March 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 15

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, you caught me unawares there for

a second. I thought the ministers would have a whole pile of positive statements

to make this morning but I guess not.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Over the

weekend, two other public service unions have taken a vote on the government's

proposals thus far to them. In addition to that we had the teachers, of course,

last week, reject the proposal that the government put to them with respect to

the public service pensions idea, so that makes some 30,000 employees, I guess,

now who have all rejected government's recent schemes. I want to ask the

Premier: Is the government still determined to save the $70 million from

employee contributions, whether it be wages or benefits and, if so, could he

tell the House and the people of the Province how he intends to do that, now

that the pension option apparently has been turned down?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, House members should know

that while the government would have approved of going the pension route, that

was not a proposal that the government put for acceptance. There are a variety

of things out there and the unions could pick and choose or do a mix of them, so

I presume they will want to get back now and do a discussion of that. The

government hasn't put forward the pension option and said, `This is what we are

proposing that you accept.' We put forward a host of things and that was what

they chose to go with, to the NTA. As far as NAPE and CUPE are concerned, they

haven't put any proposal that I know of. I am advised - and I can let the

President of Treasury Board speak because he can speak more knowledgeably - I am

advised that NAPE and CUPE haven't, in fact, bargained on anything. They talk

about - as a matter of fact, I heard them at noon, talking about the government

not responding to any of their proposals. One of their proposals, or the only

thing I am aware of that they are proposing would end up costing the government

$400-$500 million more in one year. So, there has been no proposal that would be

worthy of any consideration. They suggested time off without pay on a voluntary

basis. Well, who is going to volunteer it and how many? It is just not a

rational proposition.

The other one, this idea that, oh, there is lots of money to

be saved in the Government Service. There are lots of areas where savings could

be made. Well, name it specifically. What are you proposing we do? The

government is quite prepared to consider any specifics but, to the best of my

knowledge, there is not a single specific that has been put before the

government that they could deal with to save any money.

So, in answer to the general question, yes, the government

has no alternative but to try to deal with the $70 million along the

compensation area. We have already provided for tax increases that are going to

increase the tax burden this year by $63 million. There have been substantial

cuts, last fall, and again in the spring's Budget, so there isn't much more.

Now, the President of Treasury Board has more detailed knowledge on this than I

do so the Leader's question might more appropriately be directed to the

President of Treasury Board.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: I appreciate the advice from the Premier, Mr.

Speaker, but I will decide, I guess, to whom I want to put the questions. It is

up to the government who answers the questions. My question to the Premier was:

How does he propose to do what they say they are going to do with the $70

million from compensation? That was my question, which the Premier skated all

around and talked about everything else. My question is: How do you propose to

do it, now that the NTA has specifically rejected the pension proposal, for

example, as one sector of the groups? The second question I have in a

supplementary to the Premier, and it would be he, as Premier, I expect, who

would have to answer this question: Has the government ruled out a legislated

roll-back in wages or benefits, as they once talked about, for public sector

employees?

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

President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, everything I have heard so far about what has

transpired over the past number of days, I have heard in the press. I have not

had official notification from the NTA, from Mr. Reid, from the NTA executive. I

understand there have been meetings held over the weekend and something will be

communicated to government sometime tomorrow. I have not received official

notification yet of what their intention is and I have to wait until I find out

what their intention is. I assume there is still room for discussions to be

carried on. As to how we are going to get it, Mr. Speaker, we have said that we

must reduce that package by $70 million and it will be done, hopefully through

discussions with the public sector unions. Now, the second question was, have we

ruled out any options? The answer is, no, we have not ruled out anything but we

would prefer to reach a sensible solution through discussions rather than to

take unilateral action.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This supplementary is to the Premier, because I am going to

refer to comments that the Premier apparently is reported to have said over the

weekend. I think it is in the newspaper, in fact. Over the weekend, I think, the

Premier suggested that layoffs were an obvious option. Now, to save $70 million,

I guess, according to some sources, that would mean laying off probably another

2,500 to 3,000 employees, somewhere in that area, whatever it might be. In view

of the fact that your two-week-old Budget already has provision for the layoffs,

I am not quite sure of the numbers yet, we are still working on that, I do not

know if the minister can tell us if he answers the question. But I want to ask

him: is it really a practical alternative and option for the government to make

more layoffs considering what we have had in the past?

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

President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I honestly wish that we had a lot

of options that were painless. I honestly wish we had these options. We do not

have options that are painless, we are going through a very difficult time as

are all of the other provinces in this country. There are no painless options.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speculate on numbers in terms of his question

about layoffs because, as the Premier has indicated, and as I have indicated, we

have always indicated that that is one of the options but only one of the

options, and there is no indication that we would try to solve all our problems

through massive layoffs. We have actually indicated that we simply do not want

to do that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask another

supplementary.

The government seems to think that it has lots of time I

guess, to deal with this matter, because every month that goes by, presumably it

is about $6 million that the government must find to meet its target, its

budgeted targets, assuming $70 million is the amount. I want to ask the

government, the Premier, the minister, whoever wants to answer the question,

maybe, even the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations might like to answer

the question. How quickly does the government intend to move to resolve this

problem, because they presented us with a false Budget thus far, because we do

not know where the money is going to be found, the $70 million, so I want to ask

the minister: how quickly does he intend to move, does he intend to put off

action on this matter, for say, the next month or two, is that perhaps part of

the plan?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, our Budget was a very accurate

Budget and I would like to remind members opposite, as much as they would like

to believe that disaster is around the corner and as much as they hope for that

kind of thing, I would like to assure them, that that is not the case at all,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize better than anybody else in this

Province I believe, the constraints that we are operating under. I do not need

the Leader of the Opposition to remind me of the problem that we have, by and

large, caused by excessive spending over the last couple of decades. He does not

have to remind me of that problem, it has been around for a while, it has been

building for a while and it has only now come to the culmination, not only here

but in all provinces, so, Mr. Speaker, he does not need to remind me of that. I

understand the time constraints we are working under, this government

understands the time constraints it is working under, and I hope that the

leadership and the public sector unions also understand the time constraints

under which we are operating.

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, this

government has a superb track record when it comes to budgetary projections.

They have done a magnificent job over the last four years. There is no question

about that - dead on.

One of the reasons that the members of the NTA and the

members of NAPE and the members of CUPE, I suggest, have voted down your pension

option, in the case of the NTA, is because they do not trust this government,

because the government, whatever they do, the employees know that the government

is not going to get off their backs, whether it is this year or next year, and

the only contracts this government has shown any respect for are the contracts

they use themselves to buy furniture and everything for their offices. Those are

the only contracts for which they show any respect.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance: Why does he think

these public service unions would ever accept a deal from this government, given

their record and their track record? Why should they ever trust this government?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all to correct the hon.

member, the pension option was not our option but one chosen from many by the

leadership of the NTA with which to go to the teachers. So that was not our

option. It was one they chose from a variety of options.

Mr. Speaker, the member - if you ignore his rhetoric, which I

suppose everybody in the Province does - if you ignore his rhetoric, he is

getting at the kernel of a very important point here, and that is that in the

world today the collective bargaining procedures of twenty, thirty and forty

years ago no longer have any place. The types of confrontational collective

bargaining that have been the norm for the last fifty years or more no longer

are useful. In private industry in some parts of North America this is

recognized. Recently in an agreement with the British Columbia government, a

union group in Canada - a public service union - recognized the fact that this

approach has outlived its usefulness.

Mr. Speaker, we are years behind the time here and I think it

is high time we got at that collective bargaining process to ensure that it is a

sensible process that fits the present realities.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. The minister knows that this Province has the highest UI rate in the

country, and indications for 1993 are that there are going to be even thousands

of jobs less than in the previous year.

I ask the minister: What new initiatives does he have in the

employment sector of his department to help the thousands of unemployed?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon.

member for his question as well. It seems that every two or three months when

the hon. member gets an opportunity he asks that same question. Regardless of

how many times he'd like to ask that question and have it answered, he will not

find myself or any other minister on this side of the House standing to say that

we would do the kinds of things that the previous administration did out of

desperation and build a Sprung greenhouse or that kind of thing to try to

desperately create jobs to make themselves look good.

We have spent almost four years now looking at the

fundamental structures of the economy in the Province. Our plan is in place.

It's been spelled out for the people. It will be more fully articulated as time

goes on. We will depend upon largely the private sector with a proper climate

and environment in the Province and assisted where and when appropriate by the

government to create employment in the Province, not continue to take taxpayers'

dollars as the previous administration had done to prop up some unemployment

statistics for a few weeks or so, so that they could then give an answer to a

question in the House of Assembly.

We understand the seriousness of the problem, Mr. Speaker,

and we are working for the long-term betterment of the situation. We'll stay

committed to those objectives.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister never ceases to

amaze me. Let me remind the minister that last fall he found it necessary to

implement a $12 million emergency response program because of a severe

employment crisis in this Province. That was at a time when the unemployment

rate was not as high as it is today. This year that entire program has been

eliminated. Does the minister believe that the employment prospects in this

summer in the private sector are so great that we no longer need short-term

employment strategies?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again just to point

out for the hon. member who asked the question, and for everyone else in the

Legislature, last year in the fall we did do an emergency employment response

program of $11 million. The previous year, around about the same time of the

year, we did a program of $13.5 million, and explained clearly on both occasions

that while we are committed to the types of things that I gave in the answer to

the first question, that we recognize that the responses and the answers and the

kind of public sector responses to the type of climate that we're trying to

establish don't happen immediately. They don't happen overnight, Everybody in

the Province who's dealing with the employment issues recognizes that there may

still be again some time, even in this year coming up, there may still be a need

for some kind of intervention but this government will not plan on that as the

solution and each time we have introduced a program before we have been careful

to point out to everyone who cared to listen that we do not believe that that is

the solution to the job problems in Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not believe

that is the solution to the whole economic circumstance, but that it is the kind

of help that individuals need and that some useful work could be done at the

same time.

If we find ourselves in that circumstance again during

another year coming up, we will address it as and when it is necessary, but in a

budget in terms of planning as to what we will do for this year, we will commit

again to try to make sure that the environment is such in the Province, that the

climate is such, that people can get jobs of their own accord and that the

government would assist when private sector employers need the help and

assistance of the government to employ extra people, we would assist in that

manner rather than plan, as part of the strategy, to put people to work on

short-term job creation programs and try to hail that as being the solution to

the job problems in Newfoundland and Labrador, because we have said repeatedly

in four years that we do not believe that is the answer.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister again:

If it was necessary last fall, and we have a higher unemployment rate today, why

is it not necessary today - that you can eliminate it totally if we have a

higher unemployment rate?

Furthermore, the minister indicated in his estimates that he

spent $4.5 million on programs that were linked to the Strategic Economic Plan

of the Province. If they were such an important part of the Strategic Economic

Plan in 1992, how can they be totally eliminated in 1993?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I think the hon. member should check what he just

quoted because it did not make any sense to me, and it does not relate to any of

the numbers that are in the budget with which I am familiar and so on. Maybe

tomorrow evening during the estimates, when he will have some three hours to

examine the budget headings in the Department of Employment and Labour

Relations, he might want to ask that question in more detail and might get an

answer, because I cannot answer that kind of a question because it does not make

any sense to me.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again always refers to the

unemployment rate. I have been careful to say to the House of Assembly, and to

anyone who listens through this medium in the Province, that while that is one

statistic which clearly shows that there is an employment problem in the

Province, just like there is in the rest of the country, just like there is in

North America, just like there is globally, and that we cannot expect not to

have a problem in Newfoundland when it is all around us, that we do not have the

great benefit of having some kind of great fortune here that has not befallen

anyone else in the world that we know of.

Here we have done a good job, as has been pointed out before.

When the statistics are compared to what happened during this recession in this

Province, compared to the previous recession with the previous administration,

the record clearly shows that this government has done a much better job of

handling economic matters and job related matters in the Province than the

previous administration could ever hope to try to take (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

On Thursday past the Minister of Fisheries indicated that

probably one of the reasons why the Roddickton crab plant has not been

reactivated is that there is too much crab processing capability in the

Province. Could the minister explain for the House where the processing

capability came from at Cottlesville and Old Perlican? Since the minister became

minister, is he not aware that he has provided licences to those places? Is that

the reason why he made a statement in the House that there is now too much crab

processing capability in the Province?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the Old

Perlican application. Four days before this government took office, May 5, 1989,

the then minister, one of the last acts that he performed was to grant a licence

- or at least a transfer of licence - from a plant in Fleur de Lys to a plant in

Old Perlican. He did that, of course, along with other transfers and other

licences that were issued.

I immediately put a freeze on those licences and had the

matter reviewed. It was found that subsequent to that we had to allow the owner

of the plant in Fleur de Lys, because of circumstances certainly beyond our

control, to transfer the licence on a permanent basis to Old Perlican.

The fact of the matter is that in the process the company

spent a considerable amount of money in preparing the plant in Old Perlican to

process a certain type of product - crab. We had no choice.

With respect to the latter part of his question regarding

Cottlesville, the owners of the Cottlesville plant, Breakwater Fisheries,

identified a licence in La Scie that was issued to National Sea that was

inactive, and had been inactive I believe for maybe a couple of years. They on

their own negotiated the transfer of that licence. As is required they applied

to the department for permission to legalize or make official the transfer. The

procedure that is laid down was followed to the letter including advertisements

in the papers, and making the people of La Scie aware that the application was

on file and that we would have to make a decision on it. There were very few

objections. I do not think any objections came from La Scie, some came in from

other areas that at least they thought might be affected by the transfer, the

licensing committee of my department met and made a decision to transfer the

licence and that is precisely what happened.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the obvious question to the minister is, if there was

excess crab processing capability in the Province, why did the minister's

department allow this to happen?

A supplementary to the minister:

It is my understanding that there has been increased

processing capacity installed at Little Bay Islands I think it is, and as well

at Fleur de Lys, who were into some processing last year, will be into

processing again next year, can the minister confirm that there has been

increased processing capacity at Little Bay Islands and that Fleur de Lys will

process again this year?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question

is yes and to the last question is no. Yes, the plant in Little Bay Islands is a

licenced plant, has been re-activated and rebuilt, in fact I do not think it was

ever inactive; granted there were times when, because of the shortage of crab

and for other reasons the production was down, but the plant will be operating

in the summer as it should.

The plant in Fleur de Lys does not have a crab processing

licence. Last year, to accommodate the fishermen in the area, with the Little

Bay Islands plant down because of a fire, we authorized the issuance of a glut

licence as we quite frequently do, which the owners of the Fleur de Lys plant

used but we have no intention this year, certainly not that I am aware of, to

issue a new licence to the Fleur de Lys plant. There does not appear to be a

need for it.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of

Tourism and Culture.

On Thursday, the minister, when I questioned him about

funding from his department to the Roddickton Crab Plant Committee for a

feasibility study, the minister, perhaps understandably, was caught a little off

guard and did not understand, but then in Answers to Questions, Mr. Speaker, the

minister went on and I refer the minister to his statement when he said: I do

not have the full details but my department has informed me that no funds were

given to the committee, no funds had been given to the committee, he repeated

it. I want to ask the minister now, I am sure he has had a chance to review the

situation, has the money that the minister committed in his September 25/'92

letter to the Roddickton Crab Plant Committee, has that been paid to the

Committee?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by my

officials that no, the funds were not transferred to the Committee.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the minister. Why did the minister, on

September 25th/'92, write to his colleague the Minister of Education, informing

him that $5,000 necessary to complete the study would be transferred, why did

the minister do that and when can the Roddickton Crab Plant Committee expect to

get their $5,000 from the Department of Tourism and Culture for the Roddickton

Crab Plant Committee feasibility study?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, in the original letter that was

sent to my department, one of the sentences in the letter was very simple; I

will read it and then I will table it for the hon. member. They said: `Further

to our conversation, this to advise that a Roddickton crab plant committee is

conducting a feasibility study to determine whether or not it is viable to

re-open the crab plant in Roddickton. While conducting this study it would be an

opportune time to explore the tourism potential in light of the newly-paved

cross-country road.'

Then he went on to talk about the fact that there was an

opportunity to study the tourism potential in the Roddickton area. In my letter,

I virtually quoted back that line, saying: You are right. If you are going to

have people in there who are doing study on a given plant or a given structure,

it might be an opportune time to study the tourism potential.

Since that happened the study has been completed. In the

study that was completed by the committee there was no tourism component

included in the study. And because there was no tourism component in the study -

which is what we were agreeing to help finance - based on that no funds were

transferred. They did not follow through with taking advantage of the opportune

time to build in a tourism component. In view of the fact that they didn't, we

decided not to finance.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Premier. I notice that the Fortis bill, the one to give a tax break to

Fortis Trust, hasn't been reintroduced this spring. I wonder is that because the

government has other plans for Fortis Inc. Can the Premier tell the House

whether or not there have been any discussions with Angus Bruneau or other

officials of Fortis Inc. about the possibility of privatizing Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had any discussions

with Angus Bruneau in months and months. I can't speak for anybody else. I will

take the question under advisement and determine whether or not anybody has had

such discussions on behalf of government. We will advise the House.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Budget Speech,

it was said that the government is committed to actively examining and acting on

the privatization of certain Crown corporations and that further details would

be announced over the coming weeks. Is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro one of

those corporations which the government is considering privatizing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: When the Minister of Finance read in his

Budget Speech that further details would be announced in a few weeks that is

exactly what he said. A few weeks haven't gone by. So let's leave him the amount

of time that he suggested and then details will be made known.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Premier or the Minister of Finance give some

assurance to the employees of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that they won't

lose their jobs in some sort of government-sponsored merger between Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Light through Fortis Inc.?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if and when anything becomes

necessary as a result of a statement the minister may make to the House, or some

other minister may make to the House, then I am confident that a statement of

position can be made to employees at that time. At the moment, it is pure

speculation and I am not prepared to engage in it in the manner which the hon.

member is.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. Two weeks ago, in the

Budget Speech and Budget documents, the government announced as a major decision

a $3.6 million cut to most third party organizations. It was number five in the

Budget highlights. Despite repeated requests for the list of organizations cut,

the Premier still hasn't provided the list. My question is: Are you hiding the

names of the community groups being cut because Edsel and Judy warned you of

negative PR repercussions, or do you still not know where the cuts will be made?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated to the

hon. member last week, I was in the process of compiling such a list. As soon as

it is compiled it will be made available. I would like to point out to her, as

well, that in some instances the funding was done in a block to the departments

and they have needed a few days to decide where that block funding is going.

That is the only thing that has so far held up the list. I was hoping to have it

ready today but it wasn't ready this morning. I hope it will be ready for

tomorrow morning.

I would also like to advise her that an awful lot of these

grants were not necessarily to community groups in this Province but there are

grants that have been made over a period of time to groups outside the Province,

and organizations and so on, and that these, in fact, would make up a great deal

of that list.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the report of Public Tender Act

Exceptions for February 1993.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling the next item of business, on

behalf of hon. members, we would like to welcome to the public galleries, today,

the Mayor of Corner Brook, His Worship Mayor Pollett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table six copies of an Order-in-Council to

meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. This refers to the

pre-commitment of funds in the Department of Education.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as required by statute, I want

to table the annual report of Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation ending

Notices of Motion

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:

'WHEREAS the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador has not

become more viable since Confederation; and

WHEREAS our earned income per capita has not increased

relative to other Canadians; and

WHEREAS the public debt for which we are responsible has

grown from practically nothing to almost $20 billion; and -'

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) daydream.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you contain her, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: 'WHEREAS enormous private and business debt has

been accumulated to finance our current living standards; and

WHEREAS Canadian Government mismanagement of the national

economy, in our fishery, in particular, has proven disastrous; and

WHEREAS our increasing dependence on federal financial

transfers is creating an increasingly colonial culture and economic structure in

our Province; and

WHEREAS Canadian economic policies and international trading

relationships have not proven conducive to our development; and

WHEREAS cutbacks in payments from Ottawa to provincial

governments represent a decreasing willingness on the part of the primary

beneficiaries of Confederation in Central Canada to compensate other Canadians

for the costs we endure; and

WHEREAS Canada has become one of the highest cost, highest

taxed, most indebted, and most uncompetitive countries in the world; and

WHEREAS initiatives of the past several years have

demonstrated that the kind of reform of the Canadian system of government

necessary to make it better serve the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador will

not be easy to achieve; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the human and

material resources to sustain a far more viable self-sufficient economy than we

presently enjoy;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - that a committee be struck to analyze the

consequences of Confederation, assess our prospects for progress as Canadians,

and recommend action likely to improve opportunities for economic growth and

social viability for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair thought this might be an opportune time to remind

hon. members that in some Houses they do have more rules with respect to

resolutions than we do, controlling the number of

whereas's and the number of

resolutions but we do not have it.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the

resolution proposed by the Member for Pleasantville but it is my understanding,

Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Pleasantville who obviously appeared to be very

sincere about the Daybreak situation had made some commitment to bringing in a

resolution dealing with that, I wonder why they kicked him out -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. I ask hon. members please, to

observe the rules of the House. They know what points of orders are and points

of privilege and all of that and we ought not to abuse these points of order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I

will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole on Supply, to consider certain resolutions for the granting of

supplementary supply to Her Majesty.

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

Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Electoral

Boundaries Act", and that is the one to ask the House to add a fifth Electoral

Boundaries Commissioner.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. Member for Mount Pearl asked

some questions relating to information for the three leaseback health care

facilities. Mr. Speaker, the department has received the opinion from the

Department of Justice. Based upon that opinion, Mr. Speaker, the information has

and is being compiled. The information which can be made available based upon

that opinion should be made available to the Public Accounts Committee next

week.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure

to present a petition on behalf of 118 people, mostly constituents of Ferryland

District. The prayer reads: we urge you to restore funding to the Daybreak

Parent Child Centre as soon as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is critical that this service be one of

the options available for families who need child development, parenting support

and other specialized services. I do not need to elaborate greatly on a minimal

cost associated with continuing Daybreak but the benefits are enormous which can

be derived from parents and family members alike, from the services provided by

Daybreak. Just to focus upon the real importance of that to the family itself, I

would like to quote from a few parents, one a Louise Kennedy and her quote; 'I

was raised in a very violent home and I can say that I wish to God that there

was a Daybreak when I was growing up. I was twenty years old with this little

girl whom I love dearly but every day I was terrified that I would do to her

that which was done to me. I said dear God send someone to help me. I do not

know how I got hold of them but these wonderful people in Daybreak showed me how

to discipline my child and how to take care of her. Now I have another little

girl and I do not have to be afraid anymore of hurting my children.'

Valerie Fillier, another example of the importance really to

her and to her family, 'it is not just for one child, it is for the parents and

other kids in the home. When I first started going to Daybreak I was isolated

and I did not do anything, I just sat around the house. I just got to the point

where I could not handle life anymore. Now I have my grade 12 education and I am

going to Newfoundland Career Academy. If it was not for Daybreak I would not

have the confidence in myself to get out and do something. I would still be home

depressed and sitting on welfare.'

I will just read another quote from one other parent, and

there are many here, Andrea Glynn, 'I had my son Ryan in Daybreak for four

years, he has Attention Deficit Disorder, until then I was ready to tear out my

hair, until they taught me how to take care of my son. They taught me how to be

patient with him and how to be loving with him. I have a second son who is

possibly diagnosed as having ADD. I want him to go to Daybreak in September,

will Daybreak be around in September?'

These are just some of the many quotes by parents showing how

vital and important it is for them in maintaining a family unit. In giving that

support that parents need, who are out there all alone, trying to care for

children who have various types of deficit disorders that they cannot possibly

provide on their own. Very often today with people being so busy themselves and

getting help from people, from neighbours and family, it is always kind of

difficult, but to have other groups around them give that moral support I think

is very important, and to take away that very vital service is unconscionable I

think would be the most important word I could use.

I support this petition and I ask government to have some

conscience and to restore the services of Daybreak on a regular basis, and

continue in the next fiscal year too.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I wholeheartedly support the prayer of the petition so

eloquently presented by the Member for Ferryland. The petitioners are urging the

government to restore funding to the Daybreak Centre as soon as possible.

It is hard for me to believe that the government cut funding

for Daybreak understanding the value of the service provided there, but if they

actually made that decision they failed to take notice of a recent independent

evaluation of the Daybreak Centre. Independent evaluators assessed the service

and concluded that it is extremely valuable.

One of the people who took

part in the study, Dr. Gary

Jeffery, a professor at Memorial University and a registered psychologist, said,

and I quote: 'As a professor and a psychologist, I have studied and used this

service.' He said to the government: 'Your actions are wrong. They are not

cost-saving. They are destructive to the futures of families who have no other

locally available chance to better their situations.'

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Premier giving excuses for the

government decision to withdraw funding from Daybreak. He said first of all that

the government is not funding comparable child/parent resource centres in other

parts of the Province, and there is a centre that has operated for a year or so

in Corner Brook with federal funding that may have to close. Therefore, it would

not be fair for the government to continue funding Daybreak in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, that is a reprehensible attitude to providing

essential services to families with special needs. Essentially it amounts to

hurting everyone just because some are hurting.

Now I represent part of the City of Corner Brook and I can

say that nobody I know of in Corner Brook would begrudge ongoing provincial

government funding to keep operating the Daybreak Centre. It is a centre that is

long established. It has been operating for twenty years.

The centre in Corner Brook, which is in Dunfield Park, in a

high density, subsidized rental complex, is in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation premises, especially renovated for the purposes of having the

child/parent resource centre there. It is operated with federal government,

Health and Welfare Canada, child care initiatives funding for salaries and

supplies and so on. That child care initiative's funding runs out at the end of

this month, but in sight is new federal funding under the program called

'Brighter Futures'. That is a program that is going to provide over $1 million

new federal funds to this Province for each year for five years. It is targeted

to young children at risk, as well as their families.

The Dunfield Park program and the Daybreak program in St.

John's are ideally suited for this new program, and according to both provincial

and federal officials, arrangements for the federal/provincial protocol that

will guide the allocation of the new money have just about been complete, and

even if the protocol is not signed until part way into the new fiscal year, the

federal funds will be provided with effect from April 1st.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Wells' government will have at their

disposal new federal funds which they will be able to tap to operate Daybreak,

to operate the Dunfield Park Centre in Corner Brook, and to start new

child/parent resource centres in other areas of the Province. All along, as has

been pointed out by Daybreak participants, the provincial funding for Daybreak

has been 50 per cent cost recoverable from the federal government under the

Canada Assistance Plan.

Mr. Speaker, given the value of the Daybreak Centre in terms

of human lives, the lives of young children and their families with

special needs, given the fact that no suitable alternatives

exist, given the projected medium and long-term benefits - benefits to other

branches of the provincial government, to other parts of the Department of

Social Services, to Education, to Health, to Justice - for heaven's sake, listen

to what Daybreak parents and participants and the experts are saying and take

immediate action to restore the funding to keep going a good and excellent

program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise also to

present a petition to this hon. House on behalf of 244 names, residents of Shea

Heights primarily in the district.

The prayer of the petition is: to the hon. House of Assembly

in Parliament Assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of Shea

Heights in the district of St. John's South, humbly sheweth

whereas the Daybreak

Parent Child Centre is about to be closed, and these important services will no

longer be provided to people in the district of St. John's South, and

whereas

all other daycare users in the district of St. John's South must now pay for

equivalent services offered within the district and/or Province, and

whereas the

residents of St. John's South cannot bear the cost of this service, wheretofore

that Daybreak not only provides employment for some people who live in the

district, but that the children and families served by Daybreak live in many

districts, and this service is essential to the well-being of deprived families.

We humbly ask that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reinstate the

necessary funding to keep in operation the facility of Daybreak Parent Child

Centre. It is critical that these services be one of the options available for

families who need child development and parenting support and other specified

services.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague, the Member for Ferryland,

already said - and I would sooner quote the Member for Ferryland than the Member

for Humber East, I assure you - there are lots of good, sound solid reasons -

and I think what we see here with Daybreak is a group that has been involved

over the years and doing tremendously good work, have not had the opportunity to

address themselves to the public the way that they might have. The reasons are

obvious. I also would like to read from the information sheet provided by

Daybreak: Daybreak deals with the fundamentals of prevention and mental health

promotion for the next generation. I think it's exceedingly important that we so

note that. It is through programs like Daybreak that we can hope to interrupt

the negative cycle of family problems.

I think, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen over the twenty years

that Daybreak has existed, a tremendous opportunity for the less fortunate

throughout this Province for one reason or another who have not had the

opportunity to be involved in a family type environment that Daybreak provides

for those who are certainly less fortunate. I would be very hopeful that in

Daybreak's meeting tomorrow with the Minister of Social Services that we can

reach down and find the funding that is needed, and the support. More than the

funding, the support that is needed through the department to ensure that

Daybreak continues to foster and grow.

I would suggest, it's sad that this government is faced with

the horrendous amount of negativity associated with seventeen years of...

mismanagement, I suppose, is as good as any word. I think if that did not

precede this government we would see no need to be even dealing with these kinds

of situations and problems that face us today. Mr. Speaker, it is with great

pleasure that I support the petition and support the group. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to support the

petition presented by the Member for St. John's South and I support it, I can

assure him, with more enthusiasm than he supported the petition he just rose to

present. He talked about seventeen years of mismanagement. I say to the Member

for St. John's South, to the Premier, and to other members opposite that he can

call it what he likes, but for seventeen years, whether it was mismanagement or

good management, Daybreak was funded. While the Conservatives were in power, Mr.

Speaker, Daybreak was funded, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

I say also that I am very disappointed today, extremely

disappointed, as Wednesday was Private Members' Day, a day when we were going to

have a private member's resolution. The private member's resolution for

Wednesday had to come from the government members. It couldn't come from the

Member for St. John's East or from us, it was their day, and for the Member for

Pleasantville to stand with that mushed-up resolution, Mr. Speaker, and not

bring in a resolution calling upon government to support Daybreak is shameful.

Now, I have to make the point that it was not just the Member for Pleasantville

who could have brought in that resolution. The Member for St. John's South who

just stood up and feebly tried to make a presentation could have stood in this

House today and asked government to bring in funding for Daybreak. That is what

the Member for St. John's South could have done, Mr. Speaker. Shame on the

Member for St. John's South!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South is on a point of

order.

MR. MURPHY: As a point of clarification, I ask the Chair,

is it right for a private member to have two resolutions on the Order Paper at

one time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not appropriate to direct a question to the Chair, but

I want to remind hon. members that we are into petition time. Hon. members know

the rules about petitions and I ask hon. members, please, to observe the rules.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would suspect the Member for

St. John's South is trying to chew up a bit of time, as I exposed his feeble

presentation. Let me say one thing and let every member over there understand

and realize it, Daybreak is not going anywhere. Daybreak has been there for

twenty years and Daybreak will be there in twenty years time I say to members

opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: The sooner the Premier, the Minister of

Finance, and the Minister of Social Services let that sink into their thick

heads, as soon as they realize and recognize the importance of Daybreak, they

will eventually be forced to change their minds. We will force them in this

Assembly, Mr. Speaker. We will tie up this government, if there is any way of

tying up this government. And I hope and pray that this government will do it

before we get into Estimates Committee, because if there is any courage left on

the government side - the vote for the Department of Social Services will not

pass. The Member for St. John's East, the Member for Humber East, the Member for

Ferryland, and I, as the critic for the department, will be on that Committee,

and we will fight it with every ounce of strength we can muster. If the Premier

wants to save any little bit of face in this, he might as well move tomorrow and

announce that Daybreak will not close. He might as well do it tomorrow because

Daybreak isn't going away. In the next few months there may be a new government

over there which will ensure that Daybreak receives the same type of funding and

treatment that it received for the past seventeen years, I say to members

opposite.

It is not enough for the Member for Pleasantville and the

Member for St. John's South to be feeble-mouthed and lacking enthusiasm in their

support for Daybreak. Get up and be counted. Tell the government that Daybreak

isn't going away. The Member for St. John's South should have said to the

Premier of this Province, today: I will not support your government, I will vote

against the Budget unless you include funding for Daybreak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: One final point before I sit down: The Member

for Ferryland presented a petition, supported by the Member for Humber East, but

the minister didn't stand to support it. Now, I say to the minister, do not show

any more disrespect for that cause than you have already shown. When I take my

place, do the hon. thing, stand in this House and support Daybreak, I say to the

Minister of Social Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have your permission to

present a petition to the House. I spoke to my hon. friends opposite and to the

House Leader on this side, and the prayer of the petition is not exactly right,

but it is one of the petitions from some of my Roman Catholic constituents in

Carbonear district, over 1,100, Mr. Speaker, and I have no hesitation in

supporting, I guess, is the right word, their stand as it relates to

denominational education. I can honestly say that in Carbonear district, I think

that sharing started a long time ago. And in my hon. friend's district next door

to me in Bay de Verde, we have had a shared school system between the Roman

Catholic and the Integrated now for, I guess, the last ten or twelve years, and

that system is working.

The people in my district, Mr. Speaker, including the people

who signed this petition, want to make the educational system in the Province

the best possible education system and they will work towards doing that. I

present it, Mr. Speaker, with great pride, even though there are only a little

over 1,100 people in my district who have signed this petition. I think I can

honestly say that most of the Catholic people in my district have signed it.

I want to finish by making a comment about Daybreak. I don't

think, Mr. Speaker, that we, as politicians, should use Daybreak as a political

football.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member is presenting a petition about education, I

believe, and the hon. gentleman should keep his comments to that petition and

not engage in comments with respect to another petition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will close by saying that it gives me great pleasure to

support my constituents in this particular area, and I know that most of the

people who signed this have been told what the agreement is with the government

as it relates to denominational education and they are quite pleased even though

MR. HEWLETT: Consultation, not agreement.

MR. REID: - even though the petition came after

consultation or agreement was made. They have said to me, because of all the

effort that went into collecting these names, they wanted me to present it,

anyway. I support the people of my district as it relates to denominational

education, and I thank the Opposition, as well the House Leader, for allowing me

to present it.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words

on that particular petition. I support the petition, but what I find passing

strange is that the member delivering that petition, when he served on another

committee with me, when we were looking into the efficiencies of educational

expenditures, did nothing but make fun of the denominational system in this

Province. Mr. Speaker, I, support for real, that particular petition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. REID: I really don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether or

not this is a point of order, maybe it is a point of privilege. I don't know

that my hon. friend could actually stand and accuse me of doing something - and

I don't even know what he is talking about. I think, as a member of this House,

Mr. Speaker, that you shouldn't be allowed to get up and make blanket statements

like that unless there is some proof, and I take exception to the fact that that

gentleman would get up and say that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, it is a difference of opinion

between two hon.members.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

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

When the Chair is giving a ruling, hon. members ought not to

be shouting across the floor. The Chair has made a ruling that there is no point

of order, just a difference of opinion between two hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, today, to present a petition on behalf of

approximately 2,800 people of six parishes at the Head of the Bay, Assumption

parish Avondale, St. Peter/St. Paul parish in Harbour Main, Holy Cross parish in

Holyrood, St. Anne's parish in Conception Harbour, Immaculate Conception parish

in Colliers and St. Edward's parish in Kelligrews. The petition reads: 'We, the

undersigned, are committed to the highest quality education for the children of

our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and we want to keep them. In the

same way, we support the right of others to have the schools they desire. We

also support co-operation between churches and education, especially shared

service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights

of other people in our Province taken away, and we ask you, as our

representatives, not to tamper with the rights that we now have under the

Constitution of Canada.'

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this petition today

and I rise to support it without any reservation whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I have

always been a strong supporter, all my life, of denominational education. I am a

strong supporter today and I will continue to be a strong supporter of

denominational education, because I believe it is the right of any individual to

be educated in the school system that reflects the moral and ethical values of

the individual, in whatever religion with which he happens to be associated. I

believe this is what the church leaders are talking about and this is what they

want. I think that in spite of what some people may feel, this is what the

majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador want, as well.

I think we would all do very well, Mr. Speaker, to think

about all of the positive things associated with denominational education and

with having our children educated in a manner that addresses the whole person. I

think this is what the church leaders have been concentrating on, that the

denominational education system concentrates more on addressing the whole

individual, not just the academic end of it - which is very, very important, as

we know - but also the spiritual and the moral end of it, as well, which is

important for our young people also.

I have thought about the denominational education system, Mr.

Speaker, a great deal over the last number of weeks and months. While I have

heard a few people here and there condemn the system, I can't say that there are

too many people in the Province who would not want to have their children

educated in the ways of christianity and in a manner that reflects the moral

values of the particular religion with which they happen to be associated.

The message, in my view, Mr. Speaker, is loud and clear from

the various church leaders and from people in general, that people do want that

system of education preserved in the Province. They want a guarantee that there

is not going to be any tampering with the Constitution of Canada, with respect

to the rights they have under the denominational education system. They also

feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is in danger at this point in time, because there are

a few people out and about the Province who manufacture reasons every now and

then, as to why the denominational education system should be thrown out. The

opponents of denominational education would have us believe that there is costly

duplication everywhere in the system, right across the system, which is not

true, Mr. Speaker. There may be isolated cases every now and then where there is

a little bit of duplication but these issues are being addressed, have been

addressed in the past and there is a commitment to address these issues again in

the future.

So, I say, Mr. Speaker, and I have said it all my life, let's

retain that system. It is a good system of education. We are the envy of other

provinces in Canada. We are the envy of most places in the world who realize

that we do have that kind of system. It is a good system because it ensures that

our children get a good foundation in moral values and whether or not we choose

to stand up in public forums like this one and talk about it, is something that

each of us, as individuals, have to decide. But it is a good system of education

because it ensures that the churches are involved in laying that foundation for

young people and I think that is very important, indeed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. DOYLE: I support the petition.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise

in support of the Member for Harbour Main. Certainly, I am not going to take up

all of my five minutes, Mr. Speaker, but he presented a petition and his remarks

were along the same lines as mine. I congratulate that member for presenting the

petition and presenting it in the way he did.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if those petitions would have ever

come to the floor of the House if Dr. Williams had stayed within his terms of

reference, because I do not think that ever it was meant to be, at least not by

the terms of reference, for the denominational educational system to be

explored, and I think that may be what caused the biggest problem. I think he

went beyond his mandate when he explored the denominational educational system,

and I think that is where all of this originated, and it is too bad because it

did leave some doubt in some people's minds.

I did want to go back to the Minister of Health's remarks a

few days ago, and he said it right, and I certainly have to congratulate him on

it. He said: There are so many things out here in the schools that are happening

because of the educational system that we do not see, that we take for granted,

such as music, sports, and other advantages that we have because of the system

that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I will rise every time I have a chance and

support people like the Member for Harbour Main and the Member for St. John's

Centre, in saying: Thank God that we all see things - and that the ex-Minister

of Education - he and I have discussed it over and over and over again about the

sharing aspect of education and how we could improve the system to be more

beneficial for our children and grandchildren. I think that is where we are all

coming from, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone - you have to change. Systems have to change. There

should be always an opportunity for change to help to make the system better,

and I think that is what we are all talking about, but I said it before. In my

area alone there are three denominations who are prepared to activate, or to be

actually involved in the one school. They have been given the land for free, to

build the school, again which is a lovely area surrounded by a recreational

complex, safe for children, a paved road right to it, but the monies are just

not available to the school boards to build it.

No matter what we talk about sharing, we do not have the

money right now to support our needs, and until that day arrives we are going to

have to sort of do with what we have and try to improvise where possible, but it

is sort of a white elephant. Out of all the schools, there is only 12 per cent

of all the schools that has any type of duplication. That is being worked upon.

Everyone here in the House seems to be in line, and with this

message coming from all of us, certainly I think that it would be detrimental to

any government to even tamper with or try to change the system of which we are

very proud.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I am standing to present a new

petition, unless the other man is supporting one.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is presenting a new one as

well, so the hon. the Member for Green Bay.

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

I wish to present a petition signed by five residents of the

community of Beachside in my district.

The petition is simple. We, the undersigned residents of

Beachside petition the honourable House of Assembly for approval of another

phase of our water and sewer system.

It has been signed by five, Mr. Speaker, because those were

the five community councillors who were present at a meeting I attended this

weekend.

Beachside is a small town of a few hundred people, that had a

water system installed a few years ago but they have had a lot of problems since

in terms of discoloration in the water and silting in the water. I have seen ice

cubes in Beachside where they are clear on the top and on the bottom they are

actually brown. Bedclothes and linens cannot be washed in automatic washers

because they are absolutely ruined and stained. A lot of people in Beachside go

to church and their Sunday best white shirt you cannot wash in the local water.

You cannot drink the local water. It is terrible.

As evidence I show you this here. It is the colour of tea.

That is the local water. It is the colour of tea, and when you shake it up it is

like a cup of black coffee, so we have water not fit for human consumption.

The government saying that money is allocated on a needs

basis, and here is a need that is not being met. I table the petition, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) point of order.

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

Technology on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: It is improper to bring any objects like that

into the House of Assembly. That should be taken from the House of Assembly

immediately, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay to the point of order.

MR. HEWLETT: If I have broken the rules of the House of

Assembly in presenting this particular bottle of water, Mr. Speaker, I apologize

to the House and will remove it.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. Hon. members know

that there are certain objects not allowed to be presented in the House. I'm not

sure, but I'd expect a bottle might be one of them, but the hon. member

apologized.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition

here from the students and staff of Gonzaga High School. I showed it to Your

Honour earlier because I don't think it quite fits the specifications for a

petition, but if I have leave of the House I'll present it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: On the church issue, on the religious issue,

on church schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, attached to the petition, which

is signed by quite a number of students - and I'll refer to that in a minute -

is a letter from the principal, signed by the principal and one of the teachers,

to accompany the petition.

He says: "Enclosed you will find a petition, signed by

approximately 400 students, staff, teachers and Jesuits of Gonzaga High School,

firmly supporting the right of Roman Catholics to attend Roman Catholic schools.

The petition strongly asserts the right of all parents and students to attend

denominational or secular schools if reasonable numbers of students permit.

"We, the students, teachers, and Jesuits of Gonzaga High

School seek your support in protecting our legal constitutional right to

administer and attend Roman Catholic schools."

Mr. Speaker, I won't read it all: "We expect you to make our

views known to the Government, at every level, respecting the right of Catholics

to the education of their choice. Although this petition was begun only days

before the Premier assured the House of his intention not to take away the

rights of Catholics, we want to be officially recognized for the record."

The students had, as a preface to their petition: we the

undersigned students, parents, teachers, staff and Jesuits of Gonzaga Regional

High School support Catholic education and the inherent right of all parents to

choose an education appropriate for their children.

They quote

Article 26 of the United Nations Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, which says: "Everyone has the right to an

education. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall

be given to their children."

They quote Vatican Council II's Gravissimum educationis: "The

task of imparting education belongs primarily to the family, but it requires the

help of society as a whole. Parents who have a primary and inalienable duty and

right in regard to the education of their children should enjoy the fullest

liberty in their choice of school. The public authority, therefore, whose duty

it is to protect and defend principles of justice, to ensure... that parents are

truly free to select schools for their children in accordance with their

conscience."

Also quoted is number eighty-two of The Characteristics of

Jesuit Education: "The aim of Jesuit (Catholic) education is to help students

realize that talents are gifts to be developed, not for self-satisfaction or

self-gain, but rather, with the help of God, for the good of the human

community. Students are encouraged to use their gifts in the service of others,

out of love for God."

They also quote Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, Superior General

of the Society of Jesus, who says: "Our ideal is the well-rounded person who is

intellectually competent, open to growth, religious, loving, and committed to

doing justice in generous service to the people of God."

Finally, from the pastoral Team of Gonzaga High School: "The

Gonzaga High School community is dedicated to preserving an environment of

christian values as expressed through the Catholic faith. The Gonzaga community

endeavours to provide every person an opportunity to grow in knowledge of God

and the world, and to develop a living faith that reaches out to others in

mercy, justice, and love. Therefore we support the fundamental right of all

parents and students to choose an education according to their beliefs and

traditions. It is our belief that public money should be used equitably to

support the schools desired by them.'

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by 400 students, and

when I look at the students, I recognize quite a number of constituents in the

district of St. John's Centre, some of my neighbours' children, some friends,

and many of whom I know personally, but not all. It is signed by eight Jesuits -

I didn't know there are that many Jesuits at Gonzaga - eight Jesuits, and quite

a number of teachers and staff other than teachers, the people who work in the

school but are not teachers, also by some alumnae and parents, but few of those.

It is also signed by the MHA for the district, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time has elapsed.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you.

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

DR. WARREN: I have just two or three comments. I am

pleased to support the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for St.

John's Centre.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased also that the government has

indicated his support of the principles that he eunciated in his statement read

by the Premier some weeks ago, supported by the churches. I just want to add a

comment about the fact that students have signed this petition.

One of the most interesting things that I did in my period as

Minister of Education, was to visit schools and talk to students. Mr. Speaker, I

visited a school a week, on the average, and talked to students, teachers and

after school, often parents. In fact, I think, every Minister of Education - and

I am sure the present Minister - is doing or will do the same thing. I think

every Minister of Education should visit schools - a school a week.

I found, in my discussions with them, that students strongly

supported moral religious education. Now, I want to be honest with the House and

you, Mr. Speaker, and my members, they were not - let me put it this way, they

were critical of the traditional type of religious moral education programs that

were offered in many of our schools, but they did stress in their conversations

with me, the importance of a strong moral religious education program for

schools, that permeated not just a class a week, or two or three classes a day

but permeated the whole operation of the school. I am pleased to say that many

of the denominations in this Province have already changed the approach to

religious education. We are not into the traditional types of programs. I have

been in Catholic schools, Pentecostal schools and Integrated schools where they

focus on the problems with the environment, that are facing the environment in

the world, and the importance of dealing with that in the christian context.

So, I do support the petition presented by my friend, the

Member for St. John's Centre, and I support the basic principles enunciated in

that petition. I am pleased to say that religious education, in a new format, is

alive and well in many of our schools in the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition on the denominational education

issue. It is from the parishioners of St. Paul's parish, which is located in my

district. The prayer of the petition is: 'We, the undersigned, are committed to

the highest quality education for the children of our Province. We support Roman

Catholic Schools and want to keep them. In the same way, we support the rights

of others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between

the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are

needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province

taken away, and we ask you, as our representatives, not to tamper with the

rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I don't guess there is much need for me to go

into very much detail in relation to this petition, which is similar to others

that have been presented by numerous members of the House. I have met with

members of the parish council, who tell me that there are about 433 signatures

on this petition, which constitutes about half of their parish.

The petition was started prior to the statement made by the

Premier here, a couple of weeks ago, and the parishioners are quite satisfied

with the plans government have for dealing with this, quite satisfied by the

joint statement made by the Premier and the church leaders. They do want to make

sure that they retain their constitutional right, that given to them in Term 17

of the Terms of Union, assuring them of the right to denominational education

for their children.

But they realize that we have to do everything we can, Mr.

Speaker, to ensure we eliminate all unnecessary costs from the educational

system and to make sure that we have the best possible educational system that

we can afford. They merely want to make sure that an opportunity for religious

teaching is retained; they want to make sure that the values, their values, the

values by which they want their children brought up, are inculcated in them

through their educational years, and I must say, the Minister of Health, made a

pretty good speech the other day on the value of our denominational system and

how it has entrenched real values in the young people, who have benefitted from

it in this Province.

These parishoners, Mr. Speaker, don't want to have a system

of education that is going to be unduly costly for the Province, but they want

to make sure that their children and their children's children, will always have

the right to religious instruction through the school system. However, they also

encourage the government to make sure that it does everything possible to

eliminate all unnecessary costs, as I said, and to make sure that we have the

best possible system of education we can afford.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on behalf of 158 residents

of St. Joseph's parish in Petty Harbour, Maddox Cove.

Mr. Speaker, I support this petition which states: 'We, the

undersigned, are committed to the highest quality education for the children of

our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them. In the

same way, we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We

also support co-operation between the churches and education, especially shared

service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights

of other people in our Province taken away, and we ask you, as our

representatives, not to tamper with the rights we now have under the

Constitution of Canada.'

Mr. Speaker, the churches have played a very significant role

in education in this Province, and up to 1949 they were given a constitutional

right to maintain a strong presence in schools here in this Province. The Terms

of Union entrenched in 1949 -

MR. ROBERTS: There was no constitutional right before

MR. SULLIVAN: In 1949.

MR. ROBERTS: In 1949 it was entrenched.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is what I am stating.

MR. ROBERTS: Before that there was no protection.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct, that is what I am stating.

I said, in 1949, they were given that specific right and it was entrenched in

Term 17 of the Terms of Union with Canada.

The churches have continued to play an important role, not

only in the delivery of these systems, but also in terms of the financing of

education. It only has become primarily a public function, the financing, over

the past number of years, but churches have still used some of the funds from

churches to be able to put money into the programs and into capital

expenditures.

Tremendous progress has been made over the past number of

years in interdenominational sharing, in shared services and joint service

schools in the Province. And things were moving on a very even footing, without

much fuss, until they felt that their right was being threatened - the right to

have a say into education of their children according to the specific religion

of their choice.

The key point here is that parents should have the choice of

selecting the type of education they want for their kids, and if they so choose,

that of one specific religion. They should have that right, which is entrenched.

Over the past several months, this government have raised a

lot of concerns about the rights of parents to have a say in the specific type

of education they want for their kids, and it has set back our education system

probably a number of years. It has built up a mistrust in this government for a

fear of what they may legislate and what they may do. But co-operation has

increased. We have only to look around this Province to see the numerous

examples of shared schools and services being delivered in the Province.

Now, people have built up a great mistrust in government.

They fear that their rights are going to be taken away. They haven't received

anything of a definitive nature whatsoever to allay those fears and concerns

they have. While this government have indicated what is not their intention or

their objective or what is not their plan, they have not specifically stated

what is their plan.

Bills 16 and 17 started building up a mistrust in this

government. Statements by the Minister of Education, last fall, on

denominational education raised that level of suspicion and even anger, in

certain sectors, that much higher.

All we are asking is that these churches be permitted to

continue to have a say in the education of this Province, that their rights not

be trampled on, that they have an opportunity to continue to deliver education

in as cost-efficient a manner as possible. They are as cognizant of the need for

efficient delivery of education as anybody else, and education can be delivered

through co-operation between the various churches and denominations in a

cost-efficient manner. We have only to look back over the past several years to

see that we have been moving in that direction at an accelerated pace.

Now, concerns are being raised and people are very concerned

that they may have a weakening of that specific role that they have played, and

all because this government have been very wishy-washy on the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have just a few brief words on this petition

presented on behalf of the people of St. Joseph's parish in Petty Harbour -

Maddox Cove, half of which would be in my district - the Maddox Cove half of it.

I want to stand here in this House of Assembly and support

the people of that parish, as I have St. Kevin's parish and Corpus Christi

parish, when I presented petitions on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to note that pretty well every

member in this House of Assembly has presented a petition from some group, from

the Roman Catholic parishioners throughout the Province, and there have been

thousands and thousands of petitioners on that specific issue.

I would say, the main reason there is such nervousness about

what is going to happen to our education system in this Province would be our

present Minister of Education, obviously, who said that he wanted to be

remembered by his grandchildren as the Minister of Education who did away with

the denominational education system. So that would create a bit of concern for

people who support it.

The Premier of our Province made an agreement with the

churches, and the agreement was to consult. The agreement was not that he would

not try to change the system. The agreement was not that he would not, some time

to get rid of denominational education. The agreement was only to consult in the

future. That, in itself, would make people nervous, because we know the

Premier's record on consultation. It is not very good.

Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of the denominational education

system, but I haven't always been. I was at one time when my children went to

school in the denominational education system. I supported it very strongly. I

went through the system myself. Obviously, we all did.

Mr. Speaker, there was a time before my children were going

to school when there were some comments coming mostly from the education

department of Memorial University. A couple of professors in that area were

suggesting that the denominational education system was costing us too much

money. I did, at that time, question whether or not it was costing us too much

money, whether there was a lot of duplication, and I did check it out. I checked

to see if that was possible.

I asked people about the duplication. In my constituency,

especially, there is not much duplication because the schools are bursting at

the seams. It is a growth area. There is not enough room in the schools we have

now to accommodate the people who need to be there. But when I asked people who

did not support the system, what was the problem, one of the things they

mentioned was school busing. That is only a management problem. If there are two

school buses passing each other on the street, going different ways, or going

the same way, picking up different kids, that is only a management problem. Any

of the problems that were raised to me about the duplication and about the

expense of a denominational education system were not inherent because of the

denominational education system. It is inherent because we have poor management

of that system. If the system is not managed properly, any system, it will be

expensive. There was a letter in the paper a little while ago which showed our

per capita cost of education in this Province as compared to four or five other

provinces. We were in the middle. We were not the most expensive, we were not

the least expensive, we were somewhere in the middle. Mr. Speaker, that is

usually where Newfoundland comes out in most comparisons, most national

comparisons across Canada. Our education system is good. I think we have a good

system but we certainly need improvements. We certainly need more effort, more

money, and more facilities in place but we are not going to get it with this

government. We are not going to get the necessary improvements if we keep laying

off teachers and if we do not build the classrooms that are necessary, and if we

prevent our education system from providing courses such as music, art, and

other courses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Orders of the Day

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

Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we give first readings,

if the House is so minded, to Motions 2 and 3. I understand as well there is

unanimous consent to give first reading to the bill with respect to the

electoral boundaries commission, the Electoral Boundaries Act of which I gave

notice today. That will enable the bill to be printed and made available to

members in the House later today.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," carried. (Bill No. 17)

On motion, Bill No. 17 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill,

"An Act Respecting A Smoke-Free Environment In The Workplace And In Public

Places In The Province, " carried. (Bill No. 18)

On motion, Bill No. 18 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act," carried. (Bill No. 20)

On motion, Bill No. 20 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me preface what I am about to move by

saying that the government has no present intention of asking the House to sit

after 5 o'clock tonight but I do want to retain some flexibility in planning, so

with that said let me move that the House do not adjourn at 5 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the

House do not adjourn at 5 o'clock.

All those in favour 'aye.'

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

All those against 'nay.'

Carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Interim Supply resolution,

and perhaps I could advise members that I am informed by the table officers that

we have now had six hours, thirty-six minutes, which, if arithmetic does not

fail me, leaves eleven hours, twenty-four minutes to go, assuming we take the

full time allowed by Rule 118, Sub (5).

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of Supply

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. 12.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak on this

Bill, an interim supply bill. I notice in the request for funds or approval for

funds that the Department of Employment and Labour Relations requests

approximately $11 million in interim supply for their expenditures. Yet this

afternoon I heard in question period how the minister, that young and

inexperienced minister -

MR. WINSOR: Only in Cabinet for a year.

MR. A. SNOW: Only in Cabinet for a year. Yet he said

today that he didn't feel it necessary at the time to come in with an employment

program because they're not concerned about the short-term. They're more

concerned about the long-term picture, Mr. Chairman, the twenty-five year plan

that they have.

I want to remind this young, inexperienced, but charismatic

minister, this former labour leader, that there is a problem in my district

specifically with regard to requests for short-term employment. We are not a

district accustomed to seeking short-term employment projects as a method of

being a major part of our economy. This young, inexperienced minister who has

learned to eat crow - and I know it was difficult, after being used to the

steaks and the caviar in the Cabinet and all that stuff - I know it's tough now

to eat crow. I would hope that he would get down to the ground level now, keep

his feet on the ground, and understand some of the problems that are out and

about within this Province. More specifically, to the problems in my district.

We used to have 1,600 people in the bargaining unit of Local

5795 a year and a half ago. Now that's down to 1,200. We've lost several hundred

jobs, 400 to 500 jobs when you look at both bargaining units in western

Labrador. These are people accustomed to making very high earnings and producing

a lot of wealth for this Province. Producing a lot of wealth that you, Mr.

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, with your cohorts in government

have - they've felt, a lot of people in my district have felt that you've

squandered a lot of their tax dollars. Buying luxurious, lavish furniture for

your digs up on the eighth and ninth floors. Going on tours and trips, expensive

briefcases and suitcases, and all that stuff. It's obscene, they tell me, how

you people have handled the funds, their tax dollars.

What they're looking for now - they can understand that the

minister, when the minister stands and says that they're more concerned about

the long-term solution, how they're going to create more economic wealth and

more opportunities for employment in this Province, but then they say: it's

going to take probably twenty-five years to get there. These people who have

worked for the last five to eight years in the mines in western Labrador, in

Wabush or Labrador City, some of these people have decided to stay around there,

because there isn't much opportunity out and about in other mining areas in this

Province, or indeed the whole country. So they want to stay there now and

hopefully carry over - maybe through a make-work program. Because we have maybe

about 100 people who are accustomed to producing a lot of wealth that you, as

Cabinet ministers, have squandered over the last four or five years. That's what

they feel. You've squandered it, you've blown it.

MR. FLIGHT: What about the seventeen before that

(Inaudible)?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, a lot of my people in my

district were disappointed with the squandering that occurred over the previous

seventeen years too. But they're disgusted with the obscenities that are

occurring now with expenditures that are going on in this Province. Absolutely

disgusted with it. Because they work hard for the amount of money that they get

paid and the amount that they have to send out to this building here so that you

people can squander it here on your luxurious digs, as I suggested, up on the

eighth, ninth and tenth floors, and your big expensive trips around the world.

They would like to see some things done in western Labrador

that would help ease the burden. They are not looking for even assistance. They

would like to be able to get the opportunity of a make-work program to do

something within the community and possibly get back to work in the mining

industry after the contracts have been settled. They want that. They want a

short-term employment program from the minister, and I know that the minister

has been specifically asked - specifically asked - to come up with something for

that district, but in the long term in western Labrador what we also want is for

this government to pay attention to what the mining companies are doing in

western Labrador. They have to discontinue placing such a high tax burden upon

the mining industry itself.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the mining industry is taxed more than any

other industry in this Province. It creates an inordinate amount of wealth,

comparatively speaking, to other industries to the general revenues of this

Province. It is time for this Province to realize that they are going to have to

decrease the tax burden upon that particular industry.

Mr. Chairman, I asked in this House last week that the

Minister of Mines and Energy would request his cohorts in government, when he is

allowed to speak, and when he is in the Province, if he could get to a Cabinet

meeting, if he would request that they would actually decrease the tax burden

placed on the mining industry, because it is too high.

The day after the mining company in Wabush requested their

employees to take a wage concession, this government attacked that mining

company by going back to appeal a court case that the company had won over a

million dollar tax dispute. That is what they did. After the company going to

its employees, requesting that the employees take a $4 or $5 an hour decrease in

salary, this government then attacks that company by appealing a court case

which that company had won.

That angers, disappoints and disgusts people working in the

industry - that that is the amount of consideration you would give the industry.

You would attack a company that is requesting that its employees give back wages

- wages that they have earned by working very hard, producing very hard -

working for a company that competes in the global economy and competes very

well, even with the high tax burden. They should discontinue this appeal, this

attack, on the mining company in Wabush, because that is basically what it is.

They should also look at the royalties that are being paid. I

asked the Minister of Mines and Energy to also investigate whether or not we -

when I say 'we', I mean this Province - should condone and accept the fact that

the mining industry pays so much royalties - to royalty holding companies either

in Toronto or stationed in Vancouver, because really what do these companies -

do we still owe them that amount of royalty, or is there some method we should

be looking at where we can change the legislation to restrict and lower those

royalties they are paying out to NALCAP in the circumstance of Wabush mines

operating over in Wabush.

The $4.5 million that these people are paying in royalties to

NALCAP is a very heavy burden upon that mining company, and I want to emphasize

that we could do this because this company does not produce any wealth within

this Province.

I recognize that the people who held mineral rights, the

people who held and still hold - the company that still holds the mineral rights

to that ore deposit - yes, they did put together a package, so to speak, for the

ultimate development of that ore deposit, but times have changed. That was

thirty years ago. Maybe it is time to revisit the royalty schemes that the

industry must now pay to that particular company, because they do not do

anything else.

They are not spending money on exploration. Maybe, if they

would change the regulations, change the tax regime so that these revenues would

be directed out into exploration or as an incentive for other mining companies

to start, Mr. Chairman, maybe then that would be more creative, that would

create more wealth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: By leave?

Mr. Chairman, because that would create the opportunity of

creating more wealth within the Province. I recognize, as the people of my

district recognize, that yes, this government still needs money to operate, to

deliver its services to the residents of, not just western Labrador, but the

whole Province, to come in with some type of legislation where you can create a

lesser burden on the operating company and yet allow a certain amount of

protection for the people that own the mineral rights to the mining concession.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, and even more importantly than those two things, also create

an atmosphere where people can still willingly go out and invest money to

explore and develop other mining properties or mineral rights within this

Province and more specifically around western Labrador because I believe this is

what we have to do to create a larger economy. The answer of this government to

its economic needs, when they look at the budgetary process, is either to tax or

to cut, which I think has been totally wrong. What they need to do is be more

creative. They have to be more creative and present legislation to the House

that is not just going to tax and cut but is going to be creative and allow the

economy to expand and thus create more revenues, Mr. Chairman.

But, Mr. Chairman, in the short term, I realize that it is

going to take a longer time. I do not think it is going to take twenty-five

years, as the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations has

suggested and the Premier has suggested, Mr. Chairman, that it is going to take

twenty-five years to have this economic plan implemented. I think that is

balderdash, Mr. Chairman. It is silliness for the people, for the Cabinet

Minister and the Premier of this Province, to suggest that the people of this

Province are going to have to wait for twenty-five years for any economic

recovery, Mr. Chairman, to have some employment in this Province. That is

absolutely silliness, Mr. Chairman, but in the short term this government has to

respond to the needs of individuals who are not just living in my district but

throughout this Province but more specific to my district, these people who have

worked in the mining industry for six, seven, and eight years and are now

presently laid off because of technological changes, because of not just the

global economy or the recession that we are in but for other reasons they have

found that they have been laid off.

The manpower levels are down drastically in both mines. So,

Mr. Chairman, they would like to be able to get some short term work

opportunities, employment opportunities and then maybe have the opportunity of

going back to school and learning an additional skill so that they will be more

marketable when the recession is over, not just in this Province but the whole

country.

So, I specifically asked the young inexperienced minister who

has become accustomed to eating caviar and thick steaks up in the Cabinet room

and yet comes down here in the floor of the House and eats crow, I would

specifically ask him to investigate the opportunity to have more funds allocated

within his department to create some short term work opportunities in western

Labrador.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Minister

responsible for Forestry and Agriculture agrees with the statement that they eat

caviar up in the Cabinet and they come down here and they have to eat crow

sometimes during the sessions in the House of Assembly. Now, he agreed with it

and he suggested that he has to do the same thing. I feel sorry for him, Mr.

Chairman, that he has to come down here and apologize and beg for forgiveness

from the voters. I feel sorry for him that he has to do that. But he has done it

and he will have to continue to do it because of what he does within his

jurisdiction as a Cabinet minister. That's why he has to do that and that's why

he has to behave the way he does.

Also in the interim supply bill I notice that the Minister of

Finance has requested $14.5 million, a substantial amount of money. Here is the

minister whom I have talked to several times about things that they could do to

encourage more economic activity in this Province. He just says: I have more

important things to do. Because he is still going along the guidelines of: we

either cut or we tax. We have no other method of doing anything. There's

absolutely nothing being done by his particular department to be more creative,

in creating more economic activity within this Province.

That particular minister, that department, I've been several

months now trying to get some movement with regard to taxes between the two

provinces on the fuel tax, because we have an emerging industry occurring within

western Labrador, with the opening up of the connected road to the Canadian

highway network we're seeing now about ninety-odd per cent of our consumer

freight in western Labrador now comes in on rubber tire from and through the

Province of Quebec. I would suspect - and we're seeing it beginning this year -

I forget the percentage but probably half, at least, or 90 per cent, of the

perishable freight now consumed over in Churchill Falls and in Naskaupi, or over

in Happy Valley - Goose Bay and central Labrador, also comes on in rubber tire.

Transport trucks. This is over what's commonly referred to as the Trans-Labrador

Highway and the Baie Comeau road.

This emerging industry creates new economic activity within

Labrador West. I've asked the minister to see if we can do something with regard

to the rate that we charge, or has been charged within western Labrador, for

diesel fuel. If you compare the amount that the truckers pay in the Province of

Quebec there's a tremendous difference in the price. I've asked the Minister of

Finance to look at this because we know what's happening. Truckers are putting

oversized tanks on their trucks so they only have to fuel up in Quebec. They

have enough fuel to drive all the way to Happy Valley - Goose Bay and return,

because there's such a difference in the fuel prices between the two provinces.

He knows, because I've made him aware of the problem, if we

were to adjust our tax rate within western Labrador, in a border community,

similar to what they've done in Quebec. They recognized the tax structure in

Quebec as being a graduated tax, and lowering it when they come into a border

situation where they can allow the entrepreneurs, the people who are selling the

fuel, to be more competitive with their competition across the border. I've

asked this administration to look at a very similar situation for this province.

They say: yes, that's a good idea, but they don't move, they

don't do anything. They're too busy just looking at the bottom line of saying:

yes, we can do that, yes it might create some more economic activity, and it

might give an advantage to a Newfoundland and Labrador business to be able to do

this, but we've got too many other things to be doing. We have to look at the

big picture. We are worrying about all the layoffs that we're going to do or how

we can cut back or how we can increase taxes, not decrease. That's how this

regime looks at it. They just have two solutions. One is to cut, two to tax.

They don't realize that if they followed examples set out in other provinces

that there are methods of creating more economic activity by lowering taxes.

I've also asked the Minister of Finance to create some method

of working, more specifically with the Province of Quebec with regard to sales

tax paid on vehicles being purchased in Quebec, it is a very big problem here

for individuals to be able to get, when they purchase a car for whatever reason,

or a truck, in the Province of Quebec, they are having difficulty when they then

have to pay their sales tax to get licence plates in this Province, they find

that they cannot get them and they cannot get a refund on the amount of taxes

that they pay to the Province of Quebec and the Minister of Finance has promised

several times that he is going to; oh yes, we will have a look at that but it is

not getting done.

Now, Mr. Chairman, those are just a few things that I wanted

to raise with regard to the Department of Finance, but the thing that the

Department of Finance has done in my district I guess that has the greatest

impact, next to the lack of action upon the mining industry in decreasing the

amount of taxes or the tax burden upon the mining industry itself and more

specifically Wabush mines, Mr. Chairman, next to that lack of action has been

the change in the school taxing situation in western Labrador. What this

government has done with the change in the school tax in western Labrador is

absolutely criminal. It could be and will be devastating to the quality of

education being delivered in western Labrador because of the changes proposed by

this government in the school taxing.

We are finding individuals working in the mines are paying

twice or three times as much taxes as they paid previously. We are also finding

that although this government promised that the school boards would get the same

level or more funding with the change in legislation, we have found in western

Labrador that we are going to lose $1 million a year out of local funding to

schools and education in western Labrador, so it is going to drastically affect

the quality of education being delivered in western Labrador and of course, we

in western Labrador have been very, very proud of the quality of education we

have had over the number of years, and we recognize that one of the reasons why

we had a better education system than anywhere else in this Province, was that

we paid more for the education system than anywhere else in this Province.

Now we are finding that with the changes that this regime

brought in, is that we still pay more than anywhere else in the Province but we

are getting a lower quality. We are going to have a lower quality of education

in our area and we find that fundamentally unfair to ask people to pay more and

receive less, but that is exactly what is happening in western Labrador with

regard to the delivery of education and the change in the school taxing

authority in our area.

Those are just a few remarks, Mr. Chairman, on Interim

Supply. I notice that the Minister of Justice has requested $34 million in

Interim Supply, and, Mr. Chairman, we live in a border community in western

Labrador and I have always felt that we were one of the most prosperous, one of

the best looking communities in this Province and yet - I can remember when I

went up there in 1964 to go to work there, we were probably considered then to

be a mining camp and a lot of the community was single men's housing, or we

lived in bunkhouses, in trailers and that type of thing; it was a very temporary

setup and a lot of the people in this House, Mr. Chairman, their first jobs were

in western Labrador.

But over the years, Mr. Chairman, we have become a thriving,

healthy, young community very proud of its contribution to the provincial and

the national economy. We also evolved to be a healthy participating community

with very, very community minded citizens. Mr. Chairman, it does not matter what

volunteer service people are asked to do in western Labrador they come out in

droves to do it. We have hosted national and international athletic events,

symposiums and conferences, and do a better job than anywhere else in this

Province, and we are very proud of it. We evolved from a mining camp to this

healthy community because of community participation and because we felt this

was our new community. As a person living there we felt that this was our town,

this was our place to live, this was our home, but his government has the

mentality that you should not make western Labrador your home, you should not

live there. What you are suppose do it is just go up there, go to work and send

your money back to the Island so we can live high on the hog.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Chairman, the Member for St. John's

Centre, the former Minister of Finance, says, hear, hear! Hansard will record

that. That same Minister of Health who has allowed the health budget to be

decimated and who has brought in cut after cut to the Captain William Jackman

Memorial Hospital, that same minister who attempted to force the federal

government not to allow a Labrador tax benefits package. He was against that. He

went to the federal government to request that the federal government not

institute a tax benefits package to the people living in Labrador, that same

member now says, hear, hear! What they should be doing in Labrador is not making

it a place to live. Do not call it home. Send your money down to the

Confederation Building so we can have deeper carpet, plusher chairs and more

caviar in our Cabinet room. That is what he says. Well, Mr. Chairman, the people

in western Labrador do not believe that. They want to participate in this

provincial economy. They want to have the amenities that are being offered

elsewhere in his Province. They want quality health care, they want quality

education, they want the opportunity for employment, they want the opportunity

for investment. They want to participate but this government does not want them

to participate and that is why they keep taxing, and taxing, and not putting

anything back.

The Department of Justice under the previous administration

changed from RCMP policing to the RNC policing and built a new building, but

what does this regime do when this group take over? They cut back the RNC

policing, and what else do they do? We used to have a resident Provincial Court

Judge in western Labrador but this government felt they could save money by

sending a travelling judge in with his suitcase to actually hold court

sometimes, Mr. Chairman, in a local bar. That is what they do. I am told he did

not have a real expensive briefcase though. He just had an ordinary Justice

Department issued briefcase. They probably only cost $100. Our travelling judge

does not warrant the expensive luxury jobs that the Cabinet minister gets. That

is the type of abuse that this government has heaped upon the people of western

Labrador.

Send you money down to St. John's, send it into Confederation

Building. We will not allow you to have a resident judge because you are only a

mining camp. You do not need to be living up there. We will just send in a

judge, take a policeman, and if anybody has to go to court we will just lock him

up and wait three or four days for a judge to show up then maybe we can allow

somebody to go to court to defend himself. I firmly believe the fact that this

administration saw fit not to have a resident judge was because as they said, of

budgetary measures and they would save money, it is not only then a travesty in

justice but it has actually been more expensive when you talk of flying

prisoners out to hear a court case or judges in because they have to hear a

court case. All this extra travel has actually been more expensive for the

system, apart from the fact that we could very well have a travesty of justice

in the sense that justice delayed is justice denied.

The other aspect, of course, of having a cutback in the

Department of Justice, and more specifically a non-resident judge in western

Labrador, is the fact that a judge resident within a community gives a community

a sense of permanence, and that was very important for a community that is only

thirty years of age, and a community that some people suggest may disappear

because of closure of a mine.

It was important for this government to show confidence in

the local economy, in the local people - but what do they do? No, they transfer

them. We will just send one in with his travelling suitcase and sometimes, as I

said, they hold court - most of the times in the courtroom, but I am told they

have actually had to go out to the bars and hold court in a bar. Can you

imagine? What a step backwards.

AN HON. MEMBER: The wild west.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, you only get comments then

from the ministers of Cabinet referring to this part of Labrador as the wild

west.

The people of western Labrador are proud of the contributions

that they make, but they are disgusted - absolutely disgusted - with the

treatment that this administration has heaped upon them.

Those are just a few of the things that they are disgusted

and disappointed with. I am pleased to have the opportunity and I will speak

again in a little while to have a few more remarks. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Over this past number of years we have seen the corporate

income tax by this government drop from $70 million down to $39 million - not

very positive indicators that there is a very healthy business climate in the

Province. At the same time we have seen a tax on jobs increase from zero dollars

up to $61.6 million in the budget - $100 million total under corporate tax and

payroll tax upon business in the Province.

It is a disincentive for people to hire individuals, and a

disincentive really to create and promote a good, healthy, working environment.

As a result, the people who are working are being overworked. A company is

trying to get by with less personnel because there are so many disincentives to

creating jobs.

With reference to the budget, with Interim Supply, there is

$55.1 million Interim Supply under Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and one of

the sad things about the budget is that it is not a budget of truth and hope. It

is more a budget of deceit and despair - deceit in that there are so many hidden

cuts that just start surfacing as the days go on. It is one of despair in that

it hits upon a lot of the helpless people, especially young kids who do not have

the opportunities and so on in avenues to be able to fend for themselves.

One specific area that is hitting really hard across the

entire Province, and particularly across rural Newfoundland, and especially in

my district, is the electrical power subsidy that was provided to arenas.

The southern shore arena is unlike many other arenas in this

Province. It had been operating at a profit for each of its five years. I had

the opportunity to serve for almost four years as the president there, and it

provided an opportunity for 300 kids in minor hockey, 150 kids in figure

skating, and seven different leagues of recreational nature, in addition to

school skating and school sports and so on at that arena.

This past few years, with tougher economic times, it has

always shown a profit and been able to operate with a balance sheet at least in

the black, unlike this Province, and a far cry from it. It has been fairly

successful, too, in setting forth its budgets, and have been able to keep them

on target. It has operated, unlike other municipalities, strictly on a volunteer

basis by selecting a board from thirteen communities, with a representative

each, and an elected executive of four people. It has no municipalities to fall

back on. The money has to come out of the pockets of the people, with no other

form of revenue. It has to be on their ice rentals, and to be hit with a $10,000

cut in the middle of a fiscal year doesn't give an opportunity to budget and

meet their expectations.

It's also very characteristic of what has happened overall in

the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs over the past year. Since

I've had the opportunity to be involved, this short while, I've seen - back last

June I saw municipalities in the middle of their year being hit with cuts in

their MOGs. Unable to adjust and ending up with deficits on the year, when they

had budgeted to break even, as is expected with a municipal budget.

We've seen municipalities being hit extremely hard throughout

the entire year. We've seen cuts coming almost continuously. One of the

opportunities for rural areas in particular to be able to level the playing

field of taxation was by taxing utility companies. While some municipalities,

yes, did charge exorbitant amounts, many municipalities were very reasonable.

Most municipalities in my district charged at a rate of 6 per cent. To introduce

a 2.5 per cent limit basically on revenues is limiting the ability of rural

areas to access one of the few revenues that they have available to increase

their taxes.

At the same time government was cutting back on various

components under the MOGs. The roads component has almost vanished - $81.40 per

kilometre of road - putting a further burden upon communities that are now

paying up to $1,000 a kilometre to have roads snow cleared by Works, Services

and Transportation, and receiving $81.40. A loss of $918.60 per kilometre of

road for each kilometre road that they took over, over the past number of years,

because of a grant structure that was in place that gave some stability to these

communities in their specific budget.

It's really unfortunate that this government has produced a

budget that's one of despair, one that has attacked important centres like the

Daybreak Centre, one that's so vital to maintaining an opportunity for parents

to be able to put their kids in a meaningful environment. An opportunity to

assist members of a family in at least getting a break during the day, as the

name implies, to be able for them to cope with their lifestyle where they've

been unfortunate to have children who had various deficiencies and so on that

other normal people do not have.

This government has been very callous and has given no reason

at all to build up any hope. It has nurtured and grown on despair. Doom and

gloom has been the process industry has taken. Even with making the decision to

shut down the hog industry in this Province. They have been very callous with -

as they were reading the Budget, people were being notified that they were

losing their jobs with no advance notice. This government has taken a very

unrealistic and a very inhumane approach through their methods. One of the

biggest problems encountered with this government is not just in what they do

but in the manner in which they go about doing it. That has caused a lot of

unrest, uncertainty and despair among the people.

Mr. Chairman, education has probably taken the biggest hit of

any particular department. The government boasts that they spend a higher

percentage of their Budget than every other province. They don't boast that they

spend the lowest per capita or that we have the longest to go to raise our

educational levels up to a reasonable standard. It's time to focus our funds

into areas that are going to give us long-term results and stop looking at

band-aid approaches. It's important that education lead the forces into the next

century. It's important that we put in place today certain standards and certain

opportunities for education that are going to reap long-term benefits.

We've had one of our prime institutions here in this

Province, Memorial University, slashed with cuts of several million dollars.

Practically $11 million. One million on furniture and other materials, $5.5

million cut in capital. They're being told that they have to find, out of the

$118 million proposed in the estimates, approximately another $6 million on top

of that, looking at about almost $l2 million extra in increasing costs from year

to year with inflationary factors.

The university is faced with a problem where they are going

to be forced to increase tuition. The president has said it could be anywhere

from 10-15 per cent up to 50 per cent if they are going to recover the full cost

of what they need to balance the budget at the university. I think it is very

unfair that they have taken the approach to try to balance a budget on the backs

of students of this Province. Their direction and their approach have been to

look at education in a budgetary sense, not in the sense of delivering an

important quality of service, not in terms of delivering education with an

opportunity for some people to have hope, it has been far from that. School

boards are being plagued again, in a time when it is so important that

consolidation and amalgamation occur in various aspects of our school system

that this government has said, there will be no new school construction in the

Province, that has done more to hamper and hold back the forward movement of

education and so on and with shared services between different denominations.

So, this government has not approached things in a realistic

sense. It has made cuts and looks back after the cuts are made to try t