March 12,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 6

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I'd like to welcome to the

Speaker's gallery today the heads of churches of the Province and their

officials.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, last

year the Royal Commission on Education filed its report. The Province made it

public very quickly and provided an opportunity for the public to be informed

and have an opportunity to express their views on that report.

We also took another step. We realized that the changes

proposed in that report were major changes so that the sensible approach for the

government to take was to seek the advice and participation, and in this case

consensus, of all of the churches that are involved in the administration of

education in Newfoundland. So with the willing cooperation of the churches we

put in place two committees, one called a Committee of Principals. They're made

up of the leaders of all of the churches or their designates, plus the members

of the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet. They're the Committee of

Principals that was intended to make decisions on policy matters.

Then there was the Committee of Officials, which would be

officials representing the church interest in education, and officials on the

government side of education. They were to do the primary, detailed work in

carrying out the effort at trying to achieve a consensus between the government

and amongst the church leaders as to how changes ought to be made in our

education system so that we could improve the system to achieve the common

objective of providing the best quality education we possibly can to the people

of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we had a little bit of uncertain waters, as

there are uncertain waters when things are new. The night before last the church

leaders met with the planning and priority members, the Committee of Principals,

and I believe we made terrific progress. It was agreed, Mr. Speaker, that the

way to tell the public, inform the public generally of this process, would be by

way of a statement in the House. While I am delivering the statement personally

this is really a statement that reflects the position of all the leaders of the

churches and the government on this issue. While the words are coming from me

they are in effect the words of the Committee of Principals and to ensure that

that is made abundantly clear and is unquestioned all of the church leaders, as

the Speaker noted, are present in the gallery today. So the statement I am about

to deliver, Mr. Speaker, while it is titled a Ministerial Statement, is in fact

a statement that is made with the full consent, and the full approval, in terms

of every word, of the leaders of the churches.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that

at a meeting between church leaders and the Planning and Priorities Committee of

Cabinet on March 10, significant progress was made towards achieving a consensus

which will lead to major improvements of the education system in Newfoundland

and Labrador. This has been the objective of both churches and government from

the beginning. Government and church leaders have agreed to work co-operatively

in developing new approaches which will: enhance the quality of education,

achieve greater efficiency in the delivery of services, and make substantial

changes in administration that will lead to a major re-organization of school

districts.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the church leader's concerns that

implementing certain recommendations of the Royal Commission Report would

jeopardize their traditional rights, government has assured the leaders that it

is not seeking change to the Constitution that would remove the

constitutionally-protected rights of classes of people specifically provided

for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It was recognized by all at the meeting,

however, that if after the conclusion of these discussions there is consensus

amongst the leaders and the government that some adjustment or changes to the

Constitution are necessary or desirable then they could be pursued. Government

re-emphasized its desire to see major reforms to education and is confident that

these reforms can be achieved within a denominationally based education system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me also say that there

was discussion as to the meaning of the phrase "denominationally based education

system", and there was recognition that the phrase might not mean precisely the

same thing to all principals at the table. Government and church leaders have

agreed to work within that framework, recognizing the traditional partnership

that has existed over the years while at the same time bringing about much

needed reforms to the education system.

To this end, Mr. Speaker, the church leaders and government

have agreed to immediately begin discussions on a proposed model developed

collectively by the churches. We are confident that through this process we will

be able to address the need for major reforms to the administration and delivery

of educational services in Newfoundland and Labrador. The ultimate goal of both

government and churches is to enhance the quality of educational opportunities

for our children and achieve greater efficiency in the educational system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to say at the outset that I am very pleased to hear

that there is progress being made between government and the church leaders that

will hopefully lead to major improvements in the education system of our

Province. Now this issue of the Williams Report and the denominational education

system, has certainly been, I guess steaming, in this Province for the last

number of months, and I guess what we see here this morning is the result of the

church leaders and their congregations and their parishioners, school boards and

educators throughout this Province sort of churning up the momentum, I say to

the Premier. The Premier knows now just where they are coming from and how

serious they are about this issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you have to listen very carefully to what

the Premier says and to what he writes, and in this very statement he says that

the government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking changes. It is not

that it will not seek changes if it goes to the electorate in the next three or

four weeks and comes back with a new mandate, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the

Premier is saying, and it is probably true I say to the Premier, that he is not

seeking change to the Constitution at this very moment, but he is not making a

guarantee that if he forms the government in three or four months time that he

will not do it. So I say to the Premier, and I say it very sincerely, I think

what we see here is a smooth the waters ploy by this Premier. We have a Minister

of Education who has said publicly, and I remind him and hon. members, that he

wants to be remembered as the Minister of Education to do away with the

denominational education system. Mr. Speaker, that is what that Minister of

Education said.

MR. TOBIN: That is what he said

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MR. DECKER: I am sure the hon. member would not wish the

record to show something which is inaccurate. He is either ill-advised or

misinformed, Mr. Speaker, I did not make that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister

rose to make a point of clarification.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to continue with

the Premier's statement, he says he wanted to go on and place recognition to the

phrase, he said that it may not mean precisely the same thing to all principals

at the table, talking about denominationally based education system. I would

suggest to him that the only principal at the table who does not understand very

clearly what that means, is the Premier and his government, the church leaders

and the churches do. So, Mr. Speaker, having said all this, I am pleased that

they are continuing to discuss this very important situation. No one is against

educational reforms in this Province, Mr. Speaker, no one can oppose the

opportunities to enhance the quality of education, to share, where possibilities

of sharing exist, to cut out duplication, there is no one against this. So, Mr.

Speaker, having said this, there has been a lot of time, I say to the Premier,

that could have been put into enhancing and reforming education in this Province

but his government and his minister have procrastinated and what do we see again

now just a few weeks before the magic date?

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

asking consent of the House.

By leave, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I did not have the

advantage of an advanced copy of the Premier's statement but I do wish to

comment on the statement made this morning on education and the sensitive issue

of denominational education in this Province. Let me say, to reiterate what I

said when the Premier announced the consensus approach being taken by the

government, I believe it was either the Premier or the Minister of Education. I

was concerned that in the process the consensus approach may lead in fact to a

giving up of the governments position and the support for the recommendations in

the Williams Report. I say that because I believe that the Williams Report in

education reflects the desire of the people of this Province to have a system of

education which is not the one that we have had before. Also, I believe that we

must continue the constitutional guarantee that churches be able to provide

religious education in our schools.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is how that may be achieved. I

think the ongoing process of discussion and consultation is important and

important to continue. I am happy to see that some progress is being made but I

would not wish to see the government use words that are here that, it seems that

no one really understands what they mean and I think that the Premier is right,

they may mean different things to different people. They have to be defined very

clearly, when they are then I think people of this Province and this party will

certainly be in a position to comment on what the result of those discussions

have been but I am pleased to see that there is some progress and I look forward

to continuing progress in these matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Are there more statements?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, while this issue that I will

address is not of the same import as the one just addressed by the Premier and

the other responders, it certainly is significant in its own right.

As my colleagues and all members of the hon. House will

recall, the Statutory Review Committee set up to review the Province's workers'

compensation system made recommendations which were tabled in this House of

Assembly on November 6, 1992. After careful consideration and with input from

various organizations, government announced several initiatives would be

undertaken as a result of the review.

At a news conference in July, I announced that provision

would be made for a position of employer advisor and a position of worker

advisor. Today I wish to advise that final arrangements have been made for these

two positions and I am also pleased with the manner in which these services are

going to be offered to the workers and employers of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this initiative demonstrates the co-operation

between government, employers and employees that is referenced in this

Province's Strategic Economic Plan. The Department of Employment and Labour

Relations will provide a grant in the amount of $100,000 to both the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Employers' Council to provide the services of a worker/employer advisor

respectively, on matters pertaining to workers' compensation.

The intent of this one-year pilot project is to provide

advisory services which will assist workers and employers as they deal with the

Workers' Compensation Commission and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

In addition, both organizations have agreed to contribute some of their own

financial and human resources to the pilot project.

In creating these positions, we hope to have fostered a sense

of flexibility and adaptability in meeting the needs of the workers and

employers in the Province. The department has contracted with the Federation of

Labour and the Employers' Council to each hire and employ a person to carry out

these services. By doing this, employers and workers can be assured of the

credibility of the advisors and their representative organizations will have the

ability to provide direction and establish priorities for the advisory service.

The employers' advisor will assist employers by providing

services including Province-wide education and training programs to familiarize

employers with policies and practices of the Workers' Compensation Appeals

Tribunal; advising employers on both the internal and external appeals process;

encouraging employers to increase their involvement in effective claims

processing and development of policy briefs; researching workers' compensation

issues and retaining a file on national and other workers' compensation

programs; and also assisting with the implementation of the experience rating

system.

The workers' advisor will provide necessary information to

workers on workers' compensation issues including establishing advocate policy

briefs on behalf of workers; acting as a liaison with workers, the Commission,

the Appeals Tribunal, and government; and preparing an extensive education

program including publications, workshops, and producing and distributing

self-help information for injured workers.

Mr. Speaker, this advisory service will be available to all

workers and employers in the Province, regardless of their affiliation with the

organizations. Each of these umbrella organizations has committed to providing

information to raise awareness of the service.

This pilot project of worker/employer advisors is a positive

move towards providing timely access to services for the employers and workers

of the Province. Government looks forward to working in cooperation with these

groups as they begin this exciting and unique pilot project.

The Federation of Labour and the Employers' Council will join

with me in the Government Member's Boardroom to sign the contracts at 10:00 a.m.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After two weeks of

doom and gloom in this House it's finally good to see some good news coming out,

that the government's at least created two jobs and two valuable jobs to assist

workers and employers in this Province.

It doesn't solve the problems with the Workers' Compensation

Appeal Board though or the Board itself. Just yesterday, I had an injured worker

in my office who had an appeal done last year. A decision reached on January 10.

The Workers' Commission has not yet addressed the recommendations that came out

of this appeal procedure. Two months later. It had the appeal for two months and

hasn't done anything to address the recommendations. The minister says the

intent of the one year pilot project is to provide advisory services which will

assist workers and employers as they deal with the Workers' Compensation

Commission. Most of the problem is not with the workers or the employer, it's

with the Commission itself. This does nothing to address the problems that are

there. Mr. Speaker, if you called down to Workers' and tried to get an answer in

a week, you're very lucky.

An employee who's been injured, it's still taking them

several weeks to get any compensation for injuries to which they are entitled.

This doesn't do anything to help them. It might help them to get the claim to

Workers'. That's not where the problem is. The Problem rests with the office

down on Forest Road which has too many enquiries coming in for the staff to

handle. That's where the minister should be putting some people, to handle the

cases of the injured workers who are out and about this Province.

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

have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I haven't had the

advantage of an advance copy of the minister's statement but I wish to say that

the establishment of workers and employer advisors is a positive move. I caution

the members of the House from expecting too much from two individuals who are

there for one year for a pilot project who have very many tasks.

All hon. members know that the pressure on the workers'

compensation system, and in particular the pressure on individuals having claims

adjudicated, being satisfied that their claims have been properly addressed and

adjudicated, this is the most serious problem that people have.

What I would suggest is that the minister consider asking

these worker advisors to try a pilot project of advocating on behalf of

individual worker claims, or perhaps employers in cases where they think they

are being unfairly treated. The necessity really is to have the individual

worker know that his claim is being properly adjudicated, that all of the

information that's necessary to have a proper adjudication is before the

tribunal. I would advocate a system which is used for example in veteran's

affairs, of an advocate for workers, paid for by the system, to ensure that

people are being treated fairly or that they have the feeling that they are.

Right now throughout this Province people who have claims

before Workers' Compensation have a very strong feeling that their claims are

not being properly dealt with by Workers' Compensation. That must change, Mr.

Speaker, and I think that can only change if people are going to have confidence

with the system, if they know that they have proper representation before boards

and tribunals, and perhaps these workers' advisors should be turned into

workers' advocates.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to draw

to the attention of the House the considerable potential of the Newfoundland

aquaculture industry, as well as related opportunities for prospective

developers and investors.

Aquaculture is playing an increasingly significant role in

the Province's economy as a whole, and in the fisheries sector in particular. It

represents a growing source of employment, and there are good development

prospects for salmon, mussels, scallops, Arctic charr, cod and rainbow trout.

From 1984 to the present, the number of aquaculture

enterprises has increased from three in 1984, to 102 enterprises now. During

that same period, the export value of aquaculture products has risen to twenty

times what it was, and direct employment in aquaculture is now fifteen times

what it was nine years ago. That, Mr. Speaker, is progress, thanks at least in

part to the planning and developmental initiatives undertaken by the Department

of Fisheries, not to mention the ongoing financial and human resources committed

to nurturing the continued growth of this maturing industry.

As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, there is untapped potential

in the aquaculture industry, and there are encouraging signs that the industry

has an exciting future. Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed fortunate in having

over 17,000 kilometres of coastline in the midst of fishing grounds, as well as

several multi-million dollar research facilities that play a key role in

aquaculture development. In addition, the Canada - US Free Trade Agreement will

open up new opportunities for value-added aquaculture products in the United

States market.

Mr. Speaker, I must point out that while the growth of the

aquaculture industry in this Province has indeed been tremendous, we must not

lose sight of the fact that from a global perspective our aquaculture industry

is overshadowed by world competition. While our aquaculture industry was still

in its infancy, some world competitors had already developed flourishing

aquaculture industries. Their aquaculture products are competing with ours in

the world marketplace.

It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of

Fisheries is committed to supporting the Newfoundland aquaculture industry

develop. That includes initiatives to attract investment to the Province's

aquaculture industry and to promote it both nationally and internationally. It

therefore gives me great pleasure today, Mr. Speaker, to provide honourable

members of the House with copies of our most recent promotional and information

brochure that was produced, along with a ten-minute video, under the

Canada-Newfoundland Inshore Fisheries Development Agreement. As members will

see, this attractive package showcases what the Newfoundland aquaculture

industry has to offer the world. I am happy to report that both the literature

and the video will have their world premiere at the Boston Seafood Show next

week, when potential investors from all over the world will have an opportunity

to see what we have to offer, as well as meet with seven Newfoundland

aquaculture producers who will be attending the show.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of his Statement and

the brochures attached, prior to the House commencing this morning. I want to

say to him that there is no doubt there is a great potential in aquaculture in

the Province. We have come a long way in a few years, but there is far more

potential there.

It is quite interesting, of course, to hear the minister's

statistics where he has seen the export value of products risen to twenty times

what it was. Direct employment is now fifteen times what it was nine years ago

and so on, but what really interested me was the minister's statement or

allusion to an addition to the Canada - US Free Trade Agreement will open up new

opportunities for value-added products in the US market.

I want to just remind hon. members of the resolution I put on

the floor of this Legislature on Wednesday, which called upon this provincial

government to support and develop value-added secondary processing in our

Province so that we would not be shipping raw fish products out of this Province

to be put into secondary products in the US and other places. Every person on

the other side of this Legislature, including the Minister of Fisheries, voted

against it, i say to members opposite. Now, what a shame, Mr. Speaker. And I

say, yes, the aquacultural industry has tremendous potential. It has improved.

We are developing more raw materials in aquaculture. We are developing jobs but

why are we not developing more jobs in aquaculture in this Province?... because

we are sending out those products in raw form.

I want to remind the minister and the Premier, and the

ministers in government, what a golden opportunity we are missing in this

Province, with the limited resources, our limited fish resources that are being

landed in our communities, that are being primary processed in our plants,

filleted, trimmed, packaged and frozen, and shipped to the US and other places

in raw form. Look at the jobs we could sustain in those communities if only this

government were to implement and support valued-added secondary processing. Look

at how many jobs we could sustain in those communities that are being literally

wiped out because of the declining fish resources all around our Province. Yes,

Mr. Speaker, we have made great progress in aquaculture but how much progress

could we make if this government had some real commitment to the Newfoundland

fishery?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister

for pointing out to the House some of the advances in aquaculture in this

Province. I do know from my own experience, having sat on a federal committee as

a member of Parliament dealing with a study on aquaculture, that this is an

exciting and forward looking industry for this country and one that has much

potential, particularly for the rural areas of Newfoundland, but also as a high

technology industry which involves a great amount of scientific input,

technology development and other technologies that require a very high degree of

research facilities. We have some in this Province that can be utilized to

ensure that not only do we play a role in the aquaculture products itself but

also the development of the technology.

I do see it as a very positive thing but I will say that it

is also an industry that requires a very high degree of planning and

co-ordination, and assistance on the part of government in a co-ordinated way to

ensure that the development in the aquaculture field, in fact, does involve jobs

and development here in this Province. I urge the minister to not just get

involved in what appears to be a public relations exercise for aquaculture as an

industry but also get behind plans and programs and put forth a comprehensive

development plan to ensure that we in this Province can participate fully in

this growing and developing industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Question Period on

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

group of Grade V111 students from Beaconsfield Junior High School here in St.

John's. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Ken Roach and Ms Shirley

Crowley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Premier continuing on the line of questioning on Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador and particularly their management practices. Questions

on Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador have come about as a result of the

tabling of the report of the Auditor General which has not only raised serious

concern about Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador but as well about

government's accountability. I want to say to the Premier that Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador is suppose to be a source of sound business advice and

guidance for businesses that need expert help in getting established in our

Province. Now, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador expects its clients to

prepare a strategic business plan but according to the Auditor General in a

report here ENL does not really have a strategic business plan itself. I want to

ask the Premier how can Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador function without a

plan? Why does it not have one? Is it because it has taken so much political

interference that it does not have any clear role?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador engaged two years ago, I believe, Dr.

Robert Sexty to help it develop it's own strategic business plan. I know they

were doing some work and I believe it was as long ago as two years ago -

MR. ROBERTS: That is what they say in the report, if the

hon. gentleman were to read it.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, let me read the corporation's response

to that criticism: At the present time a corporate strategic planning process is

underway and is intended to have this latest phase of corporate planning

completed by 31st of March, 1993. I guess that is in a couple of weeks or so

from now. Once this current phase of planning is complete it is intended to

incorporate the results in the corporate instruction manual. Well I guess that

is consistent.

MR. ROBERTS: That is exactly what was asked.

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

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

A very weak response, Mr. Speaker, by the Premier. There is

no doubt that the Premier is really smarting under the allegations of the

Auditor General's report now.

Let me say to the Premier, what credibility would he give to

an organization that has no

schedule for the preparation and review of its

budget, which the Auditor General once again states in her report, no guidelines

for monitoring and controlling budget variances, and no requirement that the

budget be approved by the board of directors, which in this case is the Economic

Recovery Commission? What kind of a management group is that, I ask the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will go the Auditor General's report

again which contains the response to the criticism.

For 1993-1994, and completely independent of the

recommendation in the report, it seems like the Auditor General went out in

front of the parade - detailed procedures and structures were developed and used

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, I am commenting on a fact. She says:

for 1993-94, and completely independent of the recommendation of the report,

detailed procedures and instructions were developed and used. These procedures

are documented and will be utilized for subsequent budget presentations. That is

the response.

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

supplementary.

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

I think the Premier has really got a bee in his bonnet about

the Auditor General with statements he made yesterday and today, and I would

like to remind the Premier that the auditor general, is answerable to the House

of Assembly, is a servant of the House of Assembly not to the Premier and his

administration, I remind him once again.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is the way he would like it.

MR. TOBIN: Or Fraser Lush, or Fraser Lush.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: You are part of the House but you are not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to proceed with his question.

MR. MATTHEWS: - but you are not the House, you are part

of it.

Now I want to say to the Premier that the Auditor General

says that the board, which I remind him again is the Economic Recovery

Commission, does not require Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador divisions and

regions to explain budget variances and differences, and does not receive

reports from the regions on loan accounts or equity investments. How can the

board make decisions if it lacks that kind of basic financial information, I ask

the Premier? What is really going on with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador

and that infamous, no good, useless Economic Recovery Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Again, Mr. Speaker, the answer is written

in the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General is sufficiently fair-minded

to state her position and then give the corporate response. She does not want to

mislead the House or mislead the public of this Province. The answer is very

clear, the corporation concurs with the recommendations as noted, they

acknowledge the Auditor General's comment was a fair comment, they concur with

the recommendations as noted. A sub-committee of the board has been established

to review and recommend the necessary actions to effect these recommendations.

There is no problem, it is very straightforward.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I thank the Premier very much for

recognizing that it is one big mess, I say to him. Now, it is clear from the

Auditor General's report that there is no overall plan, direction or

decision-making at Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Each division does it's

own thing, it is not accountable to anyone. The board is incompetent so I will

ask the Premier, will he undertake immediately to remove the economic recovery

chairman and commissioners from the board and from any influences over the

operation of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and will you immediately

appoint a board of competent people who can get rid of the political hacks who

have control of this organization and straighten out the real mess, political

hacks who have been put there by the Premier and his ministers, who have really

done a very poor job as the Auditor General has very clearly outlined, not only

for the Premier I say to members opposite, but for every member of this

Legislature, because this is a report to all of us, not just to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would be interested to hear the response

of Dr. Doug House, Adele Poynter, Susan Sherk and David French to the allegation

that they are political hacks. It would be an interesting response indeed to the

allegation that they are political hacks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader appears to be

jumping out in front of the parade now. Last August, I believe, we asked the

Advisory Council on the Economy to take a look at the structure of ENL and the

role of the ERC. One of the proposals that was recommended, was that their role

as the board of directors of the ENL be reduced and phased out over a period of

time. So, the government is presently considering, there is a paper in the

system now presently before Cabinet for review, that would put just such a

proposal into effect. We did not want to do it precipitously without having the

views of the Economic Recovery Commission and the senior management of ENL

first.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, I met with all the vice-presidents of

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. I also met with the chairman of the

Economic Recovery Commission and this matter has been discussed. I met just

yesterday, with the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Economy and

discussed the matter further with him and the clear advice is that the time has

now come to phase out the involvement of the members of the Economic Recovery

Commission in Enterprise Newfoundland Labrador and that is presently in process,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Premier about Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador as well. I remind members

that Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador is the agency the Premier created by

combining divisions of government, three or four divisions. It is the agency

which the Premier exempted from the Public Service Commission and then which the

Premier loaded with prominent Liberals. My question for the Premier is: did you

drop into the ear of Fraser Lush, your former 1989 provincial campaign chair,

now your $80,000 a year ENL vice-president for Central Newfoundland, your

approval of ENL giving a $75,000 a year consulting contract to Bill MacKenzie,

the former political aid of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, such politically motivated

venomous statements, unsubstantiated, without merit, are really not deserving of

any attention or answer. The source of it and the nature of it speaks clearly

for itself. But let me address the one matter that may be of significance, that

I exempted ENL from the Public Service Commission, I did no such thing. Members

will remember that the fundamental structure of ENL was NLDC, Newfoundland and

Labrador Development Corporation, which the former government created. We did

not put it in place. It was there, the structure, the process and the procedure,

was there. We added to it, the rural development division of the Department of

Development and a couple of other things, the Co-operatives Division, all of

that was added to it and it was restructured to work efficiently and Mr.

Speaker, ENL has been a success story because of the competence of the people

involved. ENL has been a real success story in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I addressed yesterday the position of the

Opposition with these allegations of political appointments. I say again, there

have been people appointed who have had in the past connections with the Liberal

Party, that is true. In other areas too there have been people appointed who

have had connections with the Conservative Party, that is true. I will provide

the list and names, if you wish them, all kinds of them. Somebody who did

campaigning for the hon. member works at ENL, I will get the name and table it,

I will. The hon. member knows who it is. The hon. member knows exactly who I am

talking about. Mr. Speaker, I presume that the board made those appointments

because they were competent people and I respect that. Mr. Speaker, I am not

going to allow the hon. member or the Opposition generally, to maintain the

proposition that only Tories can be appointed when the Tories are in power and

the Liberals can only appoint Tories in order not to show favouritism, that will

never be the case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. member, the Chair wants to remind

hon. members again about some of our basic rules with respect to questions and

answers. I'm sure hon. members know them, but in the last couple of days some of

these rules have been, if not broken, stretched considerably. So I just want to

remind hon. members of two important rules about questions.

It must be a question, not an expression of an opinion,

representation, argumentation nor debate. The second point the Chair wants to

make: the question ought to seek information and therefore cannot be based upon

a hypothesis, cannot seek an opinion either legal or otherwise, and must not

suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representations.

What happens when a question is loaded, this prompts the

minister to get into debate and evade the question. Then when he eventually gets

to the question the opposition starts complaining about the answer being too

long. It puts the Chair in a very difficult position. So I'd ask hon. members

please to follow the rules.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's

interesting to note that the Premier claims to know the political affiliation of

employees of his government agency, ENL.

A supplementary for the Premier. Doesn't the ENL - MacKenzie

contract violate the conflict of interest act? The act, I remind the Premier,

says that: while employed as a public servant and for one year thereafter, a

public employee is not eligible to receive a contract for the supply of goods or

services from his former department without the permission of the Premier and

the Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can say two things. Now

there've been one or two Cabinet meetings when I was away on holidays, so I

can't say what happened. But I can say this: there was no approval by the

Cabinet while I was present. Now I'll check and see

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The President of the Council tells me

there was none while I was absent. So I can say this: there was no approval by

Cabinet. Now I've asked the Attorney General to check for me to determine

whether or not any contract that was awarded contravenes the conflict of

interest guidelines. If it does, the contract will be terminated. There's no

problem. We cannot operate in defiance of the law.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is very

clever with words and I'm sure the Premier appreciates the distinction between

the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with the question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier's

sophistry capable of explaining how it is acceptable - morally acceptable, as

well as legally acceptable - to award a $75,000 a year government consulting

contract to an individual who was a political aide to the responsible minister a

few short months previous, and an individual with no previous consulting

experience? Can the Premier explain how that is acceptable?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would

say. I don't even know that it's been done but I'll check and if it is I'll

determine the propriety of it. If there was any impropriety it will be

terminated or corrected.

As for the hon. member's comments about morality, I suggest

she examine the record of the previous government, and some contracts that were

awarded to certain consultants when she sat in the chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier has to

take his head out of the sand and admit that there has been an impropriety, will

he not only terminate the offensive contract but fire the offending minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the

minister awarded any contract to anybody or had anything to do with it. I will

however examine all of the allegations that the hon. member has made and if

there's any merit in any of it the matter will be dealt with appropriately. If

there isn't any merit, the matter will also be dealt with appropriately.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why does the Premier

have a double standard? One standard for the former Minister of Social Services,

now the Member for Port de Grave, and a different, lower standard for the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who is now a very wealthy man?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the standards are the same

for everybody. What I cannot understand is how the hon. member can stand in this

House and talk about awarding contracts to consultants with influence, and then

talk about double standards. Of that hon. member I cannot accept it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, a final

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Premier: Is it not unconscionable and reprehensible to

squander $75,000 of public funds this year on a patronage contract to an

unqualified individual, when the government has slashed spending on vital

services and so many people in this Province are hurting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member that I

will examine the record and see whether or not there is any merit or truth in

the allegations she has stated. I will not pretend to provide answers to the

House on the basis of what, so far as I know, are unfounded allegations. So I

have no intention of trying to answer the question she now proposes until I

determine the truth of the matter.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and concerns the social

agencies that are being deprived of government space and being deprived of

support.

The documents tabled in the House by the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, in answer to my questions to the Premier, reveal

that the government in fact intends to remove all support to the social agencies

involved, and in fact Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador were advised on

February 13th by the Minister of Health that they will receive $10,000 worth of

support in 1993-'94; $5,000 in 1994-'95; and nil in 1995-'96.

Will the Premier not be forthright and admit that his new

program and new policy for these social agencies is, in fact, to remove the

support and down load any government support for these social activities on to

the private, volunteer sector? Will he not admit that now, after these documents

have been filed in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am glad to see that at least one hon.

member opposite is prepared to consider real issues and deal responsibly with

issues.

Mr. Speaker, while I believe he is dealing responsibly with

issues, I believe he is badly informed and he is making an argument on behalf of

the people who are claiming that this space should be made available that does

not take into account all of the facts.

I have to tell him that I received a request just two days

ago, I think, to meet with a committee representing some ten or twelve agencies,

and the meeting is scheduled for when? I have forgotten.

AN HON. MEMBER: The next couple of days.

PREMIER WELLS: It is some time in the next couple of days

- early next week - that meeting will take place. I will then be in a better

position to inform the hon. member as to all of the issues that are involved,

and the government's position, and the reason for the government's position on

it.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All of these fourteen agencies have been advised by various

government departments that they will be removed of any government support for

rent for the coming years - two-thirds this year, one-third next year, and nil

the year after.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is the government prepared to try and

pretend, and the Premier pretend, that the government is not taking away the

support when they have already advised - individual members have advised these

agencies, such as the Minister of Health - in this document tabled in the House

yesterday, that they will not be providing support? How can the Premier stand

here and expect people to believe that he is telling the truth when the facts

speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of agencies

in this Province, a lot of volunteer agencies in this Province, who are

providing their own space, all of them equally meritorious as every one of those

about which the hon. member is speaking - all of them.

The Red Cross is a meritorious institution. It is providing

its own space. The St. John Ambulance is providing its own space. A variety of

others are providing their own space. The Cancer Society - all of them are

providing their own space. Now why is that all of a sudden the government has

the responsibility to provide space?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Burin

- Placentia West wants to answer the question, then I would ask the member for

St. John's East to ask the Member for Burin - Placentia West; but as the Member

for St. John's East has asked me, I would ask the Member for Burin - Placentia

West to recognize that this House requires a certain level of civility, and if

he can't practice it while he is here, then he should have the decency to remove

himself from the House.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

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

I ask the Member for Burin - Placentia West to restrain

himself. He is familiar with the rules and knows that people can't answer if

they are being interfered with.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I have told the hon. member that the meeting is

scheduled and the issue will be fully discussed. I will be quite prepared to

report directly to the hon. member or to the House, even to the Member for Burin

- Placentia West, for that matter, when I have had the meeting. But I am not

going to attempt to deal with all of the issues until I have first had the

meeting.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier

confirm that the government stands to receive up to $2 million or perhaps $3

million in insurance payments from the Harvey Road fire? And will the Premier

acknowledge that while receiving that money from insurance premiums, it is

refusing to provide the accommodation that was going to be provided to these

fourteen agencies in the Harvey Road building, that they're refusing to provide

any accommodation? - they plan to take this money and put it back into the

government coffers and at the same time take away financial support for these

organizations for accommodation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the demands and expectations

of some of the organizations, I am advised - I don't know, because I haven't yet

spoken to them - are inordinate. Some of them want 2,000, 2,500 square feet, to

maintain an office. The government can't do that and shouldn't be doing that,

unless it is prepared to do it for every volunteer organization in existence.

Now, the government can't make chalk of one and cheese of another. I am told

that the meeting is set for Friday, March 19, at 10:30 a.m. After that meeting I

will be in a better position to advise the House as to the full state of

affairs.

As to the insurance proceeds that the government is entitled

to receive, I presume some buildings that government owns are insured. In

others, government is a self-insurer. I believe that one building was, in fact,

insured, but it was a government building. If it was insured, the taxpayers of

this Province paid the premiums. So the taxpayers are entitled to the proceeds.

That is simple logic and fairness, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: I have a question for the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Last week, in responding to the Throne Speech,

the Premier said the capital works budget would be cut from an average of $220

million, I think he said, to $175 million. Since the minister's department has

about one-quarter of that budget, can the minister now confirm that we will

still have the approximately $50 million that was announced in last year's

Budget in capital works, in municipal affairs this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted that

the Member for Fogo can tell us all that we are getting a quarter of the capital

works money that is available. It is news to me. I would imagine we are going to

have to wait for Mr. Baker's speech, next Thursday, to find out how much, in

fact, the capital works will be.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't

telling the minister, I was asking him, because that was what occurred in the

previous year. Since December the minister has been announcing that the capital

works for municipal affairs would be announced shortly. Could the minister tell

us what has caused this delay, and when does he intend to announce his capital

works program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have all day to tell all

the reasons why it is delayed, but I guess fiscal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Yes, it probably is. I am the biggest reason

in the House, anyway,. The fiscal position of the Province, I guess, would be

the major item which has delayed this announcement. But my 'shortly' is getting

shorter, and I would suspect it would be next Thursday.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously aware

that the Budget is only going to have an announcement of the amount of the

expenditure, it is not going to get into the details of the program. When, then,

is the minister going to inform municipalities of the amounts that each

municipality receives, or is he waiting until the call of the election to do it?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: That's a good idea - the first original idea I

heard you have since you came in here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) over there.

MR. HOGAN: Please protect me, Mr. Speaker. A vicious

attack from the Member for Humber - where?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: East.

MR. HOGAN: Humber East. Is that where she is from?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Premier, he knows.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to continue with his answer.

MR. HOGAN: I have forgotten the question.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You don't know the answer.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: I have a question for the Minister of Social

Services. It is my understanding that there are twelve workers employed at the

regional Social Services office in Harbour Grace. On Tuesday of this week, in

The Evening Telegram, there was a story that said the regional headquarters of

the provincial Social Services Department will be moved from Harbour Grace to

Clarenville. The announcement of the relocation of that office was made by

Trinity North MHA, Doug Oldford. Can I ask the minister if that is the truth, or

is it a lie?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't always take what

is printed in the press as verbatim and as the truth.

The truth of the matter is that the member's statements were

not properly reported in the sense that in his speech he talked about the fact

that we were restructuring the department, restructuring the district and

regional offices, making sure that the services contained in the regional

offices were moved down to the district offices, and that, in fact, we would end

up with a system throughout the Province where we would have, instead of five

regional offices, nine regional offices. This is a public fact because I have

made this clear in the House before and, in fact, one of those regional offices

would be located in Clarenville.

These regional offices will not be the same size as we

presently see them because all of the specialty services presently being

provided in these regional offices would be moved into the district offices.

So that is what the member was attempting to explain, and did

explain in fact, in his speech in Clarenville. It was not reported in the press

the way he said it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I was there.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, (inaudible) picked it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I was there when he said it.

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

West, a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: I say to the minister, he was not there and he

doesn't know what was said, but those who were there know exactly that was what

was said by the Member for Trinity North.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: Who authorized the

member to make the announcement? Because what is happening in Clarenville is one

social worker, or assistant district regional director who is now in Harbour

Grace, will be moving to Clarenville, for Clarenville, Bonavista, and the Burin

Peninsula, together with a secretary. That is who will be moving into the

district office - not the regional office. And who authorized that member to go

out and make an announcement that was not true - was not government policy? Who

authorized it? Did this minister authorize him to make that lie?

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

MR. GULLAGE: This minister didn't authorize that

particular member or any other member to make any statements, but it is a fact,

and everybody knows, that we are restructuring the department to create nine

regional offices of a different structure from what we have now, with fewer

people in those offices. That is a well-known fact throughout the Province.

The misinterpretation of the member's remarks were such that

it was reported that we would be removing the regional office from Harbour Grace

and moving it to Clarenville. That is not the truth, Mr. Speaker. We intend to

maintain a regional office in Harbour Grace, and a new regional office will be

created in Clarenville. Both of those offices, as I have just said, will not be

structured as they presently are. They will have fewer people, will be

administrative in nature, and all of the specialty services presently contained

in the five regional offices we have will be moved into the district offices

throughout the Province.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to other routine business,

the Chair would like to welcome, on behalf of hon. members this morning,

students from St. James Junior High School in Port aux Basques, approximately

twenty-five students, and they are accompanies by their Vice-Principal, Mr.

Bailey and also, Mrs Osmond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to present the following resolution:

WHEREAS most provinces of Canada have management control of

their principal natural resources; and

WHEREAS the fishing industry is of critical importance to the

economic and social wellbeing of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

management control over the fish stocks of principal importance to our fishery;

and

resources has resulted in near collapse of key stocks and a most uncertain

future for hundreds of coastal communities; and

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador must

achieve a meaningful voice in the future management of its fish resources; and

WHEREAS the Prime Minister of Canada, in June of 1990, agreed

in writing with the principle of joint fisheries management for Newfoundland and

Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Canada/Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board

provides a model for successful shared management of a natural resource; and

WHEREAS the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans is

proposing reforms that would give all Atlantic Canada provinces an equal say in

the management of fish resources that are critical to Newfoundland and Labrador;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House hereby endorse the Province's

proposal for a Canada/Newfoundland fisheries management board as an effective

mechanism to achieve rebuilding of our fish stocks and long-term stability in

the best interest of the people and fishing industry of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Realizing that the member's resolution is so critical and so

important to the Province, and particularly to our most important industry, we

on this side would agree, by unanimous consent, to pass the resolution

immediately, to get on with it, and let the feelings of this Legislature be

known to the authorities in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I take it, that is not the consent of the House.

Petitions

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride, and I believe, personal

responsibility, that I present to this hon. House this morning a petition of

1,371 names - 1,372 because your's truly is at the bottom, as well.

Before I comment on the petition I will read the prayer of

the petition: '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 services, 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 welcome the Premier's statement this morning

but I also have some reservations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I remember, some time back, I was present

when the Premier, as guest speaker, addressed a graduation ceremony. And if the

Premier had come out with any other statement this morning, I believe I would

have had to get to my feet, because what the Premier said that night - I

certainly cannot quote him verbatim, but what he gave me and, I think, everyone

else there, was certainly an assurance that he agreed with the system - well, I

would not say absolutely, but almost absolutely, that he agreed with what was

happening in our educational system and he praised, undoubtedly, the people who

made that possible. If he had come out with any other statement this morning, I

would certainly feel badly about it.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about achievements. We are all here for

the one reason, to make it better for our children and, as in my case, our

grandchildren.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am here as a Roman Catholic,

but it is not alone, Roman Catholics, who play a major role in education in

Newfoundland. We are a minority group and minorities' rights are protected. Mr.

Speaker, let me read one little sentence from the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights,

Article 26; it says: Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of

education that will be given to our children. What I am saying this morning is,

when the Williams Report was made public, that was not the case. I am a firm

believer that the Williams Report had an hidden agenda. The hidden agenda was,

in that Williams' Report, to tamper with and take away the rights of the people

to the education that they desire. I want to remind the hon. House that that

dedication is there from the people - that dedication is there. Mr. Speaker, we

hear so much - which is a red herring, it is a myth - about the duplication that

goes on within the educational system. Let me say to hon. members, community -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are wrong there.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is some.

MR. PARSONS: I am wrong? Oh, no, I am not wrong. There

are 88 per cent of the schools that have no duplication. Most of the duplication

we talk about is here in St. John's and in Corner Brook, in the larger centres,

and there is certainly no duplication here - will someone, who attended the

meeting with the integrated school board, tell me where the duplication is? It

is a myth. Then, we have to remember, as well, that of all the presentations

made to the Williams Commission, there were 75 per cent pro to denominational

educational standards and systems, 75 per cent. But the powers that be were not

satisfied. They said: 'Let's do a poll.' And I am like John Diefenbaker: 'Poles'

are alright where there are no hydrants. But they did a poll and they said 62

per cent of people were in favour of a secular school system. A school without

God, that is what it is. I saw on television last night, as did many others,

that 50 per cent of Canadians disagree with the public school system. They want

it abolished. And do you know the one they would bring back if they could, if

they had it enshrined, as we have, in our Terms of Union? They would bring back

an education having God in it, a good education system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: I would like to finish up, Mr. Speaker, with

the indulgence of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, all I am saying, to the Premier

and to the government, is that this is a constitutional matter - it is enshrined

in the Constitution and I, with the 1,371 others, and many more which I will

bring to the floor of this House, are prepared to fight for it. If that means

fighting in the streets, that is what we will do, every one of us. We are going

to retain the system that we have. There are certainly going to be changes made,

but for the better. Our right is never going to be challenged as far as our

Constitution is concerned.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in support of the petition so ably presented by the

Member for St. John's East Extern, and certainly endorse every word that the

hon. gentleman said. When a member like the Member for St. John's East Extern

stands to present such a petition and defends the stand, he is not doing a

flip-flop. The Member for St. John's East -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that comment from the Member for

Placentia was not called for and I will ask him to repeat it, to have recorded

in Hansard the comment that he just made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Burin Placentia - West again,

to please restrain himself.

MR. HEARN: I thank my colleague. I didn't hear what the

member said, but if it is like any other comments made by the member whether

formally or informally, it is not worth having in Hansard, anyway.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's East Extern, has been

a long-time defender of the denominational education system in this Province,

unlike the gentlemen opposite, or a large amount of them, or the Member for St.

John's East, who is not here.

We saw some great flip-flops this morning when we had the

church dignitaries in the galleries. We saw, just a short time ago, the

government and government members working towards whittling down the powers of

the denominational education committees, just because some university professors

or CBC reporters, doctored polls supported by statements made by the

Newfoundland Teachers' Association about the cost of the denominational

education system, to scare people out there into thinking we had a system that

was costing millions and millions of dollars more than a public school system.

That would scare anybody, but the truth of the matter is, as gentlemen well know

now, since they have had to research it when the pressure came on them, that our

system of education is no more costly than the public school system and the

values are very much greater. And if they look at the input over the years of

the churches in education, and the amount of funding and energies put in there

and you put a dollar value on, you will find that we are getting true value for

the few extra dollars it might cost to have the churches involved, and the

dollars are minimal as the Premier well knows.

I am glad to see the Premier make a statement this morning

giving some assurance to the churches; however, I am not sure whether, if I were

the churches, I could sit back and say halleluia, we are safe, nothing is going

to happen to our system of education. Because, for anybody who scrutinizes the

wording of the Premier's statement, there are a number of phrases there that can

be taken in a number of ways. 'The phrase might not mean precisely the same

thing to all principals at the table,' the Premier says, when he talks about

denominationally-based education. 'Government and church leaders have agreed to

work within that framework' - what framework are we talking about? The framework

of really not knowing what the other understands and, of course, at the end of

the day the Premier can always say, Well, what I meant was - and I presume that

is what they all accepted. I hope the Premier is sincere when he says that he is

in support of keeping the system that we have, with the changes that will be

necessary to refine, to get the best out of the system. And I have no problems

with that, we have always done that, and I can take the Premier back to a few

years ago when that attempt was first made.

The churches have a very important role to play in education

and many of us here in this House are only here because of church involvement in

our communities that led to a sound, solid education in remote and rural areas,

where it would be impossible to achieve the levels of education that many people

achieved during the years. So we have a lot to be thankful for, and when we

listen to people running off half cocked, spouting figures that they don't know

anything about at all in relation to true costs - and, of course, that is what

the press picks up, especially the CBC types, and they run around the Province

telling about the cost of our system and why we have the worst system of

education in Canada because we have a denominational education system.

History and geography have dictated our education levels and

in relation to grade levels, it means absolutely nothing when it comes down to

true, basic, solid, christian education. When we talk about preparing for life,

I would stack the people of Newfoundland against anybody, anywhere else in

Canada, whether it is a Grade III or a Grade XIII that we have.

Mr. Speaker, we have been privileged with the system of

education we have, when we look at the circumstances that have led to our

livelihoods here in this great Province of ours. Certainly, the churches have

played an important part and we should continue to work with them as partners.

As I said, I hope we can take the government at their word that this will

continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I wouldn't have

stood to address this, but some comments that have been made, make it

appropriate that I do so.

I understand and appreciate the sincerity and strength of the

conviction expressed by the Member for St. John's East Extern. I do not in any

way criticize it or denigrate it. I just wish he wouldn't talk about fighting in

the streets. That is a little extreme, I think he was probably carried away by

the emotion of the moment - but I greatly respect the sincerity and strength of

his conviction.

I am a little bothered by the suggestion about flip-flop by

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: It is not. It is totally inaccurate.

Members can go back to Hansard and find every statement I have made in this

House on this matter, and they will see my statements very clearly from the

beginning - no government can ride roughshod over the constitutional rights of

people.

Mr. Speaker, we also have people in this Province with great

personal integrity, and the people collectively will not tolerate the majority

using its power and influence by majority votes to diminish or destroy the

rights of minorities. This will not happen. I am confident that if a government

wanted to do it, they would be stopped dead by the people of this Province

because they will not see that happen. It is intolerable.

MR. MATTHEWS: You know that now - you didn't believe it

until the last two weeks.

PREMIER WELLS: I have said it from the beginning, and all

the member has to do is admit what was said by me or go back and read Hansard

and he will see that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another side to that coin. While a

majority can tyrannize a minority, a minority can also sometimes terrorize a

majority, and we must not allow that to happen. It was in recognition of that

that the church leaders agreed with the statement that I read this morning that

if, after the discussions, there is a consensus that there should be some

adjustment to the existing constitutional structure, then it would be

appropriate that it could be pursued at that time. That is something that is in

the statement, because you cannot have - you should never tolerate - either

terrorism by a majority of the people over the minority, or effective terrorism

of the majority by the minority. Both are equally wrong.

The sensible thing to so is to do what we have been trying to

do for the last six months with the church leaders of this Province - work to

find, by consensus, acceptable changes that are necessary to correct some of the

flaws that are in the system. At the same time, do as I did in that speech that

the hon. member was talking about, give full credit to the churches of this

Province who originally brought education to our people. Don't ever forget that.

They took the role when there was no government to do it, or when government

wasn't interested enough to do it. They took the lead and they did it. Don't

throw that aside as being worthless. Recognize the contribution that has made to

our society in this Province over the centuries. But, Mr. Speaker, recognize

also that we are going forward, not backward, and be prepared to make the kinds

of changes that may be necessary to properly prepare our young people to compete

in the increasingly competitive world.

For those of us who sit in this House and, as well, for the

church leaders, remember that we have a responsibility to the overwhelming

majority of the people of this Province to ensure that we provide the kind of

educational system, both in terms of quality and character, that they want,

always recognising the limits of our financial resources to do so, and the more

severe consequences with which we have to deal.

But let's not try to provoke difficulty. Let's do this by

means of developing a consensus. But let's never put ourselves in a position

where either a government or anybody else will use the majority that they have

in this House to take away important and fundamental rights of a minority group.

Always and forever let us remember that we cannot tolerate either a situation

where a small but vociferous and perhaps obstinate, even, minority may want to

prevent reasonable change that is generally agreed upon by the people who are

interested, the church leaders, and by the overwhelming majority of the people

of this Province. So let's not try to focus on confrontation in dealing with

this issue, let's focus on trying to find a reasonable, fair and balanced

consensus on which to go forward.

Again I emphasize, I greatly respect the sincerity and

conviction of the hon. member, and I will always remember his comments and the

way he expressed them. But all of us in this House have a responsibility to the

570,000 people who have put us here to put in place a proper education system

that will ensure our people are the best trained that we can do it as they go

forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding with calling Orders of the

Day, the Chair would like to make a reference. The Chair would like for more

people to be here - it is unfortunate. I waited until now to give things a

little opportunity to cool down.

It has happened invariably in the past few days, in Question

Period, in particular, that when the Chair has recognized a certain member,

there have been some unfavourable comments made. The Chair has pretended not to

hear them, but the Chair can't do that. Hon. members must recognize, one of the

most serious things that can be done is to make an unfavourable comment towards

the Chair. There is a procedure for that.

With respect to Question Period, the Chair doesn't have to

say this, but the Chair, for the benefit of hon. members - sometimes it is very

difficult in terms of who to recognize with Question Period. The rules don't

always apply in terms of tradition, because the composition of the Opposition is

different. It is the reason why the Speaker's rulings related to Oral Questions

are not debatable or subject to appeal, because of these difficulties. I just

want to explain to hon. members that many times the Chair looks at the number of

people who are speaking. But there are times the Chair looks at the number of

questions. Because, quite obviously, if one or two members take up the whole of

Question Period, then the Chair can't look at the number of people, otherwise,

other minorities here would never get a chance to speak, if you looked at the

number of people.

So sometimes the Chair has to look at the number of

questions. For example, in the last three days -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In the last three days, forty-seven questions have been asked

in the House. Forty-one have been asked by the Official Opposition. The Chair

feels that is not a bad ratio. The Member for St. John's East got a chance to

ask six questions out of the forty-seven. So, as I said, if two or three members

are asking all the questions, then the Chair has to - I don't need to - just a

matter of pointing out a difficulty.

The Chair can't say to a member very often in this House -

that we were never allowed to get off more than three or four questions. The

Chair, again, is cognizant of the strategy of the Opposition. If nobody stands,

then the Chair can't say: Sit down. Very often in the past, if a member went

beyond four questions, the Speaker would say: I can't recognize the hon. member

anymore, I will go on to another one. If there is no one else standing, if the

Chair wants -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. If the Chair wants to come back - and

the Chair hasn't done that, but maybe it is a procedure the Chair will do -

and go on to another member, and if that member wants to come

back - because one member or two members are not permitted in a sense to

monopolize the whole House, particulary when we have fifteen, sixteen,

seventeen, or eighteen members. As I said that is why we cannot look at

traditions because there have been times when we have only had eight or nine

members in the Opposition and then things change. You cannot do with eight or

nine what you can with fifteen or sixteen, or when you have two or three

different parties involved. The Chair would like to explain that to members and

point out the difficulty that we have in that regard. The Chair attempts it's

utmost to give fair play to every member in terms of getting on Question Period.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we carry on with the

debate on the Packaging Bill. It is Order No. 9.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate

yesterday but the Member for LaPoile has asked me to relinquish my time because,

I believe, he has students in the galleries.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are gone.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, they were my students.

Are those your students going now?

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well I will continue and you can get up

after. I was going to relinquish my time but if the students are going it does

not make any difference. I did not really mind doing it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words on this Bill

presented yesterday by the Minister of Environment and Lands:

An Act Respecting

The Reduction Of The Impact Of Packaging On The Environment. I do not intend to

go on too long with this but for the first major piece of environmental

legislation to be presented by this minister since she became minister all I can

say is that it is a complete and utter disaster to have this piece of

legislation presented to this House of Assembly. When governments want to do

nothing there is sometimes a deliberate strategy by governments to do nothing.

If there is an issue around that is causing some controversy and governments

want to do nothing they do one of two things. They will put it out to a

committee and bury it in a committee every now and then, bury it for six or

eight months in a committee, or have a study, which is the same thing as a

committee, or the other way which is to bring in useless legislation, and this

minister has decided to bring in useless legislation.

This will have absolutely nothing - I will not say even very

little, this will have nothing to do to improve the environment of our Province.

This will not improve one bit the environment of our Province. It will not allow

the minister to prosecute people for over-packaging. It will not demand that the

minister set up regulations about packaging. If this is part of a national

strategy, as the minister told us, somebody else will be setting the rules and

our minister will be following them along, maybe. Maybe our minister will. If we

find we need stronger rules in this Province for certain reasons, and we do, we

need a stronger rule on returnable bottles in this Province than PEI does

because PEI has good rules on that now.

MS. COWAN: Why did you not do it?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Actually, we did do it. We did make an

improvement on the returnable bottles. We were the government who kept the

brewery industry alive in this Province by saying no more than 4 per cent of the

product can come in aluminum cans. We were the government who did that, Mr.

Speaker. We were the government who brought in all the environmental rules in

this Province and when we brought them in we were hailed across Canada by

environmentalists as their being the strongest, toughest, best environmental

rules anywhere in Canada. That is what we did. We do not hide away from it. We

do not stay out of this House of Assembly when touchy issues become important.

When the issue of Long Harbour was being discussed in this House of Assembly the

minister was not in here to defend what they were doing.

MS. COWAN: There was a good reason.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know there was a good reason for it.

MS. COWAN: A point of order.

I find that extremely objectionable, that the gentleman would

raise the point of my absence, particularly since the Premier had risen in this

House to say that I was suffering from diabetes and was not able to be in the

House until I had the matter under control. I find it most objectionable that I

would even have to rise this morning to say such a thing.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I find it equally as

objectionable to have to rise in my place to say that the Minister of

Environment and Lands is not in this House of Assembly when important

environment issues are being discussed in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Now, I am

sorry that the minister was sick. I do not criticise her for being out of the

House when she was sick, Mr. Speaker. There are many, many other instances when

the minister is sitting in her chair during question period and she is out the

door in a minute, Mr. Speaker, as soon as an environmental issue is being

discussed in this Province, many, many times, Mr. Speaker. Do not be putting up

your hand, you are not in school now, you do not want to go to the bathroom.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands, on a point of

order.

MS. COWAN: Again, I am very puzzled by this personal

attack. My son has said to me on many occasions: mom, when they take a personal

attack at you, it must be because they fear that you are going to do something

that makes the government look good. I think that my son is quite correct when

he says that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. COWAN: I think that I need an apology, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair cannot stop a person from, I suppose, making what

is determined to be a personal attack, unless it is against parliamentary

procedure or it is unparliamentary. The Chair would wish that members would keep

their comments to the issues but again that is up to the hon. members. It is

only when it is breaking the rules or unparliamentary that the Chair can

intervene.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the hon. minister, you do

not have to put your hand up to be recognized in the House of Assembly, you just

stand up and say a point of order. That is all you have to do and this is not a

personal attack. As a person, Mr. Speaker, I do not know her very well, so I

could not attack her personally. I am attacking the job she is doing as Minister

of Environment and Lands for this Province and she is not doing a good job. Now,

I think she is not doing a good job, maybe some other people in the Province

think she is. I would not attack anyone in this House personally, Mr. Speaker, I

have no reason to. I do not know most of the people on that side, personally. I

met them since they came in here in the House of Assembly. Most of them are

pretty good people personally, but Mr. Speaker, they are doing a lousy job in

this Province of governing. The Minister of Environment and Lands is a prime

example of the person who is doing a lousy job for the environment of this

Province. Does the minister know, Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example of the

lousy job that she is doing, a bill to do nothing. A bill that was brought to

this House of Assembly to try to sweep a very important issue under the carpet,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Culture, on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure in what parliament

the word, lousy, would be permitted and I ask the Chair to ask the member to

refrain or at least retract the word. I do not believe that we in the Chamber

need to hear that, nor do I believe the people in the galleries need to hear

that kind of language. What will we hear next?

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think that is probably the

500th time since he was elected, that he stood up on a point of order and there

was never a point of order yet, Mr. Speaker, never a correct point of order. Mr.

Speaker, the emissions level on that side of the House is rising and I suggest

the Minister of Environment and Lands do something about it, pollution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wants to ensure that debate is carried on in a

rational and intelligent level. The Chair did not hear the extent or the content

in which the hon. member used 'lousy.' It is not one of my favourite words but

that does not mean that it is not a favourite word with some other people. But I

do not know in what context it was used, if the hon. member could explain, if he

was calling a person that it would probably be a little bit different but if he

has been referring to different comments than it would not be unparliamentary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

not say that to a person, Mr. Speaker, I would refer that word to the job that

the people on that side are doing. That the job is a lousy job, that is an

easily understood word. I could look up the dictionary and give you words that

are three or four inches long, Mr. Speaker, but most of the people in the

Province would not know about them. That is what the Minister of Justice does

when he is trying to insult people in this House of Assembly. So nobody knows if

they are being insulted if they do not understand what he is saying. He did it

to me a couple of times but I do not know if he is insulting me or complimenting

me. My vocabulary is not great, I do not mind admitting that, my vocabulary is

not great. So I will say that you are doing a lousy job because I know everyone

in the Province who hears this will understand what I mean. They have no doubt

what I mean when I say this government is doing a lousy job and the Minister of

Environment and Lands is doing the worst. The most lousiest, if that is a word,

is doing the worst of all jobs on the environment in this Province, Mr. Speaker,

because the most important piece of legislation she brings in is a piece of

legislation to do nothing. This requires the minister to do exactly what she has

been doing since becoming Minister of Environment -

MR. MATTHEWS: Nothing.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Zero, nothing. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this

is a part of a national strategy, well, maybe we will get some action from it

from other provinces and we will tag along behind them. If this legislation was

brought in here to support the 'ban the can' issue that I supported when it was

brought up some years ago now, I forget what the date was, Mr. Speaker, but

there were groups in this Province who had started a campaign on 'ban the can',

and part of that campaign was the reasoning for this, no more than 4 per cent of

aluminum cans in the beer industry; I do not know if that regulation still

stands now. I am not sure if this government did not throw that out with their

free trade and their trade with Atlantic Canada, but if this legislation would

support that type of initiative for the government, I would be delighted to

support it, but this will do nothing, zero, for our environment in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, if this legislation was put here to bring in

rules such as they have in Prince Edward Island on returnable soft drink

bottles, I would support it wholeheartedly, but this legislation will not have

one ounce of impact on the garbage that is being created around our Province

with these disposable soft drink containers. This will do nothing for it, this

will not clean it up. I do not know who it was yesterday but someone mentioned

here about the bags and bags and helicopter loads of garbage that was coming out

from the wilderness area, the Avalon wilderness area, and this will not do one -

MR. DOYLE: Benefit, no benefit.

MS. COWAN: Try levying fines (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: No, but you see Patt, you cannot levy fines.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well maybe you did, maybe you increased

the fines - Did you increase the fines?

MR. DOYLE: Yes, she did, yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well good for you. You did something. I

have to apologize -

MR. MATTHEWS: But she has not caught anybody.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, no, that is right, they have no

enforcement -

MR. MATTHEWS: Nobody paid their fines.

MR. R. AYLWARD: There was no enforcement of the

regulations. You can put the fines to a million dollars each if you like, but if

you cannot enforce the regulations and catch people who are dumping - I will

tell you now if you want to take a drive between Kilbride and Shea Heights on

that gravel road, you take a drive up there, right in the middle of St. John's,

is a dumping area.

MS. COWAN: Did you report it?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I reported it, yes I reported it. I

did not see people dumping it, if I had seen them dumping it I would have shoved

it down their throats. If I caught anyone damaging our environment I would

report it. But if you do not have enforcement people in your system to carry out

your regulations it is not good having them, you can have all the regulations

you want in the world. People are dumping garbage right under your nose,

obviously that says what type of legislation you have, it is no good, it is

useless, unless you enforce it.

Now, how can we take environmental legislation seriously in

this Province when we have a government and a minister who are inviting people

to come and dump their toxic waste and cause incinerators to be built in Long

Harbour? We have a government here who wants people to bring American garbage

into our Province and burn it to create energy, I believe is what it said. This

legislation would allow that; this legislation would not do a thing to stop it.

Actually, it will allow the burning of garbage to create energy, it is in the

legislation, Mr.Speaker. It is right in the legislation that they will allow the

destruction of the garbage to create energy.

They have done pretty well everything in their power to allow

that garbage dump to be created in Long Harbour, they have done pretty well

everything in their power. The only thing that is holding them up now is the

company that is coming in here to burn garbage, do not trust this Newfoundland

Reduction Company to clean up the site, that is the only thing that is stopping

it. Nothing this government did is stopping that Long Harbour garbage dump from

being created. The only thing that is stopping it is that the company who wants

to move in here, does not trust the company who was out in Long Harbour, I have

forgotten their name now, Newfoundland, what was that name again?

MR. DOYLE: What the garbage company?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Newfoundland reduction company or

something - the ones that were operating in Long Harbour before -

AN HON. MEMBER: Reduction and recycling...

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, not that crowd.

Mr. Speaker, that is the only thing that is stopping the

dump. Nothing this government did is stopping it. Not only is nothing this

government is doing stopping it, this government is going to have another dump

now in Labrador, up near Schefferville - and the Member for Eagle River never

opened his mouth on this yet. That is what gets me. Mr. Speaker, he is standing

up every day in the media. He has been reported in the media as supporting this

wildlife -

AN HON. MEMBER: IFAW.

MR. R. AYLWARD: IFAW, Mr. Speaker. He is up supporting

them. He has been reported as supporting them, yet there is a dump going up in

his region, and these guys are even admitting that they are going to put toxic

things in there. They are going to bury toxic garbage in there, and he never

opened his mouth about it.

If the fund for international welfare hears that you are

allowing that dump to go up there, they are going to throw you off their board.

They are not going to allow you to stand up and be spokesman for them in this

Province. They are going to get rid of you. So stand up and say that you

disagree with the dump going to Labrador, and have some real legislation brought

into this House of Assembly.

If the minister wanted to bring environmental legislation

into this House of Assembly today that I would support, it would be legislation

that would say definitely there will be no dumps brought into this Province. We

do not want garbage from anywhere else in North America, or the world, brought

to our Province - period - no questions asked. If the minister was bringing in

that type of legislation, I would be here congratulating the minister and

supporting her and her department for doing a good job for our Province. Yet we

have absolutely nothing in this legislation. Not only that, we cannot trust an

administration who would attempt, or who would do everything in their power to

allow these garbage dumps.

I think there are only two backbenchers on that side who

actually came out and said that there should not be garbage imported from

America. I believe the Member for Humber West and the Member for St. John's

South were the only two who spoke up. They are the only two I remember - and one

of them has been thrown out of Cabinet and the other one does not have a chance

of getting in so they have nothing to lose, I guess, but all the rest of them

are very quiet about it over there.

Mr. Speaker, if this legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well the Member for Carbonear tells me he

is against it, but he will not tell anyone else. You have to be public. You have

to come out and tell people flat out. It is no good sitting behind your desk,

frightened to death that the Premier might hear you are against something he is

trying to do. You are not going to get in Cabinet anyway.

Mr. Speaker, if this legislation -

MR. TOBIN: Who is not getting in Cabinet?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Art - and it is too bad, too, because he

would probably be a good minister.

MR. TOBIN: There is not time enough left for a Cabinet

shuffle before an election, and he will not be back.

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is right. He will be gone anyway. No

matter who wins, he is gone.

Mr. Speaker, if this legislation was doing something about

the major environmental problem in our Province - I know the soft drink

containers are a problem. The Long Harbour dump will probably never come to

fruition because both companies do not trust each other, so we do not really

have to worry about that. The major environmental problem in our Province today

is the use of ATV's - particularly wheeled trikes and quads. That is the major

environmental issue in our Province. That is the problem that is creating the

most damage to our environment right now.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone - and I do quite often - travels

anywhere in our Province, they will see the damage that is being done by these

all terrain vehicles. Skidoos are not so bad because usually the ground is -

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Is this an environmental act? Are we

talking about environmental issues? Are you the one who is responsible for our

environment in this Province?

MS. COWAN: Proudly.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, proudly is right, and you are doing

nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why this government is doing nothing

about the ATV problem in this Province? I have a letter here from the Canadian

All Terrain Vehicle Distributor's Council, who are willing to work with

governments throughout Canada in solving this problem. They are offering their

help. These are the ones who are offering their help, and you will not listen to

them. You will not meet with them. You will not talk to them.

The former Minister of Transportation would not even look at

them - Gilbert there - he would not go near them. They were begging for meetings

with him. Here is the letter. I attended a meeting up at First City Motel one

night. No one from the Liberal caucus showed up there. Not a soul there from the

Liberal caucus. There were dealers and users.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The invitation was a public, on the

radio, invitation. Anyone could come.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Users, dealers, people interested in the

environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, because you've been burying your head

in the sand for too long. Mr. Speaker, by the way, this Province is the highest

per capita user of ATVs anywhere in North America. Not Canada, anywhere in North

America. I would say probably the world. One hundred and twenty-five thousand

people, or one-fifth of our population in Newfoundland and Labrador, used

off-road vehicles in 1991. That's a lot of people.

Now some of the reasons why they're not doing anything about

this is probably because of the money that's being created by the off-road ATV

business. Estimated wages and salaries in 1991, $7.8 million. Very significant.

Hard job to do it in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: In Newfoundland, yes. Just Newfoundland

alone. Total revenues to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador from sales

and use of off-road vehicles, is estimated at over $6.5 million. Very

significant. It's getting worse.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: That's everything. The helmets and the

bikes - everything. Six point five million dollars in revenue that the

government gets out of this. It's a $100 million business, Mr. Speaker.

These people are willing to work with the government. They

want to solve it because they know what's going to happen. When non-users

eventually have enough they're going to revolt and they're going to stop the use

of ATVs, period. Like the use of trikes, the building of trikes, was stopped.

You're not allowed to build a trike any more. You have to build quads. Because

of the danger. That happened nationally. It was agreed to voluntarily, by the

way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, there were a couple of suits. The

medical society of Canada and North America generally complained so much about

injuries that the companies themselves had to voluntarily stop building trikes,

because they were too dangerous. That is going to happen with all ATVs

eventually. When the people who are not users eventually have enough problems.

I have personal knowledge of the destruction, Mr. Speaker,

because I'm fortunate enough to own a piece of farm land in Kilbride that I

can't keep a fence on, and that I can't keep the mud from being up to your knees

on with these things passing back and forth through private property. This is

not outside. I tried to protect that little corner of the world from this

destruction. You can't even do that because when you're not around in the

nighttime the destruction will occur. The fences will be beaten down. This is in

the City of St. John's where it's illegal to drive them.

So again it's an enforcement problem. We have some

regulations in the City of St. John's to control these things but nobody's

enforcing them. How are you going to enforce them? Unless you have a quad or a

trike to chase them, find them. There's no good going around in a police car

saying you're going to do it because you're not going to catch them.

That is a problem. This ATV industry has seventy-five

dealerships located throughout the Province. That's hard to deal with. I

understand it's hard to deal with. But it's going to be dealt with worse. Four

hundred people employed in the business; $58 million in wages again, as I said.

This is a statistic that surprised me. Where did I see that one now? The

majority of off-road vehicle use is commercial use. I saw that in one of.... I

can't find it there now. The majority, over 75 per cent of the ATV use, is

commercial use.

So there are commercial businesses -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know the minister is bored with this,

because this affects our environment. The minister will run out of the House

again now because we're talking about environment. She's going to walk out the

door, Mr. Speaker, and hide her head in the sand again. I didn't know this

before I saw this letter. Seventy-five per cent of this damage is being caused

by commercial -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The two of them, both of them have

diabetes, haven't they? Both of them have diabetes. I guess that's the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, they're not getting to me. There's

nobody who'll ever get to me now. If I came through fourteen years of this stuff

the next month is not going to get to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about this damage, and this I

consider to be the most important environmental issue. The dumps and all of that

stuff is great political rhetoric and you can make good news out of it, and you

can catch the media every now and then on that stuff, but this is the important

one, and I would like to poll this House of Assembly to know how many of our

members own these vehicles. How many of our own members are damaging the

environment? I have never owned one and I never will own one. I am not saying I

never damaged our environment because I did my share of that, the same as most

of us, but I would say there is a significant number of people in this House of

Assembly who either themselves or someone in their families have these trikes

and quads and skidoos and J-5's and the like that are doing damage to our

society. That is why we are getting nothing done with it, because the majority

in here are probably doing the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh, I would not be surprised. I remember

I was very supportive and very strong on some ATV regulations that we brought

in, and when we made them public the you know what hit the fan, Mr. Speaker, and

we chickened out. Our members - our Cabinet - chickened out. Now I cannot say

what happened inside the Cabinet rooms, but it was not this fellow. It was not

me.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have to do it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It has to be done, Mr. Speaker, and if it

is not done - it will be done eventually, but it is going to be done when it is

too late. It is like the agricultural zone in Kilbride. We brought in

agricultural protection in 1972 or 1973. The farmers in that area were looking

for that since 1962. When we brought it in, it was too late - pretty well too

late. It will survive another ten years or so and then it will be all gone - and

we are going to do that with this ATV issue too. It is going to be too late when

somebody decides to make a move on it.

Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact that the Member for Eagle

River does damage because he owns two. He owns a skidoo and a trike, and the

fund for animal welfare crowd are going to throw him off the board for that too

if he does not come around, because they do not put up with too much of that

stuff. They are pretty strict. The member might like to get the publicity any

way he can, something like the Member for Port de Grave. Any publicity is good

publicity.

Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Eagle River is not careful,

the fund for animal welfare will throw him off their board. He is not going to

be able to serve. He cannot sit on both sides of the fence. He has to take a

stand one way or the other.

I just say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this act could have

been a good act to put out to a legislative review committee, because you would

get - it might not be totally relevant what you would hear about this act,

period, but you would get a wide view. You would hear from people who are

interested in the environment and have suggestions for the government to act

upon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I doubt it.

You might collect it - no, I do not say you will have it.

There will be a few more collect their severance within a month or so after I

collect mine too - a few on both sides, probably.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) until Thursday?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I will be here on Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh, I thought he was saying if the

election is called. Yes, well that is it. Yes, I will be here no matter what. I

do not quit in the middle of a job. I never have. No matter what happens, I will

be here. It is out of my control whatever happens so ... I was hired on by the

people of the district of Kilbride from the last election until the next one,

and that is what I will do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I will just make a recommendation in this Bill

that it would have been a good Bill to refer to a legislative review committee

so we could get some public input again on what we should be doing for our

environment. If we heard only from people who are interested in packaging, as

this Bill suggests is supposed to help out, that would be good, but I would

expect we would hear more issues - a broader issue on the environment throughout

our Province if we had put this Bill to a legislative review committee and tried

to get some public input.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. member, the

Chair would like to just bring to the attention of all the members of the

Honourable House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to bring to the attention of all hon.

members of the House, Standing Order 11, particularly Sections (

c) and (d).

These orders are here to help the Speaker preserve order and decorum in the

House. Sections (

c) and (

d) of that Standing Order have not been observed by

hon. members in the recent days, the Chair has noticed. I'll just read them to

hon. members.

Here in (

c) it says: "When a member is speaking, no member

shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point

of order." In (

d) it says: "No member may pass between the Chair and the table,

nor between the Chair and the Mace when the Mace has been taken off the table by

the Sergeant-at-Arms."

So I ask hon. members to bear these two standing orders in

mind, please.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I don't have very much on this

Bill, just pointing out certain aspects of it that I feel are very important.

I understand the type of criticism offered by the opposition

is but for the sake of the way that they see the efforts that are being made.

They think it should all be done in legislation. This government has taken the

legislation,

An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of Packaging On The

Environment, as a first step. As part of the process. As part of the overall

manner in which we are going to go about this.

The changes to the way that we perceive the environment are

changes that have come with a lot of forethought and a lot of understanding

that's been developed over the last number of years. We have to consider that to

make very harsh changes immediately can have some adverse impact, not only on

our environment, but also adverse impact on the commercial side of environmental

law.

If we look at this legislation, the purpose as stated in

Section 3, is to: "(

a) reduce or mitigate the adverse environmental effects

associated with the manufacture, use, reuse and recycling of packaging; and (

b) encourage a hierarchy of source reduction, reuse and recycling with respect to

packaging."

As people will know, in past years it's been put out to the

public that to preserve your environment will cost more. To purchase

environmentally friendly products will cost more. To see to it that sewage is

treated. We note a noteworthy example in British Columbia where the United

States, the Washington area, is at odds with British Columbia communities over

the sewage outfall situation, as far as what will be acceptable in the overall

context of trade between Canada and the US as far as what we should do in the

way of our environmental protection.

So we have to look at all of these different things. It's not

the kind of piece of legislation which could be brought in to deal with it

specifically. I feel the way that we've approached this, with enabling

legislation which will enable the proper establishment of regulations, is

certainly the right way to go. Because regulations are much more apt to be able

to be changed easily given new, arising circumstances. As well, to consider the

different things that come up.

If we get into the side of the environmental question as far

as whether people are willing to pay for it, well initially I think as

environment is seen as one of these things in an affluent society, sure, the

affluent society can afford to look after the environment as far as paying extra

for environmentally friendly goods and services. If you look at society where

money is a problem, where there are financial problems associated with the

affordability of environmental concerns, then society itself will possibly

reject the more expensive environmentally friendly products and services for

less expensive ones. The marketplace will essentially decide.

This is where government comes in, in requiring a certain

level of environmentally friendly activity on the part of the business

community, and also on the part of packaging, the detail of which we are

discussing in this particular Bill.

There are some noteworthy aspects to the Bill. The

encouragement of reducing the source of the problem. I often am amused by people

speaking for one thing of electric vehicles as being environmentally friendly,

because they don't pollute the environment as much, when the effort used and the

energy undertaken to produce, say, an electric vehicle may in fact pollute the

air more.

MS. COWAN: Global warming (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Then you have the problems associated, as the

minister suggested, with global warming, through the emissions from power plants

where industry requires power plants to have certain levels of emission

reduction. That is something that you have to take into consideration when

you're producing environmentally friendly packaging.

Then, getting into the detail of the wording of this Bill,

where it says in

Section 3(

b) to "encourage a hierarchy of source reduction...,"

if you take that right back to the original source of the product - if in fact

the mill where the steel is produced is not environmentally friendly, then to

have steel as opposed to - used in a certain vehicle, would probably not

necessarily be more environmentally friendly. Probably that's a poor example.

A better example might be the example of aluminium. If you

use aluminium in products it's lighter. Generally, a lighter-weight material is

going to cause less problems to the environment. Because if you're shipping it

you're not using as much fuel in the trucks that are shipping the product to

market. So therefore a lighter product, or an aluminium-type product, might very

well be cheaper. Sorry, not cheaper, but of less damage to the environment,

because aluminium is lighter.

Then if you go to the pollution that an aluminium smelter can

cause to the environment then you see the difference that one product over

another may cause. The advantage of light weight versus the disadvantage of the

increased pollution by virtue of its production. So if you go to the source of

the product you get into the detail of the "hierarchy of source reduction" which

is quite a bit different from saying that it's a given package on a shelf.

We could use the example of MacDonald's restaurants, Mr.

Speaker. MacDonald's restaurants, in order to accommodate the environmental

concerns of the general public, chose to go from their styrofoam containers to a

paper wrapping on their burgers. So you can imagine, even here in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, the amount that this contributes to our landfill

sites as far as actual waste material. Now if you look at the assessments that

were done by the people involved with environment, the paper wrapping actually

is more difficult to deal with from a waste disposal standpoint than styrofoam,

but the impression was that the styrofoam itself was in fact more damaging to

the environment. So what often is done as a result of public pressure doesn't

often mean the best thing of all for the environment. These are the kinds of

things that we have to take into account and get to the source and to understand

the detail.

It's not the kind of thing that legislation itself can do.

Legislation with the assistance of the regulations that may be made by the

government in future is certainly a key point.

The other situation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Is there a suggestion there that I've been

cooking with aluminium? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on another matter as far as the

details. Initially when I was elected four years ago I brought to the attention

of the then Minister of Environment and Lands, the hon. Mr. Kelland, about the

reusable bottles. This is part and parcel of the way that the Opposition often

addresses the issue of saying the government has done nothing. The reusable

bottle issue.

They will know that under their administration an agreement

was sought by the industry to make sure that refillable bottles would not be

required over a given period of time to allow the recycling industry to

establish itself in the Province, as I understand it. So a certain period of

time was allowed to see if the recycling of the non-refillable and the

non-returnable bottles, as an example, was going to be a useful way of dealing

with our waste problem. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the minister mention

as to the results of the pilot project, I suppose it was called at the time, and

I think that that jury will be out and the minister can comment on that further

at her closing of the Bill.

I would congratulate the minister on bringing this forward.

It is a very, very broad based piece of legislation. We have to look at

packaging that surrounds the clothes we buy, right down to the drink container

that we drink from, all the way through, Mr. Speaker, and with the considerable

pressure that I am under, by hon. members on both sides of the House, I think I

probably said as much as could be said about the environment here this morning

in a useful way. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now she will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to rise

above the temptation to respond because I feel that the official Opposition has

had a lot to bear this week and they have had to deal with that by sort of

attacking me and that is all right. I think our government has made some fairly

important steps this week and if I had to be the brunt of a little bit of

nonsense from the Opposition as a result of that, well I am only too glad to

take it.

I would however like to respond to, who I feel is the true

Opposition in this particular case, that is the hon. Member for St. John's East.

He expressed several concerns which he had about the environment but again he

chose to take, not the high road as his friend, the hon. Ruth Grier who is the

Minister of Environment from Ontario, did when she acknowledged along with the

other ministers of environment that this type of legislation was the type of

legislation that we needed across Canada, as did the hon. Minister of

Environment from the Province of British Columbia and from the Province of

Saskatchewan, which we know all have governments of his persuasion.

So he chose to use the occasion to bring to our attention a

number of half-truths, which showed that he had not really listened to me any

time I was interviewed because I said this is exactly what I was going to do,

that regulations were being developed but I had to bring this legislation to the

House first and that is indeed what is happening. I know he felt guilty because

every five minutes he kept saying: but she is so sincere. So he must have felt

guilty about what he was saying and knew he was only doing it for political

affect.

I am pleased than, Mr. Speaker, to move second reading of

this Act, respecting packaging in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The

Impact Of Packaging On The Environment," read a second time, ordered referred to

a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 2).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough

please, to call Order No. 2, which is Bill No. 10.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Government-Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited Agreements Act". (Bill No. 10).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, an

introduction to this Bill. I would like to say that essentially this asks for an

amendment to the Put agreement previously entered into, in essence what that did

was to indicate to financial people that were helping finance the Kruger

operation in Corner Brook, that in the event that something untoward happened

the government of the Province would buy from the operation the power plant in

Deer Lake, and the current amount is $50 million. That asset's replacement value

is probably in the vicinity of $400 - $500 million.

It is a very valuable facility, it is valuable on its own but

right now it's value is that it keeps the mill in Corner Brook operating, so in

essence what this is, it is a financial arrangement or an agreement that some

time in the future if something happens we would indeed purchase that particular

asset for a sum of $50 million.

The existing agreement, Mr. Speaker, is that we would agree

to the $50 million until 1995, and then it would decrease to $20 mi