October

25, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 42

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Before we call Statements by Ministers, I would like to

welcome to the gallery seven Basic Adult Education students and their

instructor, Mr. Fintan Mullaley. These students are visiting from Eastern

Community College in Placentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome to the Chamber

today, the newest member, the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

I will follow on the line of questioning I was asking yesterday.

Sister Elizabeth Davis was quoted in The Evening Telegram

on September 28, as saying that there may be a shortage of operating rooms in

the city today. The closure of the Grace and the Janeway Hospitals will leave

only fourteen operating rooms still in the city down from the current

twenty-four operating rooms.

Now, the minister said in this House, one week ago, and I

quote: `Children will not be mixed with adults for programming. We will share

things like MRIs and we will share operating room studios.'

Now, since surgeries are now being cancelled due to a lack of

available operating rooms, will the minister now admit under his new

re-organized structure, children will join with adults on long waiting lists for

surgery?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member who wishes he was the minster, was present at the

news conference on June 29, when I announced the proposed restructuring in the

city along with Sister Elizabeth and Mrs. Young, the Chairman of the Health Care

Corporation Board.

What we clearly said at that time was that, we had set a

direction for the re-organization of health care in the City of St. John's, the

metro area generally. The basis of that essential, new direction was to provide

for acute care services on two sites in the city rather than the present four

sites, but in that, and implicit in that, even if we did not say it, implicit in

that is the concept that as a result of that reorganization there will not be a

decreased capacity in any area of programming or servicing.

If there is, for instance, 100,000 people today going through

four emergency departments, or four outpatients department, and if that is the

requirement in terms of capacity to meet the need in the future that is what

will be provided in a new and restructured system. If there is a need for

twenty-four OR studios to exist we will provide them in the new re-organized

system. If on the other hand we can run twelve studios at a greater level of

efficiency and do more work in less space we will look at doing that, of course,

as well. That is only what we would call trying to achieve economies that are

reasonable and normal within the system.

None of that has been determined with any finality, but let

the member be assured that there will be at least as much capacity as we have

today providing that is what the need is in the system. There will be no

diminished amount of services, there will be no diminishing of programs, there

will be an enhancement of programs and a better quality of service of health

care as a result of the direction we are talking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Twenty-four is not enough to meet the waiting list for

surgery today, and if the Minister thinks that fourteen is going to meet it in

the future he should have joined Raveen and left St. John's last week. When he

stands in his place will he guarantee that there will be a minimum of

twenty-four that are in use today? I would like to hear an answer to that. Also,

at present there are forty-three adult critical care beds in acute hospitals

here in the City of St. John's, and the Grace Hospital has one quarter of those

critical care beds. Surgeries are often cancelled now because there are no

critical care beds to put people in after surgery.

I know of individuals, and cases, where cardiac bypass

surgery has been cancelled on numerous occasions because the critical care beds

are not available today. Now, Sister Davis acknowledged three weeks ago that

there may now be a shortage of critical care beds in the city, and that was in

The Evening Telegram of September 28. Now, what type of service can we

expect when you remove one quarter of those critical care beds from the system

today? Will you give assurances today that the number of critical care beds in

this city will not be decreased from the current number of forty-three?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think to some extent the public is generally, gradually

accepting the concept and the reasonable concept that purely counting of

hospital beds is no measure of the level of health care that a system can

provide.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The hon. member now is moving from

counting of hospital beds and he is counting OR rooms in the system. I will give

no such undertaking that in a new and redeveloped system there will be

twenty-four OR studios because it is meaningless. If twenty-four OR studios are

required, running at the maximum, reasonable level of usage, we will have

twenty-four but if we can do the work in twelve, fifteen or eighteen studios

that may be larger, that may be more efficient, that may be run on a more

economic basis and also in a more efficient basis then that is what we will do.

So we are not going to commit ourselves to numbers in any way, shape or form.

What we are going to commit ourselves to and what we have committed ourselves to

is a level of service and a standard of health care and a reasonable level of

only enjoy in a more enhanced and in a more user friendly way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we pursue that logic we should shut down every hospital

bed and improve the quality of health care in this Province, if we follow that

logic. Now I speak to doctors almost on a regular basis and I speak to patients

almost every day, people are waiting for many months and over a year to get

cardiac surgery in this city and people in this Province, every single day. They

cannot get surgery, there is no operating space. They cannot get critical care

beds, they cannot do the surgery because there are no beds to put them in after

the surgery.

Now I will turn to another aspect of restructuring, the total

maintenance and facility cost of maintaining the Rehab Centre right now, it

costs approximately, in maintenance costs, around $300,000 per year to provide

the basic facility costs for the Rehab Centre. The building occupy's around

50,000 square feet. Now plans are made to eventually move this service into the

Health Sciences Centre, however it is going to be moved to the Janeway Hospital

temporarily. Will the minister inform this House if it is possible to

accommodate the Rehab Centre at the Janeway without incurring exorbitant costs

over and above what it takes to leave it there until you are ready to move it to

the Health Sciences Centre.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The budget for the Rehab Centre is $3,880,000 this year. That

is the budget that was approved this year for the Rehab Centre. Two aspects are

considered in all of this restructuring: number one, is providing a better level

of service, a better quality of care for the people who use our services; and

secondly, there is the aspect of financial or fiscal considerations in realizing

that principle or that objective. And I can commit to the member that we will

not be moving any service from any site until it is demonstrated, first, that

the receiving site can accommodate it appropriately, that the service or the

program can be delivered at at least the level of programming that is being

provided now, and that in all of that there will be some efficiencies and

possibly some cost-savings as a result of it.

The move of the rehab service to the Janeway is just the

first step in the adjustment we are making in the total system. Eventually, as

the member correctly states, the Janeway, including the rehab functions, will be

relocated to a new site at the Prince Philip Drive Health Sciences Centre

complex area.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Yesterday, the Premier, in response to a question from the Leader of the

Opposition, indicated that with regard to Voisey's Bay minerals, all further

processing would be done in the Province. I ask the minister exactly what is

meant by processing. Under the old act, before we amended it last Fall,

processing meant concentrating, milling, pelletizing and smelting, but under the

act, as amended last Fall, the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, processing did

not include smelting. Smelting was in a whole new different category. So, does

the Premier's general reference to processing include smelting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, let it be clear to anybody who

is listening that smelting is included in processing. Let there be no confusion

about that matter.

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

definitions, as I indicated in the act that we passed

last Fall had processing defined as totally different from smelting. I zeroed in

on it, because I want to ensure that we have smelting included in processing.

Let me put it to the minister straight up. Is it the position

of this Liberal Government that with regard to Voisey's Bay ores, the position

of the government is simple; that is, either smelt it or leave it in the ground

- smelt it here.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have said it numerous times;

I guess I can repeat it today in the House. We have said it across the table to

the companies. We believe that for the first time in 498 years we have finally

discovered a mineral deposit in this Province that is big enough to justify us

requiring that the processing be done in this Province, and we have told them

so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: One further question, Mr. Speaker. Last Fall

- it was December of last year - we passed the act, the amendment to the Mining

and Mineral Rights Tax Act, that gave a tax break to mining companies. That

occurred shortly after a large jump in claim- staking because of the Voisey's

Bay find. The Voisey's Bay find was referenced in the debate on the amendment.

Can the minister explain why, at a time when we had a resurgence of staking

based on a very promising find, the government decided to bring in a tax break

which now it claims that it is going to rescind?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that we put

through last Fall was coming out of a budget announcement of two years

previously. The fact that there had been a deposit discovered last Fall, that at

that time nobody knew what it was, it might have been just another deposit.

There are hundreds and hundreds and thousands of deposits in this Province that

have never been any more than that, just deposits, and will never, ever be

mined. At that time there was no indication that this one was going to be as big

as it is, and we put through the particular amendments because they had been

planned for particular reasons to encourage exploration in this Province. They

were successful because we had been promoting these amendments for two years,

and they had been successful in getting people to come into the Province and

explore, and probably without the promotion of them we would never have

discovered what we have found today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to follow up a line of questioning I started yesterday

with the Minister of Education on teacher certification restructuring, and

having thought a bit more about it since yesterday, as I am sure the minister

has, it seems pretty straightforward how one would determine experience, which

is one aspect. It would seem pretty straightforward that you can determine

professional development. I'm sure that is documented to date by professional

development teachers have participated in.

The one that causes me some concern, and I'm not sure how it

would be determined, is teacher performance. Can the minister inform the House

how he anticipates how teacher performance will be evaluated to determine what

level the teachers will start off on the new certification program?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: As I explained to the hon. member yesterday,

this is simply a draft paper which has not yet been made public. The hon. member

has somehow got a copy of it but it has not yet been made public. It is not

ready to be made public so it is still in its draft form. The hon. member has a

good grasp of the paper, obviously.

The area which he talked about is one which concerns me as

well, because somewhere there will have to be a value judgement that John Doe

either performed or didn't perform. We have been looking at various ways to do

that. Obviously there is going to have to be a file on a teacher. Now, will that

file be in the teacher's filing cabinet or would that file be in a board office

or would that file be in an office of the college of teachers, or what have you.

That is one of the areas which I am presently in discussions with the president

of the NLTA who met with me last week sometime. I referred to the meeting. That

is one of the areas which we have to refine further.

There are several other areas. I'm just wondering will the

fellow who wants to be the minister stumble upon that soon. Just see how smart

the guy is. I will give him full marks for what he has done so far and see where

he goes from here. That is one area where I'm still in discussions with the NLTA

to get further direction on that. I don't want to have a situation where someone

can be decertified because some board member or some superintendent doesn't like

the colour of his hair, or doesn't like the way he played football or what have

you. It would have to be a set of standards that are pretty fair, but there is a

problem with that particular area. That is one of the ones we are discussing.

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

House Leader.

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

sure if the minister had his way that I would be put in level three, the

leadership level, there is no doubt about that. Having said that, it is a

component that is very sensitive, as the minister has alluded to, for teachers

who are already in the profession. As I understand it, the thrust of the

initiative is to improve the quality of education for our students.

My understanding is that in most cases there has been very

limited teacher evaluation or assessment to date. I'm just wondering, will there

be a two-or three-or four-year period whereby teachers will be evaluated before

the new system comes into place? Or when the minister is ready will the new

certification restructuring program start, say, in twelve months' time, and

teachers who have not performed well to date, or are determined not to have

performed well to date, will they then come out of the profession? What does the

minister anticipate from that angle?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't envisage decertifying

teachers retroactively. I don't think that will happen. I know that won't

happen. That is totally unreasonable. However, one of the problems with the

present system is that some teachers - and mind you, the vast majority of

teachers in this Province are tuned into the concept of continuing education and

are excellent people. However, you get the odd case of a teacher who goes

through Memorial and gets a degree in education and never opens another book

beyond the one he is teaching until the day he retires. Very few, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Roger Grimes.

MR. DECKER: Roger Grimes might be one example. But very

few, Mr. Speaker. When the royal commission made its report it did suggest that

there was a problem with the continuing professional development of teachers.

The royal commission recommended that we would deal with teacher certification.

What the hon. member is talking about here today is a paper which is being

drafted. The paper which he has now, there are sections in that which will never

see the light of day unless the hon. member wants to make them public. We have

no intention of doing it. It is simply a discussion paper with representation

from various people on it.

The area that the hon. member is getting on, surely we can't

at twelve o'clock on October 25, 1996 say that all teachers have been

decertified, or some have been. It is going to have to be on a go forward basis.

One of the areas, I told the hon. member yesterday, the area of transition, we

have to come up with a way to deal with transition. That is one of the areas. So

it isn't retroactively.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Social Services.

Over the past several weeks we have read, watched and heard

several media reports on the situation that is developing at the Vera Perlin

Pre-Vocational Training Centre here in St. John's. The centre is set up to

address needs of approximately seventy developmentally delayed persons. There is

at present over 100 people participating in training at the centre, with

approximately thirty-one people on a waiting list who are prepared to

participate tomorrow.

The history of the Vera Perlin Society which began in this

Province in 1954 is a success story that speaks for itself. I would like to ask

the minister, following a meeting you had with representatives from the Vera

Perlin Society on September 5, where they requested funding to accommodate the

overcrowding at the centre and also to accommodate persons on the waiting list,

could you inform the House today, what your government's response was to this

request?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, yesterday I asked the hon. member how come he hadn't

asked me any questions and he told me I was doing a good job. Well obviously, he

slept on that last night and changed his mind.

The answer to the question is: yes, we indeed had a meeting

with the executive of the Vera Perlin Society and I had a meeting with the

families of the Vera Perlin Society and I had a further meeting with the

executive and I guess, the hon. member can understand that in mid-year into our

fiscal year, it is very difficult to come up with two-thirds of a million

dollars to satisfy that request. However, we are dealing with it and I am sure

there will be further meetings with the Vera Perlin Society.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I was sleeping last night I must have had a nightmare, I

am standing in the House today asking questions.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer I believe, is

based on dollars and cents. These sixty-four individuals who will not have the

opportunity to partake in daily training at the centre, now will all need

respite care at home which this government will have to pay for. Based on a

40-hour week at $5.41 an hour for respite care workers, the annual cost to

government will be almost $800,000, a long way from $643,000 that the Vera

Perlin Society has requested.

I would like to ask the minister, due to the fact that in

reality less dollars are need to provide the training versus the respite care,

and the fact that the training centre allows those developmentally delayed

individuals an opportunity to live, work and breathe in a normal environment,

and as one mother put it recently in The Evening Telegram it was her

daughter's only link with the outside world. I ask the minister today, on behalf

of these individuals and their families would she please make the decision to

fund this superb organization that has served this Province for over forty

years?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to assure the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes

that we are doing everything within our ability to work out some arrangement

with the Vera Perlin Society.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

Studies have shown that improvement to the life of a

developmentally delayed individual depends upon the person receiving consistency

in their health and welfare.

Mr. Speaker, as of December 31 of this year, that training

centre will have to send home thirty-three individuals. They will not be able to

take anybody from outside the St. John's area. I know of one individual who has

been attending the school for over twenty years, who rises out of bed every

morning because of the Perlin Training Centre. As of December 31, that

individual who resides outside St. John's will have to stay home.

I ask the minister: is her government going to provide just

enough funding to take care of the people inside the overpass and forget about

the developmentally delayed individuals outside such as Conception Bay South,

Mount Pearl, Labrador and so on? Does this government show any concern for the

health and welfare of these individuals?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to assure you that we are very pleased with all the

work that the Vera Perlin Society has done to help out the developmentally

delayed people in our society and the members they serve. However, I want to

assure the member as well, that there are a number of areas that we want to look

at, to ensure that we are doing the best job that we can to help these people

avail of vocational training. Some of it may mean centres like the Vera Perlin

Society operates or it may be other plans from other organizations that we might

want to implement. I am sure there is probably a good argument for all of the

programs that are currently being offered but we are spending a lot of money and

I think that the money has to be spent properly and indeed we will continue to

work with the Vera Perlin Society. I think they made the decision to reduce the

number of people over at the centre based on the study they had just completed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cutbacks.

MS YOUNG: No, it was not any cutbacks from our

department. I want to assure that we are currently putting just about $500,000

into the vocational training and just about $1 million into the Vera Perlin

Society and there were no cutbacks because of our government policies.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is

to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know today from the minister

what is the role for zonal boards and their structures in the future? Will they

be camouflaged for growth centres and resettlement programs or will they be put

in place to facilitate increased cooperation between groups and individuals in

rural parts of our Province?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member answered

his question with the latter half of his question, they are put in place to

develop cooperation and coordinate the efforts in the rural areas.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: We heard what the minister said but that is

not what we are hearing coming out of different offices here in St. John's both

provincial and federal offices, Mr. Speaker. We hear the word from these

bureaucrats, some of them now, because we always had good bureaucrats and we

always had not so good, but some bureaucrats are talking about growth centres

and resettlement. They are talking about some of our communities out in

Newfoundland that might become bedroom communities.

I am asking the minister today, Mr. Speaker, to get on his

feet and tell this House that any bureaucrat in those offices, that he can

control, will put a bit of hope back in the people of this Province, to the

development associations and any stakeholders out in rural Newfoundland to stop

these high paid slick bureaucrats from starting to dismantle rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what bureaucrats the

hon. member is referring to. We are certainly not giving policy direction in

that regard, we have a terrific problem. There are declining resources,

shrinking budgets, disappearing cooperation agreements, our transfers have

dropped from 47 per cent to 41 per cent in six short years. There are scarce

resources around. There are 800 communities along 10,000 miles of coastline with

large expectations, Mr. Speaker. We cannot deliver on all those expectations. We

put in place the strategic plan which put in place, I think, seventeen zones

I've talked about. The rural development council asked for and we exceeded to

the request to create a task force to move across the Province, to define those

zones. They came back with nineteen economic zones. We put in place a provision

for the widest possible participation. We asked that they consider putting in

place a strategic plan which would take into account the various strengths of

the regions that they represent. We said we would enter into a performance

contract with the limited dollars that are left behind and we would table those

here in the House of Assembly. We cannot deliver to every single community in

rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible. We can't, they can't, I don't

think God could but we've got to do within -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him, ask him.

MR. FUREY: I will let him speak for himself or herself.

Mr. Speaker, with the limited resources that we have we are

trying to do our best. That is why we've carved the Province into the nineteen

zones and we've made room for participation from every community.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister referred

to disappearing transfer funds and scarce resources. Well we are looking at

disappearing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and scarce Newfoundlanders

because theirs is a more subtle resettlement program than the one their henchmen

had back in the late 1960s.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go West.

MR. CAREEN: Go West, yes. Anyway, in rural Newfoundland,

the development associations and other groups out there were not maternalistic

or paternalistic. They got together to put things in place. Women made up a good

portion of the development associations as co-ordinators and as volunteers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member, he is on a supplementary and he

should get to the question.

MR. CAREEN: I am getting to it, Sir. I have a copy of a

letter that was put out by Ms Cathy Duke, inviting eighty-one women in to St.

John's on Friday and Saturday of this week, maternalistic indeed. They are

talking about doing a day-and-a-half of workshops but they would also be able to

do personal business and start their Christmas shopping here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for the minister to talk on this

maternalistic thing that is going on with Newfoundland women who can take care

of themselves and lots of times they are better able to take care of themselves

than the men out in rural Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think all members would agree

that we should be sensitive to gender and this particular report calls upon us

to recognize the principle of gender equity. So far to date, if you consider 100

per cent of the boards, 31 per cent of the participants have been women. We are

encouraging women to get involved in this process, Mr. Speaker. We think they

have a very dynamic role to play in economic development.

Ms Duke's letter was sent out encouraging those who are

participating, and I think forty women from all over the Province have agreed to

come to a one-day seminar.

MR. CAREEN: (inaudible) eighty-one.

MR. FUREY: They invited eighty-one, that is correct;

eighty-one would be 31 per cent, which is the total number of women on the

board, and forty have agreed to participate. Mr. Speaker, I was shown this

letter yesterday and I agree with the hon. member, those are unfortunate remarks

that were put in there. She is a very good and dynamic hard-working civil

servant. She puts in long hours without overtime. She personally regrets that

and apologizes for any misunderstanding.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Report of The Public

Tendering Act Exceptions from May, 1995 to September, 1995.

AN HON. MEMBER: More exceptions?

MR. EFFORD: More exceptions.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is Private Members' Day,

and it is the turn of the members who sit to Your Honour's right. I understand

that after much discussion they have chosen Motion 6 as opposed to Motion 5, so,

accordingly, may I request that you call Motion 6, please, Sir. It stands in the

name of my friend, the Member for Placentia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, could I have unanimous

consent to remove Motion 5 from the Order Paper?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have consent to remove

Motion 5?

The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem, because

otherwise, the hon. gentleman is precluded from ever putting another motion

down, and that is not playing the game, so we, on this side, at least, are

prepared to consent to his request.

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

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

I thought the hon. member was going to request unanimous

consent to have himself removed from the Chamber, of which there would have been

no doubt at all, but we have no problem with the member's request.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has consent.

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I am pleased to put forward the following resolution:

WHEREAS the Rural Development movement in Newfoundland and

Labrador has played a lead role in social and economic development in this

Province for almost thirty years; and

WHEREAS the fifty-nine regional development associations

making up this movement provide a unique mechanism for rural people to help

determine and shape their own economic destiny; and

WHEREAS many smaller communities rely almost entirely on

their own local development associations as a forum and a focus for issues of

concern to them; and

WHEREAS the recommendation of the Task Force on Community

Economic Development, as presently being implemented, could lead to seriously

jeopardize the opportunity for increased co-operation among all community

development organizations at the regional and provincial levels; and

WHEREAS effective community economic development depends on

the involvement and participation of a strong and committed volunteer sector;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly unanimously agree

to provide administrative support for development associations and their

volunteer members until such time as zonal boards are in a position to provide

such administrative support and assistance.

Members of this House, we stood here in December of 1983 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety-three.

MR. CAREEN: Ninety-three, I am sorry.

The development associations' funding was about to expire on

March 31, 1994 and there were a lot of concerns. Members on both sides,

including the present Minister of ITT, were fully supportive of development

associations. A task force was struck and went across this Province listening to

concerns of stakeholders in this Island and Labrador. They received many

submissions.

The task force, when it was announced - but there was a

component of the task force that wasn't fair. While development associations and

others had to lay open what they had, to show what they had done, ENL and ACOA

were not open to such scrutiny, and they are the ones - those two groups - who

were taking 60 per cent of the funding. Remember a few years ago they talked

about 167 organizations out there in Newfoundland that were chewing up money?

Well the development associations were only 8.5 per cent of that. Other groups

collectively were getting more monies, so how come development associations were

under such scrutiny? Why?

Development associations started nearly thirty years ago,

because prior to that time in our communities in Newfoundland one or two or

three people used to speak for the communities at large. Thirty years ago things

started to turn around and get bad, and people started to meet, and come

together. They were not going to take things lying down as they had before, or

one or two people speak for them. They collected themselves into groups. I think

the first one was on the Northern Peninsula. Shortly after that time there was

another group that came together in Green Bay, out on the West Coast in Port au

Port, my friend the member's district. Placentia was one of the first as well.

There was a downturn in the American base and there was a resettlement program

on the go, a resettlement program that I witnessed, and saw what it was doing

for people in Placentia Bay. They shoved them in from communities in Placentia

where they wanted to continue on with their trade of fishing. There was not a

decent wharf, no facilities for them to tie up to. The development association,

for the first number of years in Placentia, was involved in putting

infrastructure in those places that the governments had neglected to do.

Other development associations in other places found

themselves in similar veins, fostering and promoting social and economic

development with their cultural entity of where they lived. There was a

resettlement program on the go then, and there is a more subtle one on the go

now. It is strange that some of these development associations started to put a

stop to resettlements, and at a time when this resettlement program is on the go

their demise is being engineered.

I said a moment ago about 167 organizations. The minister

mentioned them back on December 8, 1993. For a moment, Mr. Speaker, the total

amount of money was $41 million for that year. The business development centres

had $3.5 million; Community Futures had $1.7 million. I must say, too, Community

Futures, that component is gone now. What has survived is the business

development centres. The Community Futures, which was supposed to do, and

sometimes it was foggy of where a development association was in Community

Futures in community development, that portion of the federal component is gone.

The business development centres survive.

A letter, I think, came out on the last of September from

Gordon Slade of ACOA, a directive to these BDCs, the community development

corporations they are called now, they will no longer be involved in community

development - strictly business - and the only ones out there left now standing

to talk about the social and economic and cultural situation in rural

Newfoundland are the development associations.

Anyway, Community Futures at that time got $1.7 million, ACOA

had $7 million, development corporations out there $4 million, ACOA, the E-net

they had $1.3 million. Now I am being told lately that the E-net that they had

spent money on and are still spending money on is more costly than another

communications system, STEM-Net which is supposed to be better. So why do they

continue to waste money? The ENL, $17.1 million, the development associations I

say spent 8.5 per cent. Fifty-eight of them had 3.5 per cent and then there were

some umbrella groups. Then you had the Women's Enterprise and they had $1

million and the umbrella groups had $1.7 million. The total amount for the

fifty-eight development associations was $2.1 million, they had $250,000 for the

rural development council and $240,000 extra for the regional development

officers programs with four staffers in different parts of this island, $2.6

million all total. No great shakes of money but there is a job being done in

every portion of this Province except St. John's. Now you have the rules being

changed by slick bureaucrats here in this city. Now we have bureaucrats here and

good ones but we have some of them here who are not attuned to what is going on

out in rural Newfoundland. They won't look through the window in the morning

because then they won't have anything at all to do in the afternoon.

I noted the letter earlier that came from Ms. Duke, now I

know Ms. Duke's father and he is a fine man. I met Ms. Duke a few times and she

is a fine woman but whatever the attitude seems to be coming out of these

buildings came out in this letter and it is wrong. The women I know do not need

this. They can call their own meetings. They don't have to come into St. John's

to go Christmas shopping. They shop in their own places first then they go to

another place that is quite close to the region and then they might wind up

going to St. John's. I am at a loss for what is going on in some of these

offices here in St. John's.

I have known the minister for a number of years, the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology, I always found him alright, straight up Joe,

but there awhile ago in the Northern Pen he was quoted as development

associations, yes and there will be development associations hang on. There will

be some of them toughen it out for awhile and there are some that will go by the

wayside. Whose districts are they in? They could be any of us. I am not talking

about Liberals, PCs or NDPs here today because rural development associations go

far beyond.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I was employed for thirteen years with a

development association and never once did I ask a persons political affiliation

to get on a job, believe it or not Ripley. I was a better man than that.

Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt and talk to the Member for

Windsor - Buchans, I have heard people my entire life, home and abroad, who get

frustrated at one time or another and they say: I wish I were dead. But

contrary, the Member for Windsor - Buchans is the only person I ever heard in my

life saying: I wish I were alive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Get with it man! When it comes to doing

nothing he is another go getter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, I got my waterproof voice on

today and there is nobody who is going to drown me out when it comes to rural

development associations. They are far too important but the minister, I was

saying, I always found him alright but I was surprised and a bit hurt on August

15 when a quote appeared in The Northern Pen that associations, if they

want to run their association on their own, had better have some bingo games and

fund-raisers to keep it going because it isn't going to be funded through the

government purse.

Where is the minister now? He has gone somewhere out of this

room but he is in hearing distance, probably out in the Liberal common room. He

should be asked today, and should reply to it: I wonder if you are going to

allow the development associations with some of the few dollars or with a little

bit of administrative funding left, will they be able to buy 6/49 tickets? Will

they be able to purchase 6/49 tickets? Because their chances are just as good as

buying a 6/49 winning lottery ticket now as they are on this hell-bent way -

these zone boards and the Pandora's box that has been opened out in this

Province. Their chances to win on a 6/49 ticket are just as good as the

development association as a key stakeholder in this Province to get adequately

at the table of economic development in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister has gone for a bingo

licence, isn't he?

MR. CAREEN: I don't know. He will tell us when he comes

back.

We saw the minister the other day talking about funding for

development associations and he said: The development council alone has received

$4.3 million over that one-year period. The development associations plus the

council only received a little bit better than $2.3 million. So either the paper

made a mistake or the minister isn't sure of what is going on in the department.

My suggestion today, and I never had a chance to talk to

these gentlemen yet, but what I would like to ask the government today is to put

in place a committee of their own -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: For one second.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you. I would like to put in a committee

- I haven't talked to the Member for Port au Port - but I would like to suggest

to the government today that a committee be struck of Liberals - leave me out of

it - put in place as chaired by the Member for Port au Port with two other

Liberals, I don't care who they are, to dig in, to make sure that the rural

development component is going to get a fair shake. To be able to look at ENL

and to confer with ACOA on what are the real matters going on in this Province,

and to ensure that the development associations are not left out of economic

development in this Province.

I trust the Member for Port au Port as I've always trusted

him. He might be on one side with a different economic issue. That isn't the

point. In my own family there are disagreements on issues, but when you come to

trust I trust the Member for Port au Port. I suggest to the minister that as

quick as possible - because what we see in rural Newfoundland is the zones that

are open to people now is a Pandora's box. They are flocking there with their

own individual agendas and agendas that do not fulfil what rural Newfoundland

should be about. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I believe the members of the rural

development council, in speaking to this resolution, are in the gallery. Let me

first of all welcome them and congratulate them on the magnificent job that

they've done over the years for the maintenance of a way of life in rural

Newfoundland. Let me also congratulate the Member for Placentia.

I guess, if his resolution does nothing else, it forces us to

deal with the issue of rural development and its place in Newfoundland. Its

importance to the Province I don't believe can be over-emphasized. I think we

have to keep our eye on the ball, so to speak, and to make sure that the rural

development movement in this Province continues.

I had the privilege to be a founding member of the Gander Bay

- Hamilton Sound rural development association and I can tell you that they have

contributed greatly to that area. The President, or at least the former

President, of the Fogo Island Development Association is now the President of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council, and that association

has had the proud distinction of bringing to Fogo Island - indeed, of making

sure that Fogo Island survived in the 1960s. So the movement has contributed

greatly to this Province. And now, Mr. Speaker, without creating any fears of

massive movements of people and hidden subversive agendas, I must say to the

Member for Placentia, that over the last little while, since 1984 actually, when

I was on that side of the House where he now is, and some of the people over

there were on this side of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) like to be again.

MR. TULK: Maybe I will one of those days, who knows? But,

Mr. Speaker, let me say this to you, that I have had fears that there is and has

been a resettlement program underway in this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't

believe that was intentional on the part of the former Progressive Conservative

Government and I don't believe it is the intention on the part of any government

today but, Mr. Speaker, we do live in a time of financial restraint, when there

are financial problems and fiscal problems in every province in this country

everything together in a little bundle and say, that's much more easily managed,

therefore, do away with those outlying outports. Some people say it is

inevitable; maybe it is, I don't know, to be quite frank with you.

It is much easier, as I said, but I do believe that there are

certain programs in place, and I use, for example, the TAGS Program of the

Federal Government. There are certain programs in place today in this Province

which are leading to massive movements of people out of rural Newfoundland, and

contrary to what The Evening Telegram would have us believe, most of

those people, I believe, are fairly well-educated people as well. So, not only

are we losing people, we are losing a great deal of our leadership.

I have resisted those things in various ways and inasmuch as

anything tries to make that movement, I guess it is part of my nature that I

will resist it again, but I am not foolish enough, Mr. Speaker, to believe that

rural Newfoundland can survive on make-work programs, can survive on

Unemployment Insurance Programs or can survive on welfare programs, neither do I

believe that Newfoundlanders want it, and I think the massive movement, the

movement that we have seen out of this Province, the out-migration over the

years - not only now, but over the years, have shown that indeed they won't, and

therefore, I get upset with people like The Globe and Mail and The

Evening Telegram when they suggest that we are somehow lazy and indolent.

But, Mr. Speaker, there must be economic and social development in those smaller

communities if we are to survive. Nobody can be foolish enough, nobody should be

foolish enough to believe that he is going to survive otherwise. There has to be

economic development and there must be a partnership, I say to the Member for

Placentia, between the communities and between private enterprise, and I believe

that the rural development associations provided that link and I believe in some

ways, they still can.

The rural development movement is not necessarily any

particular association, as the member will agree, and I think members of the

Rural Development Council will agree, there are some associations in this

Province which perhaps haven't performed as well as others, but the movement is

still there.

In the 1980s and early 1990s in this Province, one thing that

became very clear, and I think we are all agreed, is that there was a

preponderance of organizations - the member listed the number, I believe it was

167 - a preponderance of organizations that were concerned with carrying on

economic development, that created intolerable red tape. I doubt that even the

rural development associations themselves, in many cases, could find their way

through it; and in many cases, I think we would agree, it was a waste of public

funds, as one person tried to do what the other person was doing. In other

words, the right hand didn't know, Mr. Speaker, what the left hand was doing.

And I think it is fair to say that the rural development associations themselves

agreed that indeed, that was the case, and they agreed to take

part in the

process, as has been documented by the minister, and as again was documented by

the member, that this must stop, that we must somehow come together and make our

efforts more efficient and more effective to establish a better way of doing

things and a better delivery process in the Province.

Subsequently, in May, 1994 a task force was established by

the Minister of ITT. There were four people, as I understand it, in various

capacities on that task force, from the development associations, four people

who had input. There was wide consultation in the Province. I understand, for

example, that there were twenty-two public briefings, that there were 235

written submissions, and forty private interviews. Out of those consultations,

Mr. Speaker, came an agreement on what now has become known as economic zonal

boards.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that the rural development movement

has been an economic contributor to the survival of rural Newfoundland, and I

want to say to the Member for Placentia that when I saw what was happening in

this Province, when I saw the commission put in place, I had the same concerns

that he had, and I expressed them to the minister, whom I had known for some

time, on a number of occasions. I told him I was afraid that we would throw out

the baby with the bath water.

I communicated that to him and I must say, in fairness to

him, that I want to congratulate him this evening on finding him very willing to

listen and to understand. Now, that is not surprising because I knew the

Minister of ITT when he came into this House in 1985, and let me say to you that

he was then, and I believe still remains, a friend of rural Newfoundland. When,

and if a leadership is called, he would certainly be on my list, let me say to

the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, to be quite honest with the Member for Placentia

this evening, I would like for the whole fifty-nine development associations to

have the same kind of authority, the same kind of funding, and the same kind of

help as the nineteen economic zonal boards are now going to have. But I am also

a realist and in today's world I think we have to know that a compromise has to

be reached.

I had this discussion with the minister - I think the

minister will recall it, and if he speaks in this debate this evening I believe

he will refer to it. I think what we are seeing here is a decentralization

downwards, because those zonal boards, for example, in my own case, will operate

out of Gander, instead of some faraway St. John's, and we are also seeing some

centralization upwards, in that the smaller rural development boards, many of

them are maybe not going to have the same decision-making powers that they did

have.

I said to the minister then, and I say to him now, and I know

he agrees, that if the participation of the rural development movement is right

in the formation of provisional boards, and then permanent boards, I think that

compromise is a good one, and I believe that the rural development movement, by

and large, can be that connection. It must not be cut off, and I think,

Minister, it was on October 16 that I wrote you a letter suggesting that,

indeed, must be the case, that they must not be cut off. But, on the other hand,

we cannot continue the status quo, we cannot continue just to keep funding two

or three parallel organizations. The cash is just not there. You cannot continue

to fund rural development associations totally on the one hand and the economic

zonal boards on the other. There must be movement, there must be movement

forward, and I suspect that is the dilemma the minister has found himself in.

Now, I say again, the rural development associations must be part of that

forward movement, and it was in that light that I wrote the minister on October

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I think it is something like seven or eight

minutes.

I wrote the minister a letter saying that, indeed, had to be

the case.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has nine minutes left.

MR. TULK: Nine minutes.

I believe that what the Member for Placentia is putting

forward to us this evening represents the status quo. As I understand it, from

talks I have had with the minister on rural development associations, we are in

a situation in this Province today where some organizations are in a better

position than others to take advantage of this concept of the zonal boards. I

understand, for example, that some have cash on hand to take them through this

reorganization - their own cash - and some are already taking advantage of

agreements with the management committee. For example, I believe in the Member

for Ferryland's district there is what is called an archaeological dig going on

now, and I believe the development co-ordinator is working full time with that

group.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, I believe that is the case. So that

development association must also be a little further along in the process.

Some, like I know Gander Bay - Hamilton Sound, and I suspect, Fogo Island

Development Associations, are in a position where, unless they soon start

getting some new funding, they are going to be forced to close down, and that is

not acceptable. So they have to be treated differently, but they also have to

move forward, and I believe the minister intends to do that. Subsequently, Mr.

Speaker, I am going to move an amendment to the resolution put forward by the

Member for Placentia, and it reads as follows:

I move to amend the motion presented by the Member for

Placentia. I move to delete paragraphs 4 and 6, and replace with the following:

WHEREAS the Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement is

able to fund economic initiatives and provide support for organizations

performing necessary economic development functions based upon requests for

support which demonstrate viability and a clear work plan; and

WHEREAS all future support for regional economic development

within the economic zones will be based upon regional strategic plans and

performance contracts to implement those plans, with any funding for

administration for sub-zonal organizations such as rural development

associations based upon contribution to economic development and performance;

and

WHEREAS rural development associations have been key

participants in the task force and provisional board process;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourage rural

development associations and their volunteer members to continue their active

participation in the provisional board process, and until the Strategic Economic

Plans for each zone are developed to submit proposals to the SRDA which can

provide support based upon financial need, merit, and the availability of funds.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Fogo has, for some

reason, decided to change the entire intent of the resolution as put forward by

the Member for Placentia. The Member for Placentia is calling upon the

government for continuous funding until such time as the zonal boards are in a

position to provide administrative support and assistance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Fogo, in his amendment to

the resolution, is not at all in step with this present resolution. It changes

the intent of the resolution because he is doing what the government wants to

have done in this Province, and that is scuttle the rural development movement.

That's what the Member for Fogo is up to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that cannot be allowed to

continue. I submit to you, Your Honour - is the Government House Leader trying

to intimidate someone? Because you are certainly not going to intimidate me, I

say to the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible), that's all.

MR. TOBIN: I submit, Your Honour, that this resolution is

completely and totally out of order. It changes the complete intent of the

resolution, which is to provide continuous funding to the rural development

associations in this Province. The Member for Fogo has tried to scuttle that

intent, wants the government to withdraw continuous support to the rural

development movement, and in so doing, the resolution is not in order, I would

submit, Your Honour.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, now that I have caught Your

Honour's eye, let me make a submission with respect to the point of order that

the amendment, in my judgement, and my submission, is in order.

Of course, it changes the intent of the resolution. That is

the whole point of an amendment, to present an alternate proposition to the

House, that if the House prefers, it can adopt as an alternative. My friend,

`Byrne Secundus' over there, is looking through the orders. He will find that,

whether that is Standing Orders or in Beauchesne, that is parliamentary

practice, first day, first lecture. His father-in-law would know that and he

should know it, too. I submit, Sir, the amendment is in order. Your Honour may

wish to take a recess to consider it and consult with the clerks at the Table. I

submit it is in order because it does present an alternate proposition which

gives the House a choice as to which opinion it intends to express.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I wish to speak to that point of order, Mr.

Speaker. The government side has the opportunity to defeat the resolution. It

doesn't have the authority to change a private member's resolution that is

intended to continue funding. This amendment is taking away funding. It is

completely against the intent of the specific resolution presented. They have an

option other than amendments, to defeat it, and not to amend it in such a manner

that destroys the future intent of this specific resolution so that any future

speakers, then, would be speaking on an amendment not to give funding when the

original one is to continue the funding. That is taking away the intent and it

should be ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, to the point

of order.

MR. TULK: Of course, I say to the hon. gentleman, it

changes the intent of the previous resolution, and that is perfectly allowed in

this House. It does not, Mr. Speaker, in any way, take away from the funding for

rural development associations in this Province. As a matter of fact, it

provides a better way in which to give them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recess the House for a few minutes to check

with the Table.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, Paragraph 567: "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." Sir Erskine May, as quoted in

Beauchesne.

I declare the amendment in order.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude. I don't believe I

have that much time left, but I was going to say if it is necessary then I would

- the Member for Lapoile would second that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TULK: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TULK: Time is up. Oh, Mr. Speaker!

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. TULK: Any leave, or what?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

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

MR. TULK: I haven't been doing this for a long time.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: We will be willing to give the hon. member

leave, Mr. Speaker, if he is prepared to table the petitions regarding the

Department of Fisheries that he circulated throughout the Province.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that isn't a point of order, but

the hon. gentleman can rest assured that I have no problem in telling him at a

later date why the petitions have not been tabled in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. the

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am amazed, simply amazed at the Member for Fogo, to stand

up in his seat for ten to fifteen minutes and praise up what the rural

development associations have done in this Province over the past number of

years and then to move an amendment that is going to continue to put them on the

train to get out of here. That is exactly what you have done, I say to the

Member for Fogo. You are allowed today to stand up and put an amendment to a

motion when you were not allowed to present thousands of names of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who signed petitions out around this Province

to bring to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I had fishermen in my district down in St.

Mary's Bay and Placentia Bay, Mr. Speaker, who went all around their communities

gathering up petitions to forward to this member. Where are the petitions now?

Up in your office, because you are not allowed to present them in the House. You

are not allowed. You stood here yesterday and seconded a motion for the Member

for Twillingate and then you voted against it because you were not allowed to

second that either. You are only a puppet, I say to the Member for Fogo, a

puppet.

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

Labour Relations, on a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, over the years - I think on

three different occasions, an hon. member referred to another hon. member as an

animal, and I think it is only in order that the hon. member, that a pup is -

AN HON. MEMBER: We weren't talking about a pup. Don't you

know the difference between a pup and a puppet?

MR. MURPHY: I say to you, Your Honour, that the member

should be obviously - the Chair should recognize it and ask him to withdraw that

statement.

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

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

The hon. minister knows full well that the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes called the member a puppet, someone who dangles on a string

for someone else, Mr. Speaker - not a puppy who barks and yaps, a puppet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the minister.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would not call the minister a puppet,

I would call him a puppy, but I would call the Member for Fogo a puppet. So I

want to submit that `puppet', Your Honour, is not -

AN HON. MEMBER: Call him what you want.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I wouldn't do that - that would

certainly be unparliamentary. But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that `puppet' is

not unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, you may try to slow me down with your points of order the same way

you are trying to stop rural development associations in this Province, but you

won't succeed with me and you won't succeed with them, I say to the Member for

St. John's South.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to say a few words

on the private member's resolution put forward by the Member for Placentia. I

come from a background of living in rural Newfoundland, being a volunteer with

the local development association in my community and following up to be a

co-ordinator with the association. Since I became elected to the House of

Assembly, I have had continuous dialogue with the four development associations

in my district, who are continually trying to find better ways of improving

rural Newfoundland. I say, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened here over the

past couple of years is nothing but a cold slap in the face to the many

Newfoundlanders who have been trying to improve the way of life in rural

Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the demise of the development associations, in

my recollection - I could be wrong but I will make a statement - it started in

Goose Bay at an annual general meeting, I say to members opposite. I am sure

there may be members in the gallery here today who can remember that famous

meeting that we had in Goose Bay when the government of the day sent down - they

had it all planned, they need not try to tell us any different - they sent down

and they made sure that `Woody Woodpecker' got elected as president of the

Development Council for this Province, and he stated pecking away, Mr. Speaker,

bit by bit by bit. He started pecking away, on the orders, I would say, of the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, to do away slowly but surely with

development associations - the orders of `Minister Slick' himself. Because he

got slick orders from `Minister Slick' to do away with the development

associations in this Province, and it has been going on now for two years, Mr.

Speaker.

On December 8, 1993 - no, Mr. Speaker, I will go back a

little before that. When we were elected here on May 3, 1993 and during that

summer I had talked with development associations in my district and I had grave

concerns at that time as to what the plans were for development associations in

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, on September 25, 1993, in The Evening

Telegram , Craig Jackson did a story where I had made some comments on what I

believed the government's plans were for rural development associations in this

Province. And the Premier said to the reporter: `Fabian Manning, P.C. of St.

Mary's - The Capes is merely speculating and starting rumours; perhaps Manning

jumped to the conclusion, because the Strategic Economic Plan deals with the

issue.' I was starting rumours, the Premier said back in 1993, and he went on to

say: `Nothing has happened in the last week, in the last month, in the last two

months that justified Mr. Manning's comment or justified Mr. Manning raising

that issue.

MR. TOBIN: Who said it?

MR. MANNING: The Premier said it on September 25, 1993 in

The Evening Telegram , he said nothing has happened. Well, a lot has

happened since then, Mr. Speaker. A lot has happened through a hidden agenda by

this government to do away with rural development associations in this Province.

I was right then, and I am right now, I say to members opposite and to every

member in this House of Assembly, that the government had a plan a long time ago

and it started in Goose Bay, when they elected Woody Woodpecker, the President

of the Development Council, I say to members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, development associations have been part of this

Province for going on thirty years now. There have been thousands of volunteers,

Mr. Speaker, thousands of volunteers involved in thousands, in hundreds of

thousands, I say, of hours of community service to parts outside the overpass in

St. John's. It has been a grass roots movement that started in the kitchens and

living rooms of many homes in rural Newfoundland, dedicated individuals, Mr.

Speaker. And I can name a couple in my own district - people like Eva Coffey of

Angels Cove; Ray Molloy down in St. Shotts; Andy Careen of Point Lance;

Sylvester Yetman of St. Mary's. Among the four of them, they have over 100 years

of service in development associations in this Province. But what did this

government say? Instead of saying `thank you', they say ` out the door' - that

is basically what they are saying. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I say that is the plan that

they have for the rural development associations in this Province.

Being a part of rural development association hasn't been

easy, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that any of those people I mentioned and any of

those thousands of volunteers in this Province who have been part of it, will

tell you it is not easy. But they have always been attempting to shape - with a

development association in your own community, you have the opportunity, I say,

to shape and determine your own destiny, to be part of the planning and part of

the process. Government has allowed over the past number of years $36,500 to be

allotted for each development association in this Province, to survive on;

$36,500, Mr. Speaker, that is what this government has allotted for fifty-nine

development associations in this Province to a total of $2,153,000; and now,

they look and tell us in rural Newfoundland now that they had no more money.

This government says: we have no more funds to fund

development associations in this Province, but still, they found $10 million,

Mr. Speaker, to try to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, when most of

the Province was against it. They found between $2 million and $3 million to

hold a referendum on education, that has divided this Province right down the

middle. They have spent millions, God knows how many millions, on the Trans-City

deal for their buddies, and then they say: We don't have any money left for

development associations; $36,500 would only buy forty-five-and-a-half $800

briefcases, I say to members opposite, that's all you get out of $36,500;

$36,500 would only buy sixty-six $100-door knobs, I say to members opposite.

I say to the Member for St. John's South, you don't have a

problem that we have out in rural Newfoundland, nobody is speaking -

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't even know where he is now.

MR. MANNING: I don't even talk to the Member for St.

John's South. He doesn't know where he lives, so it is hard to say he knows what

is going on out in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the value of development associations in this

Province is documented in this book right here, and I am sure all members

opposite have received it - a 25-year report of what they have done in this

Province for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If I could have the

opportunity for a minute to read a letter I received, not from somebody who has

been involved in development associations, Mr. Speaker, not from somebody who

has been part of the process and part of the work over the last twenty-five or

thirty years. I want to read a letter from a Level II student in Trepassey:

`Dear Mr. Manning: I am writing regarding the upcoming

decision by government to cut funding to development associations across our

Province. I am a Level II student and I feel that the past economic downturn has

caused enough job losses in our local communities. Why cut more? We have a small

enough percentage of people employed in our area, and to reduce this further

would be unfair and unjust.

The development association in Trepassey is responsible for

its citizens, as well as those from Portugal Cove South, Biscay Bay, St. Shotts,

Peter's River, St. Stephens and St. Vincent's. Though certain members of our

government may look upon development associations as co-ordinators of make-work

projects, I am sure that the people employed on these projects would not agree.

Since 1991 our development association has employed approximately 260

individuals in various capacities on several employment programs. In the last

couple of years' - and I touch on this specifically - `eleven full-time jobs

involving information technology, communications, and work on our salmon rivers

have been created. It takes only $36,500 per year to provide our communities

with these benefits.

Development association co-ordinators and volunteers know

most of the people in our area on a first-name basis. Approaching the idea of

community development on a zonal level will destroy this personal touch. Mr.

Manning, I am asking you to think long and hard about this decision, and the

effects it can and will have on our Province. At risk are not only a few measly

jobs, but rural Newfoundland itself.'

Mr. Speaker, that came from Candace Curtis in Trepassey, and

I can't put it any better myself than that young girl put it.

What does the future hold for rural Newfoundland? Nobody can

easily stand up and say, but without a doubt everybody, I am sure, would agree

that there are hard, tough, economic times coming around. There are hard times

on our social system, and the uncertainly that faces many rural communities

today, as far as I am concerned, is a reason, without a doubt in my mind, for

the continuation of rural development associations.

MR. DUMARESQUE: They will continue.

MR. MANNING: They will not continue, I say to the Member

for Eagle River.

Now is not the time to put the brakes to a movement that has

shaped rural Newfoundland for almost three decades. Now is not the time to put

the brakes to it, I say to hon. members opposite. Do not try to run rural

Newfoundland with a glorified management committee based in St. John's, in an

ivory tower in St. John's. That has been the game plan from day one, it is the

game plan today, and it will be the game plan in the future. We want to run

rural Newfoundland from St. John's, and that is the bottom line that we are

talking here. My understanding already is that this committee is issuing orders

to zonal board members: You can do this, and you can't do that, and so on.

As I said before, Joey Smallwood, the Premier of this

Province a number of years ago, brought in a resettlement program. While I don't

agree with everything Joey Smallwood did, I have to give one nod for Mr.

Smallwood in that he came in the front door. He came in the front door, sat down

with the people and told them straight up, `I am moving you out'. This

government comes in the back door, opens up the front and kicks you out. That is

the game plan. There is no such thing as being honest and straight up with this

government. They are doing it the back-door style, and I say that rural

Newfoundland will remember what this government has done to them.

The other night I happened to be in St. Mary's to a

graduation, and the Principal of the school, Miss Shirley Yetman, was giving a

message. Part of her message, I would like to read out here, if I could, and I

believe it resembles what this side of the House is trying to put forward here

today. Part of the message went something like this:

`If you have ever seen a stream in the mountain, you know

that it bubbles along over rocks and sometimes over rapids. There are waterfalls

and whirlpools, and it can often be rough and violent. Yet, that water is clear;

it sparkles in the sun; it is pure. Take that same stream and place a dam in its

way so that it stops in the same place, never flowing, never changing, and it

becomes a stagnant pool, the water dull and unfit to drink.'

Well, Mr. Speaker, rural Newfoundland is a lot like that.

There are always rocks of work and rapids of life that we must go over, but if

we dam it, if we put a dam across it, we become stagnant and uninteresting. When

we let ourselves get into life, however, and let ourselves flow, then our lives

pick up speed and flow like the river. Sure, there are troubles and work, and

sure, we will get tired and weary, but we will also grow and learn, and we will

come alive as we work to be the best that we can be.

Mr. Speaker, today we stand in this House and we ask the

Minister of ITT and we ask this government in all sincerity to continue to fund

the rural development associations of this Province while they are putting these

zonal boards in place. There are some boards that are not in place yet. We want

continued funding for the development associations. We want continued funding,

not continued talk. We want continued funding, we want dollars, I say to hon.

members, not on November 30th, thrown three sheets to the wind. We want $36,500

for those development associations. That is what we are asking here today in the

private member's resolution as put forward by my friend, the Member for

Placentia.

What does the government do? They try to come in, they bring

in their big bully from Fogo, and they try to scuttle what the Member for

Placentia is trying to bring forward here today, that's what they are trying to

do.

Mr. Speaker, you don't have to go very far to see what rural

development associations have done for this Province. I can get in my car and

drive from one end of my district to the other and look at many things in the

community that development associations have been involved in. Over the past

number of years, because of job creation projects, development associations have

been getting a black eye. But it is the government of the day that came forward

with these job creation programs, the short-term work. That was a policy of

government. Therefore, they came and they depended on development associations

to deliver the goods.

Now, if all the dollars that had been spent in rural

Newfoundland over the years had been a success story, the government would be

taking all the credit. But the opposite is what happened. We had some failures

throughout rural Newfoundland that caused many problems for development

association people, and because of that, then, government decides to turn on

development associations for the failure, when really, it was `from the top,

down' approach that caused the problems, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: But I say to to the minister, don't throw

out the baby with the bath water, Mr. Furey. I say, rural development is on

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to join this debate. I would just mention to the

Member for Placentia the reason why we altered this resolution. It is not

something we wanted to do, nor did we take it lightly, but the wording of this

particular resolution provides for administrative envelopes for two separate

organizations and, as I mentioned to the Rural Development Council and others,

we just don't have the money. It is just not available.

We redesigned and reshaped the resolution to keep available

the option for those groups that require funding on a project basis where they

can go directly to the management team, and that is exactly what this says. It

says that we encourage the rural development associations, their volunteer

members, to continue their very good active participation in the provisional

board process, and until the strategic economic plans for each zone are

developed, to submit proposals directly to the SRDA, which can provide support

based on financial need, merit and availability of funds. I think that is a very

fair amendment which provides that opportunity for every single association.

Let me say at the outset to those people who are flailing

about creating bogeymen, saying that somehow the government and its members

don't support the rural development movement, I want to make it quite clear that

the government is very grateful - the previous government, I'm sure, is too -

for all of the good work that was ever done and will continue to be done by the

1,300 volunteers that make up the rural development movement across this

Province. They have done exceptional work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: In fact, Mr. Speaker, the first rural

development association, I'm happy and proud to say, was organized on the Great

Northern Peninsula in 1967, nearly thirty years ago.

MR. ROBERTS: That is right. Flower's Cove - the old NRDA.

I was there.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in this report - and I want to

make something else perfectly clear. This report, it is not something that the

government wrote. We didn't write this report. We made provision, provided

funding, allowed for the consultation and put in place the task force of men and

women to conduct the consultations across the Province to bring us back this

report. We didn't write this report. I'm happy to say that there was very good

participation by the rural development movement.

Tony Collins, who is here today in the gallery, and who

served his Province very, very well in the rural development movement,

participated in this report, and was proud, I think, to participate in these

consultations. The former president, Woodrow Mullett, participated in these

discussions. Barbara Genge a former coordinator, I believe -

MR. ROBERTS: A former constituent of mine.

MR. FUREY: - from White Bay South participated and is a

signatory central to this, and Cynthia Downey from the West Coast who has done

excellent work in rural development has also participated in this report, so

this is not something that the government has tossed down on the people. This is

a report that has come back to government and in the main 98 per cent of this

report has been accepted with a few minor variations. We added an extra zone on

the Great Northern Peninsula and we made some other adjustments.

There are some interesting things in this report. On Page 30:

`rural development associations, however, are no longer the sole organizational

vehicle for rural development in Newfoundland. RDAs have witnessed the growth of

municipal government, sectoral voluntary organizations, and various government

supported economic development agencies over the years. Competition for scarce

resources and the need to define a clear role have forced the re-evaluation of

previous approaches to development.'

That is not me saying that, Mr. Speaker, that is the report

from this commission, passed to government, telling us that there are scarce

resources. It goes on to talk about the volunteer movement being the backbone of

rural development. I can only agree with that, Mr. Speaker. When I look at my

own district I see the three associations that have performed absolutely

sterling work over the last number of years in my own area. The Bonne Bay

Development Association that have built a whole range of things. They took an

old abandoned fish plant, revived it, and started to use it for under-utilized

species, created an economy in the Winterhouse Brook area, and also created a

craft store at the edge of the park which I think has done just wonderfully, and

it has helped to sustain them. The Central Development Association just north

and the arctic char project they have been involved in is an excellent piece of

work, excellent designation under the SEP for agriculture, and I think they are

going fabulous work. Further north, the St. Barbe Development Association have

done wonderful work in developing new parks, creating summer jobs for young

people, and that kind of thing.

Mr. Speaker, change is inevitable. I do not think anybody has

to fear change and I can tell you this, that we either manage change or just as

sure as all fifty-two of us are elected to this place change will manage us.

There are, as I said in Question Period today, shrinking revenues, scarce

resources, frozen cooperation agreements, and I think we have only just started

to see the beginning of this, Mr. Speaker. I do not think Ottawa has really come

with the deep cuts that are required to protect the country's rating in the bond

markets, and I think you are going to see a very difficult Budget coming down

out of Ottawa very soon as well.

In this environment of scarce resources we have to be very

careful in how we use them. Zone 13 has a newsletter out and one of the quotes

in here is, `the most effective way to cope with change is to help create it.' I

do not think we should be frightened of change. Change is inevitable, but for

anybody to say that we are going to scare away the rural development movement,

chase away all of the volunteers, and not leave a meaningful role for them to

play in a future economy in the communities of our Province, is just utter

nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and scaremongering. They have a very valuable role. They

have participated in a very meaningful way for nearly thirty years and they will

continue to do so well into the future.

Mr. Speaker, in June 1992 we released a Strategic Economic

Plan. We identified in here that there is no way we can deliver services to the

800 communities that stretch along 10,000 miles of coastline in this Province,

so we set about presenting to the Province a map which divided the Province into

seventeen economic zones on Page 16 of that plan. In there we said that people

collectively in a cooperative spirit have to come together to create their own

strategies for their own particular part of the Province for their own future.

When that was tabled we started to see cooperation happen very quickly and full

marks go to the Newfoundland Federation of Municipalities, and the Newfoundland

and Labrador Rural Development Council. They came together to start talking

about how they could cooperate. In fact it was in response to the Newfoundland

and Labrador Rural Development Cooperation Council that we decided to even put

in place this task force, and we did that allowing the people to speak, and we

waited for them to report back.

We listened carefully to the briefs that were presented, to

the discussions that took place, and we waited for the final report to come

back. But we didn't abandon people, Mr. Speaker. We put in place a process to

extend what was then the expired rural development agreement. I think it was

number three at the time. We put in place a process to extend the money so that

they could be carried for a period of time to participate in a meaningful way in

the task force. We did that, and we did it at a cost of $1.3 million.

Then we had a couple of more extensions. Because in fairness

to the rural development movement and to the associations we couldn't just

accept the task in February of this year and all of the recommendations that

were there and abandon them without allowing them to have some time, effort, and

provide some seed money for them to carry on forward and participate in these

recommendations. So we added another $650,000 to the pot, and another $650,000

after that, on February 10 I believe it was. After that we said: Let's make sure

that there is money on the table to allow for a meaningful participation by the

rural development movement. So from April of this year to September 30 we put

another $1.3 million on the table. Some boards were a little late getting up and

running, the provisional boards, so we made provision to add another $400,000 to

the pot, for a total of $4.3 million.

That isn't walking away from people, that isn't abandoning

people. It is staying there with our money, with our time, it is recognizing

their effort, and it is recognizing that they will have a meaningful

participation and role in the nineteen zones.

I had an interesting meeting and a good meeting and a very

frank meeting with the Rural Development Council a couple of hours ago. I guess

we had about an hour and a half in my board room. I understand the fears that

were articulated by the Council, I really do. I do understand it. I tried to

make my case, that it is a very limited pot of money. I tried to explain that

there are no new cooperation agreements, there are cuts coming down from Ottawa,

there is very little new money around, but the money that was earmarked for the

Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement for small- and medium-size

businesses was frozen and moved over to the nineteen zones. That is where we

took the money to give life to carry on and extend the life of the rural

development associations.

We agreed on three things, I think, basically. I understand

where they are coming from; I think they understand where I'm coming from. We

need to find some middle ground so that we can all get through this process and

each of us participate in a meaningful way. In order to do that we've agreed we

need to look at what are the financial circumstances of all fifty-nine

associations. I wonder how many members in this House know what the financial

circumstances are of their particular association in their particular area.

I happen to know one in my area. I don't know the other two,

but I happen to know one in my own area. But you can't make a judgement to give

a blank cheque to just throw the blanket over the entire group and keep adding

money. At some point in time there is a cutoff where you make the transition

from the old to the new, but you want the people from the old to continue to

participate in a meaningful way in the new. I can tell you this: We've agreed to

review the financial statements of all fifty-nine associations up until

September 30 of this year to see what is their cash position. I don't want to

know what their assets are. I know some of them own millions of dollars worth of

assets. But what is your cash position at the end of September. Now, I've

extended to the end of November, but what is your cash position at the end of

September?

I know of one association in my own district whose cash

position at the end of the fiscal year this year, March 31, was $58,000 in cash.

Now, should we extend and give extra money from a limited pot to that group who

have cash on hand to carry on with their activities?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Ah, I am getting to that. Let me finish, now.

I have not interrupted you. Let me finish and I will answer any questions.

So the rural development council, along with our team from

Enterprise Newfoundland, will diligently perform that exercise over the next

three or four weeks to see what is the actual cash position at the end of

September for the fifty-nine separate entitles? I would like to know, and I am

sure you would like to know.

I also went a step further and said, when we see what the

situation is, I will commit that those that are poorer and are in need can

approach the Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement with their projects,

and that they will get priority, and that is only fair and proper and right to

do. I think they agreed with that.

The other thing we agreed was to have a meeting very quickly

with the four regional development officers - you know that there are four

around the Province - to come to St. John's and meet with the management

committee of this Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement, to understand

and make clear what the criteria are for the project funding so that they can

disseminate that information back out around the Province. That is what we

committed to today, Mr. Speaker. I think that is an example of fairness and

balance at its best.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Now, the Member for Ferryland was going to ask

me something, I think.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: The Member for Ferryland, I think, is a good

example of how we have treated the situation fairly. In his own district there

is a magnificent dig happening out at Ferryland, an archaeological dig. There

was an example of a development association whom I have a lot of time for out

there. I thought Loretta Ryan, who I believe was a former president of the whole

movement, absolutely superb person, in fact I think she was the lady who

rejected government money at one point in time. I was tickled pink when I saw

that; I have to be honest with you. I thought she was right on the money. But

here is an example of a development association that approached the regional

development agreement, the management team, with a solid project, and were

approved last week, I think, for $40,000 - community driven - where the

co-ordinator will be hired by that particular project to make sure it runs and

to make sure it goes forward. I think it is a superb project. I think it fits

your strategic plan. I think your zone will just admire it. It is a fabulous

piece of work, and it has tremendous economic potential on the other end of the

line, and I think you would agree with that. So there is an example of a

development -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FUREY: Do you mind if I take a few more minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FUREY: I won't be too long.

There is another example on the Great Northern Peninsula. The

six development associations own a corporation called `The Great Northern

Peninsula Development Corporation'. They went right directly to the management

agreement on their Arctic Char project. They were approved for $35,000 last

week, so it is working. It is just that I think we have to do a better job of

communicating to people that there are other sources of funding, and that is

what this amendment says. It says: Look, if you want to bring a project directly

to the management agreement, come to the agreement, but we have just put in that

caveat now, after our meeting with the rural development council. We have agreed

to do an assessment of the fifty-nine associations to find out what their real

cash and investment earnings are to the end of September this year. Once we

judge all those, we will have a column of those that are in need, those that are

okay cash wise, and those that are very, very well off, and some of them are

well off. I can tell hon. members of one association that has $100,000 in its

account today - $100,000. Surely you do not want me to extend their funding.

That would be insane; it just would not be right.

So I think we had a good and productive meeting with the

council. I think we are going to get back on track. I really firmly believe that

the nineteen zones is the correct way to go. I think it focuses economic

development, and I am proud to tell you that seventeen of the nineteen boards

are up-and-running. Thirteen of the budgets are approved. Four more will be

approved either today or tomorrow. I really believe there is a lot of support

out there for this particular process. If somebody else knows another magic way

to create economic development in a very large and wide and

difficult piece of geography, I would like to know about it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just take a

few moments to deal with the resolution as put forward by the Member for

Placentia.

I would like to say first that his, `be it resolved' simply

says this, that this House of Assembly unanimously agree to provide

administrative support for development associations and their volunteer members

until such time as zone boards are in a position to provide such administrative

support and assistance. Not an unreasonable request from where I stand and not

an unreasonable request from the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development

Council because it was a commitment made to them by the task force and they were

led to believe that this would happen but it has not.

The minister was very eloquent in describing the history of

the movement and the impact that it has had on economic development in rural

Newfoundland. Nobody in this Chamber is going to question that but that is not

what this amendment and this Private Members' Resolution is about. This

resolution talks about one thing and one thing only, it talks about bridging the

gap from the old to the new - to use the ministers words - that is all it is

about. A period of time anywhere from two days to eighteen months if necessary,

until such time that zone boards are in a position to fund administrative or

other projects put forward by the rural development movement or rural

development councils within their own areas.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware, he probably failed to

recognize it or to speak about it but he is surely aware, as he is sitting in

that seat right now, that when the task force put together its recommendations

the rural development council played an integral role in developing what

recommendations came from that task force. They embraced the concept, as the

minister knows. They saw it as an opportunity to redefine what their role would

be in economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador and they ran with it,

hand in hand with the government and they should be congratulated but they have

been let down, that is the point. That is what this resolution is about, put

forward by my hon. colleague, the Member for Placentia. Why have they been let

down? That is the issue that we must get at here today and in getting at it we

will get at why this resolution was put forward. It is simply this, the minister

knows, as other members who have taken any time to read or who have a direct

interest, either past or now, in the rural development movement, that the task

force seriously underestimated the time it would take to implement its

recommendations, that is the bottom line.

On page 70 of the report it clearly states: the task force

saw itself as saying that it is important that the umbrella organizations of

various regional development associations or stakeholders play a coordinating

role during this transitional time, this bridging time that the minister so

talked about, taking the old and the new and moving it forward. The Newfoundland

and Labrador Rural Development Council, which is currently funded by government,

should have its funding continued during this transitional period but the task

force saw its transitional period as being only six months but it is taking

longer. The minister knows that, the members of the task force know that, rural

development council stakeholders, who played a

part in this task force know

that, so what is the problem?

Two things, Mr. Speaker, that must be considered here now and

we must talk about frankly is that during this process it was not discussed by

the task force at all, at any meeting. This is something that came about after,

a wrinkle that was introduced after, that all applications to the zone board and

the sub-regional boards must be project driven. A very big wrinkle when we look

at what is happening with the rural development council today. A big wrinkle but

mostly, Mr. Speaker, I asked questions on this very subject in the House on

Monday and I asked the minister directly why will he or his department not

extend funding to the rural development associations in the Province during this

interim or transitional period? It is not a huge request.

I am happy to see that the minister met with representatives

from the movement today, and I'm happy to see that if there are associations

which are in a position financially to take care of themselves and their

activities during this transitional period, fair enough. But there are many that

are not. The minister knows this as well. He knows it as well as anybody in this

House. If he doesn't know it then he as minister is not doing his job, because

that is his job. What is happening and emanating from this task force report

comes directly under his authority. That is the reality of it.

It isn't an unreasonable request, I say again. The rural

development movement has supported government in its role to increase economic

development. It has supported the process that this government has put in place.

But they did it with certain conditions applied. That during the transitional

period interim funding would be provided. The minister is correct when he talks

about that funding was provided up to a certain point, and they took $400,000

more and gave it again. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. This wasn't

the charity of the government and the charity of the minister; it was something

that they were committed to doing and should be now committed to keep doing

until this period is over. That is what we are talking about here today.

For the Member for Fogo to introduce the amendment to this

resolution that he has, he has done one thing and one thing only. He not only

has watered down the spirit of the resolution, but he has changed the intent of

it altogether, and frankly that is unacceptable.

Let me leave with saying this to the minister and to the

government. Everybody on this side of the House understands the financial

constraints that this Province is operating under today. Nobody can

underestimate the significance that will have on the services that this

government or any future government will offer. But any government, either

today, this government, or a future government, must be able to live up to the

commitment it makes, whether that is six months ago or six days ago or six years

ago, if at all possible. I think that the commitment here to provide interim

funding is within the grasp of government to provide if the political will

exists to do it.

Let me say one final thing before I sit down and give other

members the opportunity. I'm not going to take up my entire fifteen minutes

because I know there are many members in the House sitting here today who wish

to have some commentary on the resolution. Because they know themselves, they

understand themselves, and fully appreciate the seriousness of what we are

debating.

Mr. Speaker, if funding was provided during this transitional

interim period to those associations who need it the most, to those associations

who by providing it, projects that are ongoing right now would continue, would

not have to be shelved, until six months or eighteen months from now. Because

that is the period of time in which we are talking about. Not all the

provisional boards are up and running; not all the boards are in a position to

provide funding; not all the sub-regional boards are ready to go after projects.

That is what we are talking about, and that is the spirit of

this motion. I stand today side by side with my colleague for Placentia in

supporting the private member's resolution that he puts forward. Because it

makes not only economic sense for Newfoundland and Labrador, especially rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, but it makes sense from this point of view:

Government made a commitment, government must live up to that commitment. Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to

rise and participate in this debate today on the resolution put forward by my

good friend for Placentia. As most people in this House would be aware, I can

speak from some experience with regards to the rural development movement,

having served with the association in Port au Port for some twenty years, and

having the privilege for some five years to serve as the president of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council. I can say to the members of

this House that during my years working as a volunteer with the Port au Port

economic development association, and also working as the president of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council, I saw many challenges, and

there were many obstacles. It seemed that we were constantly being confronted by

hurdles that we had to overcome.

There were many times in the past - and I am sure my hon.

friend from Placentia will recall the famous or infamous debate that we had some

years ago in Grand Falls - when the future of the rural development movement in

this Province was on the line, when at that time, the funding from the federal

government was at risk and really, it was only because of the strong stand taken

by the membership in coming together and standing together, that we were able at

that point in time to avoid the situation whereby the development associations

would have ceased to exist.

As has been pointed out to us this afternoon, the rural

development associations in this Province have been around for a number of

years. My own association in Port au Port, of which I am still proud to be a

member and a member of the Executive, is now approaching thirty years that it

has been in existence.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. SMITH: Thirty years, which means that it certainly

has earned some credibility during that point in time, and the rural development

movement is such that it is unique to this Province in that it is a grass-roots

movement. This is not an organization that either the federal or provincial

government decided to create but in fact, it was something that grew up in rural

Newfoundland and primarily it grew up in response to a very serious problem that

was seen to exist there and I guess primarily - and we have heard reference to

it here today, most of the associations grew up in response to the efforts of

the government of the day to resettle the people from rural Newfoundland, and it

was primarily in that context that many of the associations that exist in the

Province today, had their beginning.

As for my own association in Port au Port, it grew up in

response to the fact that this was in the mid-60s around the time that the

American Base was closing down, and people were faced with the prospect of not

having employment and not having a reason for seeing the communities continue in

that area, so it was in that context that the Port au Port Economic Development

Association grew up, and during the course of those thirty years, it has endured

and it hasn't always been easy but it has endured and it certainly has been a

major player in economic development in that region of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard reference in recent days to the

fact that rural development associations in this Province, after being around

for thirty years, surely now should be in a position where they can stand on

their own, that they should no longer require financial support from either

level of government in order for them to continue, and I suppose there is some

merit to that; but anyone who espouses that view, really, is not considering the

fact that for most of those years that development associations existed in this

Province, there was in fact, in place, a policy on behalf of government whereby

self-sufficiency was not encouraged. In fact, the understanding with government

- and I worked with this personally so I know I can speak from personal

experience on this -the understanding with government was that the role of the

development association was to experiment with new ideas, explore options,

demonstrate that it could work and then turn it over to the private sector to

run. Now this wasn't encouraging self-sufficiency so as a result, if a

development association undertook a project and demonstrated that it could work,

the next order of business was to then turn that enterprise over to the private

sector, so any return that could be expected was in fact going back to the

private sector and not into the coffers of the development associations.

This was a debate, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years among

development associations as to whether or not we should be going along with this

arrangement, because as you can imagine, during the course of thirty years,

there were many profitable enterprises that were initiated and developed by

development associations, but they divested themselves of these and as a result

they still, to this day, find themselves in a situation, most of them, where

they do not have the means where they can sustain themselves financially.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) at cost, they divested -

MR. SMITH: Yes, but my hon. friend from Fogo mentions

that cost, but very often what would happen is that - for example, I could speak

for my own association - I recall a few years ago, that when we had a fish plant

operating in our district, the need was recognized for an expansion in order for

us to expand the operation. The government of the day did not have the funds to

undertake this expansion so the development association undertook it themselves

utilizing existing programs and completed the extension at a total cost, as I

recall, of some $500,000, and then promptly turned that facility back over to

the provincial Department of Fisheries.

In more recent years the association in Port au Port has done

tremendous work in the area of aquaculture, primarily the development of the

scallop aquaculture industry. After ten years of developing an idea and a

concept they have turned that over to the private sector. Right now there is a

cooperative comprised of some ten fishermen who are now running that enterprise

and the understanding is that it will be returned to the development association

at some point in time but they have been given some five years in which to make

this operation viable, and during the course of that five years they will pay

back a portion of what it cost to set that in place to the development

association.

Mr. Speaker, I just point this out from the point of view

that we should be aware of that, so if we are going to assume that associations

that now exist by virtue of the fact that they have been around and in existence

in this Province for so long, if we are going to assume that really during that

course of time they should now be able to look after themselves, we must be

mindful, as I said at the beginning, that this was not the game plan from the

beginning because if it were surely there would be more development associations

in this Province today who would not be finding themselves in the financial bind

they are presently in.

There are a number of other things I would like to touch on

in the short amount of time I have available to me today. One of the things that

development associations - and I am sure the representatives of the movement,

particularly of the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council - I see

the former executive director Mr. Collins and the present day president, Mr.

McKenna, in attendance here this afternoon. Mr. Collins, in particular, who was

working as the executive director with the council when I was president of the

association will certainly recall the debates we were involved in, in trying to

counter the perception that was out there in the media, that all the development

associations in this Province did was to administer make-work projects.

Mr. Speaker, I would be the last person to say that we were

not good at it. As a matter of fact we excelled at it, but what most people

overlooked, and the media, certainly, shortchanged the development associations

on, was the fact that the development associations were attracted to these

make-work projects because they were a ready source of capital that was not

otherwise available to them, and it was this funding that they used to develop

and create some very important infrastructure throughout rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, let us not lose sight of the track as well, the

people who voiced these criticisms over the years, always neglected to point out

why these make-work projects were developed initially. They were never developed

in response to problems that were in rural Newfoundland. Initially, they were

developed for one reason, to try and bring the unemployment figures down, to

make the federal government of the day look better to the people of the country.

They were never designed to allow people living and working in rural

Newfoundland to try and develop infrastructure that would make their lives a

little easier. I think it is a credit to the development associations that they

were able to adapt these programs to indeed do some very worthwhile projects

throughout rural Newfoundland.

One of these projects was one that I referenced earlier, the

fish plant in Port au Port, in Piccadilly, that in total saw an expenditure of

$500,000, and all of that money came through make-work projects. Believe me, Mr.

Speaker, as a person who worked primarily with these it was never easy to try to

meet your objective working within programs that were developed for national

consumption. Let us keep that in mind. We never once, during all the years that

I worked as a member of the development association of Newfoundland, we never

once had a program to work with that was developed for consumption here in

Newfoundland. It was always national programs, and if they did not work

nationally then invariably within a year or two they would be scrapped

regardless of whether or not we were able to demonstrate that they could work in

our area of the country.

Mr. Speaker, we have also heard reference here today, and

certainly in the media of late, of a great deal of talk about the duplication of

effort. I too have sat in on presentations - I remember when I served on the

Advisory Council on the Economy, sitting down at presentations where - and I'm

sure all of you have had occasion to see these with the overheads when they

start putting up these various development agencies. When they end up it is just

one mass of dots all over the map of Newfoundland.

It is true, there is duplication out there. But again, we

cannot lose sight of the fact that there is nothing right now that exists in

this Province comparable to our rural development associations. They are unique

to this Province and indeed they are unique to this country, and they are a

model which in fact other areas in this country have looked to. Just a few years

ago - I mean, there was a major conference with P.E.I. where they were very

interested with this concept that we had developed here in Newfoundland. We must

never lose sight of that. The other agencies which we very often hear of are

agencies that were put in place to be supportive of these development agencies.

If I could for just one minute, to reference the Community

Futures. I can recall when the Community Futures program was announced for this

Province and for this country. I was president of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Rural Development Council. I can recall that we called a special meeting of the

Council in Gander. We spoke with the federal officials, the people who were

going to be administering this program, and we tried to appeal to them that we

really didn't need this program here in Newfoundland as it was being presented.

We needed something developed specifically to meet our needs, but to no avail.

I at that time could certainly speak from experience. Because

we had just prior to that spent some time in working in Port au Port with the

community employment strategy association, which was again a federal program,

forerunner of the Community Futures. It had operated in two areas of the

Province, Port au Port and up in the Straits. The program in Port au Port was

considered to be a tremendous success. We did some very worthwhile work.

Unfortunately what happened was that nationally the program was deemed not to

have been a success. It was scrapped, even though we had done some tremendous

work with it in Port au Port.

Over the years the rural development associations in this

Province have been up to every challenge, whether it was to lobby for a road,

construct a medical clinic, a senior citizens' complex, or to help an individual

citizen to prepare a business plan. The development associations have always

been there. This gives you some idea as to the wide range of services which

these associations provide.

In recent years in my own area of the Province, which I must

confess is now my only contact with the movement, I can reference two current

specific projects. First of all, the community education initiative in Port au

Port, which members of the Children's Interest Committee had occasion to visit

some time ago and be briefed on some of the very exciting things that are

happening in that area of the Province. One of the major players in that when

that program was initially started was the Port au Port economic development

association. You talk about partnerships. The Appalachia Roman Catholic school

board, the Port au Port economic development association. Because the

development association in Port au Port recognizes, as do the development

associations throughout this Province, that the real answer and the real key to

trying to address some of the concerns that we have out there is through

education, that we have to have an educated population. Again, an example of a

tremendous partnership.

Most recently, very shortly the minister will be accompanying

me out in Piccadilly where we will be participating in the opening of the

Piccadilly Plastics, which is a new business venture which has been set up in

the old fish plant in Piccadilly. One of the prime movers of that development is

the Port au Port economic development association. Again, an example of the

kinds of work that these associations can do for us in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I found somewhat frustrating

in the short time that I have been in this House - and I had occasion to

participate in various forums here within the House and outside in my capacity

as now an elected member of this Legislature - is the amount of time that has to

be spent in trying to educate fellow Newfoundlanders on the important function

that these development associations are performing on behalf of the citizens of

this Province. Very often when I speak at these functions and I talk to these

people, I meet with blank stares. People look and say: Well I didn't know these

associations even existed and I certainly didn't know that they were doing this

tremendous work. Maybe that is partly our fault and over the years in the rural

development movement one of the criticisms that used to be delivered at us is

that we did not do a very good job of getting our own message out and making

people aware of what we were doing. Maybe that is something that we have to

accept some responsibility for. However, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I was given a note a few minutes

ago that I had five minutes. I don't know if that came from you but I have not

been speaking -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Okay, just a couple of minutes to finish up.

There are some other people who want to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. Does the hon. member have

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and keeping in mind

that there are some other people who want to speak - but a