April 22,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 11

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: (Snow) Order, please!

Before we start our routine proceedings today, the Chair

would like to rule on a privilege that was raised on March 25th by the hon.

Minister of Social Services, respecting questions asked by the hon. the

Opposition House Leader concerning confidential information, allegedly supplied

by persons within the Department of Social Services to a private sector company.

The hon. minister in making her point of privilege is

requesting the hon. Opposition House Leader to provide her with details of the

source of the information so that the allegations can be investigated.

This is the substance of the hon. ministers comments in

support of her point of privilege. While it is indeed likely as the minister has

said that the remarks of the Opposition House Leader may have caused some

concern in the disabled community. The matter raised by the minister appears to

be more in the nature of a request for clarification than a point of privilege

and the Chair rules that a prima facie case has not been established.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that Mobil Oil Canada,

Chervon Canada Resources, Petro Canada and Norsk Hydro Canada Oil and Gas have

announced today their plans to drill a delineation well on the Hebron area of

the Grand Banks, three kilometres northeast of the Hebron 1-13 discovery well.

With this announcement today Mr. Speaker, there will be two

wells drilled and a seismic survey completed on the Grand Banks this summer

Mr. Speaker, this latest announcement of a second exploratory

well is tangible and concrete evidence of increased confidence in the oil and

gas sector in the Province. The announcement today of this new Hebron well

further supports our belief that there are more oil and gas resources to be

discovered on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador. Companies are once

again Mr. Speaker, enthusiastic about our offshore petroleum resources potential

and are taking steps to discover more oil and gas.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in over five years that

oil companies will drill exploratory wells on the Grand Banks. We are seeing a

renewed interest in the Grand Banks because of the development of Hibernia and

the Terra Nova oil fields and of course the preparation that is now being done

for While Rose as well, and Mr. Speaker we are seeing this renewed because of

the generic oil and gas regime which was put in place last year, as well. The

regime as been well received by the oil industry and it provides for certainty

for the companies that were involved.

The Regime has been well received by the oil industry and it

provides certainty for the companies that we are inviting to invest in the

Newfoundland and Labrador offshore.

Mr. Speaker, government is also pleased with the other Grand

Banks exploration plans which have been previously announced by Amoco, Husky,

and by Petro-Canada.

These include Amoco Canada's intention to drill next month,

the West Bonne Bay prospect, approximately 15 kilometres northeast of the

Terra Nova field, using the semisubmersible Bill Shoemaker drilling unit.

This well will be drilled on the acreage which Amoco picked up in 1995 for $90.3

million.

The Bill Shoemaker unit will be also used to drill

this new Hebron well. The well will be spudded sometime in September, and Petro-Canada

will be the operator on this particular site on behalf of all participants in

this consortium.

As well, Mr. Speaker, Husky Oil - acting on behalf of a

ten-company partnership, this year, that includes Husky, Petro-Canada, Chevron,

Gulf, Murphy, Mobil, Talisman, Parex, Norsk-Hydro and Mosbacher - selected PGS

Exploration, a subsidiary of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, to conduct a major 3D

marine seismic survey on the Grand Banks, commencing in May of this year, Mr.

Speaker, next month. The program will cover an area of approximately 1100 square

kilometres and it is, at $30 million, the largest ever offshore seismic survey

in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, Petro-Canada have stated that they

have future plans to drill the Riverhead prospect, one of the larger

undrilled prospects located on the Grand Banks. Petro-Canada and its partners

Mobil and Chevron successfully bid $64.9 million for this prospect.

Present estimates, Mr. Speaker, are that recoverable reserves

in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin are at 1.6 billion barrels. It is estimated by the

private sector itself that another 5 billion barrels of oil reserves now wait to

be discovered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, Pan Canadian has just last

week indicated its intention to proceed again, once the study of data has been

completed, for development on the West Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share this information with the

House today and in light of the possibility of other circumstances

internationally which may change the place of some members who currently sit in

this House, notably the Member for St. John's West, to thank that member, who as

Minister of Mines and Energy, has created a regime that is creating wealth and

opportunity for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite pleased too, and the official Opposition, to see

activity off our shores in oil and gas which has the potential for tremendous

opportunities and returns in this Province.

The Premier goes on and mentions the oil regime, the generic

royalty regime as well-received by the oil industry, provides certainty for

companies involved out there and sobeit; it should, but I am very concerned too,

even more concerned with what it is going to provide to the taxpayers and the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is no point in having the largest - the

Premier said: the largest and the biggest seismic survey. We had another large

and big development in Churchill Falls and what did our Province get? So it is

not the size, it is the benefits that accrue to this Province that concern me

most, Mr. Speaker, and not the rhetoric and the flow and the paid political

announcements for the Member for St. John's West to refuse to bring in a regime

to let Voisey's Bay off the hook, and Inco, on billions of dollars for this

Province. That is what I am more concerned about, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome any

exploration; it means jobs - and to see them coming now and the Premier to

ensure that this development will ensure there are jobs for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, not jobs for people in the rest of the world I say to the Premier,

that is what counts and that is what people in Newfoundland and Labrador want.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill- Quidi

Vidi, does he have leave? Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think all Newfoundlanders welcome some activity on the

offshore particularly if the oil companies are spending their own money and not

that of the taxpayers which provided the exploration monies to discover the oil

there in the first place; but I think the question that we all have to ask

ourselves, and I don't think we really yet have the answer to the question, is,

what are the benefits to the people of the Province of Newfoundland of that

exploration and indeed of the development, for example, of the Terra Nova

prospect?

There is not enough information in the public and I do not

hear the government talking about the benefits of the Province except in some

vague way. With an unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker, officially at twenty, really

at forty or more, we should be talking about a regime that will only be

acceptable if it does something about the unemployment rate in this Province,

and I have not heard the Premier really talk about that or start a public

discussion or allow a public discussion on the true benefits of the offshore oil

regime.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for

housing, I rise today to announce a new Canada-Newfoundland Social Housing

Agreement. This morning, Premier Tobin, the hon. Diane Marleau, Minister

responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), and I signed

this new agreement.

Over the years, some 13,500 social housing units were

developed in this Province under various programs, 9,400 of which are under the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation's (NLHC) administration, and 4,100

under CMHC's direct administration. This agreement consolidates administrative

responsibility for these units under NLHC. This new partnership will give the

Province the flexibility to deliver housing programs best suited to the specific

needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through CMHC, will

continue to maintain its financial commitments for assisted housing in this

Province. The federal government currently contributes $55 million annually

which, over the term of this agreement, will amount to approximately $1.5

billion.

This agreement is a good one for this Province, for those in

need of assisted housing, and for taxpayers generally, and it will result in

more efficient and effective operation of social housing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to say to the minister that I would like to see

more details of this particular arrangement. We want to know more of the

specifics. What we have here is really designed more to give the minister a

media clip after Question Period than it is to give any kind of details. We want

to know if this is more federal downsizing and more downloading to the Province.

We would like to have more information on how the changes will impact upon those

who are now living in social assisted houses, and also what it is going to do

about the 800 families in this Province who are waiting to get into housing,

either of the co-op nature or into housing provided by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to see more details. We would like

to be able to offer approval, but we certainly do not want to jump on the

bandwagon here until we see how it is going to affect the people for whom it is

designed, or whom it is supposed to help.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The announcement of the minister today merely indicates an

administrative change. He does not say anything about what he is going to do to

answer the desperate need that so many people have for housing today. I think

all members of this House, particularly on this side, have requests on a daily

basis for people who are desperate to get housing and do not have adequate

housing. He has not addressed that need in his statement and I do not think his

department has any plans to address that in even this session of the House.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Today, the people of

the Province are speaking out in protest; and, if you look around us, this

Province is in the state of chaos. We have a health care system that is

collapsing; we have an education system that is out of control; unemployment is

rampant in the Province; the Province is selling off people's land, and we have

just seen 17,000 people leave our Province, some of the brightest and youngest

people that our Province had.

Premier, you did not consult with the people of the Province,

and your Red Book did not contain anything about this. You have misled the

people of the Province, and you have been arrogant about it. Now, I ask you to

start listening and responding to their pleas, and stop washing your hands of

your responsibilities.

I ask the Premier now: When are you going to start listening

to the people and start facing up to your responsibilities instead of running

away from them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

[Loud applause from the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to say to our visitors in the gallery today that

members of this House are always pleased to welcome them here, but I have to

inform them that participation in any way or form in the debate is not

acceptable, that approval or disapproval of any of the proceedings here on the

floor of the House of Assembly is not condoned. It has been a long Parliamentary

tradition that only members who are duly elected to this House speak in the

debate, and I ask them to respect that Parliamentary tradition.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I welcome back to the House,

the Leader of the Opposition and others who have been away from the House during

the period of the break.

Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of this opportunity to welcome

the new Sergeant-at-Arms to her first day on the job, the first day of carrying

the Mace into the House on behalf of all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made a

statement which is largely political in nature. He has not put a specific

question to the government. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: We know, on

this side of the House, that some of the decisions that we have made are

decisions that are difficult for the people who are affected by those decisions,

be they decisions regarding the future of education reform in this Province, be

they decisions reflecting on our capacity to address all of the needs and all of

the desires for health care, be they decisions that reflect upon our capacity,

for example, to respond to all the needs for capital works or road construction

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we know that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador want to work. They want an opportunity for themselves,

and they want an opportunity for their children.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition that to the best of our

capacity - and that capacity does not extend to being able to respond in

twenty-four hours to every request, or respond within a period of twelve months

of being elected to every expectation - we are doing our job to face up to the

tough issues, and yes, Mr. Speaker, to make the tough decisions, because they

are not easy to make.

I remain confident, as confident today as I was a year ago,

that Newfoundland and Labrador - because of the development of our resources,

offshore oil and gas, Voisey's Bay, because of the slow but important recovery

in our fishery, because of new investment in areas like the IT and aquaculture

sectors, new investment in the mining sector on the Baie Verte Peninsula and

elsewhere in this Province - is developing a stronger economy. Mr. Speaker, of

course, we have had a loss of population between 1991 and 1996, and that is what

the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. That is the period in which the

Northern cod stock and every other fishery in this Province collapsed.

Rebuilding that is not easy, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition, it will

take more than rhetoric to do it. It will take hard work, it will take tough

decisions, and it will take a belief in a steady course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If rhetoric would have it done, it would be done now,

Premier, I can tell you. You tell the 17,000, yes, the net loss of 17,000, the

tens of thousands more than seventeen in Alberta and Ontario, and the families

in this Province who are hurting because you did not tell them the truth, I say

to the Premier. You misled them.

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

The hon. member is now using some language that is

unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that

remark. There seems to be money, I say to the Premier, and if the Premier would

bring in a royalty agreement, we would have money here in this Province. There

is plenty of money, hundreds of thousands for your travel for photo ops across

the country and around the world. You find money for that. You find millions to

increase the size of your Cabinet when people of the Province are hurting. You

can find over $100,000 to create a new position for your brother-in-law, but you

cannot find money in this Province for people who are hurting out there.

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

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

to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: Rural Newfoundland has

been decimated by your actions as a federal minister and as Premier of this

Province. Instead of running like a coward, will you stand here -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: - in this House and admit -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again the hon. member is being unparliamentary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I withdraw the word `coward', Mr. Speaker.

Instead of running -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to his

question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Instead of running, will you stand here and

admit that your real scheme is the same one as your predecessor, and that is to

shut down rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, neither I nor any member on

this side of the House is running or is a coward. We are facing up to the

difficult issues and questions that face this Province, and in so doing, Mr.

Speaker, we do not lower ourselves to the kind of gratuitous insult that is

being offered by the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: No call names and we do not drag members

of somebody's family onto the floor of the House in the totally unfair manner -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: The Leader of the Opposition has now,

several times, raised the question of somebody who has been a federal and

provincial public servant in this Province for over a decade and somehow tries

to create the impression that that individual, who has been a senior public

servant, both federally and provincially, is a new hire and it is false. Mr.

Speaker, raising that kind of question, looking for that kind of comment is pure

demagoguery. I do not say to the Leader of the Opposition that I spend hours of

my time meeting his brother, who is a major manager in the fisheries business of

this Province and receiving his representations because his brother is doing a

good and serious job to try to create jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I

have time for his brother!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I would say to the Leader of the

Opposition, if he took a page from his brother's book, he would spend more time

concentrating on the facts, less time concentrating on insults and more time

making a contribution, a real one, to Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I hit a nerve with the Premier. He created a new

position here in government at over $100,000, more than one, I say to the

Premier, with taxpayers' dollars.

Now back in the 1980s we did a great thing here in Canada, we

agreed to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in this country and

in this Province. The Premier keeps telling us he is committed to women - he

said, put four women in the Cabinet. Tell the health care workers, those that

you have driven a knife into their backs and now are turning it even deeper,

that you are not willing to stand up for equal pay for equal work here in this

Province, instead contest it in the Supreme Court. Now, will you tell women in

this Province today that you will fight for them and not against them to ensure

that there is equal pay for work done by women in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador - because that is ultimately who we are speaking to in

this place - to reflect upon the words of the Leader of the Opposition today.

The word `coward' has been used, the word `running' has been used, the words

`knifing people in the back' have been used - all kinds of pejorative language,

all kinds of insults, which is the mark of somebody who does not have a

substantive argument, to start hurling insults across the floor.

Now, we just had the Leader of the Opposition stand up. He

wants the government to find money for health care. We know that because he has

been talking about it for weeks. He wants the government to find extra money for

education. We know that because he tells us he is concerned about it. He wants

us to find money for parks and more money to maintain existing parks because he

just said that outside a few minutes ago. Now, he wants the government to find

$80 million, right away, to pay it out on the basis of a tribunal ruling,

without a test before the courts, because he tells us we should find that right

away.

I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition - because is the

Leader of the Opposition, and, in taking on that responsibility has to be

prepared, Mr. Speaker, to say where he would find the money - to tell us where

he is finding all of this additional money in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador? I say to him that the way to governance is to build the economy, not

to raise false expectations, to do the best we can with the resources that are

available and to grow the wealth of this Province. You do that by diversifying

the fishery and we are doing that with our wild stocks and with our aquaculture

stocks. You do that by developing our offshore oil and gas regime and, Mr.

Speaker, that regime is going to create an oil play which will make Newfoundland

and Labrador the centre and the capital of the oil and gas industry for this

country and one of the centres for North America. Mr. Speaker, you do that by

developing Voisey's Bay, by creating a smelter refinery complex in Argentia and

by creating, not the 600 jobs that have been announced by Inco, but 3,000 jobs

in Labrador by Inco. We are following that course of action and I ask the Leader

of the Opposition, if you have one - and I finish, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to finish up.

PREMIER TOBIN: - if you have a serious suggestion, we

will consider it. We would welcome it. But give us more than insults and

rhetoric, Sir, if you are serious about your business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I told the Minister of Health a year ago where to be saving

money. He made an announcement last week they were going to do it. Do you

believe when you said re-invest money in education, you sold the education

reform program? Did you tell the people of the Province the truth? Do you

believe when you said re-invest money in education, you sold the Education

Reform Program, did you tell the people of the Province the truth? Did you know

the truth, did you tell them the truth, I say to the minister? I will ask you

something that will put revenue here in our Province. You stand in your place

now and tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when you are going to bring

in a royalty regime and take away the ten-year tax holiday on Inco, involving

billions of dollars to this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you know, it is amazing to me

because the record will show, and I challenge anybody who is an observer in this

House to look at the record, how many times the Member for St. John's West has

stood in his place and told the Leader of the Opposition there is not a ten-year

tax holiday going to be offered to Inco in this Province. More to the point, how

many times has the Leader of the Opposition been told that, through the process,

the preparation required to make sure we bring in the best regime, that this

year, we will bring in the regime for Inco; not Churchill Falls I say to the

Leader of the Opposition.

There is a smelter refinery complex, the most technologically

advanced and all of the associated jobs being built in Newfoundland and Labrador

because we stood our ground, and your Party, in the last election said: it would

never happen. Well, it has happened. That is the fact, Mr. Speaker. There is a

transshipment terminal worth one-third of a billion dollars being built out at

Whiffin Head which your Party said would never happen but it has happened, Mr.

Speaker, and, Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election, the Conservative Party

said: Nobody would dare go beyond the 200-mile limit and put an end to foreign

overfishing but that has happened as well, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - and, Mr. Speaker, we are going to

rebuild this economy and create jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: - and if the Leader of the Opposition

wants to help, give us one, solid suggestion and we will celebrate it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is easy enough to know when you hit a nerve with the

Premier. He refuses to answer your questions because he feels guilty that we are

giving Inco a ten-year tax break.

It is nice to come here and spout rhetoric in the House of

Assembly, but you talk to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who are

feeling the effects of your policies that are wreaking devastation on this

Province. You have a responsibility as Premier, and I ask you again: When are

you going to take away the tax holiday that was brought in in this Legislature

in 1994? We have been asking for two years to have it changed. Your former

minister and you refused to do it and are going to give Inco a carte blanche

ten-year holiday on billions of dollars. That is where the revenues go - you are

talking about hope for the future, I ask you to deliver now and have the guts to

do it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I had to have all the guts

that the Leader of the Opposition suggests I have in every Question Period, I

would have enough to fill the slaughter house.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you know, these kind of comments mean

nothing. The Leader of the Opposition has been told many times there is no tax

holiday, no ten-year tax holiday for Inco, and if the Leader of the Opposition

wants to say that he believes such is going to occur, then I ask him to put his

seat on the line in making that accusation, because I will put my seat on the

line that there will be no tax holiday and there will be a regime this year that

will maximize the benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador. So, put your seat

where your mouth is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Call an election, put your seat

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, are for the hon.

Premier.

The Province's Education system today, in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, is in a state of chaos and yet the Minister of Education, the same

minister appointed by the hon. Premier and the Premier himself, have both

abdicated responsibility and have delegated responsibilities to the interim

appointed boards.

Given the fact that the unprecedented changes in education

which are now being made are so critical, Mr. Speaker, so fundamental, so

far-reaching and long-lasting and that the impacts on our children and

communities will be serious and quite possibly permanent, I would ask: why won't

the hon. Premier and his minister get a grip on the reins of educational change

and become personally involved and accountable for the state and chaos of

Education in our Province today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Recreation

and Culture.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the alternate

Minister of Education in the absence of the minister.

I would like to say in addressing the question about school

re-organization and school reform that, throughout the last year and during all

of the public consultations which were conducted by the Minister of Education

and his department, parent groups and school boards requested greater autonomy

in the administration of our schools. Government acted on these recommendations

and ensured that the new Schools Act gave local school boards the jurisdiction

that they requested over the ways that schools are being organized in our

district. This includes the right to decide the number of schools.

I think we all know that these schools will operate. The

location of the schools, the grade levels to be taught, and the designation of

each school, is up to the local decision-making process that was put in with

great consultation by the Minister of Education through the Schools Act to the

school boards.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the acting minister, with all due respect, it is

simply not working. It is not working, Mr. Speaker. Just simply ask the parents

of Englee; ask the parents of Port au Port; ask the parents of Brownsdale; ask

the parents of Brigus; ask the parents of Jacques Fontaine, many of whom are

here today. They are simply not satisfied with what is happening in educational

reform in our Province; but I am going to make a proposal. And my question would

be for the minister and for the Premier - hopefully the Minister of Education

and quite possibly the acting minister to consider - and my proposal is this:

For the appointment of an educational ombudsman, somebody who would be seen as

impartial and independent.

Right now we have an impasse in education. The boards have

closed debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Parents and communities feel they cannot

get a response; there is nobody who will listen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am asking the hon. Premier to give serious consideration

today to the appointment of an educational ombudsman, somebody - like the

calibre, for example, of Dr. Len Williams, who wrote the report on educational

reform several years ago - somebody who can listen to all arguments, can listen

to parents, can listen to people who feel that their communities are dying, can

listen to the board members themselves.

I would ask the hon. Premier to give serious consideration to

such a proposal in an honest effort to break this impasse -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. member has asked his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and to bring some solution to the

crisis which exists today in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the government is quite

prepared to give consideration to any and all proposals that come forward that

look -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, the Leader of the Opposition is now

making sarcastic comments about a proposal given by the member who has just

spoken.

The government is prepared to consider any proposal that is

honestly put forward to facilitate the process of educational change. The fact

of the matter is that everybody in this House and everybody in this Province

knows that there is a will in this Province to proceed with education reform.

Everybody in this House, without exception, and everybody in this Province,

knows that it has been a long and difficult debate. And there is still in this

Province today - and I would ask all members to consider this carefully in the

context of the unanimous resolutions that have been passed here, and in the

context of the fact that all members of this House, when this legislation was

put through, all members - including the member who has just spoken - supported

the legislation and supported the drive toward reform. Indeed, all parties were

represented in Ottawa in asking Ottawa to proceed with the constitutional

amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this because I believe it is

important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I want to say this because I believe it is

important. I know that there are many communities who have heard from their

boards that their school is either going to lose a number of grades, or in some

cases the school is going to close altogether, and that this is a decision which

causes frustration, which causes anger, and in some cases causes fear. I

understand that.

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for any one of us to stand here

and every time somebody is either angry, frustrated or fearful, to want to

identify with that fear or anger and frustration and to want to be their

champion, when volunteers - because that is who they are, and I want us to

reflect upon that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line, and every

member here knows it in his or her bones, volunteers have come forward; they

receive no pay whatsoever; they get no benefit whatsoever; they have only one

thing in their minds, to improve the quality of the education system, to improve

the quality of life in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are making decisions.

It is easy to stand here on either side of the House and second guess those

boards.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer, please.

PREMIER TOBIN: The government will not second guess those

boards and I say to the members opposite that when you stand and do that you do

not serve the Province or the volunteers; the citizens who have taken those

difficult decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I requested from the Minister of Tourism on

March 4th, under the Freedom of Information Act, the following information: the

total amount of public money put into developing, servicing, upgrading or

otherwise enhancing our parks and attractions, their sites and facilities over

the years.

The minster has provided very limited information. Mr.

Speaker, she has provided information on seven parks from 1993 to 1996. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister when is she going to comply with the freedom of

information request, which is now almost three weeks old, and provide the owners

of these parks, the people of our Province, the people who are constantly saying

they do not want these parks privatized, with the total investment into each of

these parks throughout the years.

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, my department have started the

response, as you know, as the hon. member pointed out, we have started the

response and given some of the information as requested. We are in the process

of gathering the rest of the information. The letter does not outline how far

back the hon. member wishes us to go back. This could take several years if we

have to go back from the very beginning and look at all of the records to

determine what has the total investment been in the parks since they were

created. So, we are doing our best to provide the most current information

available on all of the parks which are in the provincial park system at this

time.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister what she is basing her assessment of the

value of these parks on when she is considering proposals for the take-over of

these parks if she does not have this information readily available. Mr.

Speaker, how can she have possibly decided under such short notice to privatize

these parks when she does not know the total investment into these parks by the

people of our Province?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, we are basing our assessment on

the current assets that are in the parks and the current costs of operating the

parks.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province

do not want these parks privatized. The minister has in her hand seventy-seven

proposals for the take-over of these parks. We have in our hands tens of

thousands of petitions against the privatization of these parks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister when she is going to start

listening to the people of this Province, the people who own these parks and

reverse her decision on privatizing the parks.

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, this government has acknowledged

over this budget period and through the program review period that tough choices

had to be made in this Province. This was one of the choices. We are working

with the ninety-two employees that are being displaced. Already we know that

thirty-five of them will be re-employed into the core park system, the thirteen

parks that are left in our system. We have twelve people who will be retiring,

we have others who will be going through the voluntary exit package. In the

seventy-seven proposals that we accepted on April 4th at the end of the proposal

phase, ten of these were from employee groups. We have also noted that in

dealing with the business proposals and the components that are coming to the

top of the list, many of them are proposing also to employee or re-employee some

of these displaced parks workers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment. Families of persons in group homes were quite shocked in recent

weeks to learn the decisions relative to the future of their loved ones were

being made without adequate notice or consolidation.

Why madame minister did you decide to proceed to dictate to

those families in such an autocratic manner the closing of existing group homes

and the restructuring of the cooperative apartment alternatives. Why did you

fail to seek input before the decisions were made, and why did you not consult

with the families and the care givers?

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

Employment.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think many of

the people who have been around for a while recognize that the group home model

is a transitional model for people moving from institutions into the community.

In the past, in 1990 and 1991, we closed sixteen group homes. We involve the

families in the process, we use consultation with the behaviour modification

specialists, with the social workers, with the families. The process that we

will be using this time is exactly the same.

We have targeted a number of cooperatives, a number of

individualized living arrangements. As well, we have also targeted some

alternate family homes, and we will use exactly the same process now as we did

then. The families will be involved. They were involved then and they will be in

this time. We have sent out recommendations, we have sent out notifications to

our staff, and we will be meeting with the families on an individual basis to

decide the proper place for their loved ones to live.

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

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The families I've

talked to would have benefitted from the consultation prior to the strategy

being announced. I say to the minister the memo of April 4 tells families that

there will be fourteen cooperative apartments throughout the Province providing

residential services to forty-two individuals. I wanted to ask the minister,

where will these cooperative apartments be located? Will it mean that extended

family members who are now able to offer family support to their loved ones by

way of visitations on a regular basis, will it mean that these persons will now

be moved away from their local communities where visitation on a regular basis

will be impractical or impossible?

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

Employment.

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

endeavour when we are dealing with individuals to try to place them and

accommodate them as close as possible to their families and to their loved ones.

That process has not changed and we will be endeavouring to do that. Our target

is thirteen cooperative living arrangements. Right now we have cooperatives of

one, cooperatives of two, cooperatives of three, plus group homes. We are trying

to work on an individual basis as well as trying to standardize some of the

living arrangements. Each person will be assessed individually with the

families, with the individuals, with all the professionals that are required. We

will use the same process, and we will hopefully try to keep them in the same

areas if that is possible.

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

Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The memo of April

4 clearly indicates that the primary focus of this change is budgetary in

nature. I say to the minister, four days after you became Minister of Human

Resources and Employment, and after you had gotten elected on a campaign that

said we can't cut, cut, cut our way to prosperity, your memo in effect gives lay

off notices to dozens of employees who work in those group homes providing

alternate care. How can the minister rationalize what she is doing in terms of

her mandate to the individuals living in the group homes, and also for

responsibility to try to make sure that we keep employment as high as we can in

this Province?

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

Employment.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess it is

rather unfortunate that when we came in to assume government we were left with a

very significant debt and we had to make some very significant choices. I would

like to say that to say this was not partially due to improving our efficiencies

would not be accurate. Efficiencies in how we deliver services has been a very

honest and open approach to all the decisions that we are making. We will

continue to involve the families, we will do it in as cost-effective a way as

possible, but keeping in mind we are dealing with individuals and that we will

work with their families and the professionals to make the best choice.

If I'm hearing from my colleague across the way that a family

environment is not the proper environment in which we all live and where we

would like other people to live, then I have a serious question to ask. Group

homes were always meant to be a transitional home. It is perhaps unfortunate

that some of them have been there a lot longer, but decisions will be made on an

individual basis keeping individuals' needs in mind, working with the families,

and working with the professionals. We have not started to do that process yet.

We have identified our direction and we will work with families, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Question period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I shall on

tomorrow move, and I understand that I am asking for leave to put the motion

now:

A) That the following heads of expenditure be referred to the

Government Services Committee: Finance; Works, Services and Transportation;

Government Services and Lands; Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation; the Public Service Commission.

B) That the following heads of expenditure be referred to the

Social Services Committee: Human Resources and Employment; Education; Health;

Environment and Labour; Justice, and

C) That the following heads of expenditure be referred to the

Resource Committee: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods;

Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Technology; Mines and

Energy; Development and Rural Renewal.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave to put that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, `nay', carried.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would like to

give notice that on tomorrow, it being Private Members' Day, that the Notice of

Motion which has been tabled in the House by my colleague, the Member for St.

John's South, relative to the proposed privatization of the provincial parks be

debated. The intent of that motion is quite clear. I do have copies of the

motion if the Government House Leader would like to have one. I think it might

be printed today as well.

Mr. Speaker, that is the motion that will be debated by this

side of the House in tomorrow's session.

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

MR. TULK: It is your turn anyway. (Inaudible).

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

Indeed there is a petition. There will be a lot of petitions.

I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, whom this is

directed at today, that in the last couple of weeks during the rounds of my

district, I had the experience of driving on one of those buses over one of

these roads. I will read part of the petition and then make a few points.

First of all, I ask the House of Assembly to accept the

following prayer:

To the honourable House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador: We, the undersigned residents of the District of Baie

Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our roads.

The deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area make travelling to

and from school unsafe for our children, as well as jeopardize the safety of the

travelling public. It hurts economic growth opportunities and, most of all, it

portrays the lack of commitment to rural Newfoundland and this Province.

Now, what I did, Mr. Speaker, was take the advice of a

gentleman who said you had to walk in a man's shoes before you really understand

where he is coming from. Well, I took that literally, I say to the minister, and

I sat in the back of one of those buses. I went with a twelve-year-old in the

back of a bus over twelve kilometres of dirt road, and then went onto paved

road. When I got off that bus, a parent was there to greet me and ask me what I

thought of it. I say to the minister, I did not think I would say it but I said:

If my child - who, by the way, is seven years old -had to go on that bus to go

to school, I would be teaching her at home. She would not go on that bus.

Mr. Speaker, no way - and I want to make it quite clear in

this House, as the media sometimes twists it a little bit - I do not support the

idea of having children stay out of school and hurt their education; in no way

do I do that. But I do understand what those parents were saying to me that

morning when they asked me to travel on that bus to see it firsthand. Those kids

were bounced around on that bus, and when I came off, I was literally sick from

the bumps as I went over that road.

So the parents, as a last resort, I say to the minister, a

last resort - I know a lot of those parents. It is the first time I have ever

heard them speak up on anything. They said: The last thing I want to do is keep

my child out of school. Exams are about to start, and so on, but if I have to do

what I do, I will do it.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying here today is that this

particular petition is from the people of Pacquet and Woodstock, and more

petitions are coming tomorrow from other parts of the district, Middle Arm,

Burlington, Smith's Harbour, Westport. I could name the twenty-one communities

out of thirty-three in my district that still travel over dirt roads. I do not

care how you cut it, and I have met with the minister and I have said it

publicly and said it to the Premier... As a matter of fact, the Premier alluded

publicly a day after I debated it in this House, that some of the roads money

that is being spent now in the Roads for Rail money, when we see $116 million

for a ring road, when we see double lanes through Grand Falls, when people from

Grand Falls themselves have called me to protest the double lanes that went

through there, we cannot get a gravel road paved.

Also, the Premier knows - and I am glad he is in the House

because he knows the district. He knows the dirt roads and the conditions of

those roads.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows, that district is one of the

worst for gravel roads and we should seriously consider the shifting of some of

the allocations of the roads for double-lane highways through this Province and

so on, and go back to the grass roots of this Province and tell them that: yes,

we are going to commit to paved roads. Mr. Speaker, in one community, in one

week -let me give one specific example; I will not name the community because

there are lots like it.

Their hospital was full, they could not get their parents and

grandparents up to the hospital; the had an announcement that their school

closed down, and not only that, Mr. Speaker, they could not even get up over the

roads. I went to that particular highway, Mr. Speaker, this road, the picture

was in the local paper, and if I were moose-hunting in a four-wheel drive, I

would have turned back and not gone over that road, that is how bad it was. I am

not exaggerating, not one little bit, Mr. Speaker, because the RCMP sergeant

drove right behind me, in a four-wheel drive and he was ready to turn back. And

in their protest that morning, he said to me: if my child were to travel on this

bus, I would not allow him, for safety reasons. So the roads in my district, Mr.

Speaker, are far behind, they need to be done. We do not expect the 112

kilometres to be done, but I say to the minister here today that, that eleven

kilometres for my entire district was not enough, Mr. Speaker, not nearly

enough.

At that rate, Mr. Speaker, by the way, it would take eleven

years for the district to be paved, to get its first coat of pavement and here

we are, hearing about other districts that are going to be resurfaced. Mr.

Speaker, the point I want to make here today, in this petition, the people of

Pacquet and Woodstock and the other communities that are protesting, this has

hit a nerve with them and they are finally saying: enough is enough. Yes, we

will take the loss of our school; yes, the hospitals are full, but if we cannot

have a bloody road to travel over to go to these services, then it has gone too

far. And, Mr. Speaker, they are speaking out loud and clear; I am here to

support them today and to say that I am going to speak up for the people in my

district who gave me my job, because my job is to represent them, and as long as

they send petitions to this House and as long as the House will allow me, and

the minister stands here, I will do it time and time again, and, Mr. Speaker, I

will stand on the roads with them to protest. They have every right to do so and

I applaud them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker. It has hit a

nerve with people, and I say it constructively, that when they look up their

highway and know they cannot get people to the hospital anyway because it is

full, but they would like to be able to drive up over the road - it was

impassable and the worst part of all, Mr. Speaker, is that their children are

being affected. I sat with those children that morning on that bus, and when I

got off and saw that parent, I said: I support you on holding your child out of

school. It was a hard thing to say, because I do not want to see children being

subject to that, but I can understand, going over twelve kilometres of bumpy

road, how they felt when they got off that bus.

So I support the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking the

minister and the government to reconsider any re-allotment of funding that can

go into these small roads and show rural Newfoundland that this government is

committed to rural Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague

and to say that it has been nearly fifty years since we joined Confederation. I

read a book one time, and we have all seen the book, called The Road to

Confederation and, of course, the truth of the matter is that Confederation

as such has not arrived yet in some parts of this Province. So, Mr. Speaker,

when we talk about roads, we are talking about basic services; we are talking

about very fundamental services. We are saying that every parent should have a

right in 1997, forty-eight years, a few weeks ago, since we became part of this

great country. All parents have a right to say that their children can go to and

from school without having to go through mud holes and without having to say

that they need to have a D-6 tractor come alongside to pull them out of the

ditches.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the television clippings; we have

seen what it is like, and certainly, if you look at a petition like the one I am

now holding which comes from the communities of Pacquet and Woodstock and is

signed here by nearly - I am sure it must be every single resident in those

particular communities. So we ask the House: Is it fair, in 1997, to say to the

communities of Pacquet and Woodstock: you do not have an expectation in the near

future to be able to drive over some basic services and be able to avail of good

roads.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the petition because

very few parts of this Province now have conditions like we have witnessed and

which are the subject of this particular petition we have here. Mr. Speaker, I

say to the minister, what is it that we can do? What is it that we can do in

1997 so that we can assure these people of basic decent services by way of roads

in the next year or so? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of points that have been put forward in

presenting this petition that I would like to address, as the Minister

responsible for Transportation in the Province.

The hon. member spoke to the conditions that exist in other

parts of the Province and I believe his statement was something to the affect

that there are very few parts of the Province and roads within the Province that

still have the kind of conditions that are spoken to in the petition that is

being presented. What I would like to say to my colleagues is that there are

many parts of the Province where there are still roads that have conditions

similar to the kinds that are being experienced on the Baie Verte Peninsula. I

will accept, in receiving this petition and in commenting on it here today, that

there are certainly very, very difficult conditions on the roads in this area,

particularly at this point in time. I would also have to say - based on an

assessment that my department completed during the past year - that there is

also a significant amount of roadwork that is required throughout the Province

to the tune of $250 million worth of road upgrading, of provincial roads, not

the Trans Canada Highway, not the regional trunk roads but $250 million worth of

upgrading required for gravel roads and other roads that are paved but have been

paved for such a long period of time that they now require extensive upgrading.

So this is a very large problem for this Province and it is something that will

certainly take a certain amount of time in order to address.

The member himself commented on the fact that there are over

100 kilometres of gravel road on the Baie Verte Peninsula. That is a fact, there

are 112 kilometres of gravel road which require paving. That is a significant

amount of paving and roadwork that will have to be addressed over the next

period of time but it is certainly clear that that amount cannot all be done in

one year, it cannot all be done in two years. This year we have made a start in

paving the road that will lead to Ming's Bight. There are other areas of the

Province, as I say, where we certainly have to continue with the roadwork that

is required there as well.

I would say to the member that I have met with residents, the

town councils, representatives from Pacquet, from Burlington, from a number of

the other communities in his district and I have heard from them firsthand the

same kinds of concerns that the member has represented here today. I have

explained to them the nature of the problem as I am doing here now and the

action which my department is planning to take. We certainly have a plan in

place that we will be addressing in terms of the long term solution to this

problem but more importantly, I recognize that people are concerned about the

short term problem. The problem that they are experiencing with their roads

today, this year and next year.

What I have committed to the representatives that I have met

with in this area is that we will look at this issue from a maintenance

perspective, as a department, to determine what kind of improvements we can make

in the immediate future to try and alleviate the worse of the conditions that

people are experiencing right now. Again, I would have to say to you that this

is a process that we are having to go through in other parts of the Province as

well. That there is only a limited supply of funding that is available either

for capital improvement or for maintenance. We will be determining where the

highest priorities exist and we will be allocating our resources accordingly to

try and make the improvements that are necessary.

Specifically for the residents of the areas mentioned in the

petition, and other areas on the Baie Verte Peninsula, we will be determining

the specific maintenance that will be conducted over the summer months by my

department, with a view to trying to earmark and specifically focus that

improvement on the areas where it will have the most benefit over the next year

or two for people who have to drive those roads. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. Member for

Bonavista South I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all members,

to welcome to the Speaker's Gallery today a former Member of the House of

Assembly for the District of St. George's, Mr. Larry Short.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition from approximately 400 residents of Bonavista South and

Trinity North. The prayer of the petition is not exactly as what the Speaker may

want to see presented here, but the spirit is certainly understandable.

It reads: We the undersigned wish to express our concern for

the quality of ice control used on the Bonavista highway. Large numbers of

vehicles are receiving glass and paint damage due to the rock contained in the

present ice control mixture. We urge the department to give serious

consideration to the immediate elimination of the existing mixture which is

causing untold expense to the motorists.

Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that I've brought up in this

House on other occasions when there was another minister in charge of the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and it was never ever taken

very seriously. I can assure you that it is a very serious situation, not only

on the Bonavista Peninsula, but I would say in a lot of areas in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm not suggesting that what we are seeing are

boulders or crushed stone. I say to the minister it seems like there is a lot of

small rock within the salt and sand mixture.

The former minister would always say that you are driving too

close to the vehicle in front, but that isn't the situation at all. Normally you

get the damage when you meet a vehicle. When you see the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation out doing its duty, ploughing snow and laying salt

and sand, it is almost a situation where motorists today say: We have to wait

now for awhile until the rocks get off the road before we go to do what we

normally do.

I've known of situations where people have gone out and had

their windshields broken as often as three times between Bonavista and

Clarenville, I say to the minister. I've known of examples whereby motorists

have (inaudible) Works, Services and Transportation department vehicle and have

had the paint damaged on the sides of their cars. I don't know what the problem

is. From what I understand in talking with people, this year the salt and sand

mixture on the Bonavista Peninsula met the requirements but only very iffy. I

also understand from talking with the department that this year there will be no

such mixture used from the present location where they normally go and obtain

such mixture to mix with salt.

I know it is a problem. I know you can't go and have all real

fine sand to mix with the salt because then it all clams together and it doesn't

do the job that motorists want done. But I think that there should be some rules

and regulations and there should be some quality control whereby we can do away

with those quarter-inch and half-inch rocks that appears on the road. It is a

real problem to the motorists here, it is costing them untold dollars in

insurance claims. At one time you could go out and you could break all the

windshields you wanted and it wouldn't affect your insurance. Now you go out and

for most insurance companies if you have two claims or two collections on

comprehensive then you see the price of your insurance going up.

It is a real problem, I say to the minister. The minister

nods her head because I'm sure she is aware of it. I hope she does not take the

lackadaisical approach that the former minister did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. FITZGERALD: The member for Port de Grave. I hope she

does not take that approach. I know she will not, I know she is responsible. And

while I am standing here, I thank the minister for responding to the need on

Route 235, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for at least making a start on this

particular road. She has done that in one of the worst areas, it is on a bus

route where we have had many problems. It will not be the be-all and the

end-all, Mr. Speaker, of what is needed on that particular route, but it is a

beginning. And that it what people said right from the very beginning: We do not

expect it all done at one time, but if you never start, you never finish. So, I

thank the minister and I ask if she would respond to this particular petition,

because is it a real concern and it is a real problem, at least on the Bonavista

Peninsula.

Thank you.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of the petition presented by

my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South. I, as well, have had some calls

from that particular area, I say to the minister, concerning the sand, or

supposedly sand, that is being used, the damage it is doing to motor vehicles in

that area. I would certainly ask the minister to investigate that, to find out

exactly what they are using. I believe we should be using sand. Sometimes,

maybe, the grade of sand is not what we would wish it to be, but I understand

from the people I have talked to from that particular area, that there are rocks

in it as big as your fist and it certainly is not the material that we should be

spreading on our roads. It is doing damage to cars and probably, in the end,

doing damage to the roads. I ask the minister to intervene in this particular

thing to - hopefully, all our snow is gone for this year, and if it is, then I

would ask the minister to ensure that next year, the same thing does not happen

again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of a number of petitioners who are asking the House of

Assembly to direct the government to establish a universal comprehensive school

lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador, to help end child

hunger and to give our children a better chance. Mr. Speaker, there have been

more and more of these petitions coming in, and I will be presenting them to the

House over the next number of days as they come in.

As the people of this Province reflect on the circumstances

they find themselves in, each day, more and more bad news coming from this

government and Ottawa in terms of changes to government support for families,

government support for individuals, government support of the TAGS program, for

example, all of these changes are seriously affecting the ability of people to

properly look after our children.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a panacea. It is not something that

will solve all the problems of the people of this Province; but it will do

something that needs to be done, and that is to give our schoolchildren better

opportunity to take advantage of the educational programs being offered in our

schools.

It has been clearly stated, not only by members of this

House, but by nutritionist, by researchers and commissioners appointed by this

government to produce a report - for example, Dr. Patricia Canning produced a

report for this government called Special Matters , which identified the

very serious problem of child poverty and child hunger that exists in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that this government is

performing a very comprehensive task of reforming the school system in

Newfoundland, in fact they are using Term 17 as an excuse. They are blaming Term

17 for the kinds of wholesale school closures in this Province that they are

asking the school boards to undertake and are passing on the blame to them.

In the process, Mr. Speaker, they are saving millions and

millions of dollars - we do not know exactly how many millions of dollars, but I

will give you one example. The previous Minister of Education, the current

Minister of Justice, told the people of this Province that there was savings of

$8 million available in school busing alone, as a result of the changes to the

denominational education system. We have had figures of $25 million used by the

Royal Commission, I believe, back a number of years ago, and we see the decline

in school enrolments, of course, resulting in the reduced expenditures on the

overall cost of educating our children.

Some of that money, Mr. Speaker, ought to be used to provide

a school lunch program to ensure that each child in this Province can attend

school in a stigma-free environment and receive the nutritional requirements

that allow him or her to learn. That is a very simple request. But it is a

request that requires the political will of this government to act, not to pass

it on to some other volunteer sector to have it as a charity, to have it as

something that may well be able to be provided in certain communities under

certain circumstances, but will not reach the places where the need is greatest;

because the resources in those communities are also the least sufficient to be

able to accommodate that need. This must be a collective effort, it must be a

universal effort, and it must be established by government through the existing

school system and the existing school budgets to allow this program to exist and

to ensure that it is a comprehensive and universal program for all schools in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not know how many times I have presented these

petitions, but I will continue to present them as long as they keep coming in,

Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the voices of these people who are asking for

government action on this important issue are heard.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, because the issue is so important to me. I say to all

hon. members of this House that when we deal with children we have to ask

ourselves: What is it that we can do to make sure our children have an equal

opportunity to everybody else in this country?

All the research has been done. It is rather conclusive. It

does not matter whether it was done by the Department of Education in 1991, done

by the Department of Health in 1987, and done again in 1992. It does not matter

whether it is done by Dr. Patricia Canning as a background to her report called

Special Matters: The Report of the Review of Special Education . The

conclusions are consistent, they are the same. They are saying that there is a

direct relationship between poverty and a level that a child will potentially

achieve in the school system.

We know that far more children of parents who are

experiencing poverty repeat grades in school. In other words, if you are from a

poor family, the probability that you will repeat a grade is far higher than if

you are from a well-off family. We know that more children from families who are

in poverty end up in special education. We know, as well, that more children

from parents who are a poor - the children drop out of school early. So whether

it is drop-outs, whether it is because these children are not as prepared when

they enter school, all of the data is conclusive. If a child goes to school

hungry, the probability of that child finishing school with his age-grade

relationship the same as his peers, becomes less and less potentially possible

because that particular family is poor.

Mr. Speaker, 25 per cent of our children are growing up in

poverty. That is not new. We know that is old news. What we say to the

government is: What are you going to do about it? It is not enough that we rely

on industry, not enough that we rely on the volunteer sector. We have to have

some funding put in place. We have to have it established as a priority.

This government said that the savings from education reform

would be spent in education at the classroom level, but they did not deliver.

When the time came, they said: No, no, no, we must examine this in a total

budgetary analysis.

Therefore, the tune changed when it came to selling education

reform. They said: We are committed. We are going to put the money in the

classrooms, and we are going to address issues like child poverty. We are going

to address issues like small schools, and that kind of thing. We are going to

make sure that the curriculum is in place to handle these individual

circumstances.

But when the time came to deliver, they did not do it. They

said: No we cannot do that now. Sorry about that. Understand us, but we are not

going to put the money back into the education system.

Mr. Speaker, poverty is not just an issue of being poor.

Poverty is an issue that affects the educational potential of children. As I

said one time before when I was quoting the federal Minister of Finance in the

federal Budget - he talked about this and said: `The opportunities lost in

childhood are opportunities lost in adulthood.'

So if we do not address the issue when children are young, we

will pay the price for it. We are paying for it now.

We know what happened when we had the change in the fishery.

We found out that our population was not well-educated. We have been trying to

educate people in their thirties and forties and fifties, and we know the

problem. We have to do something about the issues that say, `We have to handle

that up front. We have to be interventionist. We have to be of a preventative

nature.' But we certainly do not see that kind of direction coming from this

government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: `Paul', where did you get your suntan?

Boy, you are all tanned up.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was in the lovely community of Bonavista, and it was quite

pleasant this last week or so.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, I did not know if the members were

finished petitions but I wanted permission of the House to revert to Presenting

Reports. I have some materials that have to be filed today.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we revert to Presenting

Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special

Committees.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to be very brief about it, I have six copies of

seven Special Warrants that I am about to table. They relate to last year's

Budget. They total $37,400,000 on current, and $38,300,000 on capital, for a

total of $75,700,000. I will briefly detail what these are.

It is $10 million to provide funds for the Voluntary

Departure Program; a Special Warrant of $12 million to provide funds to

facilitate privatization and divestiture activities, which included $3 million

in that category and a capital grant to Newfoundland Municipal Financing

Corporation of $9 million; a Special Warrant of $10 million to provide funds to

ENL; a Special Warrant of $32,800,000 to provide funds in respect of four

subheads of services. One of those, firstly, was Teaching Services, $16 million,

which really was the advance of the teachers' payday into last year, or really

where it should have been originally, and $9 million to retire school board

debt; $2,500,000 for computers; $5,300,000 for the MUN Opportunity Grant.

There was also a Special Warrant of $3.5 million for health.

One million of that was to fund the rural physicians payment of bonuses that

would have taken place April 1, in any event, and secondly, was the $2.5 million

for the health care facilities equipment.

There was a Special Warrant of $4 million for additional

funds for the City of St. John's and Corner Brook for transition for the fire

protection services, and finally a $3.5 million Special Warrant to provide funds

to NLHC to offset a budgetary shortfall for 1996-1997.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the total amount of those warrants

was $75,700,000. All of these were mentioned in the Budget that I read on March

20, and it is, of course, pursuant to our rules and regulations and to

Section

28.2 and 28.3 of the Financial Administration Act, that have been tabled.

I am also tabling six copies of three Orders in Council, as

required by

Section 26.4 of the Financial Administration Act. These respect

pre-commitments for this fiscal year. The first relates to three payments in

education; one for $25,000 for a progress payment, another for $50,000 and

another for $250,000 for this fiscal year next and the succeeding fiscal year,

for the purchase of student text books and a teacher manual for Grade IX

integrated religious education. The second is to authorize the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation to enter into contracts for road construction

services with a total payment of $40.9 million. The final is a pre-commitment in

the amount of $1,150,000 to pave 10.3 kilometres of road in the Bonavista area

where I recently was getting a tan, Mr. Speaker, and 2.3 kilometres in the town

of Trinity.

I should say, I believe that all of these matters are known

to members of the House and I table them in accordance with our Financial

Administration Act. Thank you.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition on the privatization of the provincial

parks which reads: We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to

petition the hon. House of Assembly to voice our concerns over the government's

decision to privatize our provincial parks. We are asking government to reverse

its decision immediately on the privatization of the provincial parks, as we

feel that it was made in haste without consultation with the people who own the

parks, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have already presented hundreds and hundreds

of petitions. Today, I have approximately 14,000 names on petitions that we will

be presenting. We have an additional 4,000 or 5,000 names coming in over the

next day or so as well on petitions. It is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that the

people of our Province do not want these parks privatized. Mr. Speaker, we have

gone over, on a number of occasions, the program review conducted by the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation which indicates quite clearly that

the department itself believed that the privatization of provincial parks was

not a good idea, especially in 1997, our Cabot year. The program review also

goes well into detail in saying that our private parks are not operated at the

same standard as our provincial parks and that the private park operators either

do not have the financial ability or the desire to operate these parks at the

same standards as our provincial parks.

Mr. Speaker, how the minister herself can go against the

program review is something that we, on this side of the House, cannot

understand but even more importantly, how the minister can go against the people

in the Province who have voiced their concerns very loudly - through editorials

in the paper, call-in shows, and through numbers of meetings throughout the

Province. The demonstration that took place today in our lobby - how the

minister can turn her back on those people and basically say that their

opinions, their concerns are not important, is something that is even harder for

the people on this side of the House to understand.

Mr. Speaker, it is also evident through the questions that I

have asked today and the responses by the minister, that the reason the minister

did not comply with the Freedom of Information request - that she is now three

weeks late with - is because she does not have the information. So what makes

this even more astounding, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the minister has

nothing to base her assessment of the value of these provincial parks. She is

going to accept proposals on these provincial parks by the end of the month

without even understanding or knowing or having any concept of the value of

these provincial parks to the people of our Province. What is even more

startling, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that not only does the minister not know the

investment into these provincial parks by the people of our Province, but she

may very well let these parks go to private operators for far less than the

investment that we have put into them, which means that, through our deficit we

will continue to pay off these parks that are not even an asset to the Province

once they are privatized.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the minister has seventy-seven

tender packages received on the twenty-one parks, is nothing to boast about. We

have gotten, so far, almost 20,000 names on petitions, Mr. Speaker, and that

there speaks very clearly to me that the number of people who believe these

parks should stay as provincial parks controlled by the Province, and assets of

the people of our Province, far outweigh the numbers of people who have a desire

to take over these parks.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to present petitions in the

House protesting the privatization of our provincial parks because I very

strongly believe that it is a bad decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the member's

petition concerning the efforts being made by Newfoundlanders across this

Province to save the provincial parks from the policies of this government.

What we are talking about here, is an attitude by this

government that the only true citizen is the corporate citizen. The only true

citizen is the one who can pay his or her own way in our society, can pay their

way into a private park or can take over a park for the purpose of profit, take

over part of our natural heritage for the purpose of profit, take over our

natural resource for the purpose of profit and the rest of us can go begging, be

objects of charity, be objects of voluntary offerings of our fellow citizens,

the offerings for those who want to get involved or, have the freedom, have the

ability, have the time and resources to offer their time voluntarily to help

their fellow citizens. That is what this Province is coming to with the kind of

attitude that this government has as reflected in the privatization of the

provincial parks.

This is a system that has been recognized as providing a

different kind of resort, a different kind of alternative to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and to our many visitors, an opportunity to get close to nature, to

enjoy the resources, the beauty, the natural environment that we have to offer.

We have, for example, in Catamaran provincial park, a situation where that park

was devastated by fire some years ago. Government's response to that was to

clean up the park, to replant a large area of that park with Red Pines, to

attempt to regenerate part of the natural beauty of that park for the purposes

of enhancing our natural environment, for regenerating the Red Pine which is

fairly rare in our provincial environment today. That is one of the parks, Mr.

Speaker, that is going to be turned over to private entrepreneurs, turned over

to I understand, to somebody who wants to turn it into an RV park, a trailer

park; presumably a replacement for some of the gravel pits that the minister

keeps threatening every now and then to close down and denies it when she is

challenged on the point.

Mr. Speaker, to take Catamaran park and turn it into an RV

park is not my idea of the enhancement of our natural resource. There is a

process that goes on in nature when a forest fire takes place and causes what

appears to us to be fairly devastating results, but it is part of the natural

process of regeneration of forests which our provincial park system is enhancing

and helping by planting trees, Red Pines, to regenerate that part of the forest

and allow our citizens to understand how this natural process works and as the

Minster of Forestry and Agrifoods, I would suspect that the Government House

Leader understands this process and believes in this process, while he and his

colleagues are at the same time cutting loose all these provincial parks and

putting them into the private sector.

The people of this Province are opposed to that Mr. Speaker,

the minster knows that the people of Newfoundland are opposed to this policy and

that is why he is trying to divert me into the support for the great

Newfoundland pony bill that he brought in last December, but I will not be

diverted Mr. Speaker, I will not talk about the Newfoundland pony, I am talking

about other aspects of our heritage now. I am talking about the Provincial parks

and I suspect Mr. Speaker, that if we maintain our Provincial parks we would

also have more respect for other parts of our natural working heritage, such as

the Newfoundland pony. Where as, the minister and his governments policy -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I ask hon. members to support the petition

Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Motion No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3, the hon. Minster of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is one principal among

many of course, one principal which is held very sacred in our democracy, is the

separation between government and the judiciary. It would not make much sense if

government were able to interfere in the role of the judicial system of the

Province. I suppose if you had the right government or the wrong government you

could have influence to tell judges how to do their work.

However, Mr. Speaker as you know, judges like all other

people are entitled to receive some remuneration for the work they do. For all

25 or 30,000 people who work with the public service throughout the province,

government by various means and processes decides on what amount of pay they

shall receive, sometimes there are unions involved and what have you. In order

to maintain the separation of judiciary and government of course, it is felt

that it would be inappropriate for government to determine that judges should

receive a certain amount of pay. So, a few years ago there was a process put in

place whereby a tribunal would be put in place by this House of Assembly and the

tribunal would look at all the benefits that judges should be paid and this Mr.

Speaker of course is a very fair way whereby we can deal with that, the payment

that we give our judges and at the same time keep them arms length from

government.

Just recently we put a tribunal in place. It was chaired by

Dr. Peter Roberts, Ms. Leslie Galway was a member and Mr. Justice Seamus O'Regan

and that tribunal Mr. Speaker, I should say they did their work without getting

any pay for doing this. Just after the report came in or just after we announced

that the tribunal was put in place I started getting some e-mail in my office

from various people around the Province, they were accusing us of political

patronage and that we had appointed the brother of a former cabinet minister to

chair this tribunal and they were demanding to know how much money we were

paying Dr. Peter Roberts and his tribunal for doing this work. Now, the

legislation would have allowed us to pay a per diem, but when we constructed the

committee we made it perfectly clear that they would not be paid so I sent back

to the people who sent me the e-mail and said that they would not be paid.

However, the report of the tribunal came in and I am required

by law to table it within so many days and the House has to deal with it within

thirty days after it has been tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker, of course this

is the last day that we have to deal with it. Before the House rose for the

Easter break, I tabled the resolution which we are now debating and that is that

the House would vary the report. Now I said earlier that we clearly believe in

the separation of government and the judiciary. However, the House as Mr.

Speaker knows is superior to government, government is made up by the cabinet

who runs the day to day operations of government. However, this House takes

precedence even over the government. But the government has put forward a

resolution to this House asking us to vary the recommendations that the Tribunal

made. The Tribunal recommended that the judges would receive an increase in pay

which would take them from the current $85,000 or $90,000 to put them up to

$102,000, and eventually go on to $112,000.

Let me make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that government

agrees with the Tribunal when the Tribunal points out that our judges are the

lowest paid in the country, that our judges did not have step progression. A lot

of members, people who work with the public service, although their wages and

their salaries have been frozen for years, yet the vast majority of them had

step progression. So even though their salary might have been frozen at $50,000,

because of step progression over the last five years they could be making

$55,000. The judges, because of the Tribunal process of course, were caught.

They never did get it, so they have been frozen at the $85,000 or $90,000 level.

Government recognizes there is a problem with the way judges

are paid and in due course it will have to be dealt with. We would certainly

hope that in due course we will be able to address this inequity. But in the

last Budget, which was a very tough budget, it talked about laying off many

hundreds of public servants. It did not talk about any major increase in pay for

the average civil servant. Government felt it would be appropriate for us to ask

the House - in view of the fact that the vast majority of people who receive

their pay from government funds are not getting any substantial increases at

this time, we thought it would be appropriate to ask the House of Assembly if

the House would vary the report so that this increase in pay would not be given

at this time.

That is why I'm asking members of the House, when they vote

on this resolution, which has been recommended by government, and the House has

the authority to of course accept or reject, and we are asking the House, in its

wisdom, if it would support this resolution.

However, when I brought the resolution in I inadvertently

failed to address an issue in the Tribunal report. The Tribunal report

recommended many things. Government wants to (inaudible) maintain the status quo

for the time being. The report of the Tribunal recommended that we would

increase pay, but also the report recommended that we would discontinue the

practice of paying severance pay to judges who quit or judges who retire. The

resolution which I brought in did not address the resolution concerning

severance pay. So if my resolution were not amended we would have the effect of

treating judges in the worst of all possible ways. On the one hand we would be

denying the recommendation that they get a pay increase, but we would be

accepting the recommendation that we abolish their severance pay.

That is unfair. What I'm suggesting now is that the

resolution which is on the table would certainly - I would ask Members of the

House to support that resolution - but I also would want to put forward the

amendment, seconded by the hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment, that

we would delete recommendation 4(b). By deleting recommendation 4(

b) we would

effectively maintain the status quo, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly encourage

members to support the resolution and the amendment to the resolution which I

have put forward.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on

this resolution now before the House. It arises, as the minister has stated,

from the Provincial Court Act 1991, which is designed to take the calculation

and determination of the pay of Provincial Court judges out of the hands of

government and put it in the House of Assembly after consideration by a

Tribunal. The principal reason for that - as stated in the report of the

tribunal itself - is to provide a means for a determination of what the salary

of judges ought to be for a group of people, some thirty in number, who are

outside of the normal types of processes whereby individuals can negotiate their

salary.

What the report says is that this leaves a small but highly

significant group of publicly funded workers without any means of promoting

their own interest. In fact, when a board or when a House of Assembly or a

government does not accept a tribunal's recommendations it undermines the most

basic intent of the whole process which is a free and independent judiciary.

That is judges, and indeed the society, serve no means of achieving the desired

judicial independence and security other than processes used in common wage

disputes, negotiation, arbitration, threat of job action, lockouts or

resignations, all of which are unseemly, unpalatable solutions to the problem of

securing a free and independent judiciary.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about the independence

of a judiciary and the necessity of keeping it independent of government. These

are just mere words, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the resolution of the minister

himself which says that the result of the report and the result of the

resolution is that salaries of the provincial court judges be maintained at

their current level pending further consideration by the Minister of Justice and

the chief judge and judges of the provincial court. So what he is saying is that

in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary he is going to sit down

with the judges and come to some conclusion about whether or not they should

increase their salaries.

The resolution totally flies in the face of the principle of

the independence of the judiciary because it puts the minister himself, sitting

down with the judges, as the determining body as to whether or not and what type

of increase and remuneration there ought to be to provincial court judges. It is

astounding, Mr. Speaker, for the minister to get up in his place in this House

and make the statements that he did in the face of this resolution, which

basically says that there is going to be a discussion from here on in between

the minister, the chief judge and the provincial court judges in which their

salaries will be determined, whether there is going to be any increase to their

salaries. That is so totally opposed to the whole principle behind the

legislation, totally opposed to the principles adopted by the Tribunal. I say

adopted but it really seems that they have been reiterated by the Tribunal. They

established four principles that were recognized in their report and listed

amongst them an emerging consensus which equates the remuneration of a judge

with that of a professional deputy minister of a similar jurisdiction, which is

accepted by this board.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in 1991 the government passed a

public sector restraint act. While it might be considered in 1991, where

legislation is being passed which in fact rolled back public sector wages 4.5

per cent for everybody, including members of this House, that judges would be

similarly affected. I think most of us can accept that. That is not the

circumstance that we are under today. We don't have legislation affecting all

people affected by government wages being legislated in it to a standstill,

legislated in reverse. We may have a budget which does not provide for increases

but we have a collective bargaining process that is still operating - whether

for teachers, whether for public sector workers generally or whether for public

sector workers who are paid by hospitals and others - who have, through the

negotiating process, through the collective bargaining process the means to

affect their wages and remuneration.

The point that is being made in this report, Mr. Speaker, is

that provincial court judges don't have that nor do we want them to have that

because we expect that they are to be independent of that type of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution and I am going to vote

against it. I think that the recommendation that the Provincial Court Judges of

this Province be paid on the same basis as the average of Prince Edward Island,

New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is reasonable. I suspect the cost is in the order

of about $300,000 a year, not an enormous amount of money, but the principles of

judicial independence and the principles of trying to reach some accommodation

to the principle that there be judicial independence, that the salary bases for

judges be adequate to attract people to the bench who are experienced and able,

and in keeping with the provincial deputy minister's salary, although I don't

think that even this would do that, are valuable principles.

I do have a technical point that I hope the minister will

address, because it seems to me that perhaps in addition to the mistake that was

made in including the recommendation of removal of severance pay, that in

passing this resolution the Province is also accepting the other recommendations

of the Whelan Report.

I refer them to page 6 of the Report of the Tribunal where

the Tribunal members say, `In reaching the position that the remuneration of

benefits for the Provincial Court Judges must improve, this Tribunal reiterates

and endorses the recommendations of the Whelan Report. We recommend that

government reconsider these recommendations and implement them with

consideration of the additional points mentioned below.' Then they list four

points.

Mr. Speaker, I frankly do not know what this resolution

supports because we have not had tabled before the House the Whelan Report along

with this resolution, because this House is now being asked to endorse the

recommendations, which includes the Whelan Report with the four additional

points which are being modified. So it will be interesting to see after this

resolution is passed, which I assume members opposite will dutifully pass after

being asked to do so by the Minister of Justice, what other recommendations have

been accepted along with those that are contained in the four paragraphs that

are specifically endorsed here, including the very dubious one which, instead of

making the report one which adopts a standard, or the House adopting a standard,

is turning over the powers back to the Minister of Justice.

I would wonder whether such a resolution, in the face of the

legislation that intends to give the House of Assembly the power to accept or

vary the report, I would wonder whether or not this resolution - and I have not

done legal research on the point, but I am sure some of our Provincial Court

Judges or their assistants or associates may well be interested in doing so -

whether this resolution in fact is outside of the powers of the legislation

itself, and itself flies in the face of the independence of the judiciary

principle which the minister reiterated in his speech.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court of Canada

is about to make some pronouncement in a case now before it regarding, from

another province, the remuneration of judges and the independence of the

Provincial Court Bench which may well cause this minister to look once again at

this resolution to see whether it complies with the requirements of the law of

the land with respect to the independence of the judiciary; and in doing this,

Mr. Speaker, I am taking no special brief for the members of the Provincial

Court Bench. I am doing it, Mr. Speaker, in response to the need for this House

to recognize that the principle of the independence of the judiciary must be

honoured by this House, by the government, and not become the kind of empty

rhetoric that we hear today from the Minister of Justice who, on the one hand

preaches the independence of the judiciary, on the other hand presents to this

House a resolution which takes that notion of the independence of the judiciary

and turns it on its head by giving the power back, from this House to the

minister, in consultation with the Provincial Court Judge and the Chief Judge.

In other words, the salaries will remain the same unless the

minister and the judges consider otherwise, and I know why the minister is doing

it. He is doing it because he and his government have been criticized because

the legislation itself says that the salaries cannot change for four years after

the acceptance or variation of the report, because in

section 28, subsection (

a) of the legislation says: that a report or varied report implemented under

subsection 7 shall be in effect for a four-year period, commencing on the expiry

of the thirty-day period referred to in subsection 7 which is today so, Mr.

Speaker, if the government rejected the report outright, rejected any salary

increase, it could not be revisited without legislation for a further period of

four years from today.

What the minster has done, is, passed over the power to vary

a report, passed over the power to vary the salaries of Provincial Court Judges

to himself, in consultation with the judges and that is exactly what the

principle of the independence of the judiciary tries to avoid and exactly what

this legislation was designed to avoid when it was passed in 1991. Mr. Speaker,

this is a serious point. It is not merely a question of whether or not

Provincial Court Judges ought to get raises and what percentage raises they

ought to get, this is a point which is far more fundamental than that and has to

do with a principle that Provincial Court Judges and others in our country have

been fighting about for a number of years and I am afraid that that principle of

the independence of the judiciary is very far from being realized in this

Province when it comes to Provincial Court Judges as is evidenced by the

resolution that is now before the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few brief comments, Mr. Speaker, on the Notice of

Motion and resolution which were put forward today.

Mr. Speaker, the principles of course, with which we are

dealing with respect to this whole issue of the recommendations of salaries and

benefits of judges to the Provincial Court of Newfoundland, are obviously the

unique role of the judiciary in our democratic system. The whole concept of the

independence of our judiciary which was explained to some degree by the Minister

of Justice, the fact that compensation paid to judges is an essential way in

which this judicial independence is maintained, and also, that the process was

established to assure, Mr. Speaker, that the determination of judicial

compensation is free from arbitrary interference. So clearly, the principles are

well established in terms of why there ought to be review and reassessment of

benefits which are given to Provincial Court judges of this Province, and

indeed, every province from time to time.

Section 28, Mr. Speaker, of the

Provincial Court Act requires the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to appoint a

tribunal "to recommend the salaries and benefits of judges and the chief judge"

of the Provincial Court. In fact, this was done and a report was submitted to

the Minister of Justice in February of this year, 1997.

The question has to be asked: Why is it that recommendations

and findings of an independently appointed tribunal are not taken into account

by government? Why even go through the process? If the recommendations, upon a

broad and thorough investigation of all issues, has been completed, why even

bother with the appointment process pursuant to

Section 28 if, in fact, the

recommendations, as found by the tribunal, are not respected and considered?

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have now with what we have here,

as a result of this resolution, is that we have these very same issues, these

very same resolutions, going back to the hon. the Minister of Justice for

review. Again, the whole process appears to me to be somewhat cyclical, somewhat

circular, and at the end of the day, does not accomplish what in fact the

legislation has contemplated: namely, a thorough review by an independently

appointed tribunal.

I have difficulty with the fact that the recommendations

which are found in the report have not have been accepted by government. I have

difficulty with the fact that the process, in my view, appears to have been

circumvented. From that point of view, I obviously cannot agree to the

resolutions as they have been brought forward by the hon. minister this

afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I assume I am closing debate on

the resolution. I have already spoken.

I thank the hon. members, the Leader of the NDP and the

Opposition Justice -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to clarify. We are debating a motion, so that

comment is not necessary coming from the Chair. When everybody has finished,

whoever wishes to debate, the question will be put.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

If I could for a moment, just to clarify matters for the

Minister of Justice. It is not the intention of this side of the House to put up

any more speakers, therefore, he can treat it as his closing comments, unless he

has people on his side of the House who intend to address this particular

resolution.

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

Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. members for the

comments that they made. I should say, though, I am a little bit amused to see

the Leader of the NDP over there arguing that we should pay the judges more

money. The Justice critic is also suggesting that we should pay the judges more

money. Normally, both these gentlemen would be saying: Let us not pay any money

to people who are making fairly big salaries, let us give it to people on social

assistance and what have you.

I do not know why they took the position that they did, that

they want to pay extra money. I do not know if it is because they are so used to

being against everything that government puts forward that no matter what we

recommend in this House, they are going to vote against it. That is a

possibility.

But I rather suspect that there might be another reason. Both

hon. gentlemen are lawyers, and maybe somewhere in the backs of their minds they

are looking forward to some day when they themselves might be elevated to the

bench. Therefore, they want to make sure that if they are ever elevated to

become judges, every cent it is possible for them to get, they will get, Mr.

Speaker. I do not want to suggest any motives on the part of my friends in the

Opposition, but I must say, I am a little bit amused.

AN HON. MEMBER: They would make fine judges in

Mississippi.

MR. DECKER: I would certainly recommend, Mr. Speaker,

that members of the House support this resolution.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now voting on the amendment.

Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

For further clarification: Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

I declare the amendment carried.

Shall the motion, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Minister of Justice, Motion 1, the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board to move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the Raising of Supply to be

Granted to Her Majesty.

Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I understood you were going

to call Motion 1 and I have temporarily mislaid my - I understand we are going

to Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to do the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is the way it is worded in the printed motion, but the

Speaker does not leave the Chair when the Budget is debated.

MR. H. HODDER: So, Mr. Speaker, just to make it clear,

you will be staying in the Chair and we will continue with the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct. It is the intention of

the Speaker to stay in the Chair while the Budget is being debated.

The hon. Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take some time this afternoon to talk about

some issues. Especially, I am going to run through several things. Certainly,

first of all, I am going to talk about parts of my own district. I hope during

this debate, Mr. Speaker, while I am speaking, I can get the member for Topsail

to his feet as well to support some of the things I am going to say. Do not

expect him to agree with me 100 per cent, but I hope that he would certainly be

involved in some of it.

Mr. Speaker, for quite some time in the district of

Conception Bay South, and I will include all of Conception Bay South and as

well, out towards Holyrood, there has been a massive problem with water and

sewer. This problem has gone on for a number of years and we have piecemealed

water and sewer today to where we are in the community of Conception Bay South.

And we have serviced parts of it, Mr. Speaker, but we certainly have not served

all of it and I guess, today, there are many homes out there that have unfit

drinking water, that certainly have unsafe sewer systems. When you have people

who come to your home bringing you socks that were white, that are now yellow,

when they tell you that they have a small child and the child cannot drink the

water that is in the house and they have to bring water day-in and day-out, it

makes me wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we are living in Canada and in Newfoundland and

Labrador or if maybe we should be applying to the U.N. for some aid, like a

Third World country. I will not go so far as to say we are like that, but we

certainly have these massive problems with water and sewer.

About a year or so ago, there was a proposal that went

forward, I know, to Cabinet, concerning private partner funding which would

involve, of course, the town taxpayers, it would involve the Provincial

Government, and it would involve maybe even the Federal Government. But a lot of

the money would come from an institution whereby the government of the province

would borrow the money. Of course, the money would be repaid over a twenty- or

twenty-five-year period by the municipality.

I do not know where or how - maybe one of the reasons was

that there were some problems, I guess, with some of the councillors out there

and we kind of got off the rails, and I guess that is what happened to this

particular proposal. But I think it is time that we brought this proposal back

to the table so that districts such as mine, and that of my colleague, the

Member for Topsail, can get serviced over the next couple of years. At $1

million or $2 million a year, or even $5 million a year, we are looking at

somewhere between twelve and fifteen years to service the district of Conception

Bay South with water and sewer; and that, for the largest growing town in the

Province, is very sad.

Now, any developer who wants to go in there and develop a

subdivision, of course, is responsible for their own water and sewer services,

their own street paving, their own sidewalks, their own curb and gutter and so

on. Of course, while we are going to do that, it is fine, and we can get the

development that way, but if we are going to ever service the Town of Conception

Bay South from its boundaries in the east to the west, then we are going to have

to have a larger influx of money than we have today. So I would hope that this

government would put back on its table the private partner funding.

I have had opportunity to talk to some of the ministers over

there about this particular project. I would like to see all the nuts and bolts

of it, but from what I have seen, I think it can be a very good project which

could see water and sewer brought into my district in a very short period of

time, maybe a two- to three-year span, but it would then see at least 95 per

cent to 97 per cent of the whole town serviced, and I think that is about the

only way we are going to get it done. If we are going to give the Town $1

million or $2 million or $3 million a year, then in actual fact we are going

nowhere, and we are going nowhere, of course, in a hurry.

It is totally unacceptable, I believe, to the residents of my

town and my community, and I think it is time that we really sat down and had a

very long and hard look at private partner funding. I would urge the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs - and I am glad that he came back in - to again

have another look at this. Again, I would ask him to certainly have discussions

with some of his Cabinet colleagues, as I know he has done in the past, and I

would ask him to do it again. I would certainly join with him in any fight that

would see my town serviced, and serviced within a matter of two to three years.

I say that today, trusting that the government will have a

look at it. I have had the opportunity of talking with both councils in the

area. I have talked with the Town of Conception Bay South and they are very,

very interested in this particular proposal. We have a new group of people there

with new ideas, a very aggressive council and I think a very good council. They

are very interested in this particular proposal, as well as, of course, the Town

of Holyrood, which is also very much in need of water and sewer, funding and

financing. I know in parts of my district, and I'm sure the members from

Topsail, when you see an open sewer that is running into the ditches in 1997 it

leaves much to be desired. That happens in my district every day, winter and

summer. I mention that, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully, as I said, the government

over the next little while will take the time and the opportunity to again get

back on track and discuss private-partner funding.

Again I have to talk about health care. Health care in this

Province is in a state of chaos. I noticed again on the weekend of course that

the minister doesn't believe that it is in a state of chaos, and I have no

difficulty understanding why he says that at all. I'm not so sure he is around

long enough to really know what is going on in health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: He looks exceptionally healthy himself. It is

time, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health in this Province came clean with

the people of this Province. We talked about Harbour Breton. Goodness knows I've

had some calls from Harbour Breton about the construction of a new hospital for

that community, and fully support, by the way, that initiative. I have one fear.

If we can't get the doctors and the people to do the work in the hospitals that

we have now, how in the name of goodness are we going to do the same thing for

the people of Harbour Breton?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I know they do. But if we are going to build

a bigger and a better hospital, I say to my colleague opposite, if we are going

to do that then somebody had better open their eyes, somebody had better realize

that there is a problem. I say that to the Minister of Health as I have on a

number of occasions in this House. I've pointed out on a number of occasions in

this House various problems in health care to him. I'm not so sure most times he

listens, but I guess somewhere down life's road the people of this Province will

be the judge of where he is going and what he is going to do with health care in

our Province.

I happen to think, Mr. Speaker, that health care is in a

mess. I hold this minister fully accountable for that mess. The calls that I get

are no longer from my own district; the calls I receive today are from all over

this Province. From Labrador, from every nook and cranny of this Province, I

receive calls day in and day out about health care in this Province. I raise

issues in this House day in and day out about health care, and yet the Minister

of Health in this Province really doesn't seem to care. There will be a day

coming when he will care. There will be a day coming when he will pay the price

for that.

We talked about more money for doctors in rural areas. Yet we

listened to I guess the executive director last night on television again

talking about the problems in recruitment, and yet this minister really doesn't

seem to care. That is a shame. If we are going to do in health care what we have

continued to do, when the chairperson of the St. John's Health Care Corporation

tells the minister: We need another $17 million, and I wonder how long more

these people will continue to try and do their work in this hospital. I have

raised on a number of occasions incidents in our health care system, but again

they go unnoticed. I've written the minister letters, given him names of people

who have certainly suffered in the health care system of this Province, and yet

it really doesn't seem to make any difference.

I guess if we could run our health system from Florida maybe

we would be all right. Maybe we would be okay if we could do it from Florida and

I have no problem saying that, when we have a minister who can spend four or

five trips or six trips a year to the sunny South, then I am not so sure that he

should be Minister of Health in this Province. I say that, Mr. Speaker, and I

mean that, Mr. Speaker. I knew that eventually I would hit a nerve, he would not

be asleep over there all afternoon. I knew eventually, suntanned up like he is,

I guess he got sunstroke probably, he certainly got his comeuppance this morning

and he will continue to get his comeuppance until one of these days the Premier

gives him the Royal Order of the Boot, Mr. Speaker, and he won't be Minister of

Health any longer and I trust-

AN HON. MEMBER: He would be the Minister of Wealth.

MR. FRENCH: Oh I guess he will stay the Minister of

Wealth, we won't do anything about that but he certainly won't stay as the

Minister of Health. If he does, then heaven help us, Mr. Speaker.

It cannot be allowed to continue, Mr. Speaker, it should not

be allowed to continue and the sooner it stops the better. A simple phone call

to somebody who has waited six or seven hours to get in to see a doctor in a

hospital with their finger cut off, a simple phone call, Mr. Speaker, is not

enough. It is not enough for that family, it is not enough for that individual

who has suffered.

I mentioned here before, the lady whose husband had had a

tumour on the brain and had had an operation and she visited him in the morning

only to find him covered in urine. That is not good e