June 3,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 55

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the President of Treasury Board. Yesterday the teachers rejected the collective

agreement their union had negotiated with government.

MS. COWAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: I have a statement. There was a bit of

confusion here in the House and I didn't hear you. I did stand, as well, but I

think it was rather awkward for you.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I didn't see the hon. minister.

Have we permission to revert?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

Statements by Ministers

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

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

I am pleased to announce this morning that June 5 to 11, next

week, has been set aside as Canadian Environment Week. The theme for Environment

Week this year is, `Go Green. This Week. Every Week.' This theme reminds us that

environmental protection and preservation is important throughout the year, no

matter where you are. Environmental stewardship can be achieved by thinking

green. Indeed, environmental awareness is the first step to improving the

environment.

Mr. Speaker, we need to be aware of the positive and negative

impacts of our behaviour and how it can affect the environment. We must learn to

live in harmony with our surroundings and recognize that every environmental

action, no matter how insignificant, helps improve the overall picture.

Each year Environment Week is celebrated nationally during

the first full week of June. It celebrates our most precious resource, the

environment. We live in a fragile ecosystem, wherein we rely on the environment

to sustain us. Therefore, we must take steps to help sustain the environment so

we can all benefit fully from this resource.

Mr. Speaker, my staff have undertaken activities aimed at

increasing public awareness of the importance of a clean environment. In this

regard, my department has teamed up with Environment Canada and the City of St.

John's to organize mall displays during the week.

Oceans Day, June 8, recognizes the importance of our oceans

in supporting life. First declared on June 8, 1992, during the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janiero, Oceans Day inspires

us to become caretakers of our oceans environment. In that regard, St. John's

staff have organized a beach clean-up in the St. John's area for Wednesday, June

8. Staff in Grand Falls office will undertake a clean-up of one kilometre of the

Trans-Canada Highway in the Grand Falls - Windsor area.

The quality of the air we breath is critical to our survival.

Automobiles are often a contributing factor to poor air quality. My department,

in conjunction with Environment Canada, will be holding vehicle emissions

clinics in Happy Valley - Goose Bay on June 6 and 7 and in Labrador City June 9

and 10. The purpose of these free clinics is to advise motorists about the

emission levels of their vehicle. If a vehicle is found to have a higher than

normal emission level or is missing a pollution control component the motorist

is simply advised of that deficiency.

On Sunday, June 12, my department, along with the Women's

Institutes, will host the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards

ceremony. There, we will recognize those who have contributed in a meaningful

way to the preservation, protection and restoration of our environment.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to proclaim next

week, the week of June 5 - 11, as Canadian Environment Week, and I might add,

Mr. Speaker, if I could before I sit down: It's Yours, Keep it Clean.

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

Extern.

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

I would first like to thank the minister for delivering a

copy of her statement this morning and proclaiming June 5 - 11, Environment

Week. The theme this year, Mr. Speaker, "Go Green. This Week, Every Week," I

think is a good theme and certainly would help to get people thinking about our

environment.

Mr. Speaker, any actions taken to heighten public awareness

on our environment is always a positive step. This year, in the statement, the

minister refers to the land, air and water of our environment which is a total

package, of course, but a lot of people sometimes think of only keeping the land

clean. On television now we have ads in which we see people throwing garbage out

the window, which I think is a very effective ad, but this year, reference to

the land, air and water, I think is a very good idea, Mr. Speaker.

We all must do our part to keep our environment clean for our

children and for future generations. And, Mr. Speaker, the idea of giving

rewards for the protection and preservation and the clean-up and restoration of

our environment I would think, is always a good idea when it helps to get people

involved and keep those people involved. Just before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I

was half expecting to have this statement proclaiming June 5 - 11 week announced

by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Thank you.

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of Treasury

Board.

Yesterday, the teachers rejected the collective agreement the

union had negotiated with government. We are entering the fourth week of the

teachers strike and rapidly approaching the end of the school year. Have you

been in contact with the NLTA since the announcement of the strike vote

yesterday, and will talks get underway quickly to try to resolve this dispute

and get the students back in the classroom?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the NLTA is going through a

process at a meeting with their executive last night, and all of this morning

they are meeting with their branch presidents.

I have had my discussion with Cabinet and with caucus, and I

am assuming that later on today there will be an opportunity to have

discussions, but this process had to be gone through before Mr. Sutherland and I

could get together.

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

Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious, from the reactions to the Memorandum of

Understanding, that the government has managed to antagonize everybody -

teachers, school boards, school superintendents, denominational authorities,

parents, and even the students.

Now, since three of these are management groups represented

at the bargaining table, on the same side as government, can the minister

explain how he got us into this mess?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: And, more importantly, how are you going to

get everybody out of this mess?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a very serious

question, and I will treat it seriously.

First of all, the tentative agreement that was reached is not

government's position. There are things in that tentative agreement that

government did not like. There was give and take. It was not the teachers' union

position. There were things in that that the teachers' union did not like, and

it was not their position. There were things in there as well that the school

boards, the third party to the agreement, did not like.

That tentative agreement was an amalgam of positions from all

parties, that was an attempt to end the strike, to get the schools open, to get

the students back into the classroom. That tentative agreement was not

government's position, it was not NTA's position, it was not the school board's

position; it was the result of a process, a collective bargaining process, and

that is what it should have been -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: - the end result of a collective bargaining

process where nobody won, except, if it had been accepted the students would

have won.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister puts on a good act

at being serious, yet the laughter that this government exercised when I asked

the question is really how the government treated the teachers during

negotiations. That's what they displayed during negotiations. That's what

happened to negotiations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I couldn't hear if the hon. member asked a question or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Could I have silence in the House so we can hear the hon.

member's question?

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, this is not the time for more confrontation. The

minister knows that there are items in that agreement that do nothing but

irritate and offend the teachers. In the end there are no -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I asked the hon. member for a question, not to continue

making remarks.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the minister is: In the interest of getting an

agreement, getting the schools opened and the students back to school, are you

prepared to remove some of these things unconditionally from the table?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we're not dictators.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: This was not our position, therefore we cannot

simply remove things. We're into a collective bargaining process, Mr. Speaker.

We are not going to unilaterally remove things from an agreement that was agreed

to.

I'd like to remind the hon. gentleman opposite that that

tentative agreement was reached between the negotiating units. That tentative

agreement was taken to the provincial executive of the teachers union who said

that it was okay. It was taken to fifty-two branch presidents in a meeting, who

again approved that tentative agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not something

that was forced down anybody's throat, this is something that was agreed upon

through the collective bargaining process.

Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it didn't work out when it

went out for the vote. There is an obvious problem there and we have to solve

that problem. I've indicated that I had a process to go through after the vote

was rejected, so does the NTA executive have a process to go through, and as

soon as they have finished their process then we have to get together to try to

find a solution. I don't know how we can be any more reasonable than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Education.

Given the failure of the teachers, the school boards and the

government to reach a collective agreement, what is the minister's strategy to

complete the student evaluation processes in a manner acceptable to parents and

to students?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we will be devoting the weekend

to dealing with that problem. As the hon. member will know, we did talk about

putting on the public exams anyway but it is becoming more and more difficult to

do that. There is some question as to whether or not we can get them marked. We

can physically put them on and have students write them but getting them marked

will be a difficulty. Some students now are complaining that they have not

covered the year's work and it would be unfair to have them write the exams, so

we have to deal with that.

The scholarship exam, Mr. Speaker, is quite a different thing

from the other exams. So if we were to cancel the other exams, for example, and

I am not saying we will, we would have to do something with the scholarship

exam.

The problem we are having is an evaluation of the year's work

to date. If we could only find some way to have the full year's work evaluated

then it would not be absolutely essential to send the students back to school at

all this year. One thing we do not want to do, in the interest of the children,

is we do not want to have to legislate, unless we absolutely must, Mr. Speaker.

That is the last thing government wants to do, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, several days ago the minister

committed himself, in response to a petition from some students from the Harbour

Main district, to ask the president of MUN to reduce the minimum average for

admission to first year studies from 70 per cent to 65 per cent to accommodate

those graduating students who may not have performed well in their mid-term

evaluations and who were relying on the end of the year examinations in order to

bring up their averages. Has the minister consulted with Dr. May? While we

recognize that he cannot instruct the university to do what the students asked

in their petition, has there been dialogue and what has been the result of that

dialogue?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the whole

issue with Dr. May. The university has no intention of dropping their

requirement back. However, in discussions with Dr. May, I am satisfied that we

can reach an accommodation whereby no student who normally would have been

accepted into university in September will be in any way harmed as a result of

this strike.

Now, I don't want to go into the details. The meeting was in

confidence and I don't want to do anything which would even have a bearing on

negotiations, but I did have discussion with Dr. May and I am also aware of

discussions with some of the universities in the Atlantic region. I am sure,

though, the hon. member will understand that if I were to get up here today and

say, `No problem, students, you are in university,' then that might impact on

negotiations or whatever.

I want to say, however, that personally I am quite confident

no student will be refused admission to a university who normally would have

been accepted if this strike had not taken place.

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

Kenmount, a final supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the

President of Treasury Board. It is regarding the hold-back pay which had been

accumulated by teachers from September until May 16.

Many teachers are asking questions about the processing of

that hold-back pay during the months of July and August. I want to ask the

minister: Is it his government's intention to refuse to process the hold-back

pay in July and August until the evaluations have been submitted that were

effective from September until the date the schools closed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we will pay our public employees

on the basis of the service provided and, depending on how this is calculated,

the teachers who are now on strike will receive full pay for the days that they

have worked during the school year.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union - and I

ask this of the Minister of Health - released the results of a survey of nurses

in this Province. Eighty-three per cent of nurses said understaffing of

hospitals has resulted in unsafe conditions for patients. Ninety-one per cent

said understaffing has created an unsafe workplace for nurses.

I ask the minister: How does the minister answer to this

shocking indictment of the government's health care policies?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, this

report was delivered, I think, to the President of Treasury Board. When I got

back to my office yesterday, after House, it was there on my desk, and I haven't

had an opportunity to fully digest the results of this survey. When I do, and

when I study it, and the origins and all of the rest of it, then I will be

prepared to answer questions on it.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It only takes thirty minutes to read it. I asked you the

question about 91 per cent of nurses saying their safety is in jeopardy. I said

that 83 per cent stated that patients - you don't have to read it to answer that

question. I will move on to the next question.

Nurses charge that your so-called health care reforms amount

to nothing more than health care cutbacks. These are the front-line workers in

the health care system that the minister talks about. Now, how does the minister

explain why nurses on the front lines don't see improvements in the delivery of

health care service, but only see more work, risk and frustration for them, and

more pain and suffering for their patients?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the nurses are presently in

negotiation with Treasury Board, and I might say that the nurses' union deals

with Treasury Board. The Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland deals

with professional matters. So I am going to read this survey very carefully and

consult with both groups of nurses just to see what their concerns really are.

This thirty-second reaction from the member opposite is very

typical of the way he handles health care matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a very (inaudible) response for a minister. First, he

doesn't believe me, he doesn't believe doctors in this Province, and now he

doesn't believe nurses in the Province. He doesn't believe patients. Well who, I

ask the minister, is telling the truth about health care?

Now, nurses support a shift to see claims in emphasis to

community and preventive health care. Nurses support that; they said so in this

release yesterday. Now, they are your natural allies, but they say you are doing

nothing to bring that about.

I ask the minister: How do you answer the charge that the

system is falling apart, that you are simply wrecking hospital-based health

care, with no alternatives, that you are doing nothing to develop community and

preventive health care?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is

like the bone - he stands alone.

He levied a charge at one of the St. John's hospitals the day

before yesterday, and they had to refute it.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's not true.

DR. KITCHEN: The Executive Director of the Newfoundland

Hospital and Nursing Home Association was on the air this morning basically

refuting what the member has to say. I mean, he seems to want to take the whole

health establishment on. We do get, from time to time, complaints, and we look

into them.

I've given up looking into the oral complaints of the member

opposite because there is never anything to them. But when there is a legitimate

complaint, whether it be from the nurses' association or nurses' union or

anything else, we will look into it. I can guarantee the member and members of

the House of that. We take our responsibilities in health very seriously in this

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the

Minister of Social Services. I would like to ask the minister: How many cases of

fraud have the social services investigators brought forward since their

inception in October of last year?

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

MR. LUSH: I can't give the hon. member the exact numbers

for fraud but I can tell him, they would be very low. Because the main job of

the investigators is to ensure that people are receiving monies administered by

the government appropriately. And rather than bringing people to the courts, it

is a matter of trying to instruct people in a diplomatic manner. That is the

approach, rather than bringing people to the courts. The people actually engaged

- the number for fraud would be very low and I will undertake to get the numbers

for the member.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm of the

opinion, or I understand, that there have been approximately seventeen cases or

seventeen suspected cases of fraud, and that works out to a little better than

one case for each investigator. Isn't it a fact that all the investigators are

uncovering are mistakes made by overworked, over-stressed social workers who are

paid $2,500 a year less than those investigators themselves?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Not so, Mr. Speaker. I don't know where the

hon. member gets his information. Number one, the salary scale that he quotes is

not correct. As a matter of fact, it is just the reverse, that social workers

get $2,500 more than the investigators. The hon. member will have to - it is a

different - the social workers are on a scale approximately $2,500 more than

investigators. I can tell the hon. member that the investigators have saved the

taxpayers of this Province at the end of this fiscal year - and remember, they

didn't start work until October - they have, in six months, saved the people of

this Province $2.5 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: If the hon. member thinks that is not a saving

that is worthwhile to the taxpayers of this Province, well, then, he had better

go out and explain that one to the taxpayers of this Province, that they will

accept people receiving social assistance when they are not entitled to receive

it.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that social workers should be engaged

in that kind of activity is not the way this government thinks. We believe that

the social worker's job is too important to be looking into these matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, for a minister who didn't

know the answers when he stood up, he wasn't long learning. I don't know who

provided them for him.

I ask the minister: Why would his department pay over $12,000

for a weekend conference in Gander for the thirteen special investigators who

had just spent several weeks training at government's expense last October? And

why was it necessary to have sixteen central office administrators attend the

conference, which is more than one administrator for each investigator? Perhaps

we ought to have special investigators ferreting out the expenses of his

department instead of dealing with the people who can least afford it.

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

MR. LUSH: The hon. member can't have it both ways. When

we announced that we were going to give two weeks training to these

investigators, the hon. member derisively mocked and denigrated two weeks

training.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Now, Mr. Speaker, we realize that two weeks

training wasn't the total of the program that we were going to give them - we

were going to do the ideal thing, put them out in the field for six months and

then bring them back on the basis of the problems that they have run into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I tell the hon. member again, he

can't have it both ways. The Petite Report condemns us for a lack of training

and we're following the recommendations of the Petite Report. The Child Welfare

League of America, can tell the hon. member that we believe in training, that

training is an integral part of it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Maybe members on the other side ought to take

some training and they wouldn't be asking the innocuous questions they're

asking!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I should say the hon. minister has given a fine speech but

I'm not sure he's answering the question.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

don't know if it's safe to participate in free-for-all Friday, Mr. Speaker. I'm

not sure - I almost feel like staying down in my chair. But I want to ask the

Premier a question.

Last week, government started round two of the publicity

campaign to convince Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a good thing. Could the Premier inform the

House how long this new publicity program, advertising campaign will go on? Has

government made up its mind how long they will advertise on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there's no set time or set

plan. It's government's responsibility to make sure that the people of the

Province are fully informed as to the issues. We're concerned that, because of

the emotional arguments that were stirred up about the issue, that there's been

a great deal of misinformation out there and it's incumbent upon government to

take steps to correct it; but there isn't any designed plan to carry it on for a

certain amount of time, to spend a certain amount of money or anything of that

nature. Our obligation is to make sure the people of the Province are fully

informed.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. No

matter how much the Premier advertises, he's not going to change the minds of 68

per cent of Newfoundlanders. I want to ask him: If he doesn't know how long he's

going to advertise, he doesn't know how much it's going to cost. Where is the

money coming from for the advertising campaign to pay for this situation, these

ads? Where is it coming from?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Primarily from the hundreds of thousands

of dollars we save by cutting out the kind of advertising the hon. members did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'd say it's too bad the Premier wasn't

here, I believe it was last Friday, Mr. Speaker, when we were debating the

estimates of the Executive Council and so on, when it was shown that the budget

for Newfoundland Information Services and the public relations team has gone up

from $168,000 to well over $400,000, I say to the Premier. So if he considers

that savings, then is it any wonder, the deficit we have?

I ask the Premier: Can he confirm that this week, government

and its advertising campaign on privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

- like the full page ad in The Evening Telegram , the Robinson Blackmore

papers, The Western Star and the radio advertising to all the networks -

can he confirm for the House that that advertising campaign this week has cost

the taxpayers of this Province $50,000?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the total of it will - I

don't think it's just confined to this week, but I've asked them to work up the

total that will have been spent during the month of May.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How do they know how much will be spent?

PREMIER WELLS: The total? Well, they know how much they

committed. All the bills aren't in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Premier is answering a question. It would be easier if he

answered the question. If other members have questions, let them pose them.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The total in April was $17,631.22.

AN HON. MEMBER: April?

PREMIER WELLS: April. That is the total. The total in May

was $49,725.51.

Now let me give the hon. members opposite some totals. The

total spent by the President of the Executive Council in the last year that the

Leader of the Opposition was there, in advertising, putting his pictures in the

paper, was $53,100. The total for one year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: You just said you spent that in one week

(inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Just let me finish. That was one minister

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER WELLS: I am not finished the answer. The total

spent in the year before by the same minister was $130,527.11.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now that, Mr. Speaker, was one minister;

there were twenty-three of those.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the

Premier, please. Mr. Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Premier, would you please give this House

an update on the Province's progress with the federal government on trade

economic zones, particularly as it applies to the Port of Argentia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in five

years, we appear to be making some progress.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It is obvious that the hon. member has

some awareness of a degree of progress from other sources, quite obvious, and I

understand the basis for his question. I caution members, we are not there yet,

we have to make progress.

Now it is a sensitive thing from this point of view. The

traditional response anywhere in Canada, with anything that the federal

government does in respect of a particular province, is the minute one province

gets it, every other province wants it. Now, that's one of the things that

deters the federal government from agreeing to set up a trade enhancement zone,

but we have asked them to look at it in a particular context.

The former government in Ottawa wouldn't do it. The initial

reaction of the present government was that they - I guess the same civil

servants drafted the same letters for the minister and it came back the same

way. So we went back to the minister and said: This is what you are getting,

this is a sort of a civil service standard position. Now reconsider these facts

and consider them on their merits.

Now I have had an encouraging letter back, and I will say no

more than that it was encouraging, but the commitment is not there yet. I want

to caution members that it is possible that it might not happen, but I ask the

members just to give us a bit more time to try and work out an arrangement. It

is a bit of a sensitive thing for the federal government, so I would ask members

to understand that and let us try and work out a satisfactory basis, that the

federal government is satisfied that they are justified in doing it in the case

of Newfoundland.

We are asking specifically in respect of Argentia for obvious

reasons, and for more than obvious reasons, not alone because the base is

closing but because it is an ideal physical situation to establish such a trade

enhancement zone. So we are making progress, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

I have informants in different places as well. But not to

belabour it - and I appreciate the cautionary approach because, living in the

shadow of Argentia, loose lips sink ships.

At the present time the only ones, as you can imagine - and

the Minister of Industrial, Trade and Technology - the only ones winning in

Argentia at this moment are the Americans, because of the negotiations,

employer/employee, and their attitudes toward pensions and severance. I do wish

your government all the best of luck because we have others behind us.

The arguments that the Americans are using on our people in

Argentia can suffice to make Ottawa move to take care of some of its people. Do

you use some of those counter arguments the Yanks are using on us, to try to get

it over the top?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am trying to discern the question from

all that. I gather the general intent of what the member intends to ask is the

state of the discussions.

There are two key aspects in terms of the negotiations with

the American government and the American officials on this. One is cleaning up

the environment. Now, a great deal of progress has been made recently, and here

I must give credit to the Prime Minister who intervened and told the Americans

has been a noticeable difference in the American response as a result of the

comments of the Prime Minister, and I give the Prime Minister full credit for

it.

On the second point - and this is a little bit more

difficult. The second point is, what is fair treatment for the employees in

Argentia? The position we took, on the basis of the representation we had

received from the employees groups in Argentia suggesting that the Americans

were not being fair, and in meetings I had many months ago with the United

States Ambassador on the issue - and I have written to the US government and

spoken to people in Washington about the issue since that - is: Look, you have

an obligation to at least provide for compensation comparable to what the

Canadian government would provide for civilian employees on bases they were

closing, or what you would provide for your own civilian employees in the United

States in the case of bases you are closing.

We can understand their choosing the least burdensome

standard. We couldn't very well say: We expect you to pay more than our own

government would pay. That is a hard argument to make out. Equally, it would be

difficult for us to say to them: Look, you are obligated to pay more to Canadian

civilians here than you pay to your own civilians in the US. That is an equally

difficult argument to make out. So we said to them: You ought to chose one or

the other.

Now, it appears, on the latest information we have, that the

lower standard is the standard paid by the United States government to its own

civilian employees.

AN HON. MEMBER: They added 100 non-appropriated employees

that they didn't have to.

PREMIER WELLS: The minister reminds me of another key

factor. By negotiations and discussions over a period of time, there were 100

more employees added that they didn't, by their standards, have to add, and we

have to acknowledge their understanding in that respect.

So, it is not all black and white. It is a difficult thing to

try and achieve a fair settlement under the circumstances. I hope that sort of

gives the member the answers to the questions I think he was trying to ask.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

I would like to welcome to the House, on behalf of hon.

members, thirty-one Grade VI students of the Inter Island Pentecostal Academy

from Twillingate, accompanied by their principal, Bruce Bowers, and six

teachers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has

been Given.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern, on a point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance made a commitment

to this House to table information with respect to the Kelland relocation. I

would like to know why he is refusing to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. There is no obligation to answer

questions as such.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we deal first with Motion

4, which is a first reading, and then I believe the House is going to go on to

discuss Bill No. 25, which is Order 17. I think we anticipate that will be quite

a brief debate. That is the Internal Economy Commission act. Then we will go on

into the Budget speech as we earlier agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. First, Motion 4.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a

bill, "An Act Respecting The Literacy Development Council Of Newfoundland And

Labrador," carried. (Bill No. 28)

On motion, Bill No. 28 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 17, Bill No. 25.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Internal Economy Commission Act". (Bill No. 25)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members are aware that the Internal Economy Commission Act

sets up the body that runs the internal affairs of the Legislature. The

Commission is chaired by the Speaker and both the government side and the

Opposition side are represented on it, and the Deputy Speaker of the House sits

as well, as a matter of right.

This bill seeks to introduce a minor amendment to the act.

There is a requirement in the act now that a return of the expenses incurred by

- I'm sorry, not the return of expenses incurred by ministers - including a

return of the expenses incurred by members as well as the record of the

decisions of the Commission shall be tabled in the House. They are all a matter

of public record and they properly should be made public by tabling them here in

the House.

A year or two ago - I think it was a year and a half ago -

the Commission decided that we should move from the calendar year in recording

expenses incurred by members - these are expenses for our travel to our

constituencies and our district allowances, and all these matters dealt with in

the Morgan commission. The commission decided we should move from the calendar

year to the fiscal year. That necessitates a consequential change in the act

because the act now requires the Clerk of the House, or the responsible

official, Mr. Speaker, to table the return within so many days of the end of the

calendar year. That is impossible because the calendar year ends three months

before the end of the fiscal year. We are either going to be nine months behind

or up to date, and to make us up to date we have to introduce and accept this

amendment.

With that coherent, articulate, forceful, eloquent and

comprehensive explanation, I commend the bill to the House and ask that it be

read a second time.

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

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

After all that self-praise, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if we

are really going to support this legislation now. It is a little bit hard to

take after a long week.

MR. ROBERTS: On a Friday morning too.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Friday morning, yes. My God! Could have

waited till after the weekend. Of course we are not surprised, Mr. Speaker, when

we look at the source, are we? The Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have any difficulty with this Bill No.

25, this piece of legislation. It makes all the sense in the world. We have to

bring the tabling of the expenditures of members into line with the end of the

fiscal year to give some six weeks, I guess, after the fiscal year ends to

enable the documents and the expenditures to be tabled. So we have no difficulty

with it.

There are two of us from this side who serve on the Internal

Economy Commission, the Member for Burin - Placentia West and myself, and we

totally concur with what we are doing here.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Government House Leader now speaks,

he will close debate on the matter.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we have obviously underwhelmed

the members of the House. I move the bill be read a second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy

Commission Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House on tomorrow." (Bill No. 25)

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 1, the Budget Debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and speak

on the Budget Debate, and to have the opportunity to look back over the past

year and make some comments and bring forward some concerns as to the Budget and

the effect of the Budget on the people of St. Mary's - The Capes.

The first thing I would like to do is to say a few words on

my first year in politics, and my first year representing the great district of

St. Mary's - The Capes. It has had its ups and downs, but overall I think we

have performed together fairly well. It hasn't been easy learning the ropes as a

new member, but I have jumped into everything I could head first, and I have

tried to learn as much as I could, and I believe that we are moving forward.

I would like to bring forward a few of the concerns as it

relates to my district. There are none more important this morning, I would say,

than the present teachers strike that we have, and the effect that it is having

on not only my district but indeed the entire Province.

Last night I spent a considerable amount of time on the

telephone to different parts of my district, talking to teachers and parents and

students alike, and everybody that I talked to would like to see an end to the

discussion so that the students and teachers could be back in school to finish

off their school year. There are some major concerns that have been brought

forward by the people I have talked to.

Where I represent a rural community, I guess one of the most

important points is the 2 per cent clause. That, I think, was one of the main

reasons why a fair amount of my district voted against the agreement that was

proposed, because of the effect that the 2 per cent clause would have. If the 2

per cent clause were to come into effect, Mr. Speaker, my district would see

around sixteen to twenty teachers lost this year, and it is a concern. The

overall concern of the teachers that I talked to is not so much the 2 per cent

clause and what it would do to rural Newfoundland, but the fact that the

structure of education in rural Newfoundland has to change over the next couple

of years. The teachers I talked to, even teachers I talked to last night, were

concerned that there should be some kind of system in place that would make sure

that the people of rural Newfoundland have the opportunity to receive an equal

amount of education as those in urban parts of the Province.

It's not so much the 2 per cent, Mr. Speaker, it's the whole

structure of education. Right now, in most cases in my district, if the 2 per

cent clause is taken out of the agreement, the teachers who would lose their

jobs will be in the higher grades, mostly in Level I, II and III, and this could

have some major effect on that level of education.

A few years ago, there were talks about a foundation program

being put in place. Instead of awarding teachers to a school on a pro-capita

basis, as is done now in regards to teacher/student ratio, the schools will look

at what should be offered in a school in rural Newfoundland, what could be

offered in the schools in rural Newfoundland, I should say, and how many

teachers they would need to teach these classes. I guess that's one of the big

concerns. From what I can understand, Mr. Speaker, the 2 per cent clause was

brought in to protect the quality of education in rural Newfoundland and to more

or less make sure that we did have a certain amount of teachers, but what it has

evolved into is kind of a protection for teachers in some cases, Mr. Speaker,

more or less a job protection. Really, I don't think that was the purpose of the

2 per cent clause at the time it was brought in, I think back in 1982. I don't

think that was the purpose of the 2 per cent clause, but that's what it has

evolved into.

I think the bigger concern facing rural Newfoundland schools,

and the bigger concern that is coming forward to me from my district, is the

concern with regard to what types of courses can be offered in rural

Newfoundland and how many courses? Right now, if the 2 per cent clause is taken

out of the schools in Newfoundland, there's a possibility that students in my

district wouldn't be able to partake in an honours program in the high school,

and others in order to receive an honours diploma. If the 2 per cent clause is

taken away the possibility of these students being able to partake in an honours

program in the high school may not be legitimate, and therefore they may not

have the opportunity of furthering their education, whether it be university or

some other form of education, because of where they come from in rural

Newfoundland.

I think the government, through the restructuring I guess,

Mr. Speaker, should address these issues and concerns that are coming from rural

Newfoundland. The main purpose, if anything, is to have a good foundation in

education for our young people, and therefore things will have to change. It's

not only the dollar savings that have to be considered. I'm sure that is a major

issue with the government and I understand that, but there are concerns about

the quality of education in rural Newfoundland in the years ahead. Are we

looking at multi-grade classrooms? Are we going back instead of ahead? These are

concerns that are coming forward.

Mr. Speaker, there should be a committee formed that includes

teachers, different members of the school boards, parents if need be and

everybody who has a concern in putting together a type of education system that

would best suit rural Newfoundland. We have to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the

same type of programs for rural Newfoundland may not be the types of programs

that would best suit urban areas in our Province, therefore I think that should

be the consideration of government, and that they look at restructuring the

rural education system so that it best suits the people of the Province who live

outside the major metropolitan areas.

Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up on that, there are the changes to

denominational education, which has died down somewhat now because of the

present problems with the negotiations, but it was and still is a big concern in

my district. I represent a district that is 99 per cent Catholic, and changes to

denominational education are a big concern. There is, I must say, a fair amount

of discussion, more or less that people certainly want to see changes, but they

want to see them where they affect the students, in that the best possible

education would be offered to those students, and I guess this is where some

changes then - and we won't get into the rhetoric with regard to the changes to

denominational education that have been espoused here on several occasions, but

we will, if I could for a moment, just touch on -

I think that parents, teachers, students and government,

along with different religions in the Province, have to come together and

discuss these issues and arrive at more conciliatory-type discussions instead

of, you know: we do it this way and that's the only way. People must have an

opportunity to discuss these changes, especially the changes that affect not

only their lives, Mr. Speaker, but in a lot of cases, entire communities and I

think these are some major concerns that they have.

Some other issues in my district that have been brought up to

me over the past while, touch on health care issues. There are concerns - part

of my district deals with the Placentia Health Care Board, and part, on the

Trepassey end, deals with the Southern Shore. There are some concerns about the

health care cuts. They have been touched on here and questions have been asked.

Since we are away from the main hospitals, in a lot of cases, two to

two-and-a-half hours in most cases, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes we have to look

at things a bit differently, and I understand that government cannot be in every

nook and corner of the Province with regard to health care, but there are some

cuts that have been made and some decisions that have been made as it relates to

parts of my district, that do not sit well with the people, especially the

elderly people in the district, who have to travel long distances, in some

cases, for as much as a needle and in others for a prescription. And the cost to

elderly people, especially those on fixed incomes, Mr. Speaker, is the big

concern that has been brought forward. I have talked to the minister on a couple

of occasions about some concerns that have been brought to me from people in my

district and I have to say that we have worked on some of them and with others,

it seems it is going to be a hard-fought battle.

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago when the ISP program was being

discussed, it was a big concern in my district and a lot of people were coming

forward, calling me or writing letters or whatever the case may be, more or

less, that they see this as a major change to rural Newfoundland and they were

very concerned about that. And the ISP program - I'm not sure at what stage it

is now, because it hasn't been talked about for several months. But there are

changes coming to the U.I. system and there are some concerns that the changes

now, are in relation to the ISP program. And really, I understand it is only a

proposal put forward to the Federal Government, but again, there seems to be a

lack of consultation with the people who are affected most by it and I again ask

the government that before they proceed with the ISP program, that they would

talk more to people in the Province.

One of the biggest concerns in my district, Mr. Speaker, is

in relation to the fishery. My district, one would say, is almost 100 per cent

dependent on the fishing industry for their livelihood, and right now many

people in my district are suffering. And it isn't only the people who are

directly involved in the fishery, Mr. Speaker. A fair number of people in my

district have been compensated under the NCARP or TFAA or FCTA or TAGS, or

whatever the case may be, but then, there are a lot of other people who have

been affected by the closure of the fishery - you know, the baby sitters, the

storekeepers, and the small business people in the district.

All those people who were affected by the close-down of the

fishery are now wondering what the future holds for them. I guess, when you look

at it, you can't take the main industry out of any town, whether it is up in

Labrador, with regard to the mines, whether is it out in Hope Brook, with

regards to gold, whatever the case may be, and expect the community to carry on

the same way it did before.

Communities in my district are hurting because of the

close-down in the fishery as, I am sure, right across this Province, the people

are hurting. There are many concerns. It is not only the economic concerns, it

is also the social concerns because of the pressure that is on people, the

financial pressure. During the 1980s, people got accustomed to a lifestyle of

making a fair dollar and living pretty well a half decent life in most cases.

Then, to come into the 1990s, with the cod moratorium, and having to be forced,

in a lot of cases, to change their whole lifestyle and the lifestyle of their

children, Mr. Speaker, is a big concern.

Now, in a lot of cases in my district, people are fortunate

enough to own their own homes. Many people built their own homes down through

the years and are fortunate to own them. Many other concerns have been expressed

to me, and because of this financial stress of the cod moratorium, life in

general, and family life conditions have worsened. We are looking at another

five, six, or seven years possibly, with the cod moratorium, and we hope the

recent program of compensation will assist those people. Hopefully, through

discussion and through working together, government and people within the

Province can find healthy solutions and that people will not suffer too much.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on another concern of mine

and that is in relation to the tourism aspect in my district. I guess every

member can stand up and say that parts of their district hold the tourism

capital of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I guess I am no different. I believe

my district of St. Mary's - The Capes, from Portugal Cove South to Barasway is

one of the most picturesque parts of this Province. It holds one of the main

attractions of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Cape St. Mary's ecological

reserve, which I will touch on later.

We also have the Salmonier Nature Park, we have Cataract

Bridge, and we have the Trepassey caribou herd. Under the infrastructure program

announced a couple of days ago, we received $6,000, I believe, to start a

fishermen's museum in St. Vincent's, in my district. This is something these

people have been working at for quite some time now and I was very pleased to

see it. I don't believe that will be enough money to finish, but this group want

it put in St. Vincent's to honour the fishermen, the plant workers, and the

people in the fishing industry.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, it is a step in the right direction

and hopefully, with this $6,000 they received under the infrastructure program,

they will develop their museum into another tourism attraction for my district.

I look forward to working with those people on that. They have contacted me on

several occasions trying to find out, wherever possible, they could receive

funding, and to see that they finally did receive some is very pleasing to me,

as the member for the district.

There are many other parts of the district that we could

develop or work on with regard to tourism potential, but again, it needs that

almighty dollar to make it work. I believe we have the potential for that, and

that we will continue to develop the district into a tourism attraction so that

people can really enjoy the Province.

Just last year, we finished paving one of the main links

between Branch and North Harbour under the Roads for Rail program, and it leaves

all the major roads in my area paved. Because of this, therefore, we hope there

will be an increase in tourism traffic into the district this year.

I have also had some major concerns brought forward in

relation to the Governor's Park Resort and the close-down. It was the potential,

or the hope, that was placed in Governor's Park at the time, that it would have

helped the whole St. Mary's Bay North area, and recently it has been shut down

for financial reasons, and hasn't been activated.

Now, I held some discussions just a couple of weeks ago with

the present owners, and they have some ideas, maybe not all tourism-related, but

they have some ideas in relation to the future of Governor's Park. I welcome

some of the expressions that they have put forward and hope we can work out

something that will get Governor's Park up and operating in whatever capacity

the new owners see fit. Hopefully, it will create some jobs in that area,

because the St. Mary's Bay North area would welcome thirty or forty new jobs

now, Mr. Speaker.

I hope the owners can come to an agreement with whatever

departments they have to deal with in order to get Governor's Park

up-and-running. It is a $7 million facility that really, over its lifetime,

since it has been built, hasn't created that much work in the area, and the hope

that came with it quickly died when it was closed down.

There are other parts of my district; down in Point Lance we

have a mile-long sandy beach that can be developed into a major tourism

attraction, and the people of that community have been contacting me over the

past year or so, even before I came into politics, with regard to the

development of the Point Lance beach. We will continue to work on their behalf

and try to come up with some ideas and address some concerns.

One of the big concerns I have is with regard to the Avalon

tourism study. Several years ago when I was a co-ordinator with the Cape Shore

Area Development Association, six development associations in our area got

together to try to do a southern Avalon tourism study, and we had a terms of

reference put forward. As a matter of fact, we had some bids on the study from

six or seven different people in that field. We had one selected, and then they

kind of put us on the back burner in relation to trying to do a study of the

whole Avalon.

The concern has been expressed to me, and I certainly have it

myself, that a small area of my district, as it relates to the whole Avalon, may

be lost in the shuffle as they try to come up with a tourism study. It has

lumped the cities of St. John's and Mount Pearl with that study, and I am just a

bit concerned that we may be lost in the shuffle.

There have been some meetings held in the district, but again

I stress that more public consultation is needed as it relates to any

development in the area, and especially as it relates to tourism development.

I think people have come to realize that there has to be a

game plan for development of the tourism industry in the Province, and people

would look forward to participating in that process as we try to develop our

area.

I was very pleased yesterday to hear the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology announce that the tender is in the paper today

for the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve. I am pleased to see that, and I am

sure the people of the area are pleased to see it. It has been a concern for a

couple of reasons: that some employment will be generated in the construction

phase of the building - close to a million dollars will be spent on the

construction of the building; and I am very pleased to see that come forward,

and people will receive some work there in relation to the construction. There

is also the long-term benefit of the building, what it will do for the tourism

industry in our area. It will attract more people, and hopefully, provide more

jobs.

Mr. Speaker, right now, I think there are three students

employed at Cape St. Mary's, and hopefully, with the new

interpretation centre,

in a few years time we will see maybe a dozen students employed, and maybe with

extended hours. I brought up some concerns yesterday as they relate to the

schedule of how people work at Cape St. Mary's, and I hope the minister will

address those concerns in relation to having the hours spread out so that, more

or less, the reserve is open until the sun sets, so that people can have the

opportunity, especially with our short tourism season, to visit there.

I am sure, with the new

interpretation centre, all these

improvements will come in time and they will not only benefit my area, Mr.

Speaker, but indeed benefit to the whole Province. I welcome any type of

improvement, or any type of funding, I should say, because once again we get

back to making sure that we have dollars.

There are other parts of my district that need tourism

infrastructure. I understand that hopefully some of these will be identified in

the Avalon tourism study and that government will work with the groups involved

to make sure. One of the things that a fair amount of my district has been

working on, as a matter of fact in a couple of places - one on the Colinet River

and one down on the Holyrood Pond - is with regard to salmon enhancement. These

are very worthwhile projects for the simple reason that we were trying to

maintain the salmon rivers of the district.

I have I think it is six salmon rivers in my district that

attract a fair amount of people, not only from outside the Province but a fair

number from within the Avalon area and within the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador itself. I think these are very worthwhile projects. Hopefully, through

the years, because of the concern and the conservation methods that have been

brought forward by groups like SAEN and the St. Mary's Bay Centre Development

Association and other groups in the area, the enhancement of the salmon rivers

will improve and will continue, I should say, and that hopefully it will

benefit, again, not only the tourism industry but our local people. Because

salmon fishing has been a big concern.

I would like to touch on a couple of things as they relate to

some other things that came up during the year and some changes that were made

as it relates to ATV regulations. The ATV regulations in my district was a major

topic, Mr. Speaker. I had something like over 200 telephone calls in three days

when the changes were announced to the ATV regulations. I must say that a fair

number of the people in the district who contacted me, welcomed some type of

changes. They said they were in agreement with it, that there were some problems

with regard to more or less a free-for-all in some cases, and that we all have

to be concerned about the environment.

There was again some concern about how they were brought in,

and lack of consultation, and we get back to the same old issue again. I think

having meetings - the regulations are in force now. People are starting to have

some meetings in the district in relation to setting up trails. More or less: We

have no choice, let's make the best of it. That is partly what they are going to

do. I contacted the minister's office and tried to get a couple of officials to

come out to my district to explain the ATV regulations to some people and I

think we have a meeting set for somewhere around June 13. Several officials from

the Department of Environment and Lands will be out there to more or less

explain the regulations and go through any problems or concerns the people may

have.

Again, I'm pleased to see that the minister very quickly

advised a couple of her people and responded to my request to have some people

out in the district, because it is a concern that many people had, since almost

every second home has an ATV. People use the country a fair amount for cutting

wood and hunting and recreational purposes. They want to make sure that they

don't head out and break the law, that they understand the rules and

regulations, and that the trails have to be put in place, and I guess that will

be coming forward.

Over the year, we received in the district some funding.

Along with the infrastructure funding the other day, we received a couple of

hundred thousand dollars. We received some money under the department of the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in respect to a bridge at St.

Vincent's and some other monies. I touched on the case of the St. Mary's

Ecological Reserve. There is always more to be done - more road work, more

infrastructure and more tourism development. However, it all comes down, again,

to having enough dollars, Mr. Speaker; but I realize that we will continue, and

I will continue in my capacity, to look for dollars and look for funding for my

district, and do the best I can.

I would like to touch, in closing, on the municipalities in

the district. A fair number of my municipalities didn't even qualify for the

infrastructure money because of the situation of coming up with one-third of

their funding, or whatever the case may be. But hopefully, the dollars they need

for their water and sewer development, or in a lot of cases, whatever - road

work, that we will be able to attract some funding from other sources. Only a

few, I think it is around half-a-dozen, communities in my district even applied

for the infrastructure money because of the rules and regulations involved.

In closing, I would just like to say that the several issues

and concerns I brought forward are more or less daily concerns. I deal with a

lot of individual concerns throughout the year, and people are concerned about

the future of the Province, people are concerned about the future of rural

Newfoundland. It is something that I think, in regard to the education changes,

in regard to anything, that we have to look at how important it is that rural

Newfoundland survives, and that the government understands that education in

rural Newfoundland is as important as it is in urban areas, and that hopefully

some type of agreement will be reached over the next few of days so that people

in the Province can get back to work.

I would like to just finish up with a few moments on the

Hydro issue. The people in my district have spoken out several times by way of

petitions and so on, in relation to Hydro. I have brought these concerns forward

in petitions and in discussions and in the debates. I don't want to belabour the

point here now in the few minutes I have left, but it is another concern of the

people of the district where they will end up, especially with the changes to

the electricity rates, in view of the elimination of the rural subsidy over the

next four or five years. But overall, the big concerns are the fishery and the

education problems. Right now these are the big concerns in my district, the

changes from NCARP now to the new (inaudible) package and what it will do to the

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Technology.

MR. ROBERTS: It won't be long.

MR. FUREY: It won't be long now.

MR. ROBERTS: That's right - a great slogan: It won't be

long now.

MR. FUREY: It won't be long now, yes. (Inaudible) he

remembers that well.

I just wanted to comment on a couple of points that the hon.

member makes. I thank him for his complimentary remarks in the newspaper the

other day to the current Minister of Tourism and Culture.

The member raised a very good point in Question Period,

yesterday. It was pretty appalling to see that sign on the sanctuary

headquarters, `Do not disturb' and that kind of thing. I had a raft of meetings

yesterday, but I met the senior executive as well to talk about this kind of

thing, and we are going to ensure that those signs aren't up again.

The other thing we are going to look at is the three students

who are there, to stagger the hours - to see if we can stagger the hours. You

are quite right; many of the tourists who visit that magnificent sanctuary come

later in the afternoon, so we are going to try to start the hours a little

later, stagger out the three jobs.

You know, one of the young people has to monitor the trail?

There are two left there to give out literature and do

interpretation. So back

at the actual

interpretation centre we are going to try to stagger those hours a

little bit to take it later into the evening. He raises a good point; we are

going to deal with that issue.

The second one - I mentioned yesterday that we put the

tenders forward for the

interpretation centre. That $1.2 million project is

advertised today. We hope to see it proceed very soon, and have it built

throughout the year.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just

want to have a few minutes to - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I will wait until the meeting is over.

I am looking forward, the people in my district are looking

forward, to the Minister responsible for Tourism and Culture, although I hope he

tells the former minister about the little personal wager that I placed with

him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I placed with you with regard to your

visit to my area. You can relay the message to the former minister. So I look

forward to seeing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I think so.

Anyway the people in Western Labrador will be looking forward

to meeting the minister when he does visit the area, and the people who will be

with him, because they're concerned about some of the proposed changes that may

occur with regard to hunting and fishing in the area. They really want to meet

the minister, and they feel that they have some constructive changes to propose

to the regulations that can be beneficial to the industry and also to the

people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well the Caribou Hunters Association and the

Outfitters -

MR. ROBERTS: They have some good ideas.

MR. A. SNOW: They do, very good ideas. They're very

concerned. The Caribou Hunters Association in Western Labrador, and recently

there was one founded over in Central Labrador and one in Churchill Falls, these

group of individuals - the name itself is probably a little mystifying in the

sense that they are more a conservation group than a hunting group.

I, being a member of the club, can remember spending more

money through the caribou club for surveillance of caribou and trying to find

where the caribou herds are located than the government spent in a year. Now,

that may be difficult for a lot of people around here to understand, that the

local club spent more money on aerial surveys then the government did, but

that's a fact.

These people do have a very, very serious concern with regard

to proposed changes and the effect they are going to have on the industry

itself, the tourism industry, and also the effect they are going to have on

people who live in the area and hunt and harvest these fish and caribou. They

want to insure that, while they have access, there is going to be a resource

left, there is going to be a resource remaining for years and years and years to

come.

So I think that we should always remember the atrocity that

occurred. For years the fishermen in this Province were saying that there was a

serious problem with the fishery, and yet the so-called scientists of the

industry were saying: No problems, just go ahead and fish. We know what we're

doing. Well, when the hunters are telling you about a problem, I think you

should listen to them the same way as people should have listened to the

fishermen. I think you should listen to the people who are closest to that

particular resource, no matter what it is. We should take a lesson from what has

occurred in the fishing industry itself and apply it elsewhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, those are a few concerns that people in

tourism have. Another aspect of the tourism industry in Western Labrador is the

Trans-Labrador Highway. In recent years -

AN HON. MEMBER: They are calling it the northern gulf

route.

MR. A. SNOW: The northern gulf route? I would hope that

it would be something like -

AN HON. MEMBER: The northern gulf route.

MR. A. SNOW: Why is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: The northern gulf route of the

Trans-Canada Highway.

MR. A. SNOW: Well I'm thinking about the trail concept,

the theme trails.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I'm sorry. Absolutely, yes.

MR. A. SNOW: This is the Trans-Labrador Highway portion

of the Trans-Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay.

MR. A. SNOW: With the theme trails that -

MR. FUREY: You're using the expression northern gulf

routes from now on for the new highway for Labrador.

MR. A. SNOW: Northern gulf route, yes. As a suggestion to

the minister, he should consider the name. The theme on that trail, I believe,

should be something like probably the Labrador Voyage or something bilingual, so

that we can take advantage of the people coming up the Quebec north shore.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) memorial.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, unless you know something that I

don't, it isn't necessary to have a memorial yet. I'm hoping that it's going to

be named relatively soon and not fifty years hence. I'm hoping we're not going

to have to wait that long, unless the minister knows something that I don't.

Anyway, I think that we should have something bilingual, or

unilingual if you will, in the sense that one end of this highway, if you want a

connection, is in Baie Comeau in the Province of Quebec, and the other end is in

Happy Valley - Goose Bay, today. Hopefully it is going to get all the way down

through Red Bay, all the way down through the Coast in later years.

If we could have something like `Labrador Voyage' or `Voyage

Labrador', then we will take advantage of the advertising throughout Quebec and

Labrador. Studies have shown that the name Labrador evokes more of a sense of

mystique and a sense of adventure than the word Newfoundland, on the Eastern

Seaboard especially and in Europe. Studies have shown that, so I think it is

very important.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are a very mysterious people over

there, that is why.

MR. A. SNOW: Mystique, not mysterious. One must not

confuse the two. Two are attempting to confuse one, but one must not confuse the

two.

Mr. Speaker, when the department is considering these theme

trails I would urge that they would consider that because I think it is

important to be able to take advantage and use that sense of mystique and

adventure that the word Labrador evokes in people, and thus enables us to

attract more people to come to Labrador and visit and naturally spend some of

their money, and enjoy some of the resources that we have to offer.

Also with the Trans-Labrador Highway, I want to suggest to

the government that they are going to have to get off their haunches and enter

into an agreement. Whether it is called the northern gulf route, gulf route -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) circle.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, the circle route. Hank Chouse, the

former mayor of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, used to call it the great circle

route.

Mr. Speaker, the government should enter into an agreement

with the federal government to accelerate the construction of this highway

because it is going to be a tremendous asset to this Province generally, not

just to the people of Labrador or the country. It is going to open up an area of

the country that I believe will naturally add a tremendous amount of wealth to

this Province. It is going to provide the opportunity for people to entice more

tourists to come here. It will also provide the people there with a better

method of communications or transportation to get back and forth across

Labrador, back from the northern to the central part and to the western part.

Any time we improve communications, whether it be in

transportation or in communications, as in links of communicating in voice or

whatever, we improve the ability to create more commerce, Mr. Speaker, and that

is exactly what this highway would do. It would create the opportunity of doing

more commerce, more trade, and doing more business basically. There would be the

opportunity for people to come in and spend more money and possibly even open up

new ventures in mining or forestry, because of the transportation.

We don't have to explain any more the benefits of what CPR

did to western Canada back a hundred years ago. We know that in this Province

the industry that was added in Central Newfoundland and Western Newfoundland was

done mostly with the construction of a railroad across the Island portion of

this Province, back in the late 1800s and early 1900s when Sir Robert Bond, I

believe, was the prime minister.

So, this road can be a tremendous economic boom not just to

Labrador but to the whole Province and indeed the country. It can open up a

tremendous amount of wealth to be properly developed.

AN HON. MEMBER: You just reminded me of a Labrador ad

(inaudible) tourism.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, that Labrador ad was one of the

spin-offs that was developed because of a study that was done about ten or

twelve years ago that I mentioned earlier. Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan conducted

a study and they found that the word Labrador evoked that sense of adventure and

mystique.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wild and free.

MR. A. SNOW: That is it. After speaking to me, of course,

you can understand why.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Awaken your spirit.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, awaken the spirit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come visit Mealy Mountains.

MR. A. SNOW: Come visit Mealy Mountains on the weekend.

The minister has spent some time in Labrador, and I am hoping

he is going to spend some more and become more familiar with places such as the

Mealy Mountains. He got a fairly good lesson this year about Mealy Mountains, I

hope, and Lewis Lake.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we improve the

transportation links within Labrador, especially the highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Acting minister.

MR. A. SNOW: The acting minister. Very temporary, I

think, very temporary. He will explain the wager. The hon. Member for Mount Scio

- Bell Island mentioned that he is the acting minister, and he can talk to the

minister after and explain the wager that I made with him a little earlier.

Mr. Speaker, this highway is very important, as I said, to

the people of the Province and to the whole country, for putting in place a

mechanism that will allow for further development in Labrador and a proper

development of more commercial enterprises within the region.

Mr. Speaker, I said that the provincial government should

enter into an agreement with the federal government to accelerate the

construction of this highway. In the meantime, one of the things that they

should also be doing is budgeting more money for the maintenance of the highway,

especially the portion of the highway from Churchill Falls to Happy Valley -

Goose Bay. It is deplorable, it is absolutely ridiculous, the method that is

being used today for the maintenance on that highway.

Now it is about 300 kilometres of dirt road. I suppose out

here on the Island portion of the Province it could be considered up to the

standards of a resource road. We find, Mr. Speaker, that that road, I think, has

been shut down for something like six or eight weeks this year, and that is not

necessary. We have a similar type of road in the Province of Quebec, but that

road may be shut down in the whole year, for a total of maybe a week to ten days

maximum, including storms in the winter. So if we spend more money on winter

maintenance, I believe it will provide more access - I know it will provide more

access - for people to utilize that road, and use it for more freight coming in

from the west, because that is where the freight comes from by truck. That will

create more opportunity to do more business in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, because

it is a tremendous cost to the consumer in Happy Valley - Goose Bay because of

the way they have had to inventory stock practically for seven or eight months.

Somebody has to pay for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It will bring down the prices.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes. Studies have shown that it can improve

the ability to operate a business in central Labrador. That is what I was saying

earlier. Whenever we improve transportation routes, we improve the ability for

businesses to develop more, develop better, develop easier, provide the

opportunity to create more enterprise opportunities, and thus create more

employment.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure, having convinced at least one member

of the Cabinet that there have to be more funds spent on the development of the

highway - I wasn't able to convince other people in previous Cabinets -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, such as the Opposition House Leader -

of the importance of putting more money into the Trans-Labrador Highway

construction. Hopefully I will be able to convince the present members of

Cabinet that they should be spending more money on the Trans-Labrador Highway,

because it is money well invested. It is not just being thrown down the drain.

It is money being invested to create a transportation link that will create more

opportunities to do business, and thus create more opportunities for employment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, apart from the economic aspects of the

highway, there are some social aspects of the highway that we know are also very

important when we talk about transportation. The highway will facilitate more

interaction, with people being able to travel back and forth between Happy

Valley - Goose Bay over to Western Labrador or down into Quebec, and Quebec into

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of strong ties with Quebec,

because we only live twenty miles away. That brings up another issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's closer than that, only three miles.

MR. A. SNOW: It's only a few yards to some people. It

depends on if you are walking or driving, I suppose, how close you want to be.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, when you are close to the border it presents advantages of

living close to people of different languages, different cultures. It presents a

tremendous amount of advantages, and we've had that advantage for years in

Western Labrador.

We live next to the border of Quebec, the neighbouring

community of Fermont, Quebec. When I first went to Labrador, I guess our

neighbour was Gagnon and Schefferville. We would play sports with teams from

those communities. They were neighbouring communities, albeit we weren't

connected by highway as we are today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this has presented some problems too with

regard to the tax structures in different provinces. Thus we have the

cross-border shopping problem in Labrador. This government has attempted to

solve this cross-border shopping problem by spending, throwing away over $1

million I think, $1.2 million that has been allocated this year in the Budget.

Some of that is being spent to police, over police and harass shoppers in

Fermont.

Newfoundlanders: Ordinary, law-abiding citizens up in Fermont

shopping for groceries.

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

MR. BAKER: Just a very brief interjection.

The hon. member is doing a great job here and I don't want to

interrupt him and disturb the flow of his speech. However, Mr. Speaker, I wonder

if the hon. gentleman realizes that because of increased surveillance and

policing activities, in the first four months of this year our revenue from

tobacco tax has gone up 11 per cent over the same four months last year, so that

the policing activities are having a very positive effect in terms of retaining

revenue for the Province?

MR. A. SNOW: How many dollars?

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

MR. A. SNOW: But, Mr. Speaker, the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, could we get leave to have

the member take it until twelve o'clock so the rest of us can go home early?

MR. A. SNOW: There are times, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to be able to take the Opposition House Leader somewhere. He has been taking off

long enough.

Mr. Speaker, the problem that has been raised because of the

closeness to the border, the cross-border shopping problem - the Minister of

Finance suggested that revenues are up. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much

the revenues are up. The minister says they are up 11 per cent, but in actual

dollars how much is that? I know that they budgeted $1.2 million on extra

policing, and sent two extra policemen back into Western Labrador, two RCMP

officers, which really, really angered the people, disgusted the people in

Western Labrador because a year previous, these people had been transferred out

of Western Labrador, two RCMP officers who had been stationed there previously,

because of budgetary restraint reasons. That was the reason given. They were

there, ostensibly to prevent the importation of hard drugs. That is what they

were supposed to be doing when they were there a year previous.

When the federal government announced the changes to the

tobacco tax laws, this government, the provincial government refused to go

along. After the federal government passed their new tax laws on February 8,

Quebec had lower taxes, Ontario agreed, New Brunswick agreed, Nova Scotia

agreed, PEI agreed, and I would suspect, maybe even Manitoba might agree. They

are starting to soften now and are talking about lowering theirs, but this

government is still hard-nosed and says, `No, we won't lower it - we are going

to have extra policing.' The people in Western Labrador said, `This is

ridiculous, it is ludicrous!' Six months ago the government of the day

transferred two RCMP officers who were supposed to be policing against the

importation of hard drugs. They transferred them out because of budgetary

reasons and then, a year later, six months later, because of a change in tax

laws, they send them back in, peeping up over the shopping carts in the

supermarkets to see if a housewife is buying two packages of cigarettes and

three packages of Tide. It is ridiculous! Now, what was the Minister of Health

saying?

DR. KITCHEN: It's poison.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, they should put `poison' on the label.

That may be one method of doing it rather than hiring extra policemen to do that

type of work, because that is not the work they should be doing. This is a

national problem for which your cousin, `John' put forward a solution, and you

should agree with him. You should have gone ahead and lowered your tax rate. You

agreed with it in principle when you had a rebate tax system in Western Labrador

previously, yet you wouldn't continue when it got to be a few more dollars. It

doesn't make sense. It is not reasonable and it is not a wise use of the

taxpayers' dollars.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this has angered, disappointed, and

disgusted a lot of the residents of Western Labrador. They feel that government

should look at it again, and I hope they will. I hope they will come to their

senses and start spending the taxpayers' dollars a little more wisely, because

it is a serious problem. It is a very serious problem up in our area. They have

nothing against the government policing smuggling, but they do have something

against the government that infringes on their right to purchase more than two

packages of cigarettes; that is not smuggling, it is cross-border shopping -

that's all it is, cross-border shopping.

MR. ROBERTS: Nobody is stopping people from buying as

long as they pay the tax.

MR. A. SNOW: Nobody is in favour of smuggling that

occurs, Mr. Speaker, but people still believe we should have the right to go

into Fermont and purchase a package of cigarettes at the same time we happen to

be up there watching a hockey game, or that type of thing.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will be getting a lot

more representations from people in Western Labrador, and government, itself,

will, about this particular aspect of it. We do have to do something with regard

to that. The government is attempting to negotiate with their counterparts in

the Maritime Provinces about procurement agreements to make it more efficient,

yet you say an ordinary citizen can't go over to the next province and buy a

product.

MR. ROBERTS: That is not true. All they have to do is pay

the tax.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, here we are, in 1994,

negotiating to have free trade between Mexico City and Ottawa, and between

Washington and Vancouver, we can have a free trade agreement like that, but you

can't have a free trade agreement between Fermont and Labrador City. It is

ludicrous! The people of Western Labrador say it doesn't make sense, and it

doesn't make sense.

MR. ROBERTS: In theory, yes. Have a look at the Retail

Sales Tax Act.

MR. FUREY: You know all that stuff you buy outside the

Province and bring back (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Briefcases - now, where should the tax be

paid on a briefcase?

MR. FUREY: The same place the tax would be paid on your

suits.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, all the fellows over on this side

would suggest that I don't have any suits - that's what they keep telling me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I do, I live on the mainland.

But, Mr. Speaker, people in Western Labrador do have a

concern and what really, really angers them is that the government recognized

the difference in the tax structures of different provinces when they agreed

with the tax rebate system that we had in place in Western Labrador and yet,

when the tax structure changed federally, they wouldn't continue with that type

of system. That worked before, it could work now and the government should be

using it. That's what should have been done and that would have prevented the

type of problem we have occurring today. The Minister of Justice knows that

would have worked. We must do something with the gasoline tax, there has to be a

method of doing that and we shouldn't be afraid of doing differently - we have a

system of graduated tax now in this Province in gasoline tax, correct? The

acting Minister of Tourism and Culture?

MR. FUREY: I'm sorry?

MR. A. SNOW: We have a system now of a lower tax, in

border areas, on gasoline tax, correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.

MR. A. SNOW: So we agree and we should do it. It's a

sensible method of doing it - use a tax structure in border areas and they can

change it in border areas. It's on the books now.

MR. ROBERTS: Should we increase the payroll tax in

Western Labrador to the level in Quebec? Should we increase the income tax in

Western Labrador to the level in Quebec? You can't have it both ways, now. The

payroll tax in Quebec is double what it is in this Province. Do you want us to

increase that in Western Labrador then?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Come on now!

MR. SULLIVAN: If you're going to do that, you'll have to

go to the (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No but nimble-nuts here is talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. A. SNOW: Don't you believe all those stories about

me.

Mr. Speaker, the government agrees with the principle of a

graduated tax in border areas. The Minister of Tourism and Culture just

confirmed it, we have a graduated tax in border areas, and gasoline tax. We

agreed with it by using a rebate system in tobacco tax in Western Labrador, we

agreed with it in provincial sales tax in hotel rooms in border situations, so

why couldn't we continue with the same type of principle with regard to the

tobacco tax? It could have worked. It did work before and it could continue to

work, that's my argument. With regard to the payroll tax, I don't think that we

should increase the payroll tax in Western Labrador to be equal to that -

MR. ROBERTS: Where the Quebec taxes are lower than the

Newfoundland and Labrador taxes, we should lower them in Western Labrador and

where they are higher we should - come on now.

MR. A. SNOW: No, we're talking about the consumers.

MR. ROBERTS: The payroll tax (inaudible) tax, too.

MR. A. SNOW: No, it's on payroll.

MR. ROBERTS: It drives up the cost of (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The mine in Fermont will not relocate to

Western Labrador, neither will the Iron Ore Company of Canada put their mine

over in Quebec, because of the payroll tax differences.

MR. ROBERTS: That's not what they tell us.

MR. A. SNOW: Well they don't. No they won't. You know

that IOC won't move their mine, they can't move their mine. It will stay in

Newfoundland because that's where it's situated.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, those were just a few words that I

wanted to say on the Budget. Thank you very much.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning, I want to speak for just a few minutes,

probably less than fifteen, on the Budget Debate. In particular, I want to make

a few comments relative to the current labour situation involving the teachers,

the government and the school boards. In particular, I would like as well, in

the course of my comments, to have a few comments on the infrastructure program

as it affects the City of St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, the students in this Province, 120,000 of them,

as of today, have lost fifteen school days. That means that 8 per cent of the

school year has now been lost to the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

want to say to government and to all members of the House that the students of

this Province cannot continue to lose the hours of instruction that is now

becoming more unbearable every day. Last evening after the results of the

teachers' vote was announced, my constituents, and teachers and parents across

the Province - and I talked to a fair number of them throughout the evening -

say they want a settlement to this dispute. The teachers yesterday who voted,

voted in response to a negotiated package. While we would agree that they were

partners to the negotiation process, they certainly had some great difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, what went wrong and why did teachers vote the

way they did yesterday? I can say to you that one of the things that was very

irritating to all teachers was the extra two days added at the end of the school

year without pay. While this was agreed to by their bargaining committee, most

teachers looked upon adding those two days as an insult. They looked on it and

they said: We know when we go back to school we are going to have to spend

eighteen hours a day getting ready. We are going to have to do the best we can

to get our students ready for the next year. In the package presented to them

they were told that they would have to work two extra days.

Let me tell all hon. members of the House, I do not know a

teacher who doesn't spend two extra days at the end of the school year, and much

more besides that. Having it written into the language of the proposed

collective agreement had the effect of insulting teachers. Regardless of who

wrote it in there, whether it was the bargaining committee of the teachers or

the bargaining committee of the government, the effect was that teachers felt

terribly insulted that somebody would say to them, after fourteen days on

strike, that they would now go back to work, but as a penalty or as a detention,

or as some kind of a demeaning kind of action, they would have to work two more

days.

The other problem was the 2 per cent savings clause. Most

teachers I've talked to have said to me that they know there must be changes in

the way in which teachers are allocated. They understand that. They fail to

understand why the government cannot go and solve its problems of teacher

allocation without totally discarding the savings clause in one year. Maybe it

should have been 3 per cent next year, and then, 5 per cent, and gradually get

into a situation where the numbers of teachers are somewhat proportionate to the

numbers of students, and that the layoff of teachers is commensurate with the

decline in student enrolment.

What is needed is for the Minister of Education and the

government to really spell out what they mean by a comprehensive small schools

policy. Tell the teachers on the Burin Peninsula, who yesterday voted 89 per

cent to reject the package, tell them in precise language, tell their school

board, how many teachers will, in effect, be laid off. Don't say that you are

going to scrap the 2 per cent savings clause and then not put anything else out

there in concrete terms that teachers can understand.

Teachers yesterday who were faced with the scrapping of the 2

per cent savings clause and not knowing exactly what was going to replace it,

whether their jobs were going to be secure, they took the only action they

could. The teachers on the Burin Peninsula voted 89 per cent, teachers in

Appalachia voted to reject it, because they didn't have in precise terms the

guarantees that we would have to protect their teaching positions.

Yesterday, as well - I don't know what we can do about this

process - but yesterday, as well, teachers were upset by the school boards. The

school boards yesterday, after they had negotiated the collective agreement,

assuming the school boards were at the table like the other partners, and then

to have the school boards say: `We are going to call a big conference now over

in Corner Brook and we are going to rush off to Corner Brook and we may or may

not accept this collective agreement.' You have all kinds of statements being

made by the executive director and the impression was left that school boards

were having great difficulties accepting the agreement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all of these factors plus many more, had

the effect yesterday of producing a very predictable result, and if we look at

the faxes which were being exchanged between different branches and between

different teachers, and looking at the conversations that are on the computer

network, the Stemnet system, then you can certainly see what was happening.

Teachers were sharing their problems and the vote was predictable when the

proposed collective agreement was first brought forward, I think it was on the

weekend, it looked like it might even be possible to get it passed, but when

teachers saw these factors, they said no.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this Province today is facing a crisis. The

crisis is in education. We have 120,000 students who are out of class today, and

the members opposite can say what they want to but I can tell them, the parents

of this Province are very concerned today that we find a solution to the

concerns they have, and if there is one group of people that is very irritated

today, it is the parents of this Province. They want their children back in

class, and I say to hon. members opposite, regardless of how you feel about

teachers - and obviously, there is no love lost between the government and the

teachers today certainly - do not let that influence how you feel about parents

and students, because parents want their children back in school now; therefore,

I say to the President of Treasury Board, do what you can; do what needs to be

done to make sure that we do not continue to sacrifice the education of our

children through the balance of this school year, and let's provide the

atmosphere to get them ready for next year because we have some difficulties

that - well, we have some negotiating problems, and I say to the President of

Treasury Board, get back to the table, do what is necessary to get a collective

agreement signed. And I also say to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Association, that they should also get back to the table, and to the school

boards, get back and try to reach an agreement that is acceptable, because when

we have the Royal Commission talking about Our Children Our Future, I can tell

you that right now, in the next forty-eight hours or the next seventy-two hours,

it is not going to be sufficient for us to say we are going to make a tokenism

towards getting a collective agreement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Education isn't

there, I know that he is very concerned, and he said so, with the evaluation

process at the end of the year. I was happy this morning to hear him on radio

talking about the possibility that public examinations might be cancelled. Now,

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether that will be confirmed in the next several

days. There are certainly some difficulties.

We have a situation now where we have the students who, if

they went back to school, would not be able to meet all their teachers in the

cycle that is left before the public examinations. Most schools operate on a

six-day cycle; a fair number of high schools are now operating on a fourteen-day

cycle, therefore, if the children went back to school, they wouldn't have the

opportunity to see their teachers before the cycle is finished, therefore they

might not be ready to write their public examinations.

Many parents are concerned with the completion of the

curriculum this year. They want to get their children's education back on track

and this is not just the concern of senior high school students; they get most

of the focus, but there is concern of primary parents and elementary school

students and, of course, junior and senior high schools as well. The Minister of

Education this morning, indicated that the scholarship exams might have to be

rethought. He also indicated that he is talking to the President of the

University about changing the minimum average so students can be admitted.

Mr. Speaker, one really had to note, this morning, the

buoyant mood of the members opposite. When members came this morning from their

caucus meeting they were very excited. They were all buoyed up. It was quite

obvious that they had had a very good caucus. They came in to Question Period,

this morning, all excited. I can only say to members, I don't know what there

was to be excited about, when the schools are still closed. Mr. Speaker, in the

time this morning while Question Period was on, I wrote a few words, to describe

the kind of atmosphere that prevailed here this morning.

The particular atmosphere this morning was one of excitement.

It was like school had been out, I say to members opposite, who this morning

were like a bunch of school children. They came in and said: `School is out,

school is finished.' They all threw their books away, they thumped their desks -

a great deal of excitement. I haven't seen so much since I was principal of a

school and made the announcement: `School is closed for the day,' and everybody

got excited. I decided I would write a little bit of commentary on it and put it

back to when I went to school myself, and put it together.

This is not in iambic pentameter or anything like that. I

don't profess to be any kind of a writer. I wrote this for members opposite. It

says:

"Good-bye schoolhouses, good-bye books,\Lots of teachers

dirty looks;Forget the students, forget their year,\We'll balance the Budget,

have no fear.

Hurray, hurray! for our bargaining way,\We tricked the

teachers and won their pay;The autumn leaves will fly and twirl\Before a teacher

sees boy or girl.

Happiness abounds in Liberal ranks,\As `Winst' deposits

teachers' money at the banks."

Mr. Speaker, that is part of my commentary on the atmosphere

this morning when the members opposite seemed to be so excited that we have a

situation where we have the 120,000 students out, we are into the fifteenth day.

Each teacher today has lost 8 per cent of their salary; that is an average of

about $4,000 a teacher. The government continues to deposit its money. What

concerns me this morning is I don't see a commitment on the part of the

government. There is almost like a silence or an atmosphere that says: We are

going to say good-bye to our students until September or October. I sense that

kind of tone coming across.

MR. GRIMES: Tell us what you would do. You spell out the

solution now.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the hon.

member what I would do. I would try to remove some of the irritants - those two

days -

MR. GRIMES: Who put them in there? Do you know who asked

for that to go in there?

MR. HODDER: - those two days that you gave teachers as a

punishment, and I would try to be more precise in the 2 per cent savings clause.

MR. GRIMES: Who asked for them to go in there?

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, because -

MR. GRIMES: You had better check with one of your buddies

again to find out what happened here.

MR. HODDER: Because these are the two major elements that

are irritating teachers, the 2 per cent savings clause, the two days at the end

of the school year without pay -

MR. GRIMES: The 2 per cent savings clause hasn't been an

issue since back in January sometime. Go talk to your buddies about trying to

(inaudible).

MR. HODDER: - and a lack of definitive direction on the

part of the Minister of Education as to what schools will get teachers -

MR. GRIMES: It is a non-issue and you know it. Don't be

so foolish!

MR. HODDER: - when the comprehensive schools policy is

put in place by the minister.

MR. GRIMES: It has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

MR. HODDER: I'm saying to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations that these are the irritants. Now, he would like to say they

are not. These are the issues. Obviously, this would have been talked about with

the teachers across the Province. It needs to be addressed. I'm not saying that

there hasn't been an effort made by the Ministry to overcome the problem. I am

saying these are the issues that are irritating teachers today and this is why

you don't have a collective agreement.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) the hands of Mr. Sutherland. All

he has to do is go and withdraw what he wanted to put into the contract.

MR. HODDER: I am well aware of the process, and I can

only say to hon. members that as the party in opposition to government, and the

Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, we need to do everything and

leave no stones unturned. I am calling upon both sides, on behalf of the 120,000

students of this Province, to do what needs to be done to get the schools open.

Mr. Speaker, the other comment I wanted to make is just a

brief comment to my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

and it deals with the infrastructure money. When the infrastructure program was

announced by the federal Liberal Government, during the campaign, they announced

it as $2 million from the Provincial Government, $2 million from the Federal

Government, and $2 million from the Municipal Government. Mr. Speaker, what has

happened is that in Newfoundland and Labrador, the department has taken the

money and they have allocated it in a way that has been in some ways prejudicial

against St. John's and Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, the impression is left with the municipalities,

that because of correspondence from hon. Art Eggleton and the Federal

Government, this money was supposed to be allocated on a per capita basis. The

correspondence from the Federal Government, particularly what was sent out to

municipalities in Ontario, was very precise on that particular arrangement;

however, in Newfoundland what has happened is that the smaller municipalities

have difficulty finding their 33-1/3 per cent. That is understandable, but what

we say to the minister is that, in essence, what has happened is that the

ministry has taken the funds which should have been allocated by the Federal

Government to the larger centres, and he has reallocated them to the smaller

municipalities.

Now, we are not against spending money in small

municipalities. It is unacceptable that we would say to a small municipality,

you can't have access to this money because you can't put up your 1/3. That is

unacceptable, but we say to the minister that the minister should not have used

the money from the larger municipalities, particularly St. John's and Mount

Pearl, to finance the insufficient funding position of the smaller

municipalities in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is an issue I have raised privately with

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and I wanted to comment briefly

on that. With these few comments, I will yield to another speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments

basically on some of the comments made by my hon. colleague, the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount. He made reference to the fact that he thought Mount Pearl

and St. John's were prejudiced, because I, as minister, took money from what he

considered should belong to Mount Pearl and St. John's and gave it to places

like Aquaforte, Avondale, Badger's Quay, Bonavista, Burin, Marystown,

Carmanville, Fogo, and $500,000 to the people of Nain. What a shame! How foolish

are we, as a government, to be spending on Fortune and St. Lawrence. We have not

given Fortune and St. Lawrence, I suppose, one copper since 1949, none of us -

Channel-Port aux Basques, Clarenville, Stephenville, Corner Brook.

I notice my hon. colleague on the other side hasn't got up

and said, Thank you, Mr. Reid, for being so generous to my district.

DR. KITCHEN: Come on `Len', get up.

MR. REID: My hon. friend and colleague from Grand Falls,

the hon. Mr. Simms, hasn't got up and said: Thank you for the pot of money

you've given me for my district.

MR. EFFORD: Are you actually telling me that you gave

Tories money?

MR. REID: Well, to be honest about it, Mr. Speaker - and

I'm only basically making light of this, and I'm enjoying it, really, because

since 1989, Mr. Speaker, every year that capital works or monies - and when I

say infrastructure money I don't mean this program, I mean water and sewage and

paving - every year since 1989, I have sat in this House, someone - be it Mr.

Gullage at the time, Mr. Hogan or someone else - would get up and announce

capital works projects and my hon. friends on the other side would be screaming,

but I honestly can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's an enjoyable time, really,

to be Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, because I'm not getting a

lot of criticism from my hon. colleagues on the other side. I think, Mr.

Speaker, the reason why I'm not getting it is because when we divied up the

infrastructure money, I never even looked at whether or not it was a Liberal

district, an NDP district or a Tory district. It never came in my mind until

somebody mentioned it to me after I made the announcement, coming back from

Corner Brook the other day, and I said, I forgot. I must have forgotten.

But, Mr. Speaker, the problem with it is this: every so often

we hear and we read about the word `resettlement'. Every now and then it pops up

in somebody's vocabulary. And the problem I have with this whole idea of

resettlement, and rural Newfoundland, and all that, is that I'm one of those

people who believes in rural Newfoundland. I believe in rural Newfoundland. I

honestly think that rural Newfoundland will survive this crisis that we're going

through. I do believe, though, that rural Newfoundland - a lot of communities in

my district and I'm sure a lot of communities - and every rural member here

understands and are starting to understand that the day of give, give, give is

over. If we're going to survive in places like Arnold's Cove, Avondale or

Northern Bay in my district, then we're going to have to pull our own socks up

and we're going to have to survive on our own. The day of putting large amounts

of money into these smaller communities is over, because we don't have it to put

in.

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate where Mayor John Murphy and

Mayor Bettney from Mount Pearl are coming from. I appreciate that, and they're

absolutely right in saying that we didn't get enough for our towns and we should

have gotten more. They're not right in saying: Well, we should have gotten 40

per cent based on our population. They're not right in saying: Well, if it had

been done the way it was supposed to be done, like it was done in Ontario,

according to our hon. colleague. They are not right in saying that, because that

didn't happen in Ontario, for one thing. In Ontario, for example, I think over

35 per cent of it went into education, not municipal and provincial affairs or

municipal works like capital works and this sort of thing. So I don't feel one

bit embarrassed about it, Mr. Speaker. I don't feel one bit embarrassed when the

local media will pick on one individual community or one individual person who

has a problem with his own artesian well and expects this government and the

town council to give $500,000 or $600,000 to provide adequate water services to

him and people in his area. We just can't do it.

I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because, on Wednesday there

was $118 million worth of infrastructure announced in this Province which will

create thousands and thousands of jobs and when I looked at the news on

Wednesday night and CBC, The Evening Telegram and a few others - and I

don't mind saying this quite openly - they were more interested in one

gentleman's plight in Paradise than they were in giving somebody a bit of credit

and saying: Thank god, there's somebody out there trying to do something with

the economy of this Province and put a few people to work. That's what's

disappointing. I wonder sometimes if there is not some hidden agenda, not by my

hon. colleagues opposite - it seems as if the opposition in this Province is

more the media now than the actual Opposition, to be quite honest about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's us. It's us.

MR. EFFORD: Look how they were kicked in Question Period

this morning, kicked around, bang, bang.

MR. REID: My hon. colleague from Waterford - Kenmount

gets up and does this because he has to do it. He is representing part of St.

John's and part of Mount Pearl and he has to do it, and that's his job and

that's an admirable position he is taking. He knows at the back of mind -

because very quietly and very secretly, Mr. Speaker, he is not from Mount Pearl

or St. John's he is from the Burin Peninsula. He is from the Burin Peninsula, he

is a rural person. He knows and I know that he would rather see a few dollars

snuck down on the Burin Peninsula, than he would see it given to St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, the best part of it all is, today he is standing

in the House because he represents a part of St. John's, and for twenty years,

and as a personal friend of mine for twenty years, every chance that he had when

he was Mayor of Mount Pearl, he was lambasting St. John's, every chance he had.

He put the boots to St. John's more times when he was in the Federation of

Municipalities, and now he is up trying to convince us that we, as a government,

have done St. John's dirty.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you about a man, one of

his colleagues who sits right along side of him over there, who doesn't thing

that this government did St. John's dirty, and that's the Member for Kilbride.

If you saw the expression on that man's face when we announced the arena for

Kilbride on Wednesday morning, it was worth a thousand dollars to me. He

practically cried. I don't think he is going to get up and criticize this

government. Not only did we give him a stadium, an arena, Mr. Speaker, we gave

him $2 million for the water and sewerage because they deserved it. They need

it. They need it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue in the way I have been

acting in the last twelve months. I haven't gotten a report card yet from my

hon. friend from Mount Pearl but I guess he is waiting until the teachers go

back to work and he will probably give me a report card on how I have done. Let

me tell my hon. colleagues across the way, I don't think any of them can

actually stand in this House and say that I haven't been fair, that I haven't

had an open door policy. Just about every one of them, at one time or other in

the last twelve months, have come to me and asked me questions, and I have

helped them where I can help them.

I would say my hon. critic, Mr. Woodford from Humber Valley,

is probably one of the most intelligent and most honourable persons sitting in

this House. I can't convince him - and I try on a regular basis, and my hon.

friend from Burin - Placentia West, knows what I am talking about. I even went

over and offered him thousands and thousands of dollars in the last couple of

months to get up and ask me some questions, and he won't do it. He doesn't want

to get up and embarrass me in the House because he thinks I am doing such a

wonderful job. He won't get up and ask me a question because he doesn't want to

embarrass me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a true friend, and he puts politics

aside. He is not going to get up and be critical of me because he knows that

what I am doing is basically what he promoted for years when he was in the

federation. He is not going to criticize me and he is not going to criticize the

infrastructure program.

Now with that said of course, I want to let my hon. friend

from Grand Bank know, I think they should look and see how much he had for his

district.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that, (inaudible)?

MR. REID: No, the Member for Humber Valley. He got a few

dollars out of it too you know. Mr. Woodford didn't do too badly.

Mr. Speaker, I had all kinds of problems with a place called

Placentia, because the Member for Placentia was nervous that I wasn't going to

give any money to Placentia. The reason why we had trouble with Placentia was

because up until about three or four days before the infrastructure program was

announced they never had a financial arrangement in place with the government

and I more or less had my hands tied. I wanted to give Placentia some money; I

definitely did. Because of the hon. member's intervention, and going out and

speaking to the mayor, who he claims to be a Liberal but he still speaks to the

mayor, he got to work and he got his agreement in and he walked away with $1.4

million, I believe it was.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where the hon. Member for

Humber Valley is coming from, and I congratulate him because he is doing his job

as the member. But when he sits there or stands and he is talking representing

the people of St. John's, the west end that he represents, and there is a smile

on his face, I wonder sometimes if he is really being as serious as he should

be.

I want to finish off by making a very brief comment about the

teachers. People ask me -

MR. FLIGHT: Talk about Grand Falls, the Opposition

Leader, Grand Falls (inaudible).

MR. REID: I said that, I told them about Grand Falls.

I want to make a comment. People quite often ask me: What is

your profession? I will be quite honest with you, I don't say MHA, because there

are times when I feel that being an MHA is probably not popular, not necessarily

popular, but on a different level, I suppose. I always say I am a teacher, and

I'm still a teacher. I'm a teacher right now. I doubt if I will ever go back

teaching again. I might, I don't know. Win or lose the next election, I don't

know. I doubt very much if I will go back teaching. I had enough time in as a

teacher. I'm like Mr. Hodder there, he had a fair time in teaching and he is

getting a teacher pension now and he is getting an MHA's salary and all that. He

hasn't got to worry about money or anything like that because he is one of the

fortunate ones, right?

Let me say something about teachers. I'm a teacher and I will

remain a teacher I suppose as long as I'm alive. Let me be honest and say this

to you. My opinion of what is happening with the teachers in regards to the

strike is basically this. It is not teachers who I'm worried about today. It is

my Grade XI daughter in Carbonear. I've got a daughter, seventeen years old, and

she happens to turn after her father and she is quite bright.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: And does she have her father's modesty?

MR. REID: She has her father's modesty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure your her father?

MR. REID: I don't think any of us males here can admit to

being 100 per cent sure.

My daughter is seventeen years old, she is a Level II

student, and she is supposed to be doing five, what I call, CHE exams. She has

done well this year. I'm quite satisfied with it, but her problem is this. There

are two subjects in which during the year she hasn't measured up to her

expectations. She was waiting for the final exam to bring that mark up. It is

not, Mr. Speaker, the question of whether the teac