Province except for the 1 per cent guarantee on the debt, which is $10 million a year? Other than that there has been no money returned to the government or the taxpayers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of government owning and operating private business is utter nonsense. As my hon. friend just said, the Minister of Social Services, that ended in Russia last year. It is nonsense for government to be operating any business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: The proof, Mr. Speaker, of government operating businesses is the debt that we carry today. We carry a debt today in the vicinity of $6.7 billion, on which we pay out $585 million a year in interest payments alone, almost $200 million a year in debt retirement. In other words, $700 million goes out on our loan that we carry. Now, that's not profit, but the money must be collected in to pay out, the same as on the debt on Hydro. You cannot pay out money unless you first collect it in, and if we had the $700 million that we are paying out in interest on debt retirement, there would be no student in this Province looking for an education because there would be money out there to pay for one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I, myself, have a daughter in university and I have a son going this fall, and I am just as concerned as any other individual in this Province about education. Nobody gets an exception there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) grant?

MR. EFFORD: No, I am lucky.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Let me finish. I am lucky; I understand there is a lot of people in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: They would be lucky if we didn't owe the $7 billion that you people put us in debt for seventeen years; they would be lucky if we had that $585 million that we are paying out every year in interest on a debt incurred by you people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) nonsense.

MR. EFFORD: Nonsense? In 1972, when the Liberal government went out of power we owed $800 million. In 1989, when we took over, we owed almost $7 billion, that's not nonsense, that's a lot of money; that's a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. The prime principle of what we are talking about is privatization of companies with which government should not be involved. Should government set policy, should government set direction or should government operate private businesses? Take it one step further. Newfoundland Farm Products, here in Newfoundland, operated by government, losing $5 million a year. Another prime example I referred to a while ago - we have a company in Harbour Grace, Koch Shoe Limited, operated by the private sector employing over 300 people. Do you remember when government tried to bring in a rubber boot factory in this Province and how it all went? You couldn't even sell rubber boots. Government should not be involved in private industry, there are more important things in this Province than the nonsense of getting up and carrying on the business of what could be private companies, and it is time for the hon. member to realize what is important to the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I just want to respond to the petition presented by the Member for St. John's East, and I want to go on record as supporting the petition.

Now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation talks a fine line but he doesn't come completely clean. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker, is number five in the top ten performers in profitability in Atlantic Canada of all companies, coming ahead of NewTel Enterprises and Fortis Incorporated, I say to the minister - number five in Atlantic Canada. Now, the minister talks about Newfoundland Hydro not contributing to the provincial coffers - $10 million in the loan guarantee, $9.5 million from PUITTA and on top of that, as a result of privatization, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will give the New Hydro a $30 million tax break.

Now, I say to the minister, if he were very sincere about helping the students in the galleries today, if he were very sincere, then he would immediately tear up the Hydro privatization bill, so we could have the $10 million plus the $9.5, that is $19.5, we would not give away the $30 million and you would not have to force those students out of post-secondary education in debt, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, in addition to all of that, Mr. Speaker, it has been quite clearly shown in the last forty-eight hours, that 80 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are deadly opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and on Thursday night past, the Premier, in front of all the Province on public television said, that if the public of this Province were clearly opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, he would not proceed with the legislation. Just yesterday, in this House, under questioning from the Leader of the Opposition, when that was put to the Premier, the Premier said: I couldn't care less about public opinion, I am proceeding with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro anyway.

And that's the problem you have ministers like the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who can afford to send his children to school and pay for their education; his children won't come out of university owing $22,000 or $25,000 or $30,000, I say to the minister. They won't be debt-bound for ten, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen years like most of the students in this gallery because their parents can't afford to send them to school; that is the big difference, I say to the minister, and that's what this debate is all about with regard to the changes in student aid.

That's what this debate is all about as it pertains to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The minister and other ministers and the Premier, have been so weak in their performance and so weak in their defence of privatizing Hydro, that all they can do is get up and berate and belittle, question other people's intelligence who are opposed to this deal, Mr. Speaker, and I want to go on record as supporting the Member for St. John's East in the presentation of his petition.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Bonavista South.

It reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer: Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and to hold a referendum to ask the people of this Province their views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is signed by residents of Bonavista South and residents of the district of Trinity North and it contains one hundred signatures.

A few days ago we went to the district of Bonavista South and we offered the people there the chance to come out and voice their opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many did you get?

MR. FITZGERALD: We had about fifty-five people there, I say to the minister. About fifty-five concerned residents came out and voiced their opinion. We had students there, we had retired fishermen there, we had fish plant workers, but, Mr. Speaker, the number is not the issue here. We offered them the consideration of going out and a chance to voice their opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: The members on the opposite side continue to get up and talk about what a wonderful deal this Hydro privatization is, what a wonderful thing it will be for Newfoundland. I ask you, if it is such a wonderful thing, take it out to the people and let the people speak, not do it here, Mr. Speaker, among your own people, where they will knock on the desk and give you a big hoopla because you have the numbers in your back benches. Out in rural Newfoundland, I can assure you that the people when they speak it will be a reflection of what you've heard in the polls that have been put forward on the radio and in other polls that have been done in the past.

We continue to hear when we put on our radios and our televisions, people continue to tell us we have to tighten our belts. It is time to tighten our belts for all the bad decisions that were made in the past. One time we could get away with that, because there weren't a lot of televisions around or a lot of radios, but today people deserve to know. They deserve to know what decisions their politicians are making and they hold their politicians accountable. I can assure you, when people come and make decisions today that are going to affect the livelihoods of their children and their grandchildren, then they should be involved in the decision-making process. They should be involved and they deserve to be offered a forum where they can voice their opinion.

All we are asking the government to do is to go out and consult the people, listen to their views and opinions, and make their decision wisely based on public opinion. We continue to hear people in the House stating that everybody who gets up and speaks against this deal - they call them all kinds of names; they are this, they are that; you shouldn't put government in their hands. I agree that government shouldn't be put in their hands through the decision-making process, but they are entitled to their opinion the same as those hundred people here from my district and from the district of Trinity North who came out, showed up at a meeting, took the petitions out to their community, and got people to voice their opinion against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side, will certainly be voting against the bill and we will be doing everything in our power, as we stated right from the beginning, to defeat this bill if it ever comes to the House floor. Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to offer a few comments with respect to the petition, and maybe I could couch it in this kind of langauge: that there is no question in my mind that if some of the reasons that the members opposite have given continually in this House for being opposed to the privatization of Hydro were true, I would be leading the charge with the petitions. I would be out in the streets circulating petitions if there was one ounce or iota of truth in the charges and allegations that the hon. members of the Opposition have been alleging about this particular transaction.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason why they are against it, because they don't care if it's in the best interest of the Province or not, in my opinion, they think at this point in time that it's popular to be against the privatization of Hydro. It makes them popular, and they are so desperate to be seen to be popular that they want to get in front of this little parade that's there.

Let me just give three examples, if I may, Mr. Speaker, because I'm quite serious and I think members opposite know that, that I'd be the very first one and everybody here - my friend, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - probably both of us would be fighting for who'd be going around with the petition, if these things were true.

The Member for Ferryland and the hon. member just presenting the petition, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South, just talked a little bit again about the taxes and he keeps talking about the PUITTA, the transfer and so on and $9.5 million. It has been explained, Mr. Speaker, at least ten times in this House, that there is no money that comes to the Province through that arrangement, it's a flow-through arrangement. There's no money to the Province now, there will be none in the future. That's been explained a dozen times, but because of the fact that they don't want to hear that - it's been explained - they will not accept the explanation. So they go around talking about the taxes every single time - every point that's been raised has been dealt with on its merits. They refuse to accept the explanation. They have their own in-House expert, the Member for Ferryland, who jumps up and talks about hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. The people on the other side, the hon. members, Mr. Speaker, are willing to take the word of the hon. the Member for Ferryland who has no background or experience whatsoever in anything to do with finance or to do with electrical utilities. He quotes some numbers and they say that must be true. Never mind all the experts, the Member for Ferryland says it - it must be true, so we'll make sure everything else that's been explained is all nonsense, we'll believe the Member for Ferryland.

The Member for Humber East talks about water rights, giving away the water rights, all the lands and all of this. It has been explained in this legislature, at least ten different times, that all that will happen is that the water that goes over the dams and through the turbines now will go over the dams and through the turbines then. It will be no different after the privatization than before. The member's opposite say, oh, no, no, never mind that explanation. We want to believe you're giving something away and we're going to go and tell people you're giving something away. We're going to ask them if you think they're giving something away which is what we're - will you sign a petition? Sure, I'd sign the petition, I tell you, if I thought we were giving anything away. There is nothing being given away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - and that's the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that the group opposite keeps saying. The Member for Humber East - I have to say it one more time, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature - the Member for Humber East deals with the great scheme to try to discredit Premier Wells because, of course, she figures that's the best thing to do - try to blame it all on Premier Wells, try to make it look like he's cooking up some kind of deal; that'll give credibility to people who might not like the government for other reasons. She says that Premier Wells and this government turned down a deal for $14 billion worth of construction, all kinds of billions of dollars to come to the - 24,000 person years of work so that we could give away the public utility to a group of his friends, so he could get appointed to the Supreme Court. Now I've never heard a more ludicrous proposition in my life. She goes around and says, `that's what's happening, so will you sign the petition?' I guess you would sign the petition if you thought there was any truth in that. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been demonstrated to be absolutely no truth associated with any of it. The members opposite, however, because it's seen to be popular to be in Opposition, they jump in front even with the explanations to the contrary, Mr. Speaker. They repeatedly give that wrong information presented as fact and ask people to sign petitions. I tell you, you wouldn't have to get in front of any of the members on this side because this place would be flooded with petitions from all hands, from all members in the House if any of those things presented, as reasons to be against the privatization, were true. They are not true, the privatization of Hydro is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: It will be supported when the time comes and therefore I cannot support the petition.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I challenge the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and I challenge anybody on that side to debate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It now being 3:00 p.m. and being Private Member's Day, I call - I believe we're debating -

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: May I advise the House of two things; first of all I'm told that the Premier's flight has been delayed. I had earlier told the House that he would be in the House this afternoon. It will depend on whether he physically gets to town. Secondly, I want to say to my friend, the Member for Kilbride and other speakers, I am told that His Honour the Governor will attend at approximately 4:45 p.m. or thereabouts to give assent to the two bills. At the end of the debate - my friend, the Member for Kilbride will close the debate, and whoever speaks immediately before him on this side, should take that into account. Now, His Honour will be flexible on it and it is not -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I don't think it is appropriate to keep the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province waiting for fifteen minutes. He will be here at approximately 4:45 p.m. I want to advise the House that we will make sure that my friend, the Member for Kilbride has ample and adequate opportunity to close the debate, as he is entitled to do.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to stand before the House of Assembly to debate and put forward a private member's resolution that deals with the proposed changes in the student loan and student aid program.

Let me say from the onset that it is my role here today to point out to government, ministers and backbenchers, a critique of the proposal that government has put on the table. I was somewhat, I guess, enlightened today, and glad to some degree, that the Minister of Finance said that this was a draft proposal and that it was not a fait accompli. I trust that the minister will live up to his word, and the government will live up to their word -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: - that they will further consult the students and student leaders of the Province and take into consideration the valuable input that they have to offer.

I say also from the onset, to the Member for Eagle River, that he will have ample opportunity to respond to this, and if he will be courteous for one time in this session of the House and give me the opportunity to debate this, and put it forward, I certainly will give him the same opportunity and show the same courtesy.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Fair enough!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, let me read the motion. It says that I presented it on Monday, to be debated here today:

WHEREAS post-secondary education must be accessible to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS it is in the best interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and its economic future to have a skilled and educated population; and

WHEREAS changing economic conditions in Newfoundland and Labrador require at least post-secondary training before the average young person can gain full employment and contribute to our economy;

BE IT RESOLVED that student grants be reinstated at appropriate levels of funding to ensure accessibility to all; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that needs assessment criteria for student grants be updated, and as well take into account the changing demography of the student population by recognizing the special needs of students with dependents; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED students be involved in decision-making that affects their financial status, by ensuring that they are consulted on a regular basis when student aid is being revised.

Mr. Speaker, let me say first and foremost that the concept of student aid is not a new one to this Province. The concept of student aid was introduced in this Province at a time when the people of this Province needed more highly technical skills, needed more advanced education. It was under that a social contract was entered into by the government of the day and by the Premier of the day, Joseph Smallwood. Student aid was introduced so that those who could not afford to come to university, those who had very little, who did not come from affluent economic circumstances, would be provided the opportunity to come to a post-secondary institution and therefore graduate with a post-secondary degree, and move on to contribute in a highly efficient and meaningful way to the provincial economy.

We all can concur, I think, that a more skilled and highly technical work force advances the opportunities, not only of the individuals who are highly skilled and highly educated, but advances the opportunities for society as a whole. It advances the opportunities for each and every one of us as a whole, both now, next year, the next generation, and the generation thereafter.

In this light, I say to members opposite that we should seriously consider the draft proposal put forward by this government. Let us put away bi-partisan politics and look at this proposal for what it exactly is. It is especially important for all of us to be aware of the changes occurring in society and in post-secondary institutions, not only in this Province, but also across the country.

The challenging economic times we live in have driven more people back to university. Students who are older than average, students with dependents, single mothers, these are the types of students who are returning to university, and I am afraid that the proposal before us today does not reflect the needs of those people. Many of the changes that have occurred, or been proposed for student aid both federally and provincially, ignore these realities, I say to members on this side and the members opposite, and that in ignoring these realities, accessibility to post-secondary education in this Province is further reduced.

Let me give you an example that was given to me today by the student leaders of the Newfoundland and Labrador Coalition and the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students. Under the current proposal provided by the government, the amount of assistance being offered is being raised by $30 per week for everybody. A single person with one dependent is entitled to the same amount as a person with three or more dependents. I say to members opposite, how is this a fair assessment? How can the government stand and say that they are going with this new draft proposal and proposed changes to the student aid system, that this is a fair assessment that will open up accessibility to more people in our society? It will not. What is needed here is a more realistic set of criteria that will determine the needs of students by 1994 realities, not by 1974 or 1984 realities.

Subsequently, the government - excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one further point on the assessment criteria. Mr. Baker, stood today and said that in consulting students that these are areas that can be worked out. I say to the minister - I said today, and I didn't get a chance to elaborate but I can now - if the government was so concerned, and so bent on consultation, why have they not listened to student leaders who sit on the Student Aid Advisory Committee, who are members of a ministerial advisory committee? Why did this government refuse the request of students to call a Student Aid Advisory Committee to deal with this issue and many other challenging and serious issues that have faced post-secondary education for the past eighteen months? That's not consultation. Consultation does not begin after the fact. Consultation does not begin when a proposal is presented and it says, here is what is going to be - that is not consultation, that is what you call dictation, I say, Mr. Speaker.

In the 1994 provincial Budget, our government proposed to replace an all grants program with an all loans program. What does that mean essentially? What does that mean to each and every one of us? Away from the hysteria, in terms of real, financial dollars, what does it mean?

This move, from a portion of a grant system to an all loans system, is not new in this country. This move was made by the Province of Nova Scotia last fall, in 1993. The government seems to be modelling that move, as they have done with other legislation from Nova Scotia, in the privatization of Hydro, in the changes to workers' compensation -

MR. GRIMES: That's not true. (Inaudible) in Nova Scotia (inaudible) compensation; they haven't done it.

MR. E. BYRNE: - in changes to the right to refuse work, I believe, in terms of Bill 59.

As of the fall of 1993 the Nova Scotia government created a loan system that was administered by the banks. The banks immediately were involved in determining eligibility as to who would get a student loan and who wouldn't, and in that province, a total of 783 students were refused loans because of poor credit ratings. The banks determined who would get a student loan and who would not.

Subsequently, the government had to guarantee the loans. Many mature students, especially those with dependents, mortgages, who had been in the workforce, or displaced from the workforce for a variety of reasons, and wished to come back and upgrade their skills, found it difficult to meet bank loan criteria. Inevitably, students older than average are less likely to be funded under this system.

I would like to point out to members opposite as well, that in Nova Scotia another serious problem incurred by the banks involvement was the processing of loans outside the Province. Now, while that may not seem such a big deal to members in this House who have not had to go through student aid, it is a big deal in terms of the appeal process, in terms of the turnaround time in processing loans, and in terms of getting the right amount of money and the exact amount of money that individuals require. In Nova Scotia student loans were processed. In Burlington, Ontario there was no 1-800 number established for students to call to speed up the process - there was no appeal process. Students had to wait longer than they normally had to under the old system.

MR. TULK: Longer than they do now, would you say? Seriously, I am asking (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Fogo that the model your government is proposing -

MR. TULK: The one in Ontario, is it longer than the one in Newfoundland? It is terrible in Newfoundland now.

MR. E. BYRNE: It was much longer, I say to the Member for Fogo, in a short answer, but the proposal being put forward by you and your government will turn administration of the student loan program over to the banks, and if you think it is terrible now in terms of getting a student loan administered, you will have seen nothing in terms of getting it administered and turned around if it is turned over to the Royal Trust or CIBC. That is exactly what will take place.

It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that women who are returning to university, post-secondary institutions, often end up paying more for their education than men because they make less, on average, upon graduation. They will end up paying back more because of the increased accumulated interest after graduation. So I say to members opposite, let us learn from the Nova Scotia experience. Why should we proceed down that path when it clearly has not worked? Let us learn from that experience and bring some true assessment criteria and rationale to the new system of student aid being proposed.

Now, what about the role of the banks? What role will the banks play? It is very important for us not to get caught up in this and that, you say this and we say that. We should look at this very, very critically. What role will the banks play under this proposal? It is my belief, personally, that there is no role, none whatsoever for private institutions and banking institutions, they have no role in administering student aid or student loan programs. They have no place in it, in my opinion. Under the current proposal from government, banks will be responsible for the administration of loans. The bank will define credit abuse, will dictate who, and what programs are eligible for loans, and will not guarantee favourable interest rates. Furthermore, there is no room for appeal with the banking institutions. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say today that turning completely the responsibility for student loans over to the banking institutions is completely unacceptable.

Now, let me give some facts to members opposite. If members would like copies of this I can provide it to them. Government has to pay a bank to assume the risk of student loans. Under that system there is a possible need for a co-signer, no guarantee of favourable interest rates, and that means that students could be paying higher flexible interest rates, no fixed interest rates at the time of signing. Banks will require some protection, obviously. In Nova Scotia, which provides the model for this government's proposal, student's credit history is examined. There were 783 Nova Scotia students who were refused loans because of their credit history.

Now, let me tell you what could fool up a student loan for you. I say, as a previous student attending university, there were always three or four of us who lived in an apartment or rented a home. For example, one year the phone happened to be in my name and when I left the phone was still in my name. What happened? Somebody didn't pay the bill. I remember going to a bank after leaving university to get a car loan and right on my credit history - `Ah, your phone was cut. In 1986 you didn't pay your bill.' It was the people I lived with who didn't pay the bill. However, the point should be well taken that something as minor as that could cause a student to be refused student aid if administered by the banks. That is one of the major pitfalls and holes in the proposal by this government. The bank's bottom line - banks become involved, under the proposal that government has made, in determining who is eligible for loans, and need is not the sole requirement.

Now, let me bring you back for just a few moments. I think we all can agree that student aid was a social contract that was entered into on behalf of the students and the parents of this Province, and that the main criteria for student aid was, those who were eligible and those who needed it. If we turn over complete responsibility of the student loan program to the banks, then we abdicate our responsibility as Members of this House to the students of today, to the students of tomorrow and to our sons and daughters of tomorrow.

The bank's bottom line is profit, I say again, not accessibility. If you are refused a loan by a bank, there is no room for appeal, and this has been demonstrated by the Nova Scotian experience - there is no appeal process. Let me ask the Member for Fogo, if you went for a loan at the bank and they said: `Look, we can't give it to you because your debt is a little bit too high, your debt equity ratio doesn't equal,' to whom do you appeal?

DR. KITCHEN: What are you doing debating Nova Scotia?

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Health, I am not debating the Nova Scotian experience and if he would listen and not be at crossword puzzles, he might hear what I am saying. Now, I am giving you some facts. In terms of credit abuse and processing of loans, the processing of loans is not done.

MR. TULK: Do you want me to answer the question?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, to whom do you appeal if the bank turns you down?

MR. TULK: Nobody - but students should be able to appeal.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. TULK: I don't appeal to anybody - but students have to have an appeal, I agree with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I am recognized, am I?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Order, please!

You can't hear the speaker up here.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is quite interesting to hear the Member for Fogo say that students should have an appeal. Well, then, I say to the Member for Fogo, talk to your colleagues, because under the proposal that is being presented by you and your government, there will be no appeal process if the student loan program is administered by the bank - that is a fact. Whether you choose to recognize that reality or not, time will tell.

Mr. Speaker, what about funding levels? Under the current proposal from government - remission; this is a very important issue, the remission of student aid. Remission will only be available after students have borrowed $22,000. Now, in cases where students complete the three-year program at a technical school such as the Marine Institute or Cabot College and are on student aid, the ceiling for remission eliminates all of those students who are in a three-year program, every one of them, from any possibility of having any portion of their loan remitted or forgiven. That, in itself, is discrimination, I say to members opposite and this is something that should be looked at seriously and critically by the Minister of Education, by the Cabinet and by colleagues and backbenchers of the government.

Now, I say to members opposite as well, I implore each and every one of you, and urge each and every one of you, to look at the proposal by your government for what it is. Get beyond the rhetoric and look at it for what it is, look at it critically and stand up for the students in your district, and let's come together to make a better student aid program; that's what we are about here, it is what we should be about here.

In terms of academic requirements, and there is a serious academic requirement, thus far, we have not been given any indication as to what the academic requirements for loans will be. I mean, this could be somewhat problematic in that the government has the potential to impose criteria that discriminates towards students who are unable to complete a full course load for legitimate reasons such as the need to work part-time, the need to care for dependants, the need to leave university due to an illness, so that if the government is imposing academic requirements, that if you are in a four-year program or a five-year program or a three-year program, that you have to finish it in three years, in four years, it does not allow any flexibility for the human condition. It does not allow any flexibility whatsoever to the realities of today that many people are trying to cope with in trying to attain a higher education, so that they can move on and contribute to our economy.

I would like to get into detail about the remission aspect. If the proposed student loan program is implemented, an equitable remission program must be created that is accessible to all, Mr. Speaker. We see that the government proposal does not define whether or not remission will require application by students who qualify, or if it will automatic. Also, students who do not complete their program in a timely fashion are not eligible for loans remission, meaning that the student must graduate within one year of the normal time.

Mr. Speaker, I have much more to say and I will get to do that in closing the debate in twenty minutes, but I would like to conclude by saying this: that as a former student of Memorial, I would not have been able to afford to go to university if it hadn't been for student aid. I came from a large family of seven people with one salary. Student aid was my only hope and it was there for me - and I am thankful every day that it was there for me. I borrowed $20,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: May I just clue up? By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. E. BYRNE: I borrowed $20,000. Forty-one hundred dollars of it was on a deferred grant program which I used to pay off the loan in payments over a period of time until I found employment. I was left with an approximately $16,000 student loan, which I am paying today at $300 a month, and which I will pay for nine-and-a-half years at $300 a month. Upon final payment of that loan I will have paid back $31,300-and-some-odd, on a $16,000 student loan. What will this proposal by government do? Not only will it increase the debt load to students to $20,000 - $25,000, but in paying it back, they will pay back $45,000 to $50,000, Mr. Speaker.

I would say that if I had borrowed under this system, my student loan would have been close to $29,000, and in paying it back, I would have paid back close to $60,000. I don't think that is appropriate, I don't think it is right, and I don't think it is the type of student aid program that was meant to be in place in this Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I am pleased to rise today to speak on this resolution that I must say was quite ably put forward by the Member for Kilbride. I first of all would like to congratulate the students today. I am a former graduate of Memorial, a former member of the Council of the Student Union at Memorial, a former supporter for the President of the Student Union, and quite proud to be a graduate of Memorial.

I am also quite pleased today to be here to speak to this resolution because I think that, for the most part, this is a very solid, well-meaning resolution. I think this is one of the few resolutions we have seen in some time that has been put forward with great dedication and understanding of the issue. I think we should see more of them coming from members opposite. I say at the outset that, for the most part, I would see our being able to support this resolution today without very much change at all.

I want to use the next few minutes to extrapolate on why I, myself have taken that position, because I think the students today who came forward deserve a full and frank explanation of where we are and where we are going with education in this Province.

The fact is that over the last five years since we have taken control of government, we have made significant, progressive moves in education in this Province, for which we have to make absolutely no apologies. We are proud members of this government, who can look back - and we can go to Labrador City, to Gander, to Clarenville, to Burin, to Grand Falls, and we will see the first-year university courses that are offered there now. We have seen some $8 million in capital works put into these facilities, Mr. Speaker, whereby hundreds and hundreds of students are now saving $3,500 a year because they don't have to leave these home communities to be able to get first-year university. That is a solid, meaningful, progressive step that we have taken in tough economic times because we want to make accessibility to education a hallmark of this government, Mr. Speaker - that is one step we have taken towards it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: All people in this Province should know that at this point in time we are spending in the area of $750 million a year on education - the second highest expenditure of all government programs, Mr. Speaker. This year alone, we will spend $746 million, down a few million dollars from last year because, due to declining enrolment, there will be fewer teaching positions - but we are spending $746 million again this year in education. We are maintaining our commitment to education in that way, Mr. Speaker. I think the people of this Province want us to do that, and I, certainly, as one member of this government, want to keep education a top priority of this administration. We have seen, over the last three or four years, significant changes made. In our first year in government, there was a doubling of the new schools budget. Now we've seen some adjustments but we are still seeing $10.7 million in the new school budget for this year.

MR. TULK: More than that, because there was an emergency that we took care of.

MR. DUMARESQUE: An emergency also was taken care of, Mr. Speaker, in my own riding in Red Bay. This last year a brand new school was opened in Red Bay. The year before that, a brand new school opened in St. Lewis, Labrador - significant public expenditures of funds, Mr. Speaker, because they were needed there and we made sure those monies were available; a new state of the art $7 million school in Bonavista, in my hon. colleague's district, Mr. Speaker. We had a disaster in Ramea, not too long ago, as we all remember, and we are very pleased to be able to stand here today and know that the people of Ramea are going to get back a school - a new school, because of our commitment to education in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: We have no apologies at all to make for that, Mr. Speaker. We are also looking at the expansion of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College. That's where I first went when I left L'Anse-au-Clair. I got a scholarship, Mr. Speaker - the son of a fisherman, one of seven in the family, we didn't have the money. I stand here today no different from the Member for Kilbride, we didn't have the money. My sister is there now and I'm sure my other relatives are going to be there in days to come, not because they have the money but because we have a government that's determined to make sure they have accessibility to education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - because we're going to keep building rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to spend the rest of my time today, Mr. Speaker, talking about this particular program and touching on the things that have been brought up by the Member for Kilbride.

Over the last three or four years, all members of this caucus have been vigilant in talking to the Minister of Education about the need for change in the student assistance program. We have been vigilant in saying, Whatever you can do, Mr. Minister, please try to consider the increasing cost of education, the increasing demands that are being put on parents because they cannot support to the same level that they did before; to continue to try to give some kind of additional support to single parents who are up there now in the universities, Mr. Speaker, who need extra funds; to try to up the scholarship so that people can get access to scholarships on their merits, Mr. Speaker, and we have done that. I am very, very pleased to be here today to support this piece of legislation, because we have seen a tripling of the scholarship budget. We have seen that $30-a-week more, now, will go into the student aid program as a result of the changes we are making - $30-a-week more, which, obviously, for thirteen weeks, will amount to another $390.

Mr. Speaker, also, now, the parental contribution is going to be changed. In the past, for instance, in a family of four with an income of $40,000 a year, the parents had to contribute $2,208. Under this new proposal, what are we saying to that family with an income of $40,000? Are we saying you should now put in $2,000 or $1,500 or $1,000 or $500? No. We are saying to that family, we recognize your need; we recognize the demands on your family. You don't have to put in a cent this year towards your child's education.

The family income being $45,000, in the past we were supposed to ask the parents to put in $3,392. We have now asked the parents of that family of four with an income of $45,000, who were supposed to put in $3,392, are you now going to have to put in $3,000 or $2,500 or $2,000 or $1,000? No. We are now saying to that family, we recognize your need; we understand the demands on your family budget. You are now not going to have to put in one cent as a contribution to your child's education.

These are significant, significant moves, Mr. Speaker, and we are very, very pleased to be able to see that extra $30 a week there and that extra burden taken off the family contribution, the parental contribution.

Another very important point in this particular piece of legislation is that a student coming out of university will now have up to twelve months of interest relief. If they do not have that job, if they do not have that ability to repay, they will be given up to twelve months of interest relief. Now, that is different in the federal program. It was changed last year by the previous administration in Ottawa when they said they were going to have interest calculated immediately and they would then be demanding payment immediately. We are now saying to students in this Province, under our program, we are going to give you up to twelve months interest relief, to continue paying that interest for you and allow you to find a job, or be able to come to us with a program, a plan, to address your debt.

Now, there are other aspects of this that I think deserve quite appropriate attention. First, I say to the hon. member, to all members opposite, and to the people in the gallery, there is the process of consultation. You know, it is not this government that created the British parliamentary system and the secrecy associated with budget preparation. The same thing applied when the Member for Grand Bank was previously in Cabinet, as Minister for Career Development and Advanced Studies. We didn't do that. And I have to tell members opposite - and it is no secret, but sometimes these things that we consider to be so obvious, I think, need to be told. I sat listening in this House on Budget day, to aspects of the Budget on which I hadn't had a chance to be properly consulted, because that is the process. What is the point in putting together a Budget if everybody knows what is going to be in it before it is even drawn up? That would be wrong. So we have to go through a process and that process is there.

What is absolutely fundamental to all of this is what the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Premier said today, that this is a proposal that was put forward. The principles are there, they are firm: the commitment of $30-a-week is there; the commitment of a lessening of parental contribution is there; the interest relief is there. These are solid underlying principles upon which this program is based.

However, there is an important caveat. The Minister of Finance said today and the Minister of Education has reiterated to us, as members who were interested, that we are now going to undergo a process with the student advisory committee, with all student organizations in the Province, to make sure that two things in particular are addressed.

The first is the remission level. I believe, and I fully support the people in the Province and the students in the gallery, students everywhere, who have talked to me, who say it is not fair to increase the debt load by 100 per cent on students who are in need, who are now going to be forced to take the full provincial student loan program and the full Canada student loan program. That is not fair. We are saying that and we are admitting that up front. And we are going to change that - it is not going to be there at the end of the day.

We are saying to them that we are in a difficult financial situation - we know that, they know it. They know that we are in a situation where the Federal Government have yet to make the kinds of changes that we want to see put in place. For ten years now, they haven't increased it, not one cent - $105 a week, it is still there. That is wrong. We say that today to the Liberal government in Ottawa the same as we said it six months ago to the Conservative government in Ottawa: Get it done, we need it.

What we are saying here to the students today is that we are now going to undertake the process because it is not a solid, hard and fast formula that is in place now. We are going to see the remission levels adjusted to meet the needs of the individuals concerned. So that there will be a manageable, reasonable debt load that will be associated with coming out of university. There will certainly have to be a change in my opinion from the $22,000 that is being talked about. That will certainly not be there at the end of the day and I certainly look forward to the process that is going to take place.

I believe all students can rest assured that at the end of the day we will have a remission level that is in place, not unlike what is there now, with the deferred grant program. As the hon. the Member for Kilbride said, he used that $4,000 in deferred grant to be able to do a couple of things, as I did. I had the deferred grant, too, just a few years ago, and I used the deferred grant when it came out to either make the payments for the year or so that I was trying to get my job, or to make a lump sum payment on the principal, so that I could reduce the debt immediately.

I'm saying to you today that the remission level, or remission grant, or deferred grant, or whatever name you want to put on it, that will still be there, and in a fashion not unlike, in my view, what we have today in the deferred grant formula. We are going to see that undertaken, and that is the approach and the commitment we make to the students and the organizations who are going to be involved in this. Therefore, we can fully realize that at the end of the day they will have a better debt load to manage as they go to start their futures.

We also want to see the complete review and make sure there is a clear understanding of the relationship with the banks. I know other members will expound on that. I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, and I want to give other members from this side a chance to expound on it.

Before I conclude, I would like to move the following amendment - moved by the Member for Eagle River, and seconded by the Member for Fogo, that the following be deleted: "that student grants be reinstated at appropriate levels", which is in the fourth section, and substitute therefor: `that remission grants be made available at appropriate levels'.

That, Mr. Speaker, I think, is what the students are seeking, that we are going to seek a process to put that in place. Further, by deleting "for student grants" in the fifth section and adding immediately after the word "updated": `on a regular basis'. So it will now read: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that needs assessment criteria be updated on a regular basis' so that students will know there is an ongoing process in place, that some of these changes can be made to reflect the need at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe - and I ask the concurrence of all hon. members of this House - that with the kinds of changes we have suggested to a very solid resolution put forward in a well-meaning and conscientious way by the Member for Kilbride, we can have a program in place that will give more money and less demand on the parents, a greater commitment to interest relief, Mr. Speaker, and a much lesser debt-load, so that we can have something that is manageable in our times for the full commitment to education that we are proud to stand on, on this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the outset, I must say immediately, the amendment throws the whole motion out, as far as I am concerned. The main reason for this motion today is on grants, grants, grants, that is what we are talking about here. The remissions are what you can talk about later, but these students are here to talk about grants and I will go into that and expound on that now.

First of all, the Member for Eagle River was in university probably the same time I was - I know he was, as a matter of fact. It isn't very long ago and that's why I decided to stay in here today and have a few words on this. It isn't such a long time ago that I was a student at Memorial University. The member talks about how proud he can be of his government. Well, I can tell you, up to this point, they say, the great improvements they have done to the education system in this Province - I'm not sure where it came from, but I sort of remember somewhere along in the election about the great university that was going to be built in Central Newfoundland, and all the other great improvements to education; I don't remember those, and I can tell the hon. member, if you are proud of what your government did so far, I can guarantee you one thing, if you eliminate these grants you won't be proud of very much by the time this day is over.

AN HON. MEMBER: A 70 per cent rise in tuition fees since (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, today, before I decided that I would be one of the speakers supporting this motion, it was very clear to me why I wanted to speak on behalf of the motion. It is not such a very long time ago that the hon. colleague who put forward the motion here today, and I, sat in the university and talked about these particular things and how we got through university in tough times. There are members on both sides of the House, as we know, who have gone through the education system during very tough times at the university, when we thought we might have to quit, not for academic reasons alone, through the stress and everything else, but also for the financial aspect.

First of all, I suppose I should give a short background from where I started. I come from a very large family - fairly large, I guess you can say in Newfoundland terms - twelve children, I was the ninth child of twelve, and let me tell you very simply, that if the grant program was not in place at that university when I went to pick up my loan - after the loan aspect I picked up the grant - I would not be here today probably. I can tell you that without any uncertainty whatsoever, and I can tell you, as well, that I can list off more and more people from my own community, especially rural Newfoundland areas, and friends of mine, relatives, and I bet you can name off friends of yours who would not have made it through university without that grant. They would not have made it. And I am willing to bet on another possibility, that if you do take away this grant, you will see an exodus of students from the programs they are in now, you will also see a decrease in the number of students entering post-secondary education systems in this Province, and you will see an exodus of the most valuable resource we have in this Province, that of our young people who have planned to get an education and stay here.

Mr. Speaker, it was some time ago, just after completing university that I had an opportunity to leave and go to the mainland, as we all did, as a matter of fact, I had a job offer there, and the more I thought about it, although the tough economic times were here, I made a decision then and I am sure a lot of students here in this gallery today would like to make the same decision, to try to make it here in their own Province, not to have to go away.

Now, I just mentioned a few minutes ago the stress that is related to making the decision in the first place to go to university. I am talking about especially in the rural communities, when the parents, especially of big families, sit down with their son or daughter after they graduate or are about to graduate from Grade XII; they sit down and decide what their son or daughter is going to do now. It is May month, April month and your father and mother sit down and ask: What are you going to do from now?' It is one of the biggest decisions we make in our lifetime, and up to this point, although some people think it is a small thing, there is the availability of a loan, plus there is the incentive of the grant. If you don't believe that, you are not in the real world. If you don't believe that a grant is an incentive for students to cling on and say, `Okay, I am going to owe so much money, but at least I am getting something given to me' - it is an incentive to make that tough decision, and say, `I want to go to school and do something with myself.'

MR. SIMMS: Exactly.

That's the plain reality of it - forget the political stripe and just think about the human factor of it. I know, because I went through it. I sat down and decided that. I left home when I was seventeen years old because I couldn't afford to go to university at that time. I went to Labrador City where I worked, like many students, and many hon. members, I am sure, shovelling you know what, pouring cement, driving trucks - in Labrador City. I know a lot of students did that. Let's face the reality of it. I waited, and saved a few dollars, and then asked myself: Now, am I going to go through five years of university - that was tough enough as it is, to think about going through five years of university, not sure if you are going to get a job, with the way the economy is these days, I say to all hon. members, that plus the added stress of how much money you are going to owe when it is all over. Is it really worth it? You have to ask yourself that.

Now, I had to make that decision on my own and it wasn't until I was twenty-one years of age, when I had a few dollars pushed away, that I finally got the courage and the guts, and I looked through the system, saw the loan system, saw the grant system, and said, `Okay, I think I can handle it.' It took me a long time to decide that, but what about the eighteen-year-old now coming out of Grade XII, or a family these days - I know they are a little bit smaller than mine was at that time - but with three or four children in a family and maybe just a father working? I know lots of those situations. I am sure a lot of the hon. members know.

Let's take it for reality. Sit down at the kitchen table, and here you have one in Grade XII, one in Grade X, one in Grade IX, and you see them all coming up through and the father is just making it now. I am telling you right now, if there is anybody over there who doesn't believe that the parents are going to sit down and look at the loan system to see how much they can get for their son or daughter - then they are going to look at the grant, but now there is no grant. There is not going to be a grant, and I can tell you with no doubt in my mind that there are going to be many parents of students sit down this fall, when they decide if their children are going to go on and further their education, and say, `Boy, it is just too tough. It is just too much to ask now, and you are going to have to go another route.'

Now, what is the other route going to be? I ask everybody in this House today: what is the other route? Go out and scrape up some labour work somewhere, or make-work projects or something - or go out and leave the Province, forget it, you can't make it here. I tell you, that is a bad signal to be sending to the youth of our Province.

This Premier spoke, time after time, in every election in which I've seen him, about the youth being our main resource in this Province. So where is the incentive? That $30 million? That is a drop in a bucket. I think it's the best investment this Province has ever seen. If there was ever an investment made by this government, up to this point anyway, then that was the best one I have seen. It is an investment in the future. As a matter of fact, in the fax sheets that the students put forward -

Before I go on a little more on that, I would just like to make a couple of comments. I was so glad to see the students get together today and come up and do what they did. Last night they came up, late last night. Some of the students mentioned to me that they didn't think they would get the support. I can tell them that they have support right across this Province - right across this Province - right up into Labrador City, up to the Member for Menihek's district in Labrador City, right across over to the West Coast, the Grenfell College, and right on through St. John's here. You have a lot of support. Stick together, because it brought back a memory to me today when I saw you people out on the steps.

I was in university in 1981, and the hon. the Member for Eagle River was there also, when we had a little bit of trouble down there - I don't know if some of you would remember it, but it was when the sky-walks got put in place. I am not sure of the statistics, and somebody can correct me on this, I think it was the seventh accident that year crossing that street down there, a main thoroughfare going through a university, and it was the seventh accident - I think I am right, I say to the hon. the Member for LaPoile.

After discussing and asking, for a number of months, through the student union at the time - I think Leo Power was then the president of the student union - asking and asking, talking to the government of the day, which was a Progressive Conservative government, they didn't listen, and within twenty minutes of the last accident, which was a fatality, we, as students, closed off that highway. It was the only way we had of speaking up. That was it.

You are doing the same thing here today, so I commend you on organizing yourselves. Don't ever give up, because there are 30,000 students in this Province - the future of the Province. Some of you may be sitting down here in years to come. Who knows? I thought the same thing a few years back, but who knows? The main thing is, I commend you on doing that. And don't forget, your parents are in on this with you. They are people of this Province, they are the people who have to help you through this university, and you should be commended for that.

Now, this is on a couple of the facts you put forward and I must say, you are really well-organized on that. We received these through fax and information, and I'm not sure if all hon. members got these but if you want any, there are copies here. I'll just read this for you. They say: `Grants are an investment in the human resources potential of the Province. The government receives, in return, on this investment, a well-educated and trained population who can pay taxes, create opportunity and provide the human resources required for the economy of the 21st Century.' Now that's what it's all about. You are the people who are going to go out and get the degrees and do the jobs. You're not going to be sitting back and waiting for social assistance to be passed to you, waiting for your ten weeks so you can get unemployment, draining the economy. You are the people who are going to bring this Province into the 21st Century, into computers and technology. That's why it's such a measly sum, I say to the government, it's such a measly sum to take this grant back. There are other ways to cut. When I look around - today I just made a statement on government waste again. There's always government waste, we all know it. I mentioned today about the renovations to the building, $2.3 million is going to be spent on this building this year for renovations.

AN HON. MEMBER: There isn't going to be (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, there you go. I agree with that waste, too, I say to the hon. member. I say to the hon. member, I sit up in an office now - as you know, the Opposition office is probably the worst part of the building. And I can tell you this, I would sit and watch the stucco fall off the ceiling and watch the paint crack off the walls - I would rather see the money go into a student aid program or a student grant program then see that change -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: - any day of the week. It says again, and this is once you graduate: `Graduates burdened by debt will not express their confidence in the economy through consumer spending. Their income will be consumed by taxes, debt payment and basic living expenses. People will not have the ability to take financial risks through investment and business entrepreneurship, given the debt incurred by their post-secondary education.' Now, that's a point - when I read that I said, boy, that's dead on the nail. We're talking about young people who are going to come out with fresh ideas, initiative, who want to go out and start their own businesses. I'm sure there are people now who are close to graduating who want to get out there and say, `I have an idea.' I get calls every day from my district from young people coming in with ideas. For example, the other day, a young person who just graduated last year came in to me from my district, from Westport, and he had a proposal all laid out. He did an engineering degree but now he is trying to get into tourism. He had it all listed out perfectly, everything in the proposal - one of the best proposals I've seen put forward to me since I've been in here - a young person all ready to go, but he would have a little problem if it were five years from now, if this loan system goes through or if these grants are eliminated. He would have a big problem. He wouldn't have the money to back him up. He would be worried about paying off a loan - a loan that would be tremendous; it's going to be triple.

I stand here today - as my colleague, the Member for Kilbride said - as a student still paying off my loan. I still have a loan of just over $16,000 that I'm still paying off - I graduated in 1986 -that's for a nine-and-a-half year term, which is the maximum that it can go now. So these people - by the time you finish, after a five-year program now -

MR. SIMMS: How much is your payment?

MR. SHELLEY: The payment per month is somewhere near $300, about the same as that of my colleague. But what I'm saying to you now is, if the grant is eliminated at this stage - it's up to $30,000 or $35,000 that you'll be paying off in a loan. How long is it going to take for you to get on your feet? to finally jump up and say, `Okay I'm ready to take on the world now. I'm ready to go out and show my entrepreneurship. I have some good ideas that I can use.' You're not - do you know what you're going to be doing for the first five, six or seven years? You'll be sitting back just barely feeding yourself -

AN HON. MEMBER: Slave to a loan.

MR. SHELLEY: - slave to a loan - that's exactly what it is; this young lady we had up here said - and I made a note earlier before she even said it - `Kraft dinner'. I went through university and I'm telling you, I ate more Kraft dinner, and I didn't mind that, knowing that - and you know, I used to go down to get my loan through Student Aid and line up there for hours, you're half- hungry and you're waiting for that little incentive. You know you got your loan and you go down: `Thank God, the grant is in today!' Let me tell you, we bought Kraft dinner in cartons because we had to. Like many of us, we went out and got cartons of Kraft dinner and to think - but we always made it. We toughed through that. But I'm going to tell you, the whole point of all of what I'm saying today is that I was right on the brink, and I'm sure many students were right on the brink, of saying, `Mother, I'm finished. I'm coming home. I don't know what I'll do when I get home, but I'm coming home.' I say to the hon. the Member for Eagle River in all honesty and sincerity, without a political stripe even to think about, I'm very dead serious, because I just went through it. It's in my memory like it was yesterday. I sat there after two or three years and was right on the brink of saying, that's it. I am going back to driving a truck up in Labrador City, I am going pouring cement again, or something, I just cannot do it. Then, of course, you would struggle for another while, and sure enough, when you go down to the student aid office: `Thank God, the grant is in here today and I am alright again for another little while.' You might slip into the Breezeway for a little while but sooner or later you come back again.

MR. WOODFORD: Where?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know - it is some bar on the campus, somebody tells me.

MR. WOODFORD: There's no Kraft dinner in there.

MR. SHELLEY: No Kraft dinner.

But the whole point of it all is that you have to believe, everybody in this hon. House has to believe that if you strip that grant - that grant is only a small word, but it means so much so many students, and I am talking from personal experience.

Some of the facts given on the fax sheets that were read out earlier - I just want to run through them again, because there is -the students got together, sat down and asked, `How is this affecting us?' And the first thing that comes to my mind is the consultation part of it. Now, the Member for Eagle River mentioned earlier the consultation process. I don't think he would know consultation if it smacked him in the face. The Student Advisory Board for eighteen months were waiting for a call from the Minister of Education, he is over in Spain somewhere right now - and he didn't even know he had an advisory board. He called them on the day of the Budget telling them to go and sit in a room over there - don't come over here because it might get rough; stay over there in a locked room somewhere and listen to the Budget.' Now, you tell me, that is consultation! In other words, he said, `Listen (inaudible) my advisory board.' Now, an advisory board, to me, means you advise. I assume that is what it means, an advisory board to the students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, correct me - oh, is that right? Well, I tell the hon. member, if you care about the students in this gallery today, and the other 30,000 across the Province, stand up and vote against what your government is proposing.

He spoke about consultation and the advisory board. The minister had an advisory board and they were locked in a room on the day of the Budget. Now, we are talking about consultation. The truth is he is going to do whatever he is told by the hon. the Premier, just like in the Hydro debate. We won't get into that too much because we are talking about students here today, but in the Hydro debate they were told what to do, how and when to say it. That is exactly what they did. They didn't consult in the Hydro debate either, I tell all hon. members.

Ask a student here, outside the House, or on the telephone, as a lot of you like to do, call them personally on the telephone, phone any of them - I challenge the hon. member to phone one of these students, or anybody in the Province today, and ask: Did anybody call you and ask your opinion as to what we are going to do to your students grants? What would you like to see? What are some proposals? like what the students put together here. They put forward proposals before this government.

If you want to give one good suggestion to this government, with Hydro, with amalgamation, you name it, ATVs, anything, here's one great suggestion - I hate to give you suggestions because you might improve on them - if you want to improve one bit, before you make decisions that are going to affect people, go ask them. You did it when you were in Opposition. You weren't long standing up then and shouting out, `Go ask the people!' But now you wait for the hon. the Premier to make his big judgement and then say, `Whatever you say, Sir, we will do, Sir. Yes, right away, Sir.' Why didn't you go ask the students before you decided you were going to take away their grants and force them out of university, and force them to leave this Province? Why didn't you go ask them? I say to all hon. members over there that you should talk to the students in your district, face to face, sit down and consult with them, and ask them: `How this is going to affect you? How is this going to hurt you?' and they will tell you real quick. Then it will be fine for you to go back to the Premier and say, `This is what the students are saying. This is how they are going to be affected,' and just maybe they will take some proposals, take something from the average student or the average person in this Province and implement it so that this Province will be better off in education in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude, because I know I have only ten or fifteen seconds left. All I can tell you is if this government think they are improving education they are well off track. Adjusting the Course - you are 'way off course.

This government needs to get back and listen to the people who elected them, because let me tell you, they aren't going to forget. You are trying to push this through three years before an election - they won't forget three years from now. Unless you start listening to the people, you won't be so proud of this great red machine. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the next speaker, the amendment moved by the Member for Eagle River and seconded by the Member for Fogo is in order.

The Lieutenant-Governor will be coming in at 4:45 p.m.; therefore, the Member for Kilbride would like to speak beginning at 4:25 p.m. so that he can get in his twenty minutes.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all congratulate the Member for Kilbride as the mover of a private member's resolution. Let me assure him that when 4:25 p.m. comes I will take my place and let him conclude the debate on what has been -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four twenty-one.

MR. TULK: Four twenty-one, well, whenever. I will let the hon. gentleman have lots of time to conclude the debate on what is, as the Member for Eagle River said, a very worthwhile motion. Because it puts in front of us an issue that is near and dear to every person's heart in this Province who either has gone through university or who has had kids go through university.

I'm one of the older guys. I'm the only guy here today who spoke who has to wear glasses. Let me say to the Member for Kilbride that he is perfectly right when he says that there are a lot of people - and it is something that I've said in this Legislature for years - that he is perfectly right to say that there are a lot of people sitting in this Parliament today, who would not have been here without the kinds of grants and free tuition, in many cases, the kinds of grants, the kinds of loans, that have been put in place by various governments in this Province.

As a matter of fact, I can say to him that a former Premier, a leader of his party, I think if he was here today, would say the same kind of thing. He was a university contemporary of mine. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that gentleman, himself, would admit to you that he would not have been Premier of this Province except for the grants and the free tuition that were put in place by a Liberal administration under one, Joseph R. Smallwood.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get to one other point. Let me inform the hon. gentleman of another little piece of history - and that's where it pays to be old. The gentleman who proposed and pushed for that free tuition and grants for students - salaries, they were called in 1966 and 1967 - does he know who that person was? a little piece of parliamentary trivia. Well, I will tell him that it was none other than my good friend, the Member for Naskaupi, the present Government House Leader. That is a tribute that anybody in this Province should pay to him today. He was the chief mover and the chief architect of putting in place salaries and free tuition for students in this Province.

So when we hear the hon. member - and the debate was going very well. The Member for Kilbride made an excellent opening statement. The Member for Eagle River made an excellent opening statement. The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay started off very well, Mr. Speaker, but then he had to bring in his little bit of politics - got down a bit.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Now, I sat and listened to him quietly - I ask him to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt that there is nobody in this Province today who does not want to see every person who is capable of getting an education get access to that education. Let there be no doubt about that.

I want, before I go on too much further, to congratulate the students who are left in the gallery and the students who were here today. There was a big cry over on the other side just now about: government may have changed its mind. Well, I would like to remind them that we do live in a democracy, and that the students today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. They are up again. There you go. The Member for Mount Pearl is up there again. I have to say to him that we do live in a democracy, that those students do have the right to stand on the steps of Confederation Building, that they do have the right to come and sit in the gallery, that they do have that right to show that they are opposed to something, and that if it is to be effective, the government should listen.

We have seen in the last two or three weeks - and I am not going to dwell on the last two or three weeks - but we have seen in the last two or three weeks where the other side have begged us to go out and talk to people and change our minds. Now, all at once: `Don't change your minds about this issue.' I wonder why. I will leave it up to you.

I want to congratulate the students, and I believe that as a result of their efforts -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: See what happens when `Clyde' gets back.

MR. TULK: There you go. That is the Opposition House Leader.

I want to say to the students that I believe this is a result of their efforts. I want to tell them that the Minister of Finance in this Province today may seem at times to be - he is not here, I wish he were - a rather hard individual. Let me -

MR. HARRIS: How come there are only nine (inaudible) over there?

MR. TULK: Here we go - the `Premier of Ontario'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Does the `Premier of Ontario' wish to speak?

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this about the Minister of Finance. I spent four years with him in Opposition. I spent four years sitting in one of the offices that the hon. gentlemen are now sitting in, up on the fifth floor. I can tell you that that gentleman's desire is certainly not to cut back, not to nail students, not at all. I can tell you that that gentleman has been one of the prime movers of trying to increase scholarships in this Province. He is adamant that even in the hard times we are now in that students will have more access to funds. He is adamant on that. I can tell the students in this Province that in spite of what they have seen in the last two or three days, the Minister of Finance will be a friend of the student population of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you go through the resolution - twenty minutes goes very quickly - and as you look at some of the things that the hon. gentleman has said here, you can't disagree with the principles. You can't disagree with the principle of this resolution: "post-secondary education must be accessible to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador."

MR. SULLIVAN: What kind of interest do you have? - eight people.

MR. HARRIS: Eight people is all you can muster.

MR. SULLIVAN: Out of thirty-five.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) gone out to get a few more.

MR. HARRIS: They haven't even got a quorum over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) empty seats (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman, that the number of empty seats has very little to do with the support that is going to be shown for this bill. What you will see -

MR. SULLIVAN: What bill?

MR. TULK: I'm sorry, the resolution. Now, `Loyola', please - I mean, the Member for Ferryland, please! I know the difference between a resolution and a bill.

MR. SULLIVAN: I didn't say you didn't.

MR. TULK: Well, I don't need you to remind me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure?

MR. TULK: Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentlemen that the number of bodies in the seats on this side in no way indicates the amount of support that is there for this amendment, this resolution, and indeed, there for students in this Province. Let's not get off on that nonsense. If you want to set an example for young people in this Province, stay on the issue.

The second whereas: "AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and its economic future to have a skilled and educated population" - nobody in the world could disagree with it. Nobody in this Legislature, nobody in this Province, would disagree with what the hon. gentleman has said there.

"AND WHEREAS changing economic conditions in Newfoundland and Labrador require at least post-secondary training before the average young person can gain full employment and contribute to our economy."

AN HON. MEMBER: Excellent.

MR. TULK: Excellent, I say to the hon. gentleman. He is a credit to Kilbride.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Hold on now! I don't need you to put words in my mouth, I say to the Member for Grand Bank. Then we go on to the resolves.

Mr. Speaker, I can say to you today, that the Minister of Finance, the Government House Leader and the Cabinet of this Province could find the way to do it, we would get back to that good Liberal policy of salaries and free tuition again.

By the way, I would like to remind hon. gentlemen opposite that free tuition in this Province was put in place by a Liberal government.

MR. HARRIS: That's gone, too.

MR. TULK: Yes, who took it out? A good point.

MR. HARRIS: Joey Smallwood.

MR. TULK: Oh, no, he didn't. Get your history right again.

I tell the hon. gentleman, the `Premier of Ontario', that it was none other than the party that belongs to the Member for Kilbride and the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where are they now?

MR. TULK: Where are they now? Some of them are sitting in the front benches, boy, that's where they are now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You're sitting in the back benches.

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

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just remind the hon. member that free tuition had been changed before Premier Smallwood had left office in 1972, late 1971.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order, but I accept the hon. gentleman's small correction, because, let me tell him what the real story was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me tell him what the real story was.

In 1969, Joey Smallwood introduced the means test, but the free tuition was not eliminated in 1969. The free tuition was still there until the early 1970s when your government took office. Now that's the historical fact, if the hon. gentleman wants to go out and check it.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, let's move on to what's important here, and what's important here is that we have, today, students in this Province who are finding it very, very difficult to finish university, there is no doubt about that. There can be no argument about that. And the hon. the Member for Eagle River, I have to congratulate him on his ability - I can't use the word `manipulate' because he doesn't do it - to persuade other people that there are better ways to do things.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't praise him enough.

MR. TULK: I can't praise him enough. He is a great young politician, a product of Memorial University, and I believe - what is the other university?

AN HON. MEMBER: Acadia.

MR. TULK: Acadia University, but certainly a product of Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, some people will sit in this House and say $22,000 or $30,000 is not a lot of money to have to repay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: It must be on your side!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a lot of money.

MR. TULK: Will the hon. gentleman be quiet for a minute, or does he want to stand up and make a speech?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well take your time; you'll get your chance in a minute. You'll get at least three minutes, and that's long enough for you to tell all you know.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: In 1974, when I finished university -I am an old man - I owed the grand sum, I think -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Not as old as you, `Ed'.

When I finished university in 1974, I owed $14,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Fourteen thousand dollars, seven years of university - not like the hon. gentleman, it wasn't a law school, it was Memorial University.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a fair amount of money for 1974, probably, I say to the hon. gentlemen, the equivalent of $28,000 or $30,000 today, but do you know what the difference was? Do you know what the real problem is that our university students are facing today? It is not the amount of money that they owe when they get out of university, not necessarily. It is not the amount of money that they owe, but the fact of whether they are going to find a job when they get out of university.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen on the other side, when it comes to job creation and the state of the economy of this Province, should be very, very quiet.

AN HON. MEMBER: We created more jobs than you did.

MR. TULK: Did you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TULK: Yes? I think at one point you created 235 in Mount Pearl. It was in the Sprung institute, the $25 million fiasco that you made up there. Other than that, I don't know one thing that you started. I do know that after seventeen years, as the Member for Port de Grave said this afternoon -

AN HON. MEMBER: Labrador Linerboard, `Beaton'.

MR. TULK: Did they start Labrador Linerboard?

AN HON. MEMBER: Frank Moores did.

MR. TULK: Oh yes, so he did and he blew those two holes on each side of the Strait of Belle Isle.

After seventeen years of Tory rule, the debt in this Province increased to approximately $6.2 billion - from $800 million to just under $7 billion. That's the state that this Province was left in. That's the state that a well-meaning Minister of Finance in 1989, when he became Minister of Finance in this Province, found himself in.

MR. SULLIVAN: You've increased it 25 per cent (inaudible).

MR. TULK: That's the kind of economy that was left for students to leave university and go out into. And it will take years, Mr. Speaker, to turn that around.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, another two or three (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Another two or three years and we may get the thing back on the road, I say to the Member for Grand Bank - he is probably right. We may get the thing back on the road for them. As the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay says, then, we'll go on to take another four or five years to do what we have to do.

The real problem here, Mr. Speaker, for our students - and all of us should keep this in mind - and again, yes, I agree with the Member for Kilbride and I agree with the Member for Eagle River - we have to keep the debt load down and we have to make more money available to students. Middle income people in this Province should not have to lay out as much money as they lay out. There is a growing group of people in this Province that I sympathize with even more, and that is the people who are not middle income people.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's most of them.

MR. TULK: Yes, I would say to the Member for Grand Bank, it probably is most of them. But I would sympathize with those people more, and obviously a government has to try to do what it can under the kinds of economic circumstances that the Minister of Finance finds himself in today.

Now, I want to say to hon. member's opposite, too, it was a pleasure to see the Member for Kilbride and the Member for Eagle River sitting down over here in a couple of chairs trying to work out a solution to this problem. It's a pleasure to see the Minister of Finance sit in his place, maybe as a result of some members on this side and on that side, and maybe as a result of some of the student protests that we've seen today, trying to put in place a consultation process that will solve the problems that our students have. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I pledge to you that I want to support the resolution as amended. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in the three or four minutes that are left before my colleague, the Member for Kilbride concludes his statements today, I want to share in the comments that have been made relative to the importance of this issue. The fact that we have had so many students today join in the proceedings of this House, I should say to all hon. members, that the students who are here in the galleries of the House of Assembly are just the students from this region. Simultaneously, there have been marches ongoing in all of the other colleges across the Province. This particular issue is of fundamental importance to all university students in this Province and it has tremendous implications for the accessibility of a quality education.

Now, all of us can attest to how difficult it is to go to university and how difficult it is to find the money. Those of us who are of my generation - I graduated from MUN in 1968, 1969 and 1973 and I can assure you that it wasn't easy. I went to university as a married person with dependants.

I want, in my few moments, to speak on behalf of a group, an organization called, Students Older than Average. These are students who have gone back to university, who have, as adults, gone to try to further their education and try to seek a career and get along a career path.

I would like to read into the record a letter from the President of that organization, whose name is Edmund Kennedy. He is a student at MUN. The letter reads as follows: `As the President of Students Older than Average, and as a concerned student of Memorial University, I am very disturbed by the fact that the Department of Education could be so insensitive to the needs of students of this Province. Removal of the provincial grant portion of the student loan will have a detrimental effect on post-secondary students for years to come. Students are the only chance that this Province has of effectively conquering the problems which confront us in our present and likely future economy. If anything, I feel government should be contributing more to ensure that every Newfoundlander has the opportunity to access a post-secondary education in this Province.'

I should point out as well, that the letter reads as follows: `Government fails to realize that we are the future contributor to this Province. How can a government stimulate consumer spending by placing future generations of this Province under a debt load that they spend the vast majority of their incomes servicing their incurred debt?'

Now, Mr. Speaker, I also want to note that this particular organization, Students Older than Average, are active in more aspects of the university than simply, shall we say, advocating these particular clauses that I have read here. For example, Students Older than Average have organized a book drive, my note says here, to replace the books at the Red Bay school in Ramea; I am not quite sure of the note there, but it does indicate that they are active in helping the book drive cause for the school that burnt in Ramea, and I congratulate them on that.

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here today are two things. The people want guaranteed accessibility and we are encouraged by the Member for Fogo, who says that the minister is changing his mind, the government is listening to the students. I say to the students: Do not take that at face value or as being concrete; wait until you see the product, wait until you go to the negotiations. But I am pleased to say to my hon. colleague, the Member for Eagle River, that is the kind of positive thing that we want on this side here - we are interested in results; we are interested in seeing the needs of the students being addressed.

The reason why the students are here is that they want to see the government to walk its talk. In other words, don't just talk about listening to the students, do something about it. My colleague, the Member for Fogo has said - and I chatted earlier today with the Minster of Finance, and he has said, that they are prepared to enter into negotiations with the students of this Province and that is commendable. Unfortunately, we might have avoided a lot of this problem if this kind of consultation had gone on prior to this particular demonstration, but I say to the students, you must listen to the minister, do not take his word that everything will be okay until you have the documents ready and you have them in the way in which you want them to be prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the students of this Province. I am glad that we do see some light at the end of the tunnel for students. I congratulate them and I yield the speaking time, the rest of the day, to my colleague, the Member for Kilbride.

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

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

I am somewhat interested by the comments of the Member for Fogo and the Member for Eagle River, and I would like first to address, for a few moments, the comments made by the Member for Eagle River as he stood up and expounded upon how his government and members opposite have been so vigilant in pressing the Minister of Education and Cabinet to make changes over the last three years to the Student Aid Program.

The member went on to say that scholarships have tripled since 1989 and that represents a commitment from his government to post-secondary education. Scholarships may have tripled, I say to the Member for Eagle River, but any student receiving a scholarship, the amount of scholarship received was deducted from the amount of student aid received. There is no incentive. That is not a great commitment to the students of this Province or to the people of this Province. Let me also remind the Member for Eagle River that since 1989, tuition has increased in post-secondary education in this Province by some 70 per cent, and if that represents a commitment to the students of this Province, then it is not a commitment that I share, I say to the member. At the same time, since 1989, as university tuition and costs have increased, the provincial portion of student loans and student aid in this Province has not increased by that same level. Now, that is not the type of commitment I talk about today and it is not the type of commitment reflected in the resolution that I put forward.

I would also like to remind the member that when he talks about having graduated from university with a deferred grant, I say that I also did as well. Let me remind the member, bring him back in time, to 1983, when the government of the day -

MS. VERGE: Who was minister?

MR. E. BYRNE: - and the Minister of Education at the time, my colleague now, Lynn Verge, the hon. the Member for Humber East, decided - and he knows full well - decided at that time to eliminate 75 per cent of deferred grants, and to raise loan ceilings for students in this Province, and what did we do?

MR. EFFORD: You don't know what you are taking about.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that if he wants to make a comment then stand up and be recognized, otherwise, sit down in his seat and listen to what I have to say.

I ask the Member for Eagle River: What happened in 1983?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

What happened in 1983, I ask the Member for Eagle River? Three thousand five hundred of us stood on these steps and we changed what the government of the day was going to do. Deferred grants were not going to be given to us. They were something we fought for, you and I, and we fought for them together, as did all other students. I compliment the students here today, but let me also remind them that the changes to the proposed system here today, that this government have put on the table, do not reflect the needs of students and the realities they face in trying to attain a post-secondary education in this Province.

In 1983, as I reminded the member, 3,500 students stood on the steps out here and there was no consultation with the students of the day, as has there been no consultation with the students of this day, but we did change some minds. We put forward proposals for debate and we did change some minds.

Now, let me return to the Member for Fogo, who went on to give me some political historical lessons. I can assure the Member for Fogo, I need no lessons from him on political history.

MR. TULK: No? You were a brilliant scholar?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I don't propose to have been a brilliant scholar, but I was interested to learn - and I will say, learn - as he indicated, that in 1966 and 1967 one of the chief architects of the day who moved for free tuition and payment for university students to go to university was the hon. the Government House Leader, Mr. Ed Roberts, the Member for Naskaupi.

I also was interested to hear the comment from the Member for Fogo about how the Member for Eagle River was a product of Memorial University. But how soon they forget, I say to my colleagues, how soon they forget. How soon you forget that the proposals put forward today by your government do not reflect the realities that you had as a student at Memorial when the hand was offered to you by the people of the Province. The hand is not being offered to the students of this Province right now, it is the boot in the rear end that is being offered to the students in terms of debt load. That's what is happening, you know that, the Member for Eagle River knows it and you should stand up and do something about it.

Now, let me go on to deal with the remission portion of the student loan program that the Member for Eagle River and I just talked about. I cannot stand here today and support the amendments made.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. E. BYRNE: I will tell you why - whether it be a surprise or not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I cannot support them because the details have not been announced. There are no details announced in terms of remittance, but let me give you an example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me provide to you a fax sheet on loan remission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I beg the indulgence of the Speaker of the House to ask members opposite to listen to what I have to say. I have been recognized by the Speaker, not members opposite. I am trying to present a point of view. If they don't want to listen, that's fine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me give members opposite some of the facts of loan remission, as it is now proposed by the government.

Loan remission is the forgiveness of debt over a certain amount, provided a student meets certain criteria. Now, to be eligible, a single student must borrow over $22,000 for a four-year program, $27,500 for a five-year program, and $33,000 for a six-year program. No suggestion has been made of what a non-single student will have to borrow. Remission will not be provided if the debt load does not exceed $22,000. The student must complete a program. The program must be completed in a timely manner, i.e. length of study plus one year.

Here are some of the concerns: This remission program is not based on need alone. If a person does not meet these criteria, then he or she does not qualify, even though the debt load may well be over $22,000. Under these criteria, the amount borrowed for a program that is not finished is not eligible for remission. Thus, a student could attend Memorial for two years, take on a debt load of $13,000, then he or she could enter a three-year program at one of the colleges and acquire a further debt of $18,000. The total debt of this student could be $31,000. Because the student did not finish at Memorial and complete a three-year program at another institute, the new graduate is not eligible for loans remission, although the debt load would be $31,000.

This raises questions which have not been adequately answered here today in debating this resolution, and have not been adequately answered by the government. The questions that are raised: How much will a student with dependants have to borrow before being eligible for loans remission? What happens if a student takes longer than the length of program plus one year? Will students in a non-university program be eligible for loans remission? And will students completing a three-year degree diploma -

AN HON. MEMBER: Students of history (inaudible) recognize history.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What history?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, just let me take the time allotted to present, on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador Coalition against this student aid proposal, some of the proposals that they are making to government, so that I can make hon. members aware up front of what students are proposing. I won't get into all of them, but I do want to highlight certain aspects of these.

For example, one point they have made, in circumstances where demonstrated need exists, the maximum Canada student loan and provincial grant available, the student must be able to make up the deficit without incurring any penalty. For example, a student whose need is assessed at $5,600 per semester is eligible to receive a maximum of $3,280 from Canada student loan and provincial grant. The student must be allowed to earn the difference without penalty - in this case, $2,320 - without any deductions from student aid. That is one recommendation that I urge members opposite to seriously consider.

Students who do not quality for federal student loans because of parents' income levels must not suffer as they do now. The parental contribution tables must be updated to reflect 1994 dollars as opposed to the current 1984 levels, and indexed to cost of living increases due to inflation. Provincial grants must not be contingent upon federal student aid levels. All post-secondary students in the Province must be evaluated individually, and awarded a provincial grant with the accompanying optional $30-per week loan, according to personal need.

It is further proposed that levels of allowable earnings be increased, thus providing students with some real opportunity to work, and permit them, at least in part, to finance their own education, to bring down the debt levels that they currently suffer from.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, student parents who are receiving social assistance should not be penalized as they are now. There must be greater communication and co-operation between the Departments of Education and Social Services. Any assistance that is provided for post-secondary education must not be deducted in any way from social services payments and vice versa.

If a new Student Aid Program is to be implemented, then it must have the best interest of students at heart and be developed through continuous consultation with students. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students, and the people who present this, ask in their proposal to their minister and to the government that a Premier's committee on post-secondary education be formed. The committee will consist of student representatives from various post-secondary institutions across the Province, as well as the Premier, himself. The committee would act in an ongoing advisory capacity and meet on a quarterly basis.

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to clue up debate when members opposite continue to talk amongst themselves, and talk about other issues; they have demonstrated clearly, what their commitment is to this resolution - not all members, some members I would say, and if they wish to present or talk about this very important resolution today, then they should have stood in their place and talked about it and not have been over there, and cackled, talked, coerced and interrupted me as a member, in trying to present this resolution. There is no way -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to get mine for what?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to get mine for what, I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation?

[Commotion from the gallery].

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Works, Services and Transportation, I guess you got yours!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that grants are not free money; that grants, under the present student aid system is an investment in the potential of students and ensure that education, higher education, continues to be accessible to all.

Government must not shirk from its responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to students and to society at large by forcing students to depend upon bank loans; by forcing banks to determine eligibility and by forcing banks to determine, with no appeal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I am having a lot of trouble hearing the hon. the Member for Kilbride, in all fairness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members on both sides of the House if they could perhaps keep the conversations down to a reasonable level. I mean, I can't hear the gentleman.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered by members in this House, that upon graduation, students contribute to our economy not merely by creating jobs and technical industries, but also simply because they have a greater purchasing power than the majority in our society. Employed students have disposable income that will be reinvested in our Province; employed students or students who graduate being affected by the draft proposal, as the Minister of Finance said today, if they have to spend the first ten or fifteen years after graduation, paying back excessive debt loads, they simply will not be able to contribute to our economy.

The Member for Fogo said that the biggest problem students have today is not the debt that they will have upon graduation but the fact that they will have no jobs. I say to the Member for Fogo and members opposite, I submit to this House, that the students of today, if they have to live under the new proposal and draft proposal by the government of this day, that they will have two added problems -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - no jobs, high debt, resulting in no future. I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Where have you been for the last hour-and-a-half, that you weren't sitting down listening to resolutions? Where were you and what did they tell you? What did they tell the minister?

[Commotion in the gallery].

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I mentioned earlier that people weren't permitted to speak in the galleries.

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: What did the students tell you? What did the students tell you when you met with them?

MR. EFFORD: They told me their concerns and I listened to them.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have no doubt you did. What did they tell you? What were their concerns? I submit to you, they were the exact concerns that I presented here today, and for you to say that I don't know what I'm talking about - you have no idea what reality is on this issue, no idea.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) understand the students of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will clue up, but before I do, I must say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that most of the recommendations that I have read today have come from the students of this Province. It is not myself who is misleading the students of this Province. It is not me, I can assure him of that.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I will say that while I understand the spirit of the amendments made by the Member for Eagle River, I cannot support those amendments. They do not reflect the spirit of the resolution that I put forward in this House and I will accept no deviance from it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) put up with that over there. Muzzle that and put it out.

MR. EFFORD: No!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Leave the House! Go out!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

I'll put the amendment first. I'll just read the two parts of the resolution that have been amended. The fourth clause has been amended to read as follows;

BE IT RESOLVED that remission grants be made available at appropriate levels of funding to ensure accessibility to all. And the following fifth paragraph has been amended as well, to read as follows:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that needs assessment criteria be updated on a regular basis - and it follows on from there.

MR. SIMMS: Do I understand, the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to delete -

MR. SPEAKER: - the word `student' and substitute `remission' before the word `grants'.

It might be easier to say, by deleting `that student grants be reinstated at appropriate levels' and substituting `that remission grants be made available at appropriate levels'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The second is to the next paragraph. Does the hon. the Opposition House Leader have the wording there?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, we have the wording.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. Is the House clear on what the amendments are? I know it has been circulated.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, delete the grants and then substitute -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Remission grants.

MR. SPEAKER: Remission grants, and instead of `reinstated' put in the words, `made available' and the following -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) a totally different thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think debate is finished on the resolution.

Is the House ready for the question at this point?

All those in favour of the resolution as amended, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SIMMS: We're supposed to vote on the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. SIMMS: You said the resolution, as amended.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We're voting on the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: On the amendment, rather, yes, okay.

So everybody is clear, we voted on the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, let me put it again, the resolution as amended, I would take it to mean the amendments?

MR. SIMMS: No, voting on the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: We're voting on the amendments, yes, okay. We'll vote on the amendments that I've just explained.

All those in favour of the amendments to the resolution, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion, the `ayes' have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: On division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the vote? If the Clerk would proceed with the vote. Please proceed.

All those in favour of the amendments to the motion, please stand.

CLERK (Mr. J. Noel): The hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crane, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands, Mr Anderson, Mr. Tulk, Ms Young, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Penney, Mr. Aylward, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Whelan, Mr. Smith, Dr. Hulan.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendments?

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Snow, Mr. Woodford, Ms Verge, Mr. Windsor, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Ed Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Manning, Mr. Careen, Mr. Harris.

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, the vote is twenty-two in favour of the amendments and sixteen against.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendments carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand His Honour, the Governor, is here and I think there is an agreement between both side that we will stop the clock for the purpose of having His Honour here. I understand my friends opposite want to divide the House on the amended motion, and that is fine. If Your Honour is in agreement we will stop the clock, but if His Honour is here, perhaps we could deal with that.

MR. SPEAKER: It is agreed by the House that we will stop the clock and invite His Honour to do his duties.

Sergeant-at-Arms, admit His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour bills for the appropriation of Interim Supply and Supplementary Supply granted in the present session.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To the Public Service", Bill No. 12.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1995 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service", Bill No. 7.

In Her Majesty's Name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to these Bills.

I would just like to take this opportunity to wish all of the members of the hon. House a Happy Easter, and to wish them a well-earned Easter break.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Is the House ready for the question on the resolution?

All those in favour of the resolution as amended, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: All those who support the resolution as amended, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crane, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands, Mr. Anderson III, Mr. Tulk, Ms. Young, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Penney, Mr. Aylward, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Whelan, Mr. Smith, Dr. Hulan.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion as amended, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Snow, Mr. Woodford, Ms. Verge, Mr. Windsor, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Ed Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Manning, Mr. Careen, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-two in favour of the resolution as amended, sixteen against.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution as amended, carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members should be paying attention - twenty-two to sixteen.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of the House will be violently and strongly opposed to the motion I'm about to move, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I understand it is debatable, yes indeed. Does my hon. friend wish to debate it?

MR. SIMMS: Possibly.

MR. ROBERTS: Possibly.

MR. SIMMS: You have to move it first to find out.

MR. ROBERTS: What I will move then, just to make everybody comfortable: Does the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.? Does that help?

MR. SIMMS: You can't do it, it is Private Member's Day.

MR. ROBERTS: I can certainly do it. There is no law -

MR. SIMMS: You can do it, but you can't do it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: You can do it but it won't work.

MR. ROBERTS: It would, but in any event we've stopped the clock. Mr. Speaker, my motion would be that when the House adjourns today it stands adjourned until Monday, 18 April, or earlier at the call of the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: April 18th?

MR. ROBERTS: April 18th, that's two-and-a-half weeks. The Speaker, or, in his absence from the Province, the Deputy Speaker, may give notice, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated by the notice of the proposed sitting. I move, Mr. Speaker, that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, April 18, at 2:00 p.m.