May 12,

1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 22

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings for the day, I would

like to take this opportunity to welcome to the galleries nine grade XI and XII

students from Sacred Heart School in Conche, Newfoundland, in the district of

The Straits & White Bay North, accompanied by their teacher David Eddy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I stand today to honour a nursing pioneer who made a very

positive mark in the nursing profession in Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms Joyce

Nevitt was born in England and moved to St. John's in 1965. She was the founder

and the first faculty member of the Memorial University School of Nursing. When

she started, she was the only faculty member and had a class of twenty-eight

students. In 1973 she wrote White Caps and Black Bands , a history of

nursing in Newfoundland. She continued teaching at MUN and the Grace General

Hospital School of Nursing after her retirement in 1982 and was involved in a

number of volunteer activities. Sadly, Ms Nevitt died in November of last year.

The diversity within the nursing profession spans caring for

all age groups in all settings at every point along the continuum of care. One

such age group is the senior population. The specialty of gerontological nursing

has experienced profound growth over the last decade revealed in research on

elderly persons, the increase in published journal articles on geriatric issues,

inclusion of gerontological nursing courses in the undergraduate nursing

programs, and certification in areas of gerontological nursing.

As you know, this year marks the International Year of the

Older Person and in honour of this year and this nursing pioneer, Ms Joyce

Nevitt, the Department of Health and Community Services is announcing today the

establishment of a nursing scholarship in the amount of $2,500 to be given to a

nurse who is pursuing post-graduate studies in the area of gerontological

nursing. This is the first time such funds have been made available for study

around geriatric and gerontological issues.

This scholarship is to be named The Joyce M. Nevitt Memorial

Scholarship and will be administered through the ARNN Education and Research

Trust. Many nurses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador will recognize this

woman for her work at Memorial University's School of Nursing. However, Ms

Nevitt also worked as a clinical nurse, besides being a nursing educator,

nursing administrator, nursing researcher, and a published author. She worked in

all manners of practice settings. She typified the diversity that is nursing and

I think it fitting she will be remembered by nurses through this initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly today pay tribute to the work of Joyce Nevitt and

certainly endorse the efforts announced here by the minister today. It is

certainly being positive in the recognition of nurses.

Today being International Nurses' Day, I would like to take

the opportunity, too, to salute all nurses across this country by referring to

their United Declaration that states:

"In over 100 countries around the world, nurses have agreed

to celebrate Nurses' Day, May 12, in a very special way. Everywhere, on all

continents, nurses take this opportunity to reflect on the role they play with

regard to the health of the populations they serve. For everywhere, in all

countries, nurses are the largest group of health professions delivering care in

health care institutions, in the home and in the community.

"This year, in many Canadian provinces, nurses are moving

from words to action. Severe cuts in funding by the Canadian government have

resulted in cutbacks in the funding of the public health system everywhere. With

the drive for a zero deficit, income tax cuts and government disinvolvement, in

most provinces, health institutions have had to face even greater reductions in

funding. Everywhere, nurses have suffered a deterioration in their working

conditions and heavier and heavier workloads. So, their mobilization is not

surprising.

"Government and employer's lack of respect for nurses as

individuals and professionals, has left us disillusioned and demotivated.

Moreover, increased workloads have threatened our ability to provide safe,

quality care that the public expects and deserves. These are all factors which

contribute to our anger and mobilization at a time when the end of downsizing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, just to finish?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader, I think -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It goes on:

"These are all factors which contribute to our anger and

mobilization at a time when the end of downsizing indicates that governments now

have some leeway to solve existing problems, redress inequities and improve our

situation.

"From coast to coast to coast, our demands are the same: more

nurses to care for patients, conversion of casual positions into permanent

positions, education, compensation, the need to address workload and quality of

care issues. Everywhere, unionized nurses are fighting privatization as well. We

also want to settle the current problem of staff shortages, and recruit young

nurses. From Saskatoon to St. John's, from Winnipeg to Montreal, from Vancouver

to Charlottetown, from Toronto to Halifax, from Regina to Moncton, from the

Northwest Territories to the Ungava Peninsula, we know that it is increasingly

difficult to offer quality care.

Today, collectively, we want to protest working conditions

which make it difficult for us to be able to abide by our code of ethics and our

professional standards of practice which we are legally obliged to maintain.

Because we realize that the quality of services depends largely on the

conditions in which they are delivered, we want to voice our concern publicly.

Together, with the same breath, we extinguish the flame of our candles, a symbol

the energy which continues to motivate us, even after years of cutbacks.

Tomorrow, we all take up the torch again.

We will continue to fight and speak out on behalf of our

patients.

That is the United Declaration, today celebrating

International Nurses' Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in paying tribute to the work and

contribution of Joyce Nevitt to the nursing profession and nursing education in

this Province.

Certainly, the development of the MUN School of Nursing and

its last twenty-five years of providing top quality graduates has transformed

the nursing profession in the Province and raised the standard of service and

the professionalism to the highest order. It is fitting that a scholarship be

named after her.

I do have to say, however, that it is ironic that having

achieved the basic standard of a Bachelor of Nursing for the nursing profession

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - that we are now faced with the

circumstances where nurses themselves find it difficult to practice their

profession and provide safe and quality care, as it was so eloquently contained

in the Nurses' Declaration.

I think this government has to accept its responsibility in

that area in failing to answer the demands that were placed before them during

the recent nurses' strike, and failed to take up the proper course in looking

after the needs of patients and ensuring that the nursing profession can

continue to offer the kind of service that they ought to be able to provide for

the people and also to carry out their duties and professional responsibilities

as nurses.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to associate myself with your comments in the welcome

earlier of the students who are here from Conche. I am delighted, as the Member

for The Straits & White Bay North, to say welcome to those students who are here

in the House today.

Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising today is to update members

of the House, and through the House the people of the Province, on the status of

the Friede Goldman Newfoundland operations at Marystown.

Honourable members will recall that Friede Goldman

International took over operations at the Marystown Shipyard and the Cow Head

fabrication facility in their entirety at the end of 1997. Those assets were

sold to Friede Goldman for the price of $1, with the condition attached that the

company provide 1.2 million man hours of work per year at a minimum over the

first three years of operation by Friede Goldman.

Failure to meet this obligation would generate financial

penalties to Friede Goldman in the amount of $10 million in the first year, and

$5 million in each of the two succeeding years.

Recently there has been some public comment and some

speculation about the status of the Marystown operation. Friede Goldman

Newfoundland has consolidated their existing work at the Cow Head fabrication

facility, and they have also been sending Marystown workers to their operations

at Pascagoula, Mississippi. Currently, indeed, there are thirty-one skilled

workers from Marystown working at Pascagoula.

Last week, while at the Offshore Technology Conference in

Houston, Texas, myself and the Minister of Mines and Energy met with Friede

Goldman International, with the Chief Executive Officer J. L. Holloway, to

discuss Friede Goldman's commitment and operations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In addition to that, I travelled with officials to Pascagoula, Mississippi, and

met there with the executive team and observed Friede Goldman's operation in

Mississippi.

I have to say that we observed, in Mississippi, four brand

new rigs under construction at an average cost of $250 million US each, and

another four vessels which are currently being operated as jackup

semi-submersibles being converted to floaters at a cost of $150 million each.

In all of these offshore exploration vessels - both new

builds and retrofitted existing vessels, for a total of nine vessels - all of

them were being built with the large components assembled at Marystown. Indeed

those components were present at Pascagoula, and while there we met with some of

the employees from Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, there are several points in our agreement with

Friede Goldman International to take over Marystown which I wish to reaffirm and

clarify in the House today.

First of all, the agreement calls for Friede Goldman

Newfoundland to provide some 1.2 million hours of work per year at the Marystown

facility, or to pay financial penalties. Last year, Friede Goldman exceeded the

1.2 million hour requirement by half a million hours. Indeed, it represented a

record year at Marystown. However, we wish to make clear that the additional

hours worked last year do not apply to the hours required for this year, 1999,

and do not apply for the hours required for next year, 2000. They must provide,

under the agreement, a minimum of 1.2 million hours of work in each year of that

agreement.

Furthermore, we have advised Friede Goldman in writing that

the hours worked by Marystown employees at their Friede Goldman facility - and

while the employees appreciate that experience, as indeed does the government -

that those hours at Pascagoula do not apply to the annual hourly requirement for

Friede Goldman Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and in particular the workers of Friede Goldman Newfoundland and their

families, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has every intention

of holding Friede Goldman to the agreement negotiated in 1997, and will enforce

financial penalties if necessary.

Having said that, I should be quick to add, a meeting that I

and the Minister of Mines and Energy held with Mr. J. L. Holloway was a very

productive meeting. He assured us in Houston, and again at Pascagoula, of the

parent company's long-term commitment to Friede Goldman Newfoundland. He has

confirmed that Marystown is an integral part of the company's plans and

operations internationally, and they have a presence in North America, in

Europe, and, of course, here in Canada, in Newfoundland. He reiterated and

reconfirmed the company's commitment to keeping its full obligation to meet or

exceed, this year, its 1.2 million man hour commitment to Friede Goldman at

Marystown, Newfoundland. Beyond that, Friede Goldman has undertaken to discuss

ways of expanding operations at Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, we have arranged for the full Friede Goldman

executive team to be here within the next two weeks where a Committee of

Cabinet, in consultation with the hon. member representing Marystown, will sit

down with Friede Goldman to look at ways to realize the day when we are not

sending parts for offshore exploration platforms to be assembled somewhere else

but where we are assembling - that is the dream, that is the ambition - offshore

drilling platforms right here at Marystown, Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to thank the Premier for providing our office with a

copy of his statement today. This statement, to me today, kind of sends chills

down my spine.

Several weeks ago I was in Marystown. I can assure the

Speaker today that there was certainly little or no talk of any work being done

in Mississippi on the rigs that are presently being built coming to Newfoundland

and Labrador. There may well by thirty-seven Newfoundlanders working in

Mississippi, but there are 500 Newfoundlanders in Marystown and that general

area today, I say to the Premier, who are unemployed and who are looking for

work.

They are closing the yard, I say to the Premier, in Marystown

and they are moving everything out to Cow Head. I hope that this is not a ploy

by a company to get us -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: That is what they told us. There were two of

there and that is exactly what they told us.

When we look at this, I say to the Premier that it is a

company which bought a $55 million facility for $1. I think we had better be

very careful and we better stay on top of this company because after two years

this deal runs out. There could very well be no Newfoundlanders working in

Marystown or working in Cow Head if we do not make sure this company lives up to

the deal they have in Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, I say I am very pleased that they have to

guarantee the work that they have to guarantee last year, again this year, and

again next year. We should stay on top of this company and we should do

everything in our power to make sure that they send work to Marystown so that

the people in that area of our Province can be looked after. I say a word of

caution. We should really watch and see exactly how much work they send to

Marystown.

As well, last week there was a motion passed in this House on

shipbuilding, which I was very proud to stand in my place and support along with

my colleagues, and colleagues on the other side. If the Marystown Shipyard is

going to be used for what it was initially built for, then we had better as well

get a ship building policy in Canada.

I hope the Premier will talk to the Prime Minister, who was

very vocal, because I quoted some of his sections a week ago when he was in

opposition on his feeling for a national ship building policy. So I hope the

Premier will impress upon the Prime Minister of Canada how badly Marystown -

Newfoundland - needs a ship building policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For some reason, we did not receive an advance copy of his

statement, but I am glad to hear that the Premier is optimistic about the future

of Friede Goldman Newfoundland.

When I look at the recent labour force statistics, I see that

the highest unemployment rate in Newfoundland is on the Burin Peninsula and

South Coast at 29 per cent, three times that of the St. John's metropolitan

area. This is at a time when there are two ships, the Newfoundland Offshore

Terra Nova project, being built in Nova Scotia as a result of a Nova Scotia

government policy supporting shipbuilding in Nova Scotia.

I want to say that it is not enough for this government to be

optimistic and to pass, unanimously, resolutions saying that there should be a

Canadian ship building policy. There has to be far more aggressive action on the

part of this Province to ensure work in the offshore, to ensure that our ship

building facilities are being fully used, and to ensure that we get our fair

share of the developments in our own offshore.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to advise the House that I will be meeting this Friday

in Ottawa with the Federal Minister of Transport, the hon. David Collenette, to

discuss with him the Province's total dissatisfaction with the Gulf Marine Ferry

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Kelvin Parsons, MHA for Burgeo-LaPoile

which includes Port aux Basques, and the hon. Fred Mifflin, the Newfoundland and

Labrador representative in the federal Cabinet, will join me for the meeting.

Together we will impress upon the federal transport minister our many concerns

which include, amongst other things, a replacement vessel for the Atlantic

Freighter .

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Freighter is simply not

adequate to meet the needs of truckers and travellers. We want a multi-purpose

vessel that can handle freight demands while also providing quality supplemental

passenger service, one that can provide a more timely and efficient level of

service on a year-round basis.

This Province desperately needs a much more consistent and

user-friendly level of ferry service and we are demanding a vessel with

sufficient freight and quality carrying capacity for passengers.

Such a supplemental passenger-freighter vessel would enhance

would enable Marine Atlantic to respond to weather-related service disruptions,

and clear up passenger and freight backlogs in a more timely fashion as well.

I, along with senior officials of the department, have had

frequent meetings with the Marine Atlantic Board of Directors, the St. John's

Board of Trade and the Town of Port aux Basques to discuss our mutual concerns

with the Gulf Ferry service and I understand that these groups will be making

their views known on this important issue later today. I am happy that these

groups have joined our campaign for improved service on the Gulf, and I am

confident that as a result of our joint efforts we will no longer be treated as

second-class citizens.

The service provided on the Gulf since the commencement of

1999 has been totally and completely inadequate for truckers and travellers and

this is having a negative impact upon our economy.

There is an obligation under the Terms of Union for Marine

Atlantic to provide a level of service which meets the commitment that was made

to us when we joined Confederation in 1949.

Many people are expected to travel to this Province this year

to take

part in the 50th anniversary of Confederation celebrations known as

Soiree '99. This government wants Marine Atlantic to make sure, and to take the

necessary steps to ensure, their services are meeting the needs of their

customers.

We have heard enough excuses. It is now time for action. We

do not intend to tolerate such insensitivities to travellers and truckers who

are totally dependent on this service. We want Marine Atlantic to meet the

traffic offering.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of the

statement before the House opened today. It has certainly been a long debate, I

say to the minister, in this Province, some fifty years now as we celebrate

joining this country. We see our Trans-Canada, as some people refer to it,

debated, and there have been concerns raised by truckers, by tourists and by

people in this Province with experiences that they have had, and I have had

myself, on that ferry system.

People in this Province are certainly going to be looking for

action this time. They are not going to be looking for meetings back and forth

to Ottawa that will drag out for a year, another two years, another three years.

I have spoken to many of the same people the minister has

talked to over the last few days and last few weeks. I am going to continue to

meet and speak with them over the next few days, few weeks and few months. We

are going to continue this. The people I am meeting with are telling me to tell

the provincial government in this Province to get more aggressive with their

federal counterparts, and to tell Mr. Collenette that we will not be treated as

second-class citizens any longer, as you have said in your statement.

Those people are also telling me that they will not let this

government and this minister drop the ball again on Marine Atlantic until we get

the ferry service that we deserve in this Province. It is time to highlight it

and make sure that it is focused on in the next days to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know why it has taken the minister so long to

recognize that we are being treated as second-class citizens of this Province

with respect to Marine Atlantic. I would have expected that if that were the

case the Premier and the members of the government would be talking about it

long since.

The biggest single deterrent to people coming to this

Province, and I have met hundreds of them over the years, is the actual cost of

travelling from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. They want to come but they

cannot come because of the cost. When they build a ferry they build it ten

inches too big to even be overhauled in the St. John's dockyard.

So, Mr. Speaker, there has been a whole long litany of

complaints about the Marine Atlantic ferry service, and I hope -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - that this minister and this government are

going to finally start to do something about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a minute today to

inform the House that this week, May 10 to 16, is Mining Week in Canada. The

theme for Mining Week this year is "Mining Makes It Happen," referring to the

importance of mineral products in our everyday lives and the very significant

contribution that mining and mineral exploration brings to our provincial

economy.

As you are aware, government introduced considerable

incentives for mining and mineral exploration in our Province in this year's

Budget.

Under the Junior Company Exploration Assistance Program, as

announced in the Budget, government provides $1.5 million of annual funding and

the program provides 50-50 cost-sharing of the eligible costs of advanced

exploration projects and these projects can be up to a maximum of $100,000 each.

To date, I can report that four junior mining companies

exploring - one in St. Lawrence, one in Twillingate, one in South-Central

Newfoundland and one in the Springdale-King's Point area - have benefitted from

this initiative, receiving contributions from the program of just over $300,000,

and the projects themselves will lead to an expenditure of just about $1

million. Several other applications are being considered and we expect full

subscription of the program by the end of the fiscal year.

As well, this incentive program has been warmly received and

commended by the mining and mineral exploration industry which fully appreciates

the fundamental importance of mineral exploration.

Under the expanded Prospectors Assistance Program,

approximately fifty-one prospectors are receiving financial support as well.

These grass-roots projects have diverse targets and are located throughout

Newfoundland, on the Island and in Labrador.

This program has increased from $100,000 last year to

$250,000 for this fiscal year. To date, I can inform the Legislature that

$130,000 has been granted to respective prospectors. Again, the program has been

highly successful and we anticipate many more participants during this field

season.

The Prospectors Assistance Program, in cooperation with the

Bay St. George Campus of the College of the North Atlantic, also supports

Prospectors Training. Twenty-six applicants have been accepted for a two-week

course which begins May 28 of this year.

The final component of our program this year was a Dimension

Stone Incentive Program. To date, no projects have yet been approved, but there

are several being considered for cost-sharing to a maximum of $50,000 per

project. We anticipate, as well, full subscription to this program before the

end of this field season this summer.

Today, Mr. Speaker, as well, I will table the specifics of

the Prospectors and Industry Assistance programs that I have mentioned in this

statement, outlining the names of the companies and individuals who have

received assistance under this program and glad to do so at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Baie

Verte, it is 2:29 p.m. We are getting close to 2:30 p.m., at which time I would

have to call Question Period. Do we have an agreement that we would move the

Private Members' Day ahead?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

I will just make a couple of brief remarks. Certainly we

stand and we certainly are glad about Mining Week, May 10 to May 16, and support

it. We all realize in this Province how important the mining industry is and

could be. What jumps out at us right away is Voisey's Bay and where that stands

right now, but hopefully, in the not too distant future, we will see something

happening on that front.

As far as junior mining companies and exploration in this

Province goes, and I have said this to the minister before - I said it to him

last night in meetings and I have said it before in this House - as prospectors

say you have to look for it before you can find it. That is why we have to

encourage in every possible way these junior companies, the small companies. If

you read the book, The Big Score , about Voisey's Bay, exactly how that

was discovered, that is what happens. They get out in the field and do their

field work, they explore, and hopefully we will find some other major

developments in this Province. Mining is a very important part of this

Province's economy and should continue to be so.

It is a step in the right direction, I would say to the

minister. I have said it before that it is an incentive for junior exploration

but it is only a small step, I say to the minister. There is much ground to be

covered when it comes to exploration. More incentives are needed. There is no

doubt that the change to the Mineral Act - and we have heard it nationally and

internationally, I have had calls myself on it - may have been in a certain

light negative. As the minister has assured me, there is a better understanding

of that now, and that incentives such as this will encourage people to come to

this Province to explore more so we can look for more developments in the

future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the Ministerial Statement. I think the

theme is quite true and appropriate: Mining Makes It Happen. Mining makes a lot

of things happen, particularly the revenues that are generated from mining in

the country and, more particularly to us, in our Province.

This year mining will be close to $1 billion in our Province,

and that is quite significant. There are also many high-paying jobs in the

mining industry that generate taxes that provide other things such as medicare,

education, and other services that we need as a society.

I think it is also important to recognize the fact that there

has to be assistance for the prospectors because a lot of the places they go

into are inaccessible, except by air mostly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - and it costs a lot of money to do that.

So, I support the initiative brought forward by the minister today.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, when education reform was

proposed in this Province several years ago, there was widespread public support

for the concept of reform in our educational system.

What people expected of this reform was that there would be

an improved educational experience for our children. However, people are

beginning to see now clearly that we are getting something else entirely than

what they expected.

The PC Education Committee, for example, met last night in

Port aux Basques. There, the people brought forth to that committee several

examples of where reductions have clearly been demonstrated and the education

system - the reform that was promised - is clearly not materializing.

I want to ask the Minister of Education: Is this the positive

reform that the government promised and the people of this Province came to

expect as a result of education reform?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to a

quality education program in this Province. An indication of that is if you look

at how we have not applied the formula for allocating teachers in the past two

years. In fact, over the last two years, if we had applied the formula that

exists in the department we would have seen over 800 teachers removed. That, we

did not do. We chose not to do that. In fact, less than half of that number came

out of the system.

Even this year, if you were to look at the number of teachers

that have been allocated, keeping in mind the number of students in the system,

we used 97,000 students as a basis on which to determine the number of teachers

that would be in the system. In reality, there will be 93,500 students in the

system - 4,000 fewer students.

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

Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the minister repeatedly states

that she feels that teacher reductions will not result in program reductions.

The evidence continues to mount and the minister continues to ignore it.

In St. James Elementary School, for example, in Port Aux

Basques, the guidance counsellor will be reduced to half time. This year's three

classes of Grade IVs will become next year's two classes of Grade Vs, with

thirty-two and thirty-three students, respectfully, in a class.

I ask the minister again: Is that the kind of education

reform that the government promised and the people have a right to expect?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if ignoring the concerns that are

being expressed out there is being shown by meeting with all of the education

directors with each of the school boards to determine where those concerns are

coming from, with a promise to address any legitimate concerns that are out

there, it is a strange way of ignoring an issue.

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

Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made reference

to it again today, and she has given vague commitments in the past, that she is

going to seriously look at this problem.

I have to say to the minister, those kinds of vague

references are not enough. I want to ask the minister this: Who does she have

looking at this problem for her? What is going to happen with those reductions

that are going to take place in this particular school, in Port aux Basques, in

September? Is the minister going to continue to ignore the mounting evidence

that is growing from all parts of this Province that program reductions are

going to be the result of teacher reductions in the classrooms in the schools of

this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, in addition to senior officials in

the Department of Education, including the deputy minister, meeting with all of

the education directors of every school board - and, unfortunately, several of

those education directors were in Iceland on a study tour at a time when we were

being told about concerns that are being expressed out in the districts.

Unfortunately, we have not been able to meet with all of them

in the time frame that we would have liked to do so. Those meetings are now

cluing up. There are only a couple more to happen, now that the individuals are

back in the Province. Once we have had a chance to do that - and we are also

listening to concerns that are being brought forward by members on this side as

well as members opposite.

Again, we allocate the teachers to the school boards. The

school boards allocate to the schools. We have to ask questions about how those

teachers are being allocated by the school boards to the schools. We are not

ignoring any concerns that are being expressed. If we were, why would we be

going through this process now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, again I have to remind the

minister that the commitment was that reform would lead to a better system of

education. People are expecting improved quality. They are expecting improved

access to properly staffed classrooms. They are not expecting reductions in

primary French; they are not expecting reductions in library services; they are

not expecting reduced music instruction, as will happen at St. James Elementary

School in Port aux Basques this year.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask the minister: When is she going to

stop ignoring the overwhelming evidence that is piling up in front of her on

quality and access to education? When is she going to stop this vicious attack

on the education system in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: For the third time, Mr. Speaker, if meeting

with all of the education directors to try and determine how they have allocated

teachers; if listening to the concerns that are being expressed by parents - and

I appreciate the concerns that are being expressed by parents, given the

information they are being given out in the system. I appreciate their

frustration. I understand where they are coming from. If I was being told some

of the things they are being told, I would probably react in the very same way.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, in terms of a quality education

program, we have seen access increased in a number of subject areas in our

school system over the last two years of education reform, including increased

access to physical education and music as well as computer technology, as well

as a number of subject areas. So, in terms of course offerings, we have seen

increased access.

We have also put $125 million back into the system for new

school construction, for redevelopment of schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: We have spent a further $10 million on air

quality. We have frozen the operating grants to school boards. Even though we

have fewer students and fewer schools, in this year's budget we have retained

the operating grants for the school boards. Those are reinvestments of monies,

savings reinvested back in our education system.

Are we listening? Yes, we are listening. Are we committed to

a sound education for the young people in our Province? Indeed we are, and we

will continue to be so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions, too, are to the Minister of Education. I say to

the minister, reductions are nothing new in education. Administrators, teachers,

students, have been putting up with reductions for many years. They thought

there was going to be a plan brought forward but they find out now that the only

plan is the plan to save money.

Minister, schools are being forced to reduce services to

students and, by reducing services, inferior programs are being provided that do

not meet the needs of those students. The minister asked the critic for

education a few days ago to bring forward some examples. Minister, I have a list

of some examples that our committee heard just last night on the West Coast.

At the Stephenville Middle School, library services have been

eliminated. Class size will increase at the Grade VI level to thirty in each

class. French immersion students will be mixed with the regular students.

Administrators will be expected to spend more time in the classroom. I say to

the minister: Is this what education reform is all about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat again, I guess, the

reinvestment back into education as a result of savings that have been realized

through consolidation but the hon. members opposite know that. I am wondering if

they know, though, that in this Province we spend more on education than any

other province in this country, based on our ability to pay - a budget of $700

million for the Department of Education. Twenty per cent of the entire

provincial budget is spent on education. We have seen a larger percentage

increase of assistants to students than any other province in this country, with

the exception of Saskatchewan - a 19 per cent increase in the last five years.

Mr. Speaker, if that is not a commitment to a sound education

system, I do not know what is. We can all give examples. As the hon. member

opposite has said, change is nothing new. We have seen things happen over the

years. When the school system opens up in September, there are different

programs offered every September.

We have undertaken to ensure, and we have a mandate to

ensure, that every high school student who graduates will be eligible to attend

any post-secondary institution in this world, based on the quality of the

programs that we are offering and the credits available to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that students have come to expect more

than the basic services. Minister, the Lourdes system will be losing two

teachers come September. There are two Grade I classes this year - seventeen in

one class and sixteen in the other. Come September, these two classes will be

combined. Two kindergarten classes will be combined, with thirty students in

that particular class.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Guidance services will be reduced to

one-quarter time. Minister, do you realize that the parents of students

attending the Lourdes system - do you think they really knew what your education

reform process was all about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, again let me repeat -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, once again the member opposite is

rhyming off examples of what will happen. We are going through a process right

now, meeting with all of the education directors to determine how it is possible

that this will be happening. I have said, and I repeat again, where we are able

to make sure that there is not a negative impact on programming, based on our

ability to pay and based on legitimate concerns out there, we will address

those.

Mr. Speaker, that is the process we are going through. Let's

let the process run its course, and we will make decisions that will have an

impact for September of this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Minister, Our Lady of Mercy Elementary School will also see a

teaching position disappear come September. The effects of this loss will be two

Grade V classes combined, with a class of thirty-one in Grade VI next year. This

school presently has a Grade IV class of thirty-six. How large is acceptable,

Minister? Is that what school reform should mean to the students who are

attending Our Lady of Mercy Elementary at St. George's?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank God there are only (inaudible).

MS FOOTE: I would say, thank heavens there are only three

in the road show or they would all be up asking similar types of questions

today.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again - no wonder the parent out

there are concerned, if this is the kind of information being fed -

fearmongering, again suggesting that these things will happen.

Again, let us go back to the source of the information.

Instead, let us see what the boards are saying. Let us find out. Those that have

the responsibility for allocating the teachers to the system are allocating the

teachers based on what they think the need is. Once we have had a chance to

evaluate that, then we will be in a better position to respond.

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

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, St. Michael's Elementary School in Stephenville

Crossing will also lose a teaching position come September. The principal will

be expected to go half-time into the classroom. This year there were two Grade

IV classes. Next year, there will be one class with thirty-three students. There

will be one Grade VII class, Minister. Listen to this one, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, there will be one Grade VII

class with thirty-seven students. I ask the minister if her government's

education reform process considered students at all in their rush to save

dollars?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again that 20 per

cent of the entire provincial budget is spent on education. We spend more money

on education, based on our ability to pay, than any other province in this

country. If the hon. member is asking us to spend more and to reinvest more, I

would love to know where they would suggest we will get it. At a time when we

have an aging population, a declining birth rate, more people needing access to

our health care system, the question is: Where do we get the money?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and

Community Services.

Yesterday, Minister, on an Open Line program, you indicated

that we are the only province in this country that has only nurses and licensed

practical nurses working in our nursing homes. Most other provinces have patient

care attendants. You said, and I quote: We don't. Will we in the future? Well,

that remains to be seen.

I ask the minister: Is that part of your plan, to deal with

nursing shortages by reducing the level of care residents are receiving in our

nursing homes?

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

Community Services.

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

I thought the member opposite was going to stand and

apologize to the people working at Hoyles-Escasoni for commenting on the quality

of care they provided to the system.

I have to say, with respect to long-term care, we stand very

proud in acknowledging - and I said it very often publicly - that we are the

only province in the country that still has only nurses and LPNs working in the

system, without patient care attendants.

Again, like most comments made, you have to take them in the

full context of what they mean. What I am saying, and what I said very clearly

yesterday on Open Line, was that we need to be careful what we are convincing

the public of; because eventually, if we do convince them that our publicly

funded system is a failure, something else -

MR. J. BYRNE: They can see it for themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

If we continue to try to convince our public that the

publicly funded system that we have fought for and that we are very proud of is

failing, then it is very obvious that we will have very little control over how

our health care will be delivered. In many cases, where there is a larger

privatization

section than in this Province, we know exactly what has been

happening. It does affect the quality of care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I might say, Minister, I talked about the government's

failure to provide adequate quality of life with six in a room, and the

structure at Hoyles-Escasoni, Minister. Never did I make any comment on the

quality of care provided by nursing professionals or other health care

professionals.

I fully expected the minister to stand in her place today, on

International Nurses' Day, and have a Ministerial Statement on the work that

nurses do across this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Surgeries, Minister, are being cancelled

every day now - today and yesterday - because there are insufficient nurses to

staff our hospitals. It is unfair to expect nurses to carry heavy workloads and

receive far less compensation than they do in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island,

New Brunswick, and the rest of this country for that matter. On this

International Nurses' Day, will the minister announce a positive action to

address the disparity among nurses in this Province to the rest of the country?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Community Services.

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

Before I get to the answer, in response to the

preamble, the

member did, in fact, on NTV last night, make reference to the quality of care

being delivered at Hoyles-Escasoni. He can go back and watch it himself. That is

why he has been all over the open lines this morning backtracking on having said

it, because he did say it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, also he made comments that

the privately operated deliver a better quality service than those in the

public. I think that speaks about where they are on that side of the House.

I think it is important to note that over the last number of

weeks we have been putting in place a number of initiatives to try to address

many of the concerns that have been outlined. We have been working very closely

with the boards. As was mentioned in the House, in addition to the 200

conversions that we announced in April there are another 340 conversions of

casual to permanent nurses in the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, that is in addition to the

125 new positions. We are continuing to monitor the status as well.

I think very importantly as well, there is a $4 million

allocation for hiring of support staff to assist nurses with the work that they

traditionally have done and has been recognized as not necessarily being work of

nurses. We have put in place the opportunity for boards to hire workers such as

porters, medical service aids, administrative staff and licensed practical

nurses to assist in these areas.

In addition, as noted, we have been having discussions with

the schools of nursing and also the nurse practitioner program about increasing

enrolments in the fall, and have received a proposal which we are now analyzing.

I think it is also very important to note that we have not

laid off front-line nurses. We have been working very hard to try to maintain

those nurses. Most recently, by converting over 340 nurses across the Province,

in consultation with the boards, we hope that we will be able to try to create

one of the lowest casual pools of nurses across the country. Right now we have

about 18 per cent and we would like to be able to bring it lower, keeping in

mind that there still are casual nurses who prefer to work casual because of the

fact that it allows them more flexibility in their lifestyle. Not all nurses

prefer to work casual. Many would want a permanent position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to the opportunities of working as a casual,

those who would prefer to work as casuals, there is a benefit increase from 14

per cent to 20 per cent for casuals, over and above their base salary in lieu of

the benefits they do not get as permanent nurses. So, Mr. Speaker, we have been

taking measures to try to address those issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is missing the point completely. Minister, how

do you plan to get nurses to take up positions in this Province and deal with

the nursing shortage here, and stop the out-migration of nurses from this

Province, if you are not even prepared to pay them on par with lowly Prince

Edward Island, with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Tell me what the solution is,

Minister, if you will not pay them?

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

Community Services.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) small province!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I would be -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member asked a question. I ask him to let the

minister answer.

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

I would be very curious to hear what the member opposite's

solution is, because every day in this House he stands up and says more money

for - last year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think it

is important. If I may have an opportunity to answer, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Yesterday in this House of Assembly he stood and accused us

of not putting money into remodelling nursing homes, and then a few minutes ago

he said: Bricks and mortar over people. Talk about speaking out of both sides of

your mouth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy, but we do

spend over a third of our budget -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to continue.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, yes, I heard where he said

this morning how to fix the nursing home situation. He repeated exactly what the

executive director said about increasing residents' comfort and changing the

rooms and making all the types of arrangements that the previous speaker had

made, but still he criticised that very board for doing the work they were

doing.

In response to the question, and I say, Mr. Speaker, it is

important, even though we will always be challenged with respect to meeting

salary requirements, we are spending over a third of our total budget in health

care. I have said it time and time again, and everyone in this Province can

verify, that you would be very hard pressed to find any single group of

professionals or non-professionals making more money than their counterparts

across the country. That is something we would all wish we could do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the

functions of working within a financial limit. It is easy to offer money for

everything when you do not have to be accountable. On one hand he says:

Government, be accountable, but on the other hand he throws money everywhere and

I have to be accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education on the issue of

the reductions in teacher allocations. The minister constantly talks about a

formula that she does not use, an obsolete formula to reduce the number of

teachers. Why doesn't the minister not implement the formula at all instead of

half-implementing it, which is what she is doing now? If the formula is

obsolete, scrap the formula, scrap the reductions of teacher allocations, and

build up the basis of need in our schools and not cut down from the top. Why

doesn't she do that instead of reducing the programs in our schools as we have

heard from all over this Province except from her?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is suggesting

is exactly what we have done. We have not applied the formula for the past two

year. Again, because we are into education reform, we have chosen as a

government not to apply the formula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In fact, Mr. Speaker, if we had - let me repeat

again - there would be over 800 teachers coming out of the system. When you look

at a declining student enrolment, when we see 4,000 students coming out of the

system every year, if you want to project out then we are looking at, in about

2010, maybe 58,000 students left in the system. If we were to listen to the

member opposite we probably would end up with the same number of teachers,

6,453, in the system then as we have today.

Again, we have not applied the formula, and in fact, we have

gone further, particularly for rural Newfoundland. We have instituted a category

called the Small Necessarily Existent Schools. In fact, we have done that

deliberately to ensure that in rural Newfoundland students will have access to a

quality comprehensive program, bearing in mind that the distances for them to

travel to the nearest school is too great in our opinion, and because we want to

ensure, again, that they have access to quality programs wherever they live in

this Province. Of the 363 schools in this Province, ninety-three of them have

been designated Small Necessarily Existent Schools as a way of accommodating

schools, students and parents in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a further example of the minister's double-talk she is

implementing the formula partially, not wholly, but she is implementing the

formula.

Further, how can the minister stand in this House and say

that we are spending more on education than any other province in Canada when in

fact we spend $2,000 per student less than the Canadian average? Another example

of the minister's double-talk. How can she say that when we have overcrowding in

our classrooms, multiple grading, more distance education and the Dean of

Education at Memorial University complaining about reductions and the quality of

education in this Province? How can she say all that when we spend $2,000 less

per student than the Canadian average? She is trying to claim that we spend more

than any other province.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that based on our

ability to pay - and you will find this in respect to a lot of areas throughout

this country when you deal with different issues -, which is based on our GDP,

we spend more on education than any other province in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, we spend less per student than

the Canadian average, about $2,000 per student less. Now, the minister is trying

to convince us that less is more. That is what we are being told, that less is

more. That is like -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: That is the kind of information that this

minister is trying to give to the people of this Province. We know that when you

reduce the number of teacher, the quality of education is going to go down. The

minister is not listening, although she says she is.

If she was serious about listening to the people, why

wouldn't she and her caucus join with the PC committee and with our caucus and

have an all-party committee of this House to go around the Province and hear

what the people have to say about the reductions in the programs in their

schools?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to a quality education for our children.

I should point out, so we do not forget, that members on both

sides of the House, including the members on this side of the House, have

children in the school system. I think the notion that anybody would want to

portray that somebody has a monopoly on concern for the quality of education of

our young people is simply a false one.

There are many people on this side of the House, and many on

that side of the House, who have children in our school system today in urban

and rural Newfoundland.

The Minister of Education has the flexibility. She is now

going through each of the boards, board by board by board. Let there be a clear

message to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that where there are

difficulties created at the board level, the decision by those who have the

responsibility to deliver a quality education system to our children, having

heard the representation from the school councils, from parents and from

students, the minister has the flexibly to act and the minister will act in the

best interest of quality education.

Let me make this comment, if somebody represents a rural

constituency. In my mind, if there needs to be a change to the formula, and

there does, and we will go through that this year in time for next year, we need

to tilt the balance more toward rural Newfoundland (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is going to be interesting

to see whether the members opposite are prepared to support those kinds of

values.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

It now being 3:03 p.m., we move to the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St.

Mary's.

I believe the member has a motion on the Order Paper.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to present a private member's resolution.

I would like to read the resolution into the record, to move the following

private member's resolution:

WHEREAS today marks the 50th Anniversary of the first full

day that Newfoundland became a part of Canada; and

WHEREAS certain benefits have been accrued by Newfoundland

and Labrador as part of that Confederation; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland joined Canada, we had complete control

of our own resources, including the fishery and hydro power; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland had little political clout on the

national scene, several sections of the Terms of Union with Canada have caused

great concern and strife to the people of this Province; and

WHEREAS several deals were made affecting the control of our

fishery, and deals such as the Churchill Falls contract, that have reaped major

benefits for other provinces and the federal government while Newfoundland still

remains a have-not province; and

WHEREAS sections of the Terms of Union have been renegotiated

in the past, such as Term 17;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the

as to give Newfoundland and Labrador more say in decisions affecting the overall

welfare of this Province so that then we, as a people, can control our own

destiny.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today

to stand here in the House of Assembly, during this 50th year of Confederation

with Canada, to discuss some of the concerns that people in the Province, over

the past number of years, have been raising as it relates to the Confederation

deal that was signed more than fifty years ago.

MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just for a point of

clarification, I was listening as the hon. member read his motion into the

record, and I was following the printed copy that is on the Order Paper for

today. In his last

WHEREAS he made some reference that I did not see printed on

the Order Paper.

I believe that he read into the motion a different motion

than is on the Order Paper. I would like clarification as to which motion we are

debating today, because what he read is completely different than what is on the

Order Paper here today. Could we have clarification as to what we are debating

today?

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, we are debating the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, is he

speaking to the point of order?

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, we are debating the order that

is on the paper, the resolution that is on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker did not hear the hon. member when he originally

read the - are you saying there was some error in what you read into the record

earlier?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) clarification just exactly what it

is that we are debating here today. (Inaudible) if the hon. gentleman might

stand in his place and read the resolution that is on the Order Paper, and that

is what we are debating, as opposed to what he just read.

The point is, if I could, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition, what he read and what is on the Order Paper are two different

things.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The resolution being debated today is the one that was read

into the record previously and printed on today's Order Paper. That is the one

being debated today. If he read one different than that, it is not the one being

debated. He has already indicated that. For the record, it is the one that was

officially read and given notice a week or two weeks ago, way back some time

ago, and announced yesterday. The one that was submitted by the Member for

Placentia & St. Mary's, the one that is listed on the Order Paper today, is the

official record to be debated, regardless of what was said here today.

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

MR. TULK: All I am asking the hon. gentleman to do is,

just for the record - I am not disagreeing with him. All I am asking him to do

is, just for the record, to read - he just read a resolution on the Order Paper

which is not the correct one.

MR. GRIMES: It is totally different.

MR. TULK: Totally different. Now I am just asking him

kindly if he would stand - if he wants an extra minute to do it, I will give it

to him - and read the resolution that is on the Order Paper into the record so

that we are clear on the record just what it is we are debating.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St.

Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read for the

record what we are going to discuss here today. I was trying to do this, if the

hon. members on the other side of the House will give me the opportunity to do

so.

WHEREAS we have celebrated -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING:

WHEREAS we have celebrated the 50th

Anniversary of Newfoundland and Labrador's entry into Confederation with Canada;

and

WHEREAS certain benefits have accrued to Newfoundland and

Labrador because of Confederation, and tremendous benefits have also accrued to

our fellow Canadians; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador's limited power within

Confederation to control matters affecting our destiny has often been the source

of great concern, frustration and strife for the people of this Province; and

WHEREAS national policies relating to our own resources have

often provided greater benefits to other parts of Canada and therefore have not

been fair and equitable;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon

begin discussions immediately on adjusting roles and responsibilities for

Newfoundland and Labrador within Confederation to give the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador greater say in decisions affecting the overall welfare

of this Province and to give our people a greater measure of control over our

own destiny.

Mr. Speaker, now that the members opposite have calmed down,

I would like to get to the concerns that this resolution brings forward and

indeed the concerns that have been brought forward to me over the past number of

years that I have been involved in politics, by the people of the Province.

I guess as we stand here today, just after celebrating the

50th year of Confederation, there are many parts of that Confederation that have

been good for Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that at this crucial time in

our history, it is time that we sit back and see: Are there some ways that we

can look at the things that are not bringing as much benefit to Newfoundland and

Labrador, I guess, as our forefathers thought they would?

I believe, when we look at the concerns that have been raised

with me over the past number of years, there are many different deals that have

been made that are causing concern. I just want to touch on a few that I think

we, as legislators, and the government of this Province should be addressing

today. Certainly, I am going to touch on four points today, if I could, and hope

that we garner some debate on these points and see where the debate will lead

us.

I certainly think that we should be addressing the concerns

of fisheries management. It has been brought up by the government opposite and

former governments of this Province, on some type of shared fisheries management

for Newfoundland and Labrador with Canada. Most of what happens in our fishery

now is in total control of Ottawa. We see that this control, and the fact that

many people in our Province do not believe that Ottawa listens to the concerns

of the people of the Province and definitely, in most case, Ottawa does not

understand the concerns of the people in the Province as they relate to the

fishery, the fishing communities, and the people who make a living from the sea.

I do believe that we have an opportunity now during this

celebration year to bring this concern to the forefront and hopefully get some

of the concerns addressed. That is one of the things I hope to touch on as the

day goes on.

Another concern that has certainly been raised over the past

number of years has to do with transfer payments and the equalization program.

It seems over the past number of years, as Newfoundland has begun to develop

some new industries such as our oil and gas, looking at the possibility of a

mining industry down in Voisey's Bay with the richest nickel deposit in the

world, and other industries that are forthcoming, it seems that any benefits

that come our way, or are due to come our way, we end up losing a fair amount of

the dollars and the profits to Ottawa in lieu of transfer payments or

equalization. I think this is grossly unfair. I think that it is something that

needs to looked at so that Newfoundland and Labrador has an opportunity over the

next few years to become a have Province.

If we do find something here and begin to develop something

here that is going to reap benefits, monetary benefits, and other benefits for

this Province, I think it would be grossly unfair of the federal government to

take those dollars and keep us down at the present level while these dollars

could give us an opportunity to get ahead and become the have Province that we

all want to become.

Another situation that is certainly a grave concern in my

District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and as I listen to the news and have watched

over the past number of years, I think it is very important that we have a

second look, or it could be a tenth look for all I know, but definitely have

another look at the Employment Insurance program that is brought forward to this

Province from Ottawa.

I think over the past number of years, with the changes to

the employment program, many people in our district, whether it is the forestry

on the West Coast, whether it is the fishery of the Province, whether it is the

tourism industry, or whatever the case may be, many of these industries are

seasonal operations. We do not have the opportunity in our small communities to

avail of many different types of employment. Therefore, we are usually brought

up on the fishery, the forestry, or whatever the case may be. People who work in

those industries, at certain times during the year, when it comes time to be

laid off and go back to depending on Employment Insurance to help them out

during the winter, the changes that have been brought on over the past number of

years have taken almost $600 million out of payments to this Province from EI. I

think that is something that needs to be addressed also.

I think there is no doubt about it on each and every one of

our minds, our lips, over the past number of years, and indeed, I suppose, the

past decade more so that any, is the deal, the contract, as it relates to the

Upper Churchill. This contract is costing this Province billions of dollars.

Ottawa is refusing - and many people look at Quebec as the enemy. Many people

look at Quebec as the block, in a way, that they are going to keep us from

finding an equitable deal on the Upper Churchill. I see Quebec as an

opportunity, someone who can come to the table, someone who is looking to

develop the Lower Churchill, and someone we can sit down and talk and try to

find some ways that we can bring in more policies, better policies, as it

relates to the Upper Churchill, and something that will reap benefits for this

Province. It is certainly something that needs to be looked at. It is a golden

opportunity now with the talk and the possible development of the Lower

Churchill. It is a golden opportunity for us as a province to make some major

inroads into the Upper Churchill contract, to have some sidelines, and this is

one of the other things I would like to talk about today.

I am just going to over these four points and touch on these.

There are many others that we could talk about. We have the Gulf ferry service

that was brought up in the House today, the transportation network that we have,

an equitable distribution of federal department jobs, resource management,

overall environmental concerns, tourism concerns, trade concerns and so forth.

If we try to take all the issues that are out there among our

people today and try to address all the concerns, I think we could get lost in

the shuffle. Therefore that is why I am putting forward a four-point plan. I

think we should address these four issues first, touch on these four issues, sit

down with the federal government, discuss these four issues, and hopefully - if

we can get some mechanism in place to address the concerns that have been

raised, and the inequities that are in these four issues I have raised here

today - over the next number of years indeed we can address some of the

inequities, and then we can move on to other things. It is important that we do

not get caught up in trying to do everything at the one time.

I would just like to go back, if I could, and talk about

fisheries management. I guess it is the one that certainly concerns many parts

of my District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and indeed the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole. For the past 500 years we have worked very

hard in the fishing industry. Newfoundland and Labrador has been in the

forefront of the fishing industry in the world for a number of years. Since 1992

and the moratorium we have been given an opportunity to sit back and have a look

at exactly where the fishery is going.

I receive correspondence from all around my district, and I

would just like to quote if I could from a letter I received from a Mrs. Bride

Martin in St. Vincent's. The questions she asked are: "Is government listening

today? What is government's plan for Newfoundland and Labrador?"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. MANNING: I am just getting - Mr. Speaker, if I could

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Leave denied.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Okay. I just would like to make a comment,

Mr. Speaker, if I could, and I say it to the hon. Minister of Fisheries. If he

would just listen for a moment to a letter I received from a constituent of mine

I am sure he would not be shaking his head.

This letter was sent off to Minister Anderson in Ottawa. This

lady from my district said: "... Our Minister of Fisheries who is giving you the

facts and visual proof of what damage is being done by [the] seal herd to a

resource that we are trying to rebuild for the life-blood of our province?"

This lady who is retired wanted Minister Anderson to know

that what the hon. Minister of Fisheries for our Province is bringing to Ottawa

are facts and concerns of the whole population of the Province. The fact is that

we have a situation here just with the seal hunt alone that we do not have any

say over. The people of the Province are definitely going through a very

difficult time, and if we could have some say and be able to rule our own day

that we could do something for the rural parts of this Province.

I think that fisheries management is one of the many avenues

government opposite to put in place a mechanism where we go to Ottawa and say:

Look, it is time that the concerns of the people of this Province are addressed,

it is time the concerns of the people of this Province are heard, and it is time

that the concerns of the people of this Province are acted upon.

I will leave it now, Mr. Speaker, and ask someone else to

finish up for me.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great privilege

today to speak to this particular resolution. The hon. member's speech, the hon.

member's verbal approach to this resolution, seemed to be much more effective to

me than what the actual wording of the resolution is.

When I read the resolution I wasn't quite clear as to what

the hon. member was trying to achieve. I did not know if it was sovereignty

association, I did not know if it was economic union that he was looking for, or

whether it was complete separation from Canada. Because some of the language is

quite strident, and what is not strident is sort of incomprehensible. One does

not know what it is the hon. gentleman is trying to achieve.

MR. MANNING: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. Member for Placentia & St.

Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to set the

record straight for the hon. member, because he seems to be a bit clouded on

what we are trying to do here today.

I addressed for the past number of minutes that I believe

that many benefits have accrued to this Province. If you read the `whereases' of

my resolution, there are many benefits that have accrued to this Province from

Confederation with Canada. I think we would all be a little naive if we think

that - there are many concerns that have been raised also. It is time that we

get an equal footing as a true partner in Confederation, and that is what this

resolution is putting forward today.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman just proved substantively what I had said.

He got up and acknowledged that we had received many benefits from Canada. That

is completely absent in the resolution. As a matter of fact, the resolution

states specifically -

MR. MANNING: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.

Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the resolution states, "AND

WHEREAS certain benefits have accrued to Newfoundland and Labrador because of

Confederation, and tremendous benefits have also accrued to our fellow

Canadians..."

I ask the member to read the resolution, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am about to read the resolution. The hon. member not this

minute but probably another minute ago acknowledged that there were many

benefits from Canada, but the resolution when he read it said, "AND

WHEREAS

certain benefits..." Certain benefits. I wondered why the hon. member seemed

rather timid to say that there were many benefits accruing from Confederation,

but he has said that there were "certain," and "certain" is such an unspecific

word. "Certain" is not a very descriptive word.

So it suggests the attitude and the spirit in which the

motion was done. Not too happy with Confederation. I believe fifty years ago he

would not have been on the Confederate side. He is still trying to go back to

that old debate. He wasn't afraid to put it the other way though when it came to

the benefits that Canada received from Newfoundland. That is a debate that

scholars really have not yet resolved. Scholars, academics, have not resolved

yet who won, whether it was Canada or Newfoundland. We would like to say that it

was Newfoundland, but in the spirit of nationalism and pride we say both won.

Canada and Newfoundland both won equally in that very happy and harmonious

union.

Another part of the resolution, if I might read it, the

fourth

whereas, pointing out again that the hon. member was not sure where he

was going, says: "AND

WHEREAS national policies relating to our own resources

have often provided greater benefits to other parts of Canada..."

Isn't that something? National policies have allowed greater

benefits to go to other parts of Canada. Again, the selection of the word seems

to be a bit negative, a bit pejorative: "other parts of Canada." Expressing it

like a machine, you know, "other parts of Canada." I would have suggested that

it would have been other areas of Canada. Other regions of Canada would have

been a much better term. Like some old skeleton or something, "other parts of

Canada."

Well, I do not like the particular wording of the resolution.

Therefore I am going to move an amendment as follows. I move, seconded by the

Member for Bonavista North, the following amendments to the resolution:

That the resolution be amended (

a) by striking out the words

"certain" and "tremendous" in the second recital; (

b) by striking out the third

and fourth recital clauses altogether; and (

c) by striking out the resolution

clause and by substituting the following:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon

continue their efforts and discussions aimed at enhancing this Province's role

and destiny in Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: The resolution then, Mr. Speaker, will read -

so the Speaker will know what the resolution is - in total:

WHEREAS we have celebrated the 50th Anniversary of

Newfoundland and Labrador's entry into Confederation with Canada;

AND

WHEREAS benefits have accrued to Newfoundland and

Labrador because of Confederation, and benefits have accrued to our fellow

Canadians;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon

continue their efforts and discussions aimed at enhancing this Province's role

and destiny in Confederation.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will recess for a few minutes just

to determine if the amendment is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) previously many times to amend

the resolution to make it more acceptable to the House and so on, but there are

certain things that cannot be done in proposing an amendment to a motion before

this House.

One of them, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to is in item 578.(3)

on page 176 of Beauchesne. It says simply this: "An amendment approving part of

a motion and disapproving the remainder is out of order."

This amendment as proposed by my friend from Terra Nova does

exactly that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh yes, I say, it does so. It proposes that

part of this motion be disapproved, be taken out, be deleted, and that something

else be put in in its place. I would ask Your Honour to consider this very

carefully. If we are going to be making amendments here holus-bolus - it is all

right to make amendments to make something more acceptable to more members in

this Legislature, but it is not all right to do it in the wrong way, and do it

by taking out part of a motion and supplementing it and supporting it with

something else that is totally foreign to the intent of the resolution that the

House was considering.

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman has spoken like a true

lawyer. Mr. Speaker, let me also point out to Your Honour

section 567 first and

then 569 of Beauchesne, I say to the Opposition House Leader.

I will read 567 first: "The object of an amendment may be

either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to

present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original

question."

Now, 569.(1) reads: "A motion may be amended by: (

a) leaving

out certain words; (

b) leaving out certain words in order to insert other words;

(

c) inserting or adding other words."

Further, 569 (2) says: "When an amendment is irregular in

one particular, the whole of it is not admissible and must be ruled out of

order."

Let me say to the hon. gentleman too that an amendment cannot

be ruled out because of its vagueness, but this amendment is not even vague. The

motion in front of us proposes to do the same thing. It modifies it to make it

more acceptable in the House. As the hon. gentleman for Terra Nova says it is

not as strident. I think that was one of the words that he used. It still

proposes to do the same thing. It modifies some of the words, modifies some of

the clauses.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to Your Honour that this motion is

entirely in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will now recess and the Chair will

determine if the amendment is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has determined that the amendment is in order.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to more or less give my position before I get

into making some more points, from the view of if I run out of time.

I simply want to say that we have some of the concerns that

the hon. gentleman does in terms of economic concerns. We think there are many

things that we can do within the system to improve the financial situation of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we certainly would like to have more input into

the fisheries of this Province. We are working towards that end. We certainly

want to have more say in the petroleum development of the Province, the oil

development in terms of the hydro development. We want to make sure that we

maximize Newfoundland's effort and opportunity in all of those areas, but we

believe that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is doing just that. We

believe they are doing that. I have confidence in the present leadership of the

government, that they will ensure that Newfoundland's opportunity is maximized

in all of those areas.

Mr. Speaker, we have received tremendous benefits under this

union. I just wanted to say, in conclusion - there were three or four points

that I wanted to make, but I just wanted to make an economic observation, a

financial observation, and ask hon. gentlemen and hon. ladies what they would do

without that input.

The federal government, present, and has been since 1949,

paying anywhere between 50 per cent and 52 per cent of all of the expenditures

of our budget. The budget that is presented to us now, the federal government's

contribution is around 50 per cent of that budget. To make it a little more

emphatic, the federal government is paying 50 per cent of the salaries of every

member here today - the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Lewisporte,

the Member for Bonavista North - all of us. Fifty per cent of our salary is

coming from the federal government. Fifty per cent of the salary of nurses of

this Province is coming from the federal government. Fifty per cent of the

salaries of doctors of this Province is coming from the federal government.

Every public servant in this Province, 50 per cent of their salary is paid by

the federal government. All of the salaries - the Lieutenant-Governor - all of

the salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Appeal Court, the

Provincial Court, are paid by the federal government; all of the salaries of

these hon. gentlemen. I would ask, in conclusion: What would this Province do

without that 50 per cent contribution? What would we do?

Secondly, in addition to that, the federal government makes

direct payments to the people in terms of family allowances, UI, old age

pensions, veteran's allowances. How much have I named? All of that, in the last

fifty years, is direct payments to the people.

In addition to that, they fund development like ACOA, LIP -

and what were all the programs in the past? - FRAM. There have been so many

definitions. These are programs that they fund themselves. They are in

fisheries, forestry, mines and energy.

The Trans-Canada, a $120 million job, funded 90-10; 90 per

cent by the federal government and 10 per cent by the Province of Newfoundland.

Mr. Smallwood, who was the great advocate of Confederation, said: What are the

benefits of Confederation? The greatest, he said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, if I could just conclude with that

sentence, if hon. members will allow me. The greatest, he said, was in

transportation. When we joined Confederation, we had 112 miles of road. We now

have about 6,000 miles of paved roads. He said, eliminating the curse of

isolation was the greatest contribution that we received as a result of being a

part of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could carry on, but with

these remarks I conclude.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to rise today to have a few words on this

particular motion, and the amended motion as put forward by the Member for Terra

Nova. I am wondering if he was itching to be in the portfolio of

intergovernmental affairs and go to Ottawa and present all our views on behalf

of this Province.

The member talked about timid, that things are not so clear,

and all these different words, and he talked about how great it is. In my short

experience in this House of Assembly, with the federal government, on committees

going to Ottawa, on dealing with MPs and so on, I am not satisfied, I can tell

the member, of what this Province has in (inaudible). Yes, we have - and I will

not say certain because that muddies the water, it seems like, but in many

things, yes, we have gained from Confederation. Yes, I am proud to be a

Canadian. Yes, I am very proud to be a Newfoundlander. I say that every day. I

do not need the member or anyone else to tell me that - as, I am sure, are other

members of this House.

We are talking about a relationship between the federal

government and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and have we been

managed with our resources? That is what we are talking about here today. I have

decided what I wanted to talk about.

I will go right back to the last comment the Member for Terra

Nova made on one of the great benefits of Confederation - transportation. Yes, I

agree that the road system - of course, the input by the federal government has

put a road system in this Province that cost a lot of money. Is it the best road

system? No, far from it. Is it even up to standard? Far from it in a lot of

areas of the Province.

When we talk about transportation, what is timely for today

is the Marine Atlantic service to this Province. Is the Member for Terra Nova

proud of that, too? Is he going to send a thank you card to Ottawa for the job

they have done, or is he going to listen to his minister here today, and listen

to us being treated as second-class citizens? It is in the minister's own

statement. The minister said: I am confident, as a result of our joint efforts -

which he means by all of us - we will no longer be treated as second-class

citizens.

Yes, we are happy with the benefits of Confederation, but

this is just one example - transportation. The great line the Member for Terra

Nova used by Mr. Smallwood was about the great transportation system, but he did

not mention Marine Atlantic. For fifty years in this Province this debate has

been going on about Marine Atlantic. The Trans-Canada - in the Terms of

Reference, the Terms of Union, they talked about how that was one of the things

- as a matter of fact, the minister said it again here, in this Province a lot

of the people refer to it as our Trans-Canada, our surface link to our country,

and how important it is for the tourist industry, for our goods and services in

this Province, for people in general.

When we have Newfoundlanders piled up on the other side

waiting two, three, and four nights to be crammed onto a vessel and be herded

over here - that is what they said - is the member proud of that?

I am just using one example. I decided to use Marine

Atlantic, and the transportation system. It is so blatant, and it is in front of

us today.

We are not talking about whether we are proud as Canadians,

or proud as Newfoundlanders. Certainly, I am proud to be a Canadian. I say it

many times on the national front. I am also proud to be a Newfoundlander. Are we

being treated the way we should be treated by our federal government, the

government that we went into Confederation with ? Definitely not.

Let us go to another issue very quickly - I only have a few

minutes - the fishery. Are we proud of how they represented us on the fishery?

Then the member talked about FRAM. As a matter of fact, when I heard him saying

it, I said: He has the nerve to mention FRAM. By the way, thank you for all that

TAGS money. We really appreciate it. It gave us really good jobs. It really

helps us out. We forgot to mention, I say to the member, that they mismanaged

our resource, that forced them to give us something like FRAM. I didn't want

FRAM. Nobody in this Province wanted FRAM. No fisherman wanted FRAM; he wanted

to be out on the water fishing.

That is what is destroying this Province today. It goes to

the very crux of the issue. The mismanagement by our federal bosses, the people

who run our resources, has pretty well destroyed a way of life in this Province.

That is how serious it is.

Are we happy with them on that? No. That is why it should be

an aggressive approach. Ask the Minister of Fisheries, when we talk about

sealing - our federal counterparts up there, how excited they are, how good they

have been to us. I know the minister will not respond, but I know how the

minister feels on this. I know because I feel the same way.

When they talk about FRAM and TAGS money they can keep their

TAGS money and keep FRAM. When I go home to my district every weekend now I am

dealing with people who are packing up and leaving, every single weekend.

Thirty-eight people left the community of Ming's Bight last month. Thirty-eight

people left one community in my district last month, in one month.

One fellow called me this morning from Prince Edward Island

to tell me - I tell the minister here today that he is in a lobster plant over

in PEI that just last week secondary processed 19,000 pounds of lobster from

Newfoundland. He is working in PEI. We talk about resource management by our

federal government. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be. We

should be more aggressive with Marine Atlantic, with the fisheries, and with

everything else in this Province so that we do have more control of our destiny.

The amendment now made that we continue - we should not

continue on the road we on now or it is going to get worse and worse as the days

go by in this Province.

This amendment that my colleague brought back was all about

resources in this Province, and the management of them. That is what I perceived

it to be. It wasn't muddying the waters to me. It was quite clear. I am not

satisfied with Liberal governments, PC governments, NDP governments - I don't

care what it is in Ottawa - who have managed our resources in the last fifty

years and have done a miserable job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: That is what it is all about. It is ruining

the way of life in our Province. No, we should not condone it. We should not sit

back and continue to do the same thing. Status quo is not good enough.

In the next months and weeks we are going to see a change in

this Province because of the downturn in the fishery and so on. People leave

every day, 41,000 since. No, they have not done a good job.

Before I commend them for doing such a great input with our

transportation system, we should ask them to look at Marine Atlantic.

I can go on today with some other issues but I am not going

to go any further than that. Talk about Churchill Falls, talk about the EI

changes that brought hundreds of millions of dollars less to this Province. That

is what our federal government did. Are they all up there, where we should

applaud them and so on?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I tell you, I do get involved in this issue

because it is at the heart of Newfoundland and Labrador today. I hope I can keep

my voice to talk about it for the next two minutes that I have.

Yes, I am proud to be Canadian. I am more proud to be a

Newfoundlander. Do I agree that the federal government in this country over the

years - it is fifty years back since this Province began - are doing the right

thing in management of our resources, our fishing resources, our marine, the EI

changes, Churchill Falls? No, definitely not. They have done a miserable job on

all accounts. Liberal and Tory governments previous, every one of them. I am not

afraid to say it. It has been over a long period of time.

It is time in this Province that this government, any

government to come, are more aggressive, making sure that the role of this

Province - not because we have a small Province with a small population - do not

get walked over any more, and that our resources benefit the people of this

Province. Yes, we can help provinces next door who have benefitted over the

past, but this Province should not be... This is a simple statement I have heard

made over and over. With a Churchill Falls, a Voisey's Bay, the fishery

resource, the forestry resource, the resources in this Province, there is so

much unemployment.

That is a problem that we have to face and we have to be more

aggressive in pursuing, and that is why I wanted to speak on this particular

motion today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Humber

East.

MR. MERCER: I would just like to have a few words on this

particular private member's motion here today.

Let me say first, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled,

perplexed if you wish, by standing in this House today to discuss the motion

that was placed on the table.

Like my colleague from Terra Nova, I have sat down and read

through this motion, and I can only assume, based upon the words it contains,

that it is a motion which appeals to that

section in our society which feels

that Confederation in 1949 was not a good deal.

One of the first things I ever learned in public life - I was

a mayor and a councillor - is that you never impute motives to anything that

anyone says. I will certainly not impute any motives here today, but I can only

speak as I see. In reading this resolution as it was presented - not as amended,

but as presented - I can say from my own point of view that it is simply a

motion which says that Newfoundland, in 1999, should not have joined

Confederation in 1949. Being a -

AN HON. MEMBER: Confederate.

MR. MERCER: No, I can't say I was a Confederate. I was

not born a Confederate. My father cast his vote for me and I must say, I think

he cast it in the right direction, but I was born in 1945, so you can figure out

how old I am. In 1949 I did have some glimmer of what was going on around me

when in fact the Confederation battle was raging.

The words which have now been struck from the original

resolution - "AND

WHEREAS certain benefits have accrued to Newfoundland, " and

whereas "tremendous benefits" have accrued to Canada - very clearly, Mr.

Speaker, I think my hon. colleague from Terra Nova was quite correct in having

these stricken from the record. What is being said and what was being said is

that the biggest beneficiary out of this was Canada and somehow little

Newfoundland, or as one of the members said, lowly PEI - and I will use that

adjective towards Newfoundland - lowly Newfoundland got a few crumbs off the

table.

I do not intend to dwell greatly on the number of benefits

that Newfoundland got from Confederation. A former premier who led the

Confederation battle has certainly stated that many times: not once, not twice,

not three times, but many times. So I don't certainly need to do that but I just

want to speak about those certain benefits very briefly.

I grew up in a community - and we have talked about the

educational discussion and debate here in these last few days - had a school,

and it was not a one-room school, although there were lots of them in the

general vicinity. It was a three-room school. I never went to any school in my

life that never had at least three grades in it. In some cases there were four.

When we talk about having thirty-two students in a classroom, when I went to

school thirty-two students in a classroom would have been a rarity, because we

had up to forty students in some cases spread over three or four different

grades.

I also remember from going to school in those days that you

brought your splits. You brought your splits to be able to get the potbellied

stove started up in the morning. You took your turn, when you got in the higher

grades, to go to the school early enough to be able to start that fire. So there

are certain benefits, and I must say the certain benefits are a lot more than

what this resolution seems to indicate. The hon. the House Leader indicated that

he was prepared to substitute the word "many." I suspect that that would not

have found favour with the individual who was moving this particular resolution.

I will just add a little bit more to those certain benefits.

Another topic of great currency in this Province today is the whole discussion

on health care. I think that was probably a benefit of Confederation. While I am

at it, on a day and in a time in our Province when the Opposition is out going

across the Province with their dog-and-pony show into every community talking

about the educational issues -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one of them is the pony?

MR. MERCER: That is a very good question, which one is

the dog and which one is the pony, and who is leading who.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that at this point in time in our

history where there is such a discussion ongoing in our Province on the

educational reform issue and the changes that are happening in our school system

- and today we had the nurses in the gallery attesting to the fact that we have

certain problems in our education or health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that in 1999,

with these issues now before the people of this Province, that we are debating a

resolution which is, in effect, debating whether or not our forefathers in 1949

made the right decision to join Confederation. I just find that terribly

incomprehensible.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: Not nearly as good as the Minister of Mines

and Energy or whatever you are doing these days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not much.

MR. MERCER: Not much mines and not much energy.

Mr. Speaker, just to continue on in a serious vein, the

original resolution makes reference to our limited powers within the

Confederation, and a need to change those things to affect our destiny, and the

fact that the national policies are not playing in Newfoundland's favour because

we are not getting as great a benefit as some other part of the country.

Let's be clear. If the hon. member opposite had brought in a

resolution which dealt with the words that he used mostly in his

preamble and in

his discussion, the need to have a greater control over our fishery, the need to

have a greater control over our resource management, I think I could stand in my

place and I could very staunchly approve and support that type of resolution.

What we have here is basically a resolution which is coming

in through the back door and is saying that our Confederation with Canada in

1949 was a colossal mistake and we are trying to flower it up a little bit by

saying: Really, what we need is more control over our resources. I just wonder

what was the intent of this particular resolution. As I say, it is not my place

to impute motives or to cast aspersions upon anyone. That is not within the

parliamentary tradition of debate and I would not do that, but in my own mind I

have to ask myself: What is the purpose of this resolution in the way in which

it was put forward on the Order Paper?

If we wanted to deal with the fisheries issue, if we wanted

to deal with the resource management issues, by all means, lay it on the table,

let's have a full and open debate, but to bring that kind of a discussion into

this Chamber and to bring in this resolution, as one member of this Chamber I

will have to sit down and ponder this at some length as to why this resolution.

The amendment as presented by my hon. colleague the Member

for Terra Nova, yes, I can support that. It says: "WHEREAS we have celebrated

the 50th Anniversary of... Confederation..." In my house it was a celebration. I

did, in fact, celebrate the anniversary of Confederation of Canada with

Newfoundland or Newfoundland with Canada, whichever way you wish to put that.

So indeed it was a celebration, and it was a celebration for

the vast majority of the people in this Province, because they did see the

benefits, they have seen the benefits. They have lived through what was and what

now is. It is very clear the vast majority of the people of this Province, given

the opportunity today, would vote in favour of Confederation by a substantial

majority.

As the hon. Member for Terra Nova in his amended version has

stated: "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon the

their efforts and discussions aimed at enhancing this Province's role and

destiny in Confederation."

Yes, we are a Confederation. We are part of a confederacy, we

are not part of a union. Our friends to the south of us in the United States are

part of the great melting pot, where individual states really are subservient in

all matters to the federal government. We have in that particular situation a

union. The rights of the states are very precisely defined under the

Constitution.

In Canada, we have a federation, we have a Confederacy, the

joining together of provinces or territories or whatever you want to call them

as equal parts of a dominion. In that particular country, we have attributed to

the federal government certain rights and certain privileges to look after the

vested interest of all Canadians. We have given to the legislatures of the

various provinces, including this one, the right to make laws and to regulate

activities within our provincial jurisdiction.

Does that mean everything is perfect? Of course it is not.

There is nothing perfect. There is nothing perfect in an individual's marriage.

We all have our spats and we all have our troubles and we all make up at the end

of the day.

I think we need to remind ourselves that within the

Confederation, where there are many different partners, there is room for

divergency, there is room for difference of opinion, and there is, at the end of

the day, room for change and modifications to the Constitution.

I have just one last point. If I were to interpret this

resolution in a kinder way I would be perhaps be saying that the hon. the Member

for Placentia & St. Mary's is basically asking for a renewal of the

constitutional debates that plagued this country - I use the word plagued

deliberately - in the 1970s and the 1980s. Is this what the members opposite are

asking for, a renewal of the constitutional debates, the debates that led up to

Meech Lake and to the Charlottetown Accord, and the divisiveness that resulted

in Canada as a result of that, the division that has resulted in two referendums

in the Province of Quebec? We are now told that there will soon be a third one.

Is this what the hon. members opposite are advocating, a renewal of the

constitutional discussion and debate to get involved with more divisiveness? To

see our Canadian dollar sink to an all-time low because of these kinds of

discussions occurring within the country? Is this what the members of the

Opposition are calling for?

As I say, if I were at my most charitable, that is what I

would ascribe to this particular motion. However, as I say, in reading the plain

words of this resolution, I see it nothing more than a condemnation of all those

who in 1948 and again in 1949 cast their ballots in favour of the Confederation

issue and decided to join the great Confederation which is Canada.

I know that there are other members opposite who would love

to rise and defend this particular motion. I would take my place and eagerly

await their arguments in favour of it, because I can see no arguments in favour

of the original motion. I can see and I can support the motion as amended by my

colleague from Terra Nova.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak to this resolution which unfortunately has

been so changed by the amendment as to almost trivialize the importance of it.

There is a fundamental difficulty that we face in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sometimes people talk about the fact that we only have seven members in Ottawa,

and there is 295 members of Parliament, and therefore it is very difficult for

us to influence events based on pure numbers alone. That is certainly true.

There is a greater issue than that, and that does have to do

with what kind of expectations we can have as a people in this great

Confederation. I say it is a great Confederation to the Member for Terra Nova.

It is a great Confederation that we are part of. I have never hesitated to

praise Canada as a nation in terms of its commitment to creating a good society,

and it is with good reason. It is with good reason that we praise the ability of

Canada to take its place in the front of the line in the world as a great

nation.

However, we have a serious problem in this country, and in

fact the problem is getting worse. There was a time - perhaps a golden era, you

might call it - after Confederation when things were, in fact, getting better

for Newfoundland and Labrador. If you looked at the measures such as the gross

provincial product per capita, incomes per capita, unemployment, other

amenities, we were making progress. Each and every year from Confederation

onward we were making progress, but something funny happened around 1970, 1971,

1972. That progress stopped. The Canadian average was up here, and we were stuck

at a position far below that in terms of income per capita, in terms of

possibilities of full employment, in terms of opportunities for our people to

participate fully in the Canadian Confederation.

Coincidentally, that was around the time Pierre Trudeau was

first elected prime minister of Canada. He talked about something that got a lot

of people's attention and imagination in this part of the country. He talked

about the problems of regional disparity. He talked about the problems of lack

of social justice. He talked about the problems of inequity between the regions

of Canada, such as the Atlantic and rest of Canada. His government said they

were going to do something about it. They started the Department of Regional

Economic Expansion; DREE it was called. Don Jamieson was the first minister, as

I recall, of DREE. The hon. Don Jamieson was minister for a number of years.

That department was supposed to try and do something about it. It has not

happened.

There was a period, up until recently, when the Government of

Canada, through the Canada Assistance Plan, made it possible for us in

Newfoundland to have the same programs as other provinces in social assistance,

social services and health services, and the established programs financing,

which made it possible for us to have a health care system with national

standards, equally accessible to all.

All of the debates we have been having in the last couple of

years in this House - with the Minister of Education today, with the Minister of

Health today and other days, in this session of the House, and in the last

couple of years - all have resulted from changes in the arrangements between

Canada and the provinces over the provision of basic services such as health

care, education and social services. They have changed in a negative way. This

country is getting worse in terms of protection of the region, getting worse in

terms of the disparity of incomes between the rich and the poor. There is a very

serious problem with the fiscal arrangements over resource development and what

happens in the offshore, what happens when we get resources developed.

I will give you an example. I know the Member for Terra Nova

would be very interested in this. Let's ask a basic question about the fiscal

ability of this Province to pay for services such as education, such as

hospitals and schools. Where does it come from? It comes from the taxes in our

treasury. I want to tell the House what Inco put before the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Agency as part of the environmental impact statement on

Voisey's Bay, as to the impacts on the treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador

versus the treasury of Canada of the Voisey's Bay project.

They had all kinds of economic analysis. They analyzed the

number of person years of employment and the four phases of the project, and the

start up. I will give you the four phases here that they looked at: the

construction phase, the open-pit operations phase, the underground operations

phase, and the decommissioning phase. They looked at the number of jobs. They

looked at the impact on taxes for Newfoundland and Labrador and for Canada. They

looked at the equalization formulas and what it would do.

Because I haven't a lot of time, I am going to give you the

totals. After you look at corporate income taxes, mining taxes, personal taxes,

payroll taxes, all of the benefits, all of the offshoots, all of the indirect

employment calculated by Inco and their economists and put before the

environment assessment panel, the grand total net benefit to the treasury of the

Province of the whole of the Voisey's Bay project is calculated to be $417

million for the life of the project. The total impact to the federal treasury,

than ten times as much will benefit the federal treasury over Voisey's Bay than

the provincial treasury.

Let's think about that. I was astounded. I do not know if

anybody else was is surprised. Is anybody else surprised, I ask, Mr. Speaker,

through you? Is there anybody else surprised at this? An economic development

activity in the Province of Newfoundland, what many people regard as the

salvation of the current Newfoundland economic dilemma, the Voisey's Bay

project, is going to be, to the Province of Newfoundland and Canada, a total

benefit in terms of government revenue of $5.4 billion. Of that, $4.9 billion

Newfoundland and Labrador.

If there was ever any example of the problems of

Confederation, that is it. Mines and minerals are a provincial resource

belonging to the Province and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and an

economic development of a resource owned by the Province should benefit the

Province more than the people of Canada. Yet, Inco's figures, a public document

that I in fact got it off the Internet - I guess I will have to have a press

conference to make sure that people know about it. Voisey's Bay Nickel Company

Limited filed this as part of their economic impact statement as a result of

questions asked by members of the panel on the environmental assessment: What

are the financial impacts on the treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador versus

the treasury of Canada?

Here is their answer. Newfoundland will benefit by $417

as much! We want to know what is wrong with the relationship between

Newfoundland and Canada? We want to know whether we are benefiting from our

natural resources? Something is very wrong.

I know the Member for Terra Nova meant well in amending the

resolution before the House, but I want him to understand that we have a very

serious problem. We have a very serious problem if the development of what

people regard as the largest single modern development in Newfoundland, that is

going to benefit us in Newfoundland and Labrador, Voisey's Bay, if the Canadian

taxpayer, the federal treasury, benefits ten times as much as the people of this

Province and their treasury.

MR. LUSH: The hon. gentleman seems to suggest that my

amendment would stop correcting that kind of situation where - I do not think

there is anything in the amendment that would stop adjusting or correcting that

injustice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the amendment seems to me to

give a rubber stamp to the status quo because if the ongoing discussions between

this inequity, ten to one inequity, then I am not satisfied with the state of

the discussions. I am not satisfied that we have to accept that ongoing

discussions are what is required.

What is required is a fundamental change in the relationship

between Newfoundland and Canada, and something has to be done about it because

no matter what - we can sign whatever deals we want but if the result of the

taxing arrangements, if the result of the equalization formulas, if the result

of our Province's inability -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am looking at things like the taxation

system: provincial sales tax, $61 million; federal, $300 million in sales taxes

on this.

This is a document that ought to be examined by every member

of the House, and I will make available copies to every member of the House

because I think it is worth reading. I think it is worth reading because it

shows that we have a serious problem in our relationship with Canada. We have a

serious problem because a lot of formulas have changed, to the detriment of this

Province. We are now being treated on a per capita basis for post-secondary

education and other formulas under the CHST, as opposed to based on need. That

is costing this Province a tremendous amount of money. It is no accident that

people are saying that the Liberal government of Ottawa and perhaps the Liberal

Party of Canada has abandoned the Atlantic region. It is no accident people are

saying that, because it appears that it no longer matters to them.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that there are very serious

problems in our relationship. There are very serious problems in how we get

treated as part of Canada. Even today, the Minister of Transportation says that

we are being treated as second-class citizens. If we are second-class citizens

in Canada, why are we talking about ongoing discussions about our second-class

citizenry? There has to be some fundamental recognition that we have a serious

problem, and it has to be tackled in a different way than just ongoing

discussions.

We would not have even known about the ongoing discussions of

the Minister of Transpor