May 24,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No.

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

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

Before we begin the routine proceedings, I would like to

welcome to the galleries on behalf of all members of the House eight adult basic

education students from the Career Academy on Higgins Line, accompanied by their

instructor, Patricia Morrissey. I would like to welcome as well, thirty-six

Grade VII students of Coaker Academy from the District of Twillingate & Fogo,

accompanied by teachers, Edgar Hunt and Douglas Small, and chaperons, Trudy Boyd

and Donna Butt, with bus driver, Edward Luff. Also, thirty-four Grade IX French

immersion students from O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I gave an update to

the House of Assembly on the situation with respect to the elimination or

possible elimination of the public examinations and the Public Examinations

Marking Board. At that time, I indicated that government had anticipated that

the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association would co-operate in light of

the serious financial situation faced by the Province and the reasonableness of

our request. I regret having to inform the House today that the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers' Association has informed me officially that it is not

prepared to reconsider the position it has taken with respect to marking the

examinations. Consequently, teachers have indicated that they will not mark

public examinations this year.

I am most disappointed, and the government is most

disappointed, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association has taken

such a firm stand and has directed its teachers not to mark these examinations.

Government has decided, in light of this decision, that we have no choice but to

announce today the elimination of the public examinations for this school year.

Schools, in consultation with the school districts, will decide on the method of

final evaluation for all students who would have taken public examinations in

the eighteen courses that were to be tested. The Department of Education will

expect schools to submit a final mark based upon a 100 per cent assessment done

by teachers in the schools. As I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Speaker, this is

exactly the norm in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and largely the

case in New Brunswick as well.

We have already been in contact with Memorial University with

respect to this matter. The Senate at the University has authority on admissions

standards. The University will be provided with a set of marks for each student

on which to judge admissions. We will ask the University to convene its Senate

Committee as soon as possible to deal with this matter on an urgent basis. We do

not anticipate any problems with admissions at the University, nor do we

anticipate any admission problems with the colleges.

In order to allocate scholarships, Mr. Speaker, the

Department of Education will be offering students an opportunity to write a

scholarship exam, which will be administered at a scheduled date by schools

throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable regret that I have to

make this statement today. Certainly, it was government's intention that the

public examinations would proceed but using a different method for marking the

exams. The Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association have seen fit not to

co-operate, consequently government is left with no option but to eliminate the

public examinations for this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LUSH: A good announcement for students, they will

love it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the minister and his department for receiving

a copy of this a few moments ago but similar to yesterday, it is again with

distress, Mr. Speaker, that I must respond to a Ministerial Statement. It shows

once again a haphazard attempt to co-operate with stakeholders of education in

this Province. It once again, Mr. Speaker, throws the plans of thousands of

students in this Province into complete disarray.

The questions I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, are: Where is the

planning? Where is the much beloved consultation that this government has

promised for months and months? The serious questions that have to be asked

include, Mr. Speaker: How will grading now be done in our high schools

throughout the Province? And the issue that I raised yesterday, Mr. Speaker:

What about standards? The issue of standardization is important to schools, it

is important to students, it is important to those institutions who accept the

graduates from our high schools in this Province. This is completely

unnecessary. It throws and cast blame on the teachers in this Province and that

is completely unfair. With adequate planning, with adequate consulting, this

problem would not have arisen. It is completely unnecessary, and it again is a

sign to me as education critic that we are in a state of crisis in education in

this Province, both at the post-secondary and secondary level.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi have leave?

By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again we are dealing with a crisis but it is a crisis

created by the government, and the people who have not been considered in this,

and by the government's cavalier attitude towards these people, is causing great

distress, and that is the students. The students are the ones who are affected

by this, and the students are the ones who are gravely concerned about this.

I have a petition I will present a little later and elaborate

further on the student's concern about what is going to happen to them about the

public exams. I think the sad story is how it is going to affect the students

and how they are not consulted or have no input into this process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the discovery of lucrative mineral deposits in

Labrador is a harbinger of prosperous things to come for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. With increased mineral exploration in that area,

however, environmental concerns have been raised about such things as fuel drum

handling and site clean-up by exploration companies. Mr. Speaker, today I would

like to outline for my hon. colleagues, some of the measures government is

taking to ensure that mineral exploration in Labrador is carried out in an

environmentally responsible and sensitive manner.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, there are twenty to twenty-five

mineral exploration companies active in Labrador at about forty sites. It is

difficult to be precise about this number because the nature of work requires

that companies move around frequently. Six of these companies are drilling at

present and each company is operating diamond drills at three of the five sites,

on average. The remaining companies are doing air and ground geophysical and

geochemical surveys, sampling and prospecting. All activities are generally

helicopter supported and there are six to ten temporary camps in operation at

any one time.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this level of activity

in a large area of Labrador presents a challenge for ensuring proper

environmental controls. And, to that end, three departments are pooling

resources to meet this challenge: they are the Departments of Environment and

Labour, Mines and Energy, and Government Services and Lands. This government is

also committed to fully involving the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu

Nation in this process. A regulatory system is already in place, Mr. Speaker,

and some of the controls included are: Environmental Guidelines are included in

the Mineral Exploration Permit issued by the Department of Mines and Energy.

These guidelines set out the proper environmental practice for camps, site

access, drilling, blasting, fuel storage, etc.

Permits referenced in the Environmental Guidelines must be

obtained from agencies including the Water Resources Division, Environmental

Management Division, Government Services Centre, Occupational Health and Safety,

and a couple of other departments.

There are periodical inspections of drilling sites and camps

by officials from several departments to enforce the rules, both during

operations and for site restoration.

Mr. Speaker, while we have such controls in place, I believe

there is room for improvement in a number of areas. I want to inform my hon.

colleagues today that, since early this year, my department along with the

Government Services and Lands Department and the Department of Mines and Energy

have formed a committee to review the current processes and make recommendations

and possible improvements.

This committee has been looking at the effectiveness of fuel

drum control systems, to make sure companies transport and store drums properly

and return them after use. They are also examining surveillance issues to

determine what further measures may be needed in this regard. We will be

receiving and making further decisions based on this committee's recommendations

in the near future. I would like to be absolutely clear in stating that the

government views environmental protection very seriously, and will take whatever

action is required to ensure that violations of its policies and regulations are

effectively dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I also think it is important to offer positive

reinforcement to those mining and supply companies who are operating in an

environmentally responsible manner. As well, I applaud and encourage the

participation of the Innu Nation, the Labrador Inuit Association and local

communities and their residents who report problems to government in a timely

fashion. In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the forging of

these positive partnerships is a true sign that Labrador mineral exploration and

environmental protection can, and will go, hand in hand.

I also, Mr. Speaker, want to thank the Member for Torngat

Mountains who has been working with the three ministers on the committee to work

towards further improvements in monitoring environmental controls.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important I say to the minister, to put regulations in

place, it is also very important to see that these regulations are enforced; and

we have had cases in the recent past where there has been a violation of

regulations there and action had to be taken.

The minister admitted that it is even difficult to know how

many companies are there and in what sites. That makes it even more difficult to

monitor and to regulate those particular sites. The environment of Labrador is a

very sensitive environment, there are hundreds and hundreds of companies coming

in to Labrador over the next several years and the companies which will be there

with no discoveries, who run exploration programs but do not have any sizeable

finds of commercial activity and will be long gone, it is important to have an

ongoing monitoring situation on those particular companies, it is very

important.

The ones who have discoveries, the Diamond Fields and now the

Incos, it is very easy then to be able to monitor those particular ones because

they are going to be here, it is going to be long term and will be very lasting

but the five and six camps are changing on a continuous basis there, and

government needs to have the manpower and the regime in place to be able to

monitor those specific activities, not just putting regulations and committees

into place, but being able to have on-site inspections on a regular and a more

formal basis I say to the minister, it is very, very important, and to ensure

that the environment of Labrador that is sensitive will be left in a condition

that is acceptable and that is not going to take in any way and have any adverse

environmental effects or affect the pristine beauty of that particular part of

this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi; does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to congratulate the Member for Torngat Mountains for

getting his government to wake up. The activity in Labrador, the mining

activity, mineral activity, that has been going on is not news to the Minister

of Environment and Lands; that has been going on for the last year or so. The

Member for Torngat Mountains had to lambaste this government in this House to

let them know what was going on there to get them into action.

Now, I am glad that the Minister of Environment and Labour

has responded, and I hope that the measures that he has taken actually work. I

hope that now the situation will be in hand and that action will continue to be

taken to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Health.

Eleven months ago, on June 29, the government announced its

intention to proceed with major changes affecting the Janeway, the Children's

Rehab, and the Grace Hospital, and to have these changes completed by the fall

of 1998.

In the fall of 1995, the minister said repeatedly in this

House that he would be in a position to release the plan and the cost of this

restructuring by the end of December, 1995. Here we are, eleven months later,

and still no plan has been released. I ask the minister if he can tell us: Where

is the plan?

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

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

I recall the questions, and I recall the answers given, and

the hon. Leader of the Opposition is correct in indicating that I had hoped to

have plans that I could lay before the House and the people of the Province by

this time at least outlining clearly what the new capital construction costs

would be to build the new Janeway and to do the renovations at St. Clare's and

the Health Sciences Centre to accommodate the move of obstetrics and

gynaecology, and the other procedures, over to those sites.

I have to tell him, though, that I don't have that precise

plan at the moment in front of me inasmuch as the Health Care Corporation, which

has a responsibility to move forward with this restructuring initiative, are at

the moment about to receive from the William Nycum people who are doing the new

programming, his work. They tell me that by the end of June they should be in my

office with preliminary plans as to what they see the new construction looking

like, exactly where it will be built at the Health Sciences Centre, the

modifications that will have to take place at St. Clare's, and so on. So, in

that circumstance, the planning that I had hoped to have a month or two ago is

basically behind

schedule to the extent that it will not be done now and in my

hands until some time in June.

I have to also however say to the hon. member that whilst we

are taking a little longer to do the programming and planning in a proper and

orderly fashion, that the completion date for the restructuring is on schedule.

We anticipate that it will be done by December 1998. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, there is a distinct possibility that some parts of that restructuring

schedule can in fact or will in fact be able to be moved up as a result of us

taking the appropriate amount of time to do the proper planning prior to going

forward with the actual physical construction.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: No doubt the capital construction cost of

this consolidation is going to be enormous. By earlier standards and options it

was in the vicinity of hundreds of millions of dollars. But by the minister's

own admission here in this House of Assembly he indicated that it would be in

the range of $75 million to $100 million. The minister stated that last October

in this House.

If the move is to be completed in two years from now, when

does the government plan to start allocating capital expenditure to this

construction? Where does the government plan to obtain the money? In other

words, I ask the minister: Will he ensure that it will not come from the $903.3

million that he guaranteed will not be taken from health care over the next

three years?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary figures that I

indicated to the House last year still are the preliminary figures that I would

indicate today. I had some discussions with the Health Care Corporation over the

last month or so and I asked them in a cursory way, rather than giving me a

formal estimate, because the work is not quite completed yet, the planning, what

the new figures looked like from what they have seen so far. They indicate that

$100 million plus or minus should take care of all of the capital adjustments

that have to be made, both at St. Clare's and at the Health Sciences.

In terms of how we will finance that and where the money will

come from, we will determine that in consultation obviously with the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board and the Cabinet when we have a pretty well concise

and exact figure. I would point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

that there are no shortages of consortiums that have come forward to me, and no

doubt to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, offering various types of

proposals that would see us raise the money for the construction outside of

direct government borrowings. I'm not at all satisfied that the Province will go

in that direction or that we will not go in that direction. But once we get the

hard planning done and once we get the actual cost, we will sit down with the

Health Care Corporation, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and

government and we will make a decision as to how we are going to proceed.

The bottom line is this, that we will achieve a 30 per cent

to 40 per cent savings on the operational costs of the buildings that are going

out of existence or being closed down, the Janeway and the Grace. That

translates into a savings on operations of about $25 million to $30 million a

year. That amount of money inside the space of five years will be more than

sufficient to pay for all of the adjustments capital-wise that we have to make

and thereafter we will have in perpetuity considerable savings that we will be

able to direct into hands-on direct patient care and health care. That is the

objective of the restructuring, to do more with less and do it better in the

meantime in terms of the health care in the Province for the people of the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the

proposals he is entertaining will be a little different procedure than the Trans

City proposals that this government dealt with before, I will say to the

minister. I ask the minister: Will he guarantee that the money needed will not

come from the $903.3 million that this government committed to provide for

health care services over the next three years? Will he guarantee that it will

not come from that amount of money?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is a

rhetorical question that has not only been asked twice already this morning but

in the past. I've said very clearly, and government has said, that we will

achieve operational savings of roughly $25 million to $30 million annually as a

result of the restructuring in the St. John's area. The savings that we achieve

on operations will in the first instance be used to take care of the capital

expansion and redesigning that we need to do to accommodate the down sizing and

the adjustments to the sites. Thereafter, that operational savings - once the

capital has been taken care of - thereafter that operational savings will be

available on a continuing basis to be used in direct hands-on patient care.

The concept is to finance the capital from the operational

savings we achieve by getting off the Grace and Janeway sites and that has been

the plan from day one. It was announced June 29, last year. I have said that

consistently every time the question has been asked in the House and the answer

is unchanged.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the minister's figures then, $75 million to $100

million it could cost, they will save $25 million to $30 million, so the balance

- the $50 million extra, $60 extra million - must be going to come from the

operating budget apparently or new capital financing, one or the other. So the

minister has not given a commitment.

Now in the Red Book Premier Tobin promised that: The Janeway

will be relocated to a dedicated area adjacent to the Health Sciences Complex.

Six days after the election on February 28, Sister Davis of the Health Care

Corporation of St. John's said: It will not be a new building as such but a new

area of the Health Sciences that will be renovated. So which is it, Mr.

Minister, adjacent to the Health Sciences, in the Health Sciences or does the

government still know for sure?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if we had the complete programming

package in our hands we would see exactly what the requirements will be for new

space and then we will plan exactly where that space will be located at the

Health Sciences and how it will be contiguous to and tied in with the existing

Health Sciences Complex. I guess the best example I could refer to again, as we

have on previous occasions in this House is this, we have moved, over the past

two years, the H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Clinic to a new site adjacent to, attached

to, integrated with the Health Sciences Complex over there. What we have

accomplished is not a separate building or something standing fifty feet away

from the physical structure of the Health Sciences but we have provided for an

integrated service that has given this Province the reputation of having one of

the best cancer clinics in all of Canada.

We intend to provide appropriate space at the Health Sciences

that will be added to the present Health Sciences Complex such that at the end

of the day the children in this Province, the paediatric services of this

Province will also be, continue to be, amongst the highest in terms of standard

and best in terms of quality of care that will also be delivered anywhere in

Canada. That is our commitment. If he wants a picture to see exactly what the

new building will look like and where it will be attached to the Health

Sciences, I am afraid he is going to have to wait until we get the pictures

drawn but I can assure him that our commitment is no less resolute to ensure

that paediatric services will be enhanced, not diminished, in both quality and

quantity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will know next

year, in the next fiscal year, how we are going to spend $75 million to $100

million the minister said to erect a building. He must be going to put up a tent

if we are going to do it within a few months before the deadline. It must be a

tent he has in mind, I say to the minister.

Now one of the foundations of the minister's estimate of the

cost of relocating the Janeway, the Rehab and the Grace itself is the belief -

stated by the vice-president of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's - that

a fourth boiler could easily be added to the existing central heating system at

Memorial University which services the Health Sciences Complex. Now the

vice-president admitted in a recent interview that there is not even a

guestimate of the cost. Now the assistant director of University Works said the

job is not at all minor. It is a very major upgrading, I say to the minister.

Does the minister today really know the cost of upgrading the central heating

plant, to accommodate the added demands, eleven months after his announcement?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the first part of the question, no, we are not proposing

to put up any type of a tent. The hon. member and his party would be familiar

with tents, would be familiar with canvas constructions, and would be familiar

with things that are put up quickly but that do not last very long. We are not

in the business of tent erections in terms of quality health care. I deduct from

that comment, from the hon. member, that their plan, had they been over here,

would probably be to build tents in order to deliver health care but we are not

in a temporary business. We are in a permanent, long term, modus operandi, in

terms of health care in the Province. The construction that we put over there

will do not only us but will do you, as a Newfoundlander, proud, Mr. Speaker, I

can assure the hon. member.

Now, as to whether or not there is capacity in terms of the

steam heating plant at the university to take care of the new construction that

has to be done over there, that will be determined in the process of doing the

hard planning after the programming is completed. A figure of $100 million, give

or take a few million dollars, to do the new construction will include the cost

of everything that has to be done, including the enhancement, if necessary, of

boiler plants at the university, or from wherever else we have to draw our

sucked steam to make sure we have heat and appropriate services at the new site.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't be growing cucumbers with the

steam heat.

MR. MATTHEWS: We will not be growing cucumbers with hot

air or with the steam. We will be providing good health care services and I will

undertake to assure the hon. member that when he gets his invitation to the

opening of the new facilities he will be proud to be there, and he will be

amongst the forefront in saying he was part of the House that provided it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that Question Period is not a period

for debate. When we get long questions with long

preambles we tend to get

long-winded answers, so I ask hon. members to abide by our Standing Orders which

say that questions should not be preceded by

preambles.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are also for the Minister of Health.

MR. FRENCH: On June 29, 1995 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FRENCH: Well, if you would listen you will hear - the

announcement affecting the Janeway, the Rehab, and the Grace Hospital estimated

a workforce reduction of approximately 300 positions. This would result from

hospital consolidation and that by 1998. Does this government know the number

and type of health care positions on the chopping block today?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The health care system in the Province, including that

considerable portion of health care services that are provided within the St.

John's region under the Health Care Corporation, has been under extensive

restructuring for the past three or four years. There have been considerable job

changes in terms of complements of people that we have needed to deliver health

care. It is an ongoing process of trying to accommodate where there is need for

less people in the system through attrition and to ensure there is the least

possible disruption in terms of people's actual employment in terms of being

laid off.

We do not keep or monitor on a day to day basis exactly what

the movements are in terms of employment numbers in the Health Care Corporation,

but let me say that on a percentage basis by far most of the jobs that have been

affected in the St. John's area through restructuring have been at the

management/administration level. We have lost probably 25 to 30 per cent of our

managers in the system

whereas, I believe, it is about 6 per cent of front line

workers, or unionized workers that have been affected in terms of membership.

The number of jobs continues to change; the adjustments are ongoing and will

continue to be so until we get the whole system readjusted.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South on a

supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that was a very

tentative answer. The statement on behalf of government that approximately 300

health care jobs will probably be lost by 1998 prompted the then head of the

nurses' union, and now the Minister of Social Services, to say: we believe that

with the current under staffing that is existing in our hospitals and nursing

homes that a further reduction has to impact the quality of patient care.

Will the minister acknowledge that the then head of the

nurses' union knew exactly what she was talking about when she said that the

quality of patient care will be hurt by these deep cuts in the health care

system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: To be more informative for the House, and

in response to the hon. member's question specifically, I will undertake to

provide to him and to the House, at the earliest possible date, exact figures as

to what the job complement was when we announced restructuring, and what it is

as of today in the Health Care Corporation. I have no difficulty in providing

those employment figures. I believe it is important that the answer be given

accurately and that the people of the Province know, so I will undertake to

provide that specifically in terms of job numbers on all accounts in the health

care system.

Now, as to whether or not the hon. the Minister of Social

Services knew what she was talking about, I have to tell you, Sir, that she not

only knew what she was talking about then; she always knows what she is talking

about. She is probably one of the most efficient, proficient, and otherwise

capable Ministers of Social Services that this House has ever had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: And the fact that she is a colleague from

the area of St. John's makes her no less competent or incompetent, but certainly

it adds to, in my view, the quality of the ministers on this side of the House

and the government in general. She is doing a superb job. She always knows what

she is talking about, and if she said something last year that you have

difficulty with, I suggest you meet her one-on-one, and you will get the fright

of your life and a pleasant surprise to boot.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree with the

minister more because, being a new member, from what I have seen I believe the

minister is probably a very, very good breath of fresh air.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in talking about the job cuts, the Health

Care Corporation promised the exact numbers will be determined through an

extensive planning and consultation process with union and professional

associations, but NAPE said they did not make much of an after-the-effect

consultation process by a non-elected and anonymous board.

The head of the nurses' union, and again the Minister of

Social Services today, to date we have had no input into what has happened.

Won't the minister acknowledge the validity of what the nurses' union head

stated at that time, that the government would not be moving as quickly with

such a bottom-line mentality if it wasn't forced to? Won't he admit this massive

restructuring of one of our most important sectors was undertaken not only

without advanced planning, but without consultation, without the people who work

on the front lines really understanding the care delivery?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: You didn't, that's for sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: You got that right, because you could never

answer anything like that.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The proposition that the hon. member puts forward could not

be, if he tried from now until the end of his current term in the House, a more

inaccurate characterization of what has happened in the restructuring in the St.

John's area.

The facts are these: That the Health Care Corporation has had

extensive, ongoing, cordial and successful collaboration and discussions with

NAPE, with CUPE, with the nurses' union, with the allied health professionals,

with the doctors, and with all other disciplines in the health care system to

the extent that all of the adjustments virtually that involve labour unions and

labour groups have been successfully discussed and agreements reached such that

there has not been one suggestion of labour interruption or strife, or discord

or disharmony over at the Health Care Corporation's operations because of the

way they have gone about doing business. They have gone from one union to two in

terms of NAPE and CUPE; it has been a very smooth transition. They have made

adjustments with the nurses because of different things being done at different

sites, and nurses having to move, and all of it has been done without the

slightest hint of labour strife or discord or disharmony, and it is one of the

models - rather than of something not being done right, it is one of the models

of how labour and government can work together in this Province when there is a

process of ongoing and extensive consultation. We take our hats off to Sister

Elizabeth and to the Health Care Corporation for the magnificent job they have

done with respect to dealing with their employees and staff issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods. In the recent Budget, funding for agricultural shows and exhibitions

has been cut to less than half of last year's Budget. I wonder if the minister

would inform the House as to which exhibitions will not be funded and which

exhibitions will go ahead, as provided for in last year's Budget.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his

question. In answering let me say to him that we were faced, as he knows, with

some very tough decisions that had to be made on what we would fund and what we

would not fund. The show that we have cut out, and we hope that we can get

private enterprise to become involved in this show, but the one that we have cut

out is the annual livestock show that takes place at Memorial Stadium. As I

understand it, the rest of them - but I will get him more accurate figures - but

as I understand it, the rest of the shows in the Province have not been in any

way affected by what we are doing.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you talk with local vegetable growers, they will tell you

that the biggest problem confronting their industry today is marketing. I ask

the minister if he is aware of this problem, and if so, is he at all concerned,

since this recent Budget has totally wiped out all funding for agricultural

marketing and development programs.

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

MR. TULK: We are very much aware of how important it is

in this Province to do marketing. The hon. gentleman over there on the other

side should be very much aware of how important it is to do marketing for

agricultural products, too. There is a place up in Mount Pearl that I understand

failed because of marketing efforts by a former government of which this member

was a supporter.

Put that aside, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we are very much aware of

that, but again I say to him that in the budgetary process that goes on it is

fine and dandy for the hon. gentleman to stand up on the other side and ask:

Have you done this and have you done that, and are you aware of this and are you

aware of that? Yes, we are aware. We are going to work very closely with the

agricultural community to ensure that its products are marketed, and marketed in

the most efficient way possible.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if he would support some kind of

protection as it relates to the sale and marketing of locally grown Newfoundland

vegetables. As the minister is well aware, at a certain time of the year when

our own local vegetables are on the market, we get vegetables predominantly from

the area of the Province of Prince Edward Island being dumped into this Province

and the price of vegetables of our own local growers is being driven down. When

their own local vegetables have been consumed, then you find that those

vegetable prices go through the roof.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister if he would invoke

some kind of protectionism so that we can look after our own local growers first

and look after the people from other provinces and their growers second.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, after that long speech given by

the hon. gentleman, let me say to him that I have seen governments in this

Province try to protect Newfoundlanders for years. No, we aren't in the habit of

being protectionist, but we will help Newfoundland farmers and we will help

Newfoundlanders in all walks of life, I say to him, become very competitive. And

when we do that, let me say to him, they do not need to be protected from

anybody, including the gentleman on the other side.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods. With regard to the forest industry, we are all aware - I am sure the

minister is aware - of the devastating effect insect infestation could have if

we do not detect the problem immediately and deal with it immediately. It is not

the budworm this year, it is the hemlock looper. Could the minister update us on

the latest conditions with the hemlock looper?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are very much aware again

of the devastation that the hemlock looper could very well cause in the forest

industry in this Province this year. Of course, I would also tell the hon.

member, as he probably already knows that the biggest infestation that has

occurred is on the West Coast of the Province, particularly up the Humber

Valley. We are taking whatever measures are necessary to protect the forest on

the West Coast so that people in this Province can enjoy the kind of living that

they have made from the forest and to protect the forest ecosystem. As a matter

of fact, I say to the hon. gentleman, we are putting a substantial amount more

cash into the Budget this year, one of the very few areas that has seen an

increase in the amount of funding available, to make sure that indeed the

forests in Western Newfoundland on the Springdale Peninsula are protected so

that the hon. gentleman and his people have a means of making a living.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, on a

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear

the minister is so concerned, because it can be a very serious problem, as the

minister knows.

Now, in the past, Mr. Speaker, the minister knows also the

fact that the expertise that did the research on the hemlock looper in

particular was done by the forestry centre here in St. John's. Can the minister

tell me now that that will continue to be done by experts here, in Newfoundland

and not in New Brunswick?

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

MR. TULK: Yes. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I don't

know where he has been.

Yes, we regret what went on with the National Forest Service

in this Province but I have to tell him that there have been press releases and

statements made over the past months by the Premier and by a number of other

people, that we are going to establish in Corner Brook, right in the heart of

forest country, a centre of excellence equal to none in this country. We are

going to ensure, absolutely -

MR. FITZGERALD: Will that be before or after (inaudible)

university (inaudible) in Grand Falls?

MR. TULK: What's wrong with old (inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I have recognized the hon. the Government House Leader; I ask

hon. members to do the courteous thing and give the hon. member an opportunity

to answer the question.

MR. TULK: We are going to ensure that that forestry

centre is built. As a matter of fact, we have put it on a fast track and I

understand that we will be calling tenders for it in the fall and that the hon.

gentleman will have his forest protected; we will protect the forest for all of

Newfoundland. We will have the greatest expertise that this country - Do you

want me to sit down or do you want me to answer the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Alright, I will sit down.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am much aware of the forestry

centre about to be planned for Corner Brook and also aware that the minister

said that it will be on fast track for Corner Brook. The question is, and I will

ask the question again: The expertise that was here in Newfoundland that had a

lot to do with the research for the hemlock looper - and I know the minister has

congratulated that group on doing such a good job with that. Will that same

expertise stay in Corner Brook in the new centre or will in fact, the expertise

now be coming from the centre in New Brunswick?

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

MR. TULK: I am not going to take up the time of the House

with such foolish questions.

The truth is I have already answered. The answer is yes, yes

we will provide that and more. We will provide whatever is necessary to ensure

that the forests in this Province are protected and if the hon. member wants me

to, I will put that in writing to him and send it over to him and I will put it

in big letters.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to table the report of

the Public Tender Act exceptions for February 1996 - the last one for me.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act And The Education

Act", (Bill No. 8); and also, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, The

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Provincial

Parks Act", (Bill No. 7).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public

Accountancy Act", also I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Provide For The Safety Of The Public With

Respect To The Use And Operation Of Elevating Devices, Amusement Rides, Pressure

And Electrical Systems".

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid

Act", (Bill No. 12).

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Establish The

Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board, And To Provide For The

Certification Of Professional Fish Harvesters".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Until we have some order here, the Chair will not proceed

with the routine Orders of the Day.

Petitions

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

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

I am pleased today to rise and present another petition on

the recreational food fishery and I would like to say that I was delighted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection

from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the petition: The petition of the

undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, known as the

Fightin' Nfld'ers, ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer

- is this proper now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if it is okay - We, the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, do hereby petition the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support our petition to do one of the

following: to open a food and recreational fishery to all Newfoundlanders or to

close it for other Atlantic Canadians.

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to support -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant to do this

but I am convinced, having heard this for about the fifth or sixth day now, that

that petition that the hon. member presents is not in the proper format order

for this Legislature and should not be entertained.

MR. SHELLEY: It is in the right form. I have already

checked it out.

MR. GRIMES: It is not in the proper form (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not amused by the bantering back and forth here

on this particular issue. I have not recognized the hon. member yet because of

the bantering back and forth. This has to stop. I ask members, please, to follow

the rules of the House.

MR. H. HODDER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this petition is phrased

according to the rules of the House. It is addressed `To the hon. House of

Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session

convened.' All of the petitions presented in this House are properly addressed

to the House of Assembly, that is the rule, that is what this petition says.

Therefore, this petition meets all the criteria stated and unstated and follows

the conventions that have been practised in the House for decades. Therefore,

Mr. Speaker, this petition is totally, completely, 100 per cent within the rules

and follows all the conventions that have been followed in addition to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not seen the petition. I can

only take the hon. member's word that it is in proper form. I don't know if the

Clerk has had an opportunity to see it or not but we will allow the member right

now to present his petition.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

What a load of foolishness that the people in this Province

have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: I would be inclined, as the Speaker has

ruled, to take any member of the House at his word, but I would question it,

because we have had this petition five or six times before, and when the hon.

member has introduced this petition repeatedly, he has never used that

particular wording that the Opposition House Leader just used and it has never

been attached to the petitions that he has presented in this House before.

Normally, I would not object, but if we are going to have petitions which are

serious, they should be in the proper format. I would ask, with all due respect,

Mr. Speaker, that you would have the Table check the format of the petition that

he is actually reading from, has signatures attached to it and is being

presented to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order - is the hon. member

speaking to that point of order?

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the point of

order, this is the exact petition that I presented yesterday - well, yesterday

we did not get to petitions - the same petition I presented yesterday. I did not

read the first line maybe, is that what the minister is saying? Do we have to

read every line in the petition? The petition is signed properly and it is in

order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

The Chair will just take a brief moment to have a copy of the

petition presented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: It is the same petition as yesterday, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, this petition is, no doubt, in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that people in this Province, fishermen and people

who want to go out and jig fish for the summer, are not as worried as the

minister is that the `I's are dotted and the `T's are crossed. The intent of

this petition is to speak on behalf of hundreds of Newfoundlanders, maybe

thousands, like I told the Premier yesterday when he spoke on this petition, or

the day before.

I don't know what the poll says about how many people want a

food fishery or not. I support it on the principle that a food fishery should be

allowed in this Province if it is allowed in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia,

New Brunswick and Quebec. That is why I support this petition, Mr. Speaker. I

don't know what the popularity of the petition is and I am not too concerned

about it. If there are five Newfoundlanders in this Province who want to go out

and jig a fish to eat, ten fish or so, they should be allowed to do it.

I support the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture when he

says that we should have more seals -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Let me finish the statement now. If he would

increase the seal quota in this Province, Mr. Speaker, I support that. That is

where we should be getting the extra fish for a man to go out to catch a fish to

eat.

The Premier, who was the former federal Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans -

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: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in support of my colleague's petition, which was

interrupted. Knowing full well what the intent of the petition was and what the

spirit of the petition was, I think it doesn't speak well for the member and the

minister who interrupted and took away the member's time in allowing him to

speak on behalf of his constituents and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

in presenting this concern here in the people's House. It has always been our

heritage and it has always been part of our diet, it has been part of our

culture to be able to go out and jig a codfish.

I for one don't listen - I am not too concerned about what

some of the scientists out there are saying about the state of our cod stocks. I

don't think we should go out with draggers, I don't think we should go out and

set nets or set traps, but I do think we should be able to go out and catch a

meal of fish with a hook and line. I think maybe you might even be able to do

like I said before, do away with the jigger. Because when something is caught on

the jigger, in most cases it is destroyed. There is nothing wrong with going out

and catching a meal of fish to support our families, to allow it to be part of

our diet as people have done for years in this Province.

I know the minister deep down inside agrees with the food

fishery. He may not preach that theme here in the House of Assembly but I know,

in conversation with other people, that the minister had planned on making a

pilgrimage to Ottawa to talk to his federal counterpart up there - I know that,

I know it for a fact - in order to get the food fishery reinstated. Because he,

too, who represents a rural fishing community, knows how important it is to the

people of this Province to be able to go out and take as simple a thing as a

codfish to provide for their families.

I fully support the Member for Baie Verte and his petitions,

and the people who are sending those petitions forward. It was a big issue in my

district in the last election. It was an issue in the Member for Terra Nova's

district. He may have won the election, but I guarantee you, he didn't win it

because he came out and didn't support the food fishery. He won it because of

his past performances, and he would have won it much bigger had he taken a stand

on the food fishery and come out and supported it. The minister as well can't

stand here in the House and say it is not an issue in his district.

Sure, we have to be conservative, Mr. Speaker. We know that

we have to look after our stocks. We know that the sea is the lifeblood of rural

Newfoundland, and we cannot possibly take a chance on destroying this industry,

but I don't think we are going out and talking about hundreds of thousands of

tons. In fact, the amount of fish that was taken in the food fishery that was

done as an experiment a couple of years ago was less than the by-catch of most

fisheries here in this Province. And if we are really, really sincere in looking

at replenishing our stocks and allowing them to go back to what they were in the

beginning, where we could go out and support rural Newfoundland, then I think it

is about time we looked at some of the activity that those larger companies are

taking

part in. and I think of the shrimp fishery.

The minister must know full well what I am talking about. I

commend him for bringing in the experimental fishery with the shrimp pots,

because I think this is one way of doing away with the wastage that is happening

up off the Coast of Labrador, and up off Greenland today, to the cod stocks. All

you have to do is talk to the people who work on those draggers and they will

tell you about the tons and tons of juvenile codfish, juvenile turbot, juvenile

flounder, that is dragged up in those nets that they use and shovel off the

decks of the boats, and here we are, saying `We won't allow you,

Newfoundlanders, we won't allow our own people, to go out and jig a codfish

because you may destroy the cod stocks'. I think we should take it a little bit

further and look at where the problem rises.

Also, Mr. Speaker, why are we the only Province in Canada

that is not allowed to take

part in a cod fishery? Can somebody stand up over

there and intelligently tell me that the fish we have here around the Coast of

Newfoundland are not the same fish, not the same stocks, that might swim across

and go over to Nova Scotia, go over to Prince Edward Island, go up to the North

Shore of Quebec? No, they cannot do it because I believe, and the fishermen

believe, the true scientists out there, that they are the same stocks of fish.

I fear that the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - is probably listening to the federal

minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like

to make note that leave has been taken away by the Minister of Fisheries.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying how I

feel about it. There is no Newfoundlander, including the whole of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, who would rather participate in a food fishery, or

be able to go out there and jig a codfish, than this gentleman right here.

Nobody would rather do it than I would. I am out in boat every single weekend

that I get free; the first thing I do when I hit Port de Grave is get the boat

ready and take off for the weekend. I tell you, the hardest thing that I have to

do is to go over the jigging grounds in Conception Bay, that was the lifeblood

of Conception Bay, and see the scarcity of fish on the bottom, when I was used

to seeing them plentiful, when fishermen could earn a living.

The Member for Bonavista, the Member for Baie Verte, I

visited their two communities in the last month - six hundred people in the

hole, in total frustration, and don't know where their future lies in the fish

plant. And here is the hon. member, who sat in the audience there and tried to

play politics that night, saying now that we should implement a food fishery

when we don't have a good count of how much fish is in the ocean, and if there

is going to be any commercial fishery in the next five, ten, or fifteen years,

and his people down there don't know if they have to move to Fort McMurray or to

Toronto or to Montreal, somewhere to find a job. It is very irresponsible.

I think what the hon. member should have been doing is

standing up in this House and making sure that we have accurate information on

how much cod is returning. What is the age of the cod? Can we go out and start,

in the next two or three years, a hook-and-line commercial fishery? That is the

type of attention we should be paying, with emphasis on the cod stock, not going

out there on the emotions of three or four people from St. John's and Kelligrews

who want to get out there on the weekend, at the expense of who knows who. They

don't care about the lives of people out there in rural Newfoundland and the

tens of thousands of people who are depending on social programs and TAGS which

is now coming to an end, don't know what they are going to have to do tomorrow,

having to get money from Social Services.

There is where your petition should be coming here in this

House. Whether they fish in Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker,

is not an issue. What is an issue is the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That is the issue we should be concerned

about. Whatever we can do, conservation measures, short-term pain for long-term

gain. If I have to do without jigging a fish to eat and I have to go to a

supermarket to buy one, I will do that for the short term. Hopefully, in a year

or two, the codfish will be at sufficient numbers that not only can we fish them

commercially, not only can the fish plants be re-opened, not closed, not only

can the boats be untied, not tied up, all up on the slipway, that you and I and

everybody else will be able to enjoy the leisure and the pleasure that we have

enjoyed for so many years while this Province lasts. I am not going to support

something that would be to the detriment of the future of this Province at the

political nonsense carried on by the opposite crowd.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is not what you told the reporter

from The Evening Telegram .

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape

la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition. It is: To the hon. House of Assembly in

Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the District

of Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS a modern and well maintained transportation

infrastructure is essential to ensure a continued and an increased tourist

traffic flow around the Province resulting in a vibrant tourism industry; and

WHEREAS a modern and well maintained transportation

infrastructure is essential to ensure quality products are delivered to markets

outside of and within the Bay d'Espoir - Connaigre region; and

WHEREAS a modern and well maintained transportation

infrastructure is essential to ensure a safe and timely transport to medical

facilities in Central Newfoundland, to employment opportunities in other regions

of the Province and to provide social connections to other parts of the

Province; and

WHEREAS Route 360, known as the Bay d'Espoir Highway, and

roadways in the Bay d'Espoir area have been left in disrepair and in desperate

need of upgrading and resurfacing; and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will

ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by more than 2,000

people from the Bay d'Espoir - Connaigre region. Really, what they are saying is

that the Bay d'Espoir Highway is the lifeline for the people in the Bay d'Espoir

- Connaigre area. That road was paved some twenty years ago. Really the

infrastructure I guess, or the roadbed itself, was not up to today's standard.

When the road was put through there was no logging on the Bay d'Espoir Highway,

but now you have the heavy trucks pulling eighteen, twenty cords of wood from

northwest Gander up the Bay d'Espoir Highway. The roadbed itself couldn't stand

that and the pavement has become really poor. Therefore, the people in that

region have a very difficult road to travel.

However, I must say that over the last number of years the

government, through the Roads for Rail trunk road agreement has done

considerable improvement to the highway. In fact, there were thirty-eight

kilometres done on the Harbour Breton section, there were eighteen kilometres, I

believe, done on the Trans-Canada Highway going into Bay d'Espoir, and there are

another sixteen kilometres being done this year to that particular road as well.

That will give us in excess of about sixty kilometres being done by the trunk

roads agreement.

However, there are still sections of the highway that need to

be done and it is really rough. The people from the area - basically as I said

and the petition says, it is a lifeline to Central Newfoundland. Because we

depend on Central Newfoundland for health care. The ambulance services that run

from the Connaigre into Grand Falls, it is more than two hours drive. The road

condition is inhibiting that in many instances. It also is an inhibitor to the

tourist trade in the Connaigre area and the Bay d'Espoir area as well.

So these people who have signed this petition represent all

of the communities down in that particular area. Basically, they are

petitioning, as I said, government to speed up the process of doing the road.

The money is there to do it. They are saying: Let's do more than sixteen

kilometres a year, let's do it as fast as we can so that we can have a good

transportation system for the residents of the South Coast who have to come into

Grand Falls to do business, and tourists coming into the area and so on.

The Bay d'Espoir area has become a beehive of activity within

the last year with the increase in the aquaculture business, and in fact, in a

meeting with the minister and a number of ministers this week, one of the

proprietors of SCB Fisheries was saying that every day this year, there is a

tractor trailer load of feed going in to Bay d'Espoir. So we have 365 tractor

trailers of feed going in to the Bay d'Espoir area to feed the aquaculture

industry there. So that is really a lot of use of this road, and the more use it

gets, then obviously, the rougher it will become.

We are looking forward to government's continued action in

upgrading this in making this road, as we said, a superb and first-class trunk

road agreement as a part of the Newfoundland and Labrador transportation system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in support of the hon.

member's petition. I noticed while he was speaking he mentioned the Roads for

Rail Agreement, especially as it relates to tourism. I guess, sometimes we have

to go back and look at exactly where the agreement came from and I guess we

should remember who was the federal minister at the time when this particular

agreement came into being.

I know the hon. member is the Premier's Parliamentary

Assistant and he sits next to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

on the other side, so hopefully, he can do a bit of arm-twisting and a bit of

bending, and hopefully he can bring his petition for the residents of his

district to a very successful conclusion. I support the hon. gentleman's

petition.

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

Aquaculture. Is he speaking to the petition?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a couple of minutes to reflect on what my

hon. colleague was saying about the need to do further work on the Harbour

Breton road this year.

The one thing that we have to be very aware of - and this

government is very aware of it, and the past government since 1989 has been very

aware of the need to have an effective transportation system for the future

economic development of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole.

What has been highlighted here this morning in presenting

this petition to this hon. House, just highlights a particular region of this

Province that needs further work done on the roads to make the transportation an

effective and efficient system because of the economic development in that

particular region, not unlike the rest of the Province. But I can say, Mr.

Speaker, that the government is very aware of it, the department is very aware

of it. It has been pointed out by the member for the district, that there has

been a number of kilometres completed to date, I think it is fifty-four

kilometres, there is a total of 203, I think. At the end of the day, when the

Roads for Rail Agreement will be completed, there will be a need to do further

work on that road, because there is not enough in the present agreement to

complete that

section of highway. But I can assure you that whenever there is

money available, that

section of highway will be a priority on the list of

government.

Now, I want to make a quick mention about the statement made

by the member opposite in referring to the Roads for Rail Agreement and the

minister of the day and the government of the day who brought that in. I also

want to add something to that. If a decision had been made for the best interest

for Newfoundland and Labrador we would not have given in so easily on the amount

of money that we got. They bought our railway for $800 million. It was not

sufficient, there was not enough money in that agreement to replace and rebuild

the highways in this system that would cover all transportation needs because of

losing the railway. Sufficient monies should have been put into the system to

complete the whole Trans-Canada, the rebuilding of the Trans-Canada and all the

trunk roads.

In the case of this particular highway, at the end of the

agreement there will still be a need and no monies to complete another 100

kilometres of the road, and that goes right across the highway and we can take

any

section of road. We should have gotten more money for the Roads for Rail

Agreement, and if this government had been in power, Mr. Speaker, we would have

gotten more money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: An excellent deal.

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

L'Anse-au-Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of

the 500 residents of Cartwright, Black Tickle, and Paradise River, Labrador, in

support of keeping their RCMP detachment open.

It says: To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of the communities Cartwright, Black Tickle, and Paradise

River: We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the closure of the RCMP detachment

in Cartwright.

Well, I guess, Mr. Speaker, one can only assume that there

will be reductions in policing services when you have a cut to that division in

the Province, but one cannot assume that there would be services cut in areas

where there is minimal policing services in remote areas of this Province where

you have isolated communities, as there are in Labrador.

The residents of these communities have been receiving only

minimum policing services as Canadian citizens, and now they are being forced to

have to deal with services that may become non-existent. Eliminating the police

detachment in this area reduces the overall budget for the RCMP by only $200,000

in my estimates, which is a minimal savings for that department, but a loss of

services that provide protection and enforcement to people of this Province in

rural, isolated communities.

The RCMP is proposing that their detachment in Mary's Harbour

serve the residents of Cartwright, Black Tickle and Paradise River. Already that

detachment services eight isolated permanent communities and twenty-three

seasonal communities. They are served by only two officers. Complaints of

policing services have been registered from areas that are presently served by

that department. People and communities along the Southeast Coast of Labrador

have been lobbying to have policing services increased, and yet, with this cut

we have seen services decreased.

Policing of this nature cannot be done adequately without

proper boat facilities and air patrol, and as we all know, this is quite

expensive in Labrador. At present, we have two officers serving, as I said,

eight isolated communities, and what they are proposing is that these officers

now serve eleven permanent isolated communities, in excess of twenty-six

seasonal communities. It cannot be done and it will not be done. It is not being

done under the present system and with more area to be covered; it will not be

done under the new system.

In reviewing the Budget estimates, from my understanding, it

appears that the RCMP budget for 1995-1996 was $39,728,000 and so many dollars,

and that was revised at somewhere around $37 million. This year's budget is

estimated at $36 million and, to me that indicates only a cost reduction of

about $1 million to the RCMP. And from the cuts that have been coming out of

Labrador as a whole, it seems like the RCMP there will be saving in excess of

$600,000, so I have to question how much of the burden of this cut we are going

to bear?

As everybody in this House knows, in Labrador we are

handicapped. We are handicapped in our own land when it comes to protesting cuts

in this Province. We cannot gather on the steps of Confederation Building and

launch a lobby to protest what we do not believe is right because we live in a

isolated area of this Province, and as many people know, it seems that we always

get hit the hardest and we cannot come back because we are not accessible to the

people who make decisions.

I feel that there are other areas of this Province where cuts

could have been made in policing services and I have to question, for instance,

the water patrols on the Southeast Coast of the Island and if there was

something that could have been down scaled there. To me these types of services

affect fewer people directly. I also have to question the Northern Peninsula of

this Island, and as much as I hate to make comparisons to other rural areas of

the Province I feel it is necessary in this case. When you look at the Northern

Peninsula from St. Anthony down to Rocky Harbour you have five RCMP detachments

in a 350 kilometre radius. You compare this to the Labrador Coast, where you

have over a 400 kilometre radius of isolated communities with no road

transportation to be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that we have an area of 400

kilometres that is totally isolated with no roads and we expect to police that

entire area with two officers in a one-remote location. I have to ask where the

fairness in policing service is to the Labrador isolated communities of this

Province? For seventy years this area has not enjoyed the basis privileges of

police protection, first under the Newfoundland Rangers and then after

Confederation, under the RCMP. I guess the reality is, is that if there is a

crime committed in these communities or if someone decides to go on a rampage we

are looking at possibly a full week before RCMP officers can get into this area.

We have to deal not only with travel conditions but also with weather which

plays a big

part in travel in Labrador.

I am asking that the Minister of Justice and his department

please understand the geographical conditions and the natural obstacles and

challenges that are faced by policing these communities. I ask that he

understand the basis rights of the people who live in these isolated communities

of Cartwright, Black Tickle and Paradise River and how their lives are affected

by this decision. I ask that he look also at the unfairness in the decision that

has been made to close the Cartwright detachment and what an injustice that this

is doing to the people of that area. So I ask that he reconsider his decision

and keep the RCMP detachment in Cartwright open.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am rising in

support of the petition so ably presented by the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse

au-Clair.

The issue that is being raised here, Mr. Speaker, is one that

is very fundamental. The question put before this House by the petition is

whether or not the safety and security of the people of that district of the

community of Cartwright and the other communities on that part of the coast is

as important as the safety and security of someone who lives in St. John's,

Gander, Labrador City or in Roddickton. That is the fundamental question that is

being put to this House by the member and I am pleased that the member has

presented this petition. It is about time that the residents of that part of the

Labrador Coast had someone speaking up for them in the House of Assembly instead

of getting on with political rhetoric and gamesmanship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Political rhetoric and gamesmanship is what

we had heard before but now we have someone presenting the true concerns of the

people for what their communities need. I think the case has been presented

quite clearly and adequately by the member to ensure that people who have a need

for their security in Cartwright, in the other communities that were mentioned,

who have no access to policing service, except on a very delayed basis.

If an incident occurs in these communities, it can take - as

the member said - up to a week, sometimes a couple of days for a response to

come from the RCMP. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. That is not good

enough when the police forces and the amount of money that this government is

spending on police forces, both to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and in

the contract with the RCMP, the amount of money that is available for justice

and policing is there, that it should be distributed more fairly to ensure that

in rural Newfoundland - it may cost more per capita to have adequate policing

services in rural Newfoundland, there is no doubt about that but that, Mr.

Speaker, is the nature of the Newfoundland and Labrador distribution of people.

That is the nature of our Province and if we are not going to ensure that the

security and safety of individuals is adequate in rural Newfoundland then what

we are saying to the people of this Province is that if you want to live there,

well, you are on your own and you take your own chances.

I don't think that is right, and I am not going to get into

some fancy rhetoric about resettlement, disguised resettlement. What I am

talking about here is basic fairness to the people who live in this Province and

who want to continue to live in rural Newfoundland, but are now speaking out and

are prepared to demand that government be fair to the communities on the Coast

of Labrador, just as they are supposed to be fair to St. John's or Corner Brook,

or other parts, even, of rural Newfoundland.

I know the member was hesitant to compare to other parts of

rural Newfoundland, but I think she made an adequate comparison when she talked

about the fact that in certain parts of rural Newfoundland road transportation

makes it easy for police personnel to carry out their police work in a larger

area. In the Northeast Coast, where roads are adequate transportation is there,

whereas on the Labrador Coast the only way to travel from community to community

is by airplane, by boat, or by snowmobile in the winter, and this provides a

very different type of environment for police work.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Justice is not here to

respond, but I hope someone on behalf of government can respond to those

concerns and seriously reconsider the decision that has been made and redeploy

the budgetary monies so that the police operations on the Labrador Coast are not

impaired, and that this decision is reversed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the

petition presented by the hon. Member for Cartwright - L'Anse-au-Clair, and want

her to know that I associate myself with the concerns that she has raised.

Inasmuch as a non-resident of her part of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador can empathize with and associate with the concerns of Labrador, I do

so.

For many, many years I have had great concerns about that

great part of our Province, having living and taught - granted, not in the

coastal area but in Churchill Falls - for five years, that there was a great

admiration and great affection developed for Labrador during that period of

time. I want to say that I lived in Labrador during a time of great upheaval,

during the time of the New Labrador Party, and I fought rather vigorously and

zealously for Labrador, encouraging local members, local people like herself, to

get involved in politics so they could present with zeal, and with a great

feeling for Labrador, the special needs of that part of the Province.

I am delighted with what has happened and with what continues

to happen in Labrador over the past number of years with the great members that

we have had representing the area. All of them, each in their own way, have been

doing a magnificent job in terms of bringing the needs of their area to this

House of Assembly and creating a greater awareness for the special needs and the

special concerns for Labrador. And this government has demonstrated its concern;

this government has demonstrated that it intends to treat Labrador, the Labrador

section of our Province, with the same degree of equity as they are treating

other parts of the Province, and I believe the onus is on all of us to ensure

that all of this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the full

potential of the Labrador section, the Island part of this Province, is

developed to the good of the people for the good of all of our people, and I

would hope that the Minister of Justice, and I am sure he will, will read

Hansard and particularly read the petition presented by the hon. member to

ensure that if there is some injustice in this particular case, if the people of

her particular area, the area she mentioned, Black Tickle and Paradise River, if

these areas are not being served adequately by the RCMP of this country, then I

believe he will see that matter is corrected and that it is remedied. It is my

advice to him that he look very seriously, as I am sure he will, to ensure that

in terms of police protection, and indeed in terms of all public services, that

Labrador is well represented, that Labrador is well serviced with respect to the

public services of this Province, that it doesn't feel neglected, that it feels

that it is indeed being treated as an equal partner in this great Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope, and I know that the Minister

of Justice will address the concerns. If there are at all any irregularities,

any kind of inadequacy with respect to policing in that part of the area, I am

sure that it will be corrected and rectified.

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

Vidi.

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

present a petition on behalf of a number of high-school students from St.

John's. Three hundred and thirty-four students have signed this petition. It

concerns the issue of public examinations and marking. The petition reads as

follows. It isn't in the exact form that the House requires, but both sides of

the House have agreed to waive any objections to the format of the petition. It

states as follows:

That the recent public exam crisis has caused much concern

and disturbance for students. Public exams provide a provincial standard of

education. This standardized evaluation has provided equal opportunity for all

students to receive scholarships and meet entrance requirements for university.

A marking board has always successfully determined each student's abilities and

rewarded them fairly. If the marking board is done away with there will be a

great injustice to students writing public exams and the school system. We as

students propose the re-instatement of the provincial marking board.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the petition is a little late, because

not only has the government affirmed its wiping out of the marking board, it has

now announced this morning that it is going to wipe out public exams.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This was done yesterday. It was done

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, as part of an effort by students to have some input into

this process. There is an accompanying letter from a student who quite

articulately sets out the concerns that I think need to be listed to and heard

in this House. This student says as follows: The government has always

emphasized the importance of youth and the roles they will play in the future of

this Province and country. The decision government is about to make - this is

dated yesterday - is a big one and will affect thousands of students. Please

listen for our input because it is our futures you will ultimately influence.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think any listening went on at all. The

minister seems to have taken the opportunity to do a little NLTA bashing, blame

it on the NLTA, but not listen to the students and listen to the real concerns

of students as to what they want. What this student says is: Nobody has really

asked the opinion of the students throughout the ordeal. We are the ones being

affected by the changes yet decisions are being made which will influence our

futures without our input.

The student explains it quite well. She says that the levels

of teaching and learning in different schools throughout the various areas of

our Province are at different levels. Some schools cover more subjects in

greater depth and detail than others. Teachers mark their students at different

levels of difficulty. If the marking board is done away with how will a

provincial level of equal marking be determined?

These are the students. This is not the Department of

Education saying: We must have standards. This is not the bureaucrats saying: We

want to make sure that students are treated fairly so we will have a

standardized education, so that teachers in one school won't mark their students

up to show them off to the rest of the Province, and another school with a

different standard, perhaps a more rigid standard will mark their students down.

It is not the Department of Education saying: No, no, we must have said it. This

is the students themselves saying that they want to have a standardized test

that allows them to be able to have an equal opportunity to do well, whether it

is for the purposes of scholarships or the purposes of entrance and competition

for places at universities.

This is the student speaking. I have talked to a number of

students, and they are very concerned. These are genuine, hard-working, sincere

students who are preparing at this time, this last few weeks, concentrating on

preparing for these public exams. We have all gone through this in our own

lives. It is not a very pleasant experience, having the anxieties associated

with getting involved in examinations, particularly public exams, and I suppose

students find a little bit more trepidation involved when the exams are not

coming from the teachers that they know but are coming rather from the

Department of Education, but it is a measure that they are prepared to put

themselves through because they are ambitious about their own futures, and we

have done everything that we can to try to make them ambitious about doing well

in the education system that is offered to them, and doing well in the future

and to, at this point in time, in a matter of a week or ten days or two weeks

before the public exams are about to start, to throw a monkey wrench into their

futures, into their preparation for exams, is a very disturbing thing. Clearly,

the government has not listened to the students; it has not even asked their

opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I could have just a minute to finish, Mr.

Speaker, they have not asked their opinion, and I ask the Minister of Education

if he would sincerely, on behalf of these students, seriously reconsider what he

is doing here, and look to what these students say, and consider his decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very pleased to rise today and support a petition

offered to the House by my colleague on the right who, of course, is offering a

petition on behalf of the more than 300 students who yesterday, when they heard

the news, took the initiative to circulate a petition among themselves.

Mr. Speaker, if there is an example of consultation, an

example of listening to what people are saying, the people who are directly

affected... I say to all hon. members in this House, if this were 334 people

from the Board of Trade, or they were 334 businessmen who wanted to have input

into a decision, then this House would be all ears and listening, and the

government would be saying: My, we have to listen to the hundreds of business

people, or the hundreds of adults out there. But we have here our youth, we have

here our future, and we say to all hon. members, before you go too far in this,

listen to what the young people who are directly affected are saying, and we

know that they want to have a say.

We know the chaos that went into the system in 1994 when, at

the end of the year, we had to change strategies on evaluation. We know how

frustrating it was for students then, and after studying all year, to find

ourselves on 24 May now saying that we are going to cancel public examinations,

this is an injustice. This is contrary to the principles of fairness, of

evaluation, and for consistency; and for the students who are directly involved,

this cancellation here, as the member has said, means that their perceptions of

fairness, their perceptions of what is right, have been neglected by the

minister in making this decision.

The minister knows that the level of teaching and the

learning at different schools means that we do have different standards. We may

not want to admit it. Years ago we had the "D" factor put in. The "D" factoring

evaluation said: We will make adjustments.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you as a former chief reader in the

public examination system, I have seen schools where students had twenty and

twenty-five marks added because the standards in their schools were a lot

higher. I've seen schools where twenty and twenty-five marks were taken away

from students because the standards in these schools were not that high. So

therefore, if we don't have some kind of measure that makes fairness and balance

into the evaluation system, we will destroy the integrity of the whole

evaluation process.

I say to the minister, in those provinces where they did away

with a uniform evaluation system they are moving back to a general evaluation

system. Therefore, what we say to the minister is he is right when he quotes

Nova Scotia, he is right when he quotes Prince Edward Island, but he should look

at British Columbia, he should look at Alberta, he should look at Saskatchewan.

He should find out what has happened in Ontario, and see what happened in

Manitoba when they let all the schools make the decisions. What is happening in

Manitoba is contrary to what the minister is saying here. Look at what is

happening across the country. We are doing something now that other provinces

have done and have said: No, it is the wrong thing to do.

Before we go down that road of destroying a provincial

standard let's make sure that we don't do it and then have to backtrack on it

afterwards. I say to the minister, he knows the importance of having a

provincial standard, he knows what to do. Listen to the students. These are the

people who are saying to the minister: We want a standardized process; we want

to know that our marks compare favourably with all others. The parents are

saying: We want to know that a mark that is obtained in school A is equivalent

to marks obtained in school B, and the marks obtained in one community are

comparable to marks obtained in another community.

When a child goes to university he or she wants to hold up

his or her marks and say: This is the mark and it has been graded on a

provincial grade and compares with all others, not only in my school but

throughout the Province. On behalf of the students I say to the minister: Don't

dismiss it. The students are speaking. You have prided yourself on consultation;

now show that you really intend to walk your talk. Don't just talk it, but now

walk it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

opportunity to make a few comments with respect to the petition. I'm delighted

that my hon. colleague who just spoke was a chief reader at one time. I wished

only that he had read the petition and made his comments relevant to what the

students were asking the government to consider.

The point was missed by both the presenters with respect to

the petition. The prayer of the petition basically was that the government

re-instate the marking board. We fully agree. Which is why we made the decision

today that if there was going to be a public examination then the ideal would be

to have a marking board so that we could have the kinds of independence that the

hon. members just spoke about.

We had, because of budgetary reasons this year, decided that

we would ask instead the teachers to mark the actual examinations themselves.

Because as the president of the NLTA said this morning - if anybody listened to

his interview earlier, before we came to the Legislature -, he indicated quite

clearly that there is no need on any educational grounds to have a separate

public examination system, and that there was certainly no need to have an

independent board marking them. That the teachers in Newfoundland and Labrador

are the highest qualified, best trained total teaching force in the country.

Also, that because they are entrusted with every evaluation

decision about a student right from kindergarten, every single evaluation of a

student that is done from the time he or she enters the school system until he

or she completes Level II, and until he or she completes any of the courses in

Level III except for eighteen out of eighty, every decision made about the

competence of a student in Newfoundland and Labrador as to whether or not he or

she has met the standards for a course or not, is totally entrusted, 100 per

cent, to the teachers of the students in the school.

The president of the NLTA was saying: Why was there such a

big deal in any event about now singling out eighteen courses out of eighty? Not

even the full range of courses at the graduating level, but why was there a big

deal in any event about singling out eighteen out of eighty courses and saying

there should be a common exam? There are merits to a common exam, but not enough

obviously to sustain it, Mr. Speaker. Secondly then why you could not expect and

trust those teachers to mark that exam when every other decision made about the

progress and the acceptable work of a student from kindergarten, through primary

school, through elementary school, through junior high school, all through Level

1, all through Level 11, and for all of the other courses in Level 111, except

these, that the teacher's word was accepted as being completely acceptable,

completely within reason, and completely what everybody in the Province would

understand that a professional, unbiased and meeting the criteria of the

provincial curriculum guide, would then give an indication as to whether or not

the student has met the criteria successfully or not. Now, all of a sudden we

try to use language like crisis, that there is a crisis because of the fact that

this year, and in future years, we will not now have a separate public

examination for eighteen courses out of well over 100 and some odd that a

student does at the high school level, but there will not be separate

examinations, and because teachers could not agree with us to mark them this

year, rather than put the students through an exercise of writing an examination

that would not be marked we have come to the conclusion that there will not be a

public examination.

I am glad the petition is here, Mr. Speaker, because I can

make the point now in the Legislature that I made in the scrum outside the

Legislature. Students should not assume that this means there will not be final

examinations in those eighteen courses. What there will not be is the same final

examination done by every student on a public exam basis. Most of the school

boards in the Province, which is why we have made the statement today, require

as a part of their evaluation process, a final examination in the course as part

of the school evaluation, and now the school boards and the teachers have to

decide, between now and June 7 when the examination period would start - and any

teacher, as the hon. members opposite would know, can prepare adequately and

appropriately a final examination in a course that they have been teaching all

year in a day or two without hesitation.

We have all done it and it is not a problem. They are not

saying it is a problem, but they have to decide and they have to let the

students know whether or not there is going to be a school based examination to

replace the public examination, because that is what the students need to know

more than anything else. There is no crisis, Mr. Speaker, and there is no

difficulty for the students, there are no difficulties with acceptance at the

post-secondary institutions.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition

to the House of Assembly. To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in

Legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, since it has a monopoly in the

delivery of an essential commodity in this Province is not at risk of becoming

non-competitive;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador do

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. When we opened the

House first after the election was over Newfoundland Power had asked for an

increase of the Public Utilities Board of about 4.9 per cent, and we passed in

this session in this Legislature an all-party resolution that gave the consumer

advocate of the Public Utilities Board all the resources he would require to do

the job on behalf of all of us as consumers and rate payers to ensure that an

increase in power rates would not occur, but what happened since that time? This

government entered into an agreement on PST and GST harmonization that would see

an increase of 8 per cent across the board on electricity rates, outside of the

Public Utilities Board and outside of Newfoundland Power's increase, without any

consultation whatsoever.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, if Newfoundland Power is granted

an increase of what they have requested to date, of 2.9 per cent, that at the

end of the day, sometime in August or September, each and every one of us in

this Province, people sitting in the galleries and ourselves as ratepayers, all

of us as consumers of electricity rates, will pay an additional 10 per cent.

But, Mr. Speaker, there was no consultation. Government had no intention of

consulting with people on the GST/PST harmonization that would see an increase

in power rates, just as they did not consult with students, just as they did not

consult with teachers or the NTA or parents on cancelling public examinations.

Mr. Speaker, that has become and is fast becoming a hallmark of this government,

zero consultation. Say one thing on the left hand and do a completely other

thing on the right hand. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you now that the people of

this Province are catching on pretty quickly and that the time will come when

the Minister of Education, other ministers and people in government, that if

they don't start practising what they are going to be preaching then that will

catch up to them very fast. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the

petition of my colleague. Again, as he has stated, it was down to 2.9 per cent

now we are going to be faced with roughly another 8 per cent increase in our

light bills throughout this Province and I think that is a disgrace. We passed a

resolution in this House that we would give the consumer advocate all the power

he needs and still it will probably end up somewhere in the range of 8 per cent

to 10 per cent increase if this is allowed to go ahead.

I think again, Mr. Speaker, and I have spoken on many

petitions as it relates to light and power and we intend to keep bringing them

and bringing them and bringing them until somebody finally gets the message that

this side of the House at least, are dead opposed to any increase. I guess in

the consultation process, as my friend has said, there has been none, there

probably will be none and that will be the format as we continue on down the

road.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I support the petition. I think it is

a disgrace to the people of this Province that they are again going to be faced

with such a large increase in their light bill and heat bill and with the number

of lay offs that we are going to have - and these are not even into their

economy yet or into our economy we have not really seen the effects of what

these lay-offs are going to do to this Province. We have not really seen that

yet, Mr. Speaker, 1,000 now but when we work out the numbers and see what that

generates into, it will be really something else.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a disgrace again, that this

utility is again looking for another increase and I think it should be stopped.

If we have to change the act then we should change the act of the Public

Utilities Board so that this House, if we have to come to that, so that this

House can say no. Some people in this government sometimes seem to understand

the difference between yes and no but I think we have to put in a formula where

there has to be something where we can say no to these people. They make

exorbitant profits and I think it is time that it is stopped.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1. The hon. the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board to move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the Raising of Supply to be

granted to Her Majesty.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was speaking on Tuesday when I adjourned debate on the

issue. I was touching base on some issues of importance in the Budget and it is

unfortunate again today, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance is not here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has ruled before that it is unparliamentary to

refer to the presence or absence of any specific member in the House of

Assembly. I will ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to refrain from that.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that certain

people are absent today that could possibly answer questions I may want to ask.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) that is wrong what you are doing

and you know it is wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Government House Leader on a

point of order.

MR. TULK: The Chair has already ruled that you are not to

refer to people. You cannot, in this House, do indirectly what you are not

prepared to do directly. Now what the hon. gentleman is trying to do - now the

truth is too, Mr. Speaker, that there is a Hansard in this House and the

ministers who are absent, who are out and about the country on Her Majesty's

business, will read Hansard and there will be ample time for them to answer the

hon. gentleman's questions. So what he should do, is get on with posing the

questions, they are recorded, they will be read and in every way, shape or form

as this government and every minister over here do, they will be answered, I say

to the hon. gentleman.

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

speaking to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware that there

was a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: There was a point of order raised by the

Government House Leader. The Chair has already ruled that the referring to the

presence or absence of specific members is a violation of the rules of the

House, it is unparliamentary, and the member has been asked to refrain from

using that practice.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly refrain from referring to any member who is

absent specifically, I will do that. I asked the Government House Leader, the

other day - I had numerous questions of which he took note, and I did not, Mr.

Speaker, get any answers there. The Premier indicated yesterday he would like to

know, he stated in this House yesterday, where we stand on certain fiscal

matters. I indicated, and I said across the House that I did indicate what we

would do in a particular instance and what we would not do in a particular

instance in reference to this Budget and that is on the record since Tuesday,

and I have further comments to speak to the specific points here again today,

and maybe the Government House Leader or the appropriate minister can respond in

the absence of any particular minister here which is the appropriate procedure,

I understand.

MR. TULK: We are not in Committee.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Government House Leader, I

understand quite well we are not in Committee but that still does not deny me

the right to asking questions and getting leave to get answers to these

questions. If the minister does not want to use leave to give answers, that is

fine with me, I would just continue and ask them anyway and, Mr. Speaker, in

line with the orders of this House, I understand I have been recognized, not the

Government House Leader, who should be setting the decorum and standards for

this House here, and I would like the courtesy and opportunity to express my

views as it pertains to this Budget here in the House today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the hon. Leader of the Opposition be extended the

courtesy that he has requested.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, as the Budget was being read

on May 16 - and I want to touch on the area of social services for a few moments

- it was read in the Budget that the social assistance caseload in this Province

will continue to increase this year because there is going to be lower

employment, an anticipated amount actually of 9,000 in the projected forecast

that this government provided in the economy and the appropriate table that

corresponds, the exploration of TAGS benefits for many individuals, 1,674 as of

May 11 have been eliminated from this program. Numerous others, well in excess

of 2,000 people will have been dropped from this program by the end of December,

will increase the social assistance caseload, and I understand the minister

stated that they are anticipating about 10 per cent increase from these people

because of those situations there, the minister stated in this House.

Also, the reforms to unemployment insurance have been

indicated that it will cause an increase in the social assistance caseload and

the reforms on UI or EI reforms as they are called, will have a devastating

impact on the economy of this Province and on revenues coming into this Province

and will increase by the minister's own admission the number of people who will

be availing of social assistance in the Province this year. In fact the minister

said: this will increase our assistance costs by about $6 million, the minister

indicated in the Budget that we can expect to have a need for six million more

dollars because of those specific factors that were mentioned in the Budget and

I mention them on page 18 in the Budget.

The minister went on to say the budget of the Department of

Social Services will not be decreased and will, similar to the Department of

Health, receive a modest increase this year. So we are looking at a modest

increase in total dollars, not in real net gain to the people who are on that

program, which we were certainly led to believe when the Budget was being read,

but on the same day, on the very same day that the Budget was being read a

memorandum went out to district managers in Social Services and the heading is

called: Impact of Provincial Budget on Income Support Programs for the Fiscal

Year 1996-1997.

The memorandum went on to say that social assistance was

granted a budget allocation of approximately $250 million, and employment

opportunities a budget of approximately $8 million. It said: These allocations

to these programs have been made with the understanding that under no conditions

are they to be exceeded. There is a specific reference made, Mr. Speaker, and a

change in direction from what was happening before, and prior to the Budget. It

said that income tax refund policy will be continued and rigorously enforced. It

said: In future greater emphasis will be placed on suspensions and reductions

versus overpayments.

People who are on social assistance - and I was told of a

case of $900 approximately, I think it was, owed, whose benefits we are told are

going to be suspended for the entire time until the amount of money they receive

would be made up for by Social Services.

I said to the minister, and I said to another minister in the

House here before who was going to pass it on to the Minister of Social

Services, I suggested how we should deal with this as a solution. Because it is

not just to criticize what is happening but to offer a solution. I say again to

the minister who is here today, I indicated that many people go on social

assistance during certain intervals. Many may not be long term. I will use a

specific example that I used in the House here before.

I said, in June for example, last June if a family has to go

on social assistance because their UI has run out, or because of a special need

- they cannot find a job, whatever the circumstance may be -, that person

receives social assistance. Let's say from last June up to now they are still on

social assistance. That person gets back this year, based on last year's income,

an income tax refund of $300, we will use as an example. That money was earned

prior to the person going on social assistance. If the person went on social

assistance and owed $500 to a company for furniture or owed $1,200 to a bank or

several thousand dollars to other people, social assistance will not make those

additional payments for these people, for these debts they incurred prior to

going on social assistance.

So I say: why should social assistance take the revenues that

they had relegated to that period before they went on it, and clawed back from

Social Services, when they could use that money to retire debts they had

previous to going on Social Services?

I say that is callous, it is improper, it is unfair, and it

is not playing the game. I say to the minister, it is not proper and something

should be done about it. I asked the minister before, but the Minister of

Education and Training told me he would take it up with the minister there and

discuss it with the Cabinet colleagues to deal with this specific problem. I

think it is a concern. I think it is unfair to expect a family on social

assistance with $300 or $400 a month to lose three months' benefits because they

got an income tax refund if the refund is not relegated to the period in which

they were on social assistance.

Revenue Canada recognizes income and it applies that. It is

applied, and for UI purposes generally, to the period in which it is earned

rather than in which it is received. If I work on a job and I receive a cheque

three or four weeks later after I finished from the job, for that period in

which I finished, it is relegated to the period you earn it, not in which you

receive it. An income tax refund means that that person while they worked

contributed more than they normally should have contributed based on their own

personal family circumstances and deductions. So why should we be doing this?

I say every single instance should be investigated, and where

there are callous decisions made they should be revisited and looked at in light

of the information and the facts presented on each individual case, and I hope

the minister will do that. I don't think that is too unfair a request.

Also, let's look at other realities there apart from that

issue. If a person is on social assistance, he is getting the minimum level on

which you can survive. For a single person it is $89 a month. Now, try living on

$89 a month. A family gets $390 a month, give or take a few dollars; I don't

have the exact figures here. It used to be, I think, $383, probably $390 now, I

am not sure, but it is in that range. If you lose two months income because you

got a refund - now I know people are going to bingo - I will use an example, if

people go out to a bingo and they win $700, someone calls in and says they won

$700 at bingo, they will deduct that from their social assistance, claw all that

back. Do they deduct the expenses earned in earning that? If they spent $20 to

earn that for the last eight weeks, $160, do they deduct that from their

revenues, their expenses? As an example, I am just using - when you look at real

income to people, you should look at expenses associated in earning income. That

is recognized as a fundamental part of our income tax system. It is a

fundamental part of our operation.

Now, I know of instances where people - it is not the role of

the system either and I am not supporting, at all, passing out cheques to people

on social assistance who have other incomes. I think social assistance is a last

resort for people who do not have financial means. If people have debts - and I

think we should be looking at this - if people have debts incurred prior to

going on social assistance, there should be some consideration given, I say to

the minister. If they do get a gift from a family member - I know one in my

district; I went to an appeal board because they got a trip - a person who had

never been on an airplane in their life -to England, and that person went, but

had to get deductions because of that. Because the only other relative that that

person had and they wanted to see the person, I guess the person was getting

older, an opportunity to see that particular relative and that is cutting it

very, very fine when someone wants to give you a trip out of compassion for a

family member and to come back and claw back proportionate amounts. Besides, if

you are given a minimum amount that you are told you can live on, then clawing

back things below that minimum amount, if there is an intent on the person to

defraud the system, that is one thing and that is something that has to be

enforced, it has to be enforced. It is very important. We cannot have people out

making use and living under false pretences and drawing from our system. That is

not proper, it is not fair and I don't support it at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, certainly I would not mind. I will

certainly give leave in time to do that. I just want to mention another - okay,

I will just take one minute and then I will sit down.

Another point, I will just say to the minister also,

basically with reference to what the minister has mentioned, and I have read it

in newspapers, that they uncovered about $3.5 million that they saved because of

what we call welfare cops - the initial ten, I think we had seven earlier. Now

to the minister, I would like to know too, if that is possible? Have we

recovered all that money or is that only identified savings? Can we really

collect that? Is that for people who are on social assistance and their

long-term and we will never get that money back? Have we identified it and what

have we collected? What has been the return? What has been the return on the

jobs paid, the staff and the resources they collected? How much have they

collected? How much are we better off on the bottom line as a result of that?

Now I am not condoning people abusing the system. In fact, I am very strongly

opposed to that, but I want to know what are the real net line savings and

budgetary impacts that it will have because of that announcement and those extra

positions that have been added.

I will give the minister leave - I understand she is on a

busy

schedule - to hopefully address a few of those points.

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

leave.

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

I would like to try to answer some of the comments and

questions you have raised. I don't know if I will be able to address them all in

totality because you have raised quite a number this morning.

I would first like to start by saying that the memo to which

you refer, this memo that was sent to district managers from our director, was

not an absconded memo. It was, in fact, sent to your office by myself, on my

direction, so that you would have the information. There is no planned destined

operation going on here. What we are doing is open for all to see and it will be

something that I would like to continue to do so that you will have the

information as we are sending it out to the system.

With respect to the impact on social services recipients as

it relates to TAGS and unemployment, we have estimated about a 10 per cent

increase to the social assistance rolls from the TAGS recipients. At this point

it is still preliminary because many people are still living in families who

receive TAGS; their partners are receiving TAGS, which means they would not

qualify. We have yet to see the impact of the unemployment insurance, and I

think that we have built in some mechanism for dealing with an increased number

through an estimated cost of about 1,000 new recipients. So the 10 per cent was

with respect to TAGS, in which we are anticipating about 300 new cases, and we

are allowing for about 700 from other sources. I think we also have to factor in

the out-migration that may also impact on our declining numbers.

I think one very important factor which has not been

addressed today is the positive impact which the minimum wage will have - at

least we are expecting it will have - on the number of people who will require

top-ups during the year, so we are very pleased with that initiative, and we

feel that will have a very positive impact.

With respect to the income tax recuperation, as I have

mentioned earlier, one of our initiatives this year is to look at our whole

income support process. We will be looking at all our policies and procedures as

they relate to income tax. But I have to be very honest; it is a source of

revenue which we feel we have no choice but to collect. It is a policy that has

been on the books for some time, and while I recognize the specific incidences

you referred to, about people who have collected a recuperation of income tax

refund prior to receiving social assistance, our whole intention while providing

social assistance is to provide the basic services, and until we are able to

look at that more closely to identify a different approach we will be enforcing

the policy.

When you make reference to a more strict enforcement, and we

will be terminating and suspending cases, that is because we have given ample

notice to people who will be receiving income tax refunds. We feel that they

sign a contract when they come onto social assistance; they are aware of the

requirements that they have to report monies. They do have an exemption of $75

for those personal gifts and exemptions. In addition, they have $100 exemption

as a family to the income tax rebate, and that