May 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 59

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before calling our routine business, on behalf of hon.

Members, I welcome to the public galleries, today, thirty-one, Grade VII

students from the Fred Kirby Intermediate School, Foxtrap, accompanied by their

teacher, Edwina Sooley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the 1991-92 Budget Speech, it was announced

that in order to achieve economies in the economic planning and advisory

services of government, the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador and

the Advisory Board of the Economic Recovery Commission would be merged into one

body with a resulting savings in the order of $200,000.

I am pleased to announce today that this process has been

completed and the services and facilities of the two advisory groups have been

consolidated under a single advisory board known as the Advisory Council on the

Economy.

The Council is headed by Mr. Harold Lundrigan of Corner

Brook, as Chairman. Mr. Lundrigan was previously Chairman of the Economic

Recovery Commission Advisory Board and was also the first Chairman of the

Economic Council, so he brings to the new Council valuable experience and the

perspective of both former advisory bodies.

Mr. Campbell Eaton of St. John's has agreed to serve as

Vice-Chairman. Mr. Eaton was also a member of the former Economic Recovery

Advisory Board.

Other members of the 15-person Council are: Ms. Elizabeth

Curtis, Mount Pearl; Ms. Shirley Frost, Pasadena; Mr. Glenn Kirby, Kippens; Mr.

John Manuel, Corner Brook; Ms. Frances Nichols, Grand Falls; Mr. John O'Brien,

St. John's; Mr. Wayne Russell, St. John's; Mr. Ray Smallwood, St. John's; Mr.

Gerald Smith, Lourdes; Mr. Robert Warr, Happy Valley/Goose Bay; Mr. Victor

Young, St. John's; and, Mr. Jim Skinner, Wabush.

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the last one, Mr. Jim

Skinner of Wabush, all of the persons named were members of the former boards

and we took roughly half from each of the former boards and added them to the

new one.

In expressing appreciation to these individuals who have

accepted our invitation to serve on the new Council, I must also pay tribute to

all those who gave so freely of their time, energy and expertise on both the

Economic Council and the Advisory Board of the ERC. Now, bear in mind, Mr.

Speaker, these are non-paying boards, these are volunteer services that these

individuals are contributing for the benefit of the Province. They have made an

outstanding and lasting contribution to their Province and it is an expression

of confidence in both groups that the new Council is comprised almost entirely

of equal representation from members of these boards.

The mandate of the Advisory Council on the Economy will

encompass the role pursued by both its predecessors. The Council will: identify

major economic issues which must be addressed by the Province; undertake

appropriate research and analysis in order to provide independent and

responsible advice and recommendations on government policies and actions to

address these issues; monitor government economic policies and initiatives and

evaluate the effectiveness and potential; advise on the manner in which social

and economic polities may be interacting and the manner in which economic and

social policies can best be co-ordinated; contribute to public awareness and

informed discussion on economic issues and prospects; serve as an advisory board

to the Government in respect of the Economic Recovery Commission, providing

advice on its own initiative or on request, pertaining to the structure,

function and performance of the Economic Recovery Commission; on request by the

Economic Recovery Commission to provide advice as to its organization and

policies and assessment of its methods and performance; on its own initiative,

or on request, to provide advice as to any matter touching on the economic

development of the Province.

The staff complements of each of the four advisory groups

have also been consolidated and rationalized under the new Council to effect

greater efficiency of operation and to eliminate duplication of effort.

The new Advisory Council on the Economy will provide an

essential service to Government in the performance of its mandate and in helping

to chart the proper course for future economic growth in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I only received a copy of the Premier's statement on coming

into the House, so I have not had time to really take a very close look at the

statement, or to prepare a detailed response to it.

Let me say to the Premier, that it certainly appears, at

first blush, to be just cosmetics that the Premier is involved in here. He is

putting a different face, he says, on the Economic Council of Newfoundland and

Labrador. What he is really doing, as he said, is amalgamating the Economic

Council of Newfoundland and Labrador with the Advisory Board of the Economic

Recovery Commission. Again, time will tell if there is any wisdom in that move,

or if it is going to mean anything substantial to the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador when it comes to employment. We have greater concerns with the Economic

Recovery Commission and what that happens to be doing at this point in time to

alleviate some of the long-term, and the short-term employment problems, that

people are having in this Province. The Premier should be aware now that people

are leaving the Province in unbelievable numbers, and I certainly, personally,

do not see, and I do not believe anyone else in the Province can see what an

amalgamation of these two boards is going to mean to the unemployed people in

Newfoundland and Labrador. If the Premier can explain to me what an amalgamation

of these two boards is going to do to reduce the unemployment rate, which is

presently at 22.5 per cent, then I will certainly welcome the news of the

amalgamation of these two bodies, Mr. Speaker. If it is going to help the 25,000

families who are presently on welfare, then we will welcome the news of the

amalgamation of these two boards. The Premier should be aware that over the last

couple of years we have had an increase in the unemployment rate in Newfoundland

of a full 5 percentage points -

MR. SIMMS: Shame!

MR. DOYLE: - and 20 per cent on welfare, Mr. Speaker. So

it is about time the Premier stopped the cosmetics and got down to the business

of trying to build the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and try to get the

people of Newfoundland, who are leaving for the mainland, in droves, back to the

Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: As he promised.

MR. DOYLE: - as he promised them in his last election

campaign. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have no great difficulty with the players in this

particular move. It appears to us that the people involved in this, the members

of the fifteen-person council, are people who seem to be qualified.

There is just one question I would ask the Premier. The

Economic Advisory Board, was set up under its own separate Act. I do not know if

the Act will have to be repealed now.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes.

MR. DOYLE: The Premier says the Act will have to be

repealed.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MS VERGE: Yes, there are only two from rural areas.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues, here, as

well, are expressing concern that there are only two members from rural

Newfoundland on this Board -

MS VERGE: And only three women.

MR. DOYLE: - and only three women. Mr. Speaker, as I

said, hopefully, it will mean something to the unemployed people in Newfoundland

and Labrador, but I suspect it is only cosmetics again.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, this Government recently

promulgated the Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Regulations, 1991, which

became effective February 15, 1991. These regulations are specifically designed

for onshore petroleum exploration and development. They provide Government with

a mechanism to issue petroleum rights and allow interested parties to explore

for petroleum in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in order to issue exploration permits, a

competitive bidding procedure, known as a Request for Bids, must be followed,

whereby the highest bidder wins the exclusive rights to explore and drill for

petroleum on specific lands. To properly gauge the level of interest in

acquiring exploration permits, it is customary to entertain "expressions of

interest" from exploration companies in the form of a Call for Postings or a

Call for Nominations prior to doing a Request for Bids.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce today, that

pursuant to

section 16 of the Petroleum Regulations, I am hereby issuing a Call

for Postings, and invite all interested parties to formally indicate those lands

in the onshore area of the Province that they would like to see made available

in a competitive Request for Bids process. This postings period shall close on

September 13, 1991. I expect that several areas within the onshore western

Newfoundland basin, outlined in the attached backgrounder document, will be the

focus of some posting activity. Thank you.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What can I say? I

mean, we have a Government over here that has been recently rocked by a

patronage scandal; the galleries are blocked with angry truckers; we have 50,000

people on welfare; the fishermen cannot get out because of ice; the hospital

system is in a state of total crisis, and the Minister has indicated that he is

going to ask the companies to look at drilling onshore Newfoundland. Mr.

Speaker, I am underwhelmed. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

June 4, 1991 is Census Day in Canada. This is the ninth

Census of Population to be conducted in Newfoundland and Labrador since

Confederation and, this year, approximately 1,000 people will be employed in the

Province to conduct the Census.

The Census is conducted every five years, with information

being collected from every man, woman and child in Canada. The answers from each

form are combined to provide valuable insights into our social, demographic, and

economic conditions, as well as the changes that are occurring in our society.

Of course, the completed forms are kept strictly confidential.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador uses census

information for a wide range of federal-provincial cost-shared agreements,

equalization and other fiscal arrangements. Government departments and agencies

use census information in a wide range of programme planning and evaluation. For

example, Mr. Speaker, both the Newfoundland Statistics Agency and the Economic

Research and Analysis Division of Cabinet Secretariat make regular use of census

information in their work.

While government is a major user of census information, many

sectors of society also rely on the Census, including municipalities,

businesses, labour unions, social interest groups, and native organizations for

planning, implementing and evaluating their programmes and services.

Mr. Speaker, because of the importance, financially, to this

Province, the Government fully supports the 1991 Census. Information collected

by the Census is used for the benefit of all residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I encourage everyone in our Province to count themselves in on

June 4th by completing their Census forms. It is a very, very important

exercise.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague the Member for

Green Bay was underwhelmed, I do not know what I can be, after a statement of

that sort. I imagine there will be dancing in the streets in Ming's Bight after

the Minister's statement tonight, long into the wee hours of the morning, no

doubt. It is funny how this Government jumps up to announce there will be a

thousand jobs created by the Federal Government, when it seems like it might be

positive, and every other day, they are up attacking the Federal Government for

not doing this or not doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I fully expect the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador to concur with the law, to answer their census, to

explain, and tell the people of Canada whether or not they are hungry, whether

or not they are unemployed, whether or not they are on social assistance,

whether or not they believe the Premier, whether or not they believe the

Government or trust the Government, whether or not they have trucks that they

cannot get paid for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: The only other thing I would suggest to the

Government House Leader is that he pass on to those doing the Census, they might

want to go to Toronto and enumerate all the Newfoundlanders who have gone up

there, lately, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Premier. During the last election campaign the Premier said and I quote:

we have ideas that work so people can work, unquote. He promised, and I quote:

workers in all sectors of the Province will have an opportunity to find

meaningful employment, unquote.

Now two years after the Premier uttered those statements the

unemployment rate in this Province is up from 17.2 per cent to 22.2 per cent;

the number of unemployed is up by 33 per cent to 51,000 people; the number of

people with jobs is down by 7,000, from 188,000 people working to 181,000

people. I want to ask the Premier, where are the ideas that work, and where are

the jobs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The vast majority of them were stolen from

the Province by the economic recession caused by the policies of the hon.

Member's Party in Ottawa, which he supports with great glee and gusto. A great

many were also stolen by the mismanagement of the fisheries that has caused a

substantial loss in the fisheries. Some of the job losses that are now occurring

are caused by the cutbacks in the public service in this Province. Most of those

cutbacks were caused because the Federal Government kept its payments to the

Province and left the Province in a very difficult economic situation, and

because the Province, like every other province of Canada, is facing the

consequences of an economic recession. It does not have the revenue to maintain

all the jobs and the level of operations that have existed in the past.

The Government must operate the business of the public and

the taxpayers of this Province in a sound responsible way and we intend to do

so. In the meantime we have been building and have been continuing to build and

broaden the base of the economy. It is difficult to keep up with the

consequences of an economic recession and the disastrous impact of Federal

policies that cause such loss in the fisheries. But we are trying and I believe

that the Conference Board of Canada is right, this Province will have greater

economic growth than any other province in the country this year. It will be 2.2

per cent compared to the next best - it was a loss two years ago - to the next

best which is four-tenths of 1 per cent in Ontario.

The Government is managing the affairs of the Province in a

responsible way. But I would never purport to claim for the people of this

Province that we can guarantee everybody a job in the face of the policies of

the Federal Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the litany of blaming somebody

else, I think, has probably been expressed again in this House today as it has

been expressed around this Province. Nobody believes what the Premier is saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now I have a supplementary for the Premier.

In three Throne Speeches now before this House, in successive Budget Speeches,

the Premier has promised to present an economic plan to this Legislature. Now we

are in days of seeing this fourth sitting of this Legislature end. I want to ask

the Premier: where is the plan? When is it going to be presented to the people

of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the plan of which the hon.

Member speaks was mentioned in this year's Budget only.

MR. RIDEOUT: In three Throne Speeches.

PREMIER WELLS: The plan of which the hon. Member speaks

was mentioned in this year's Throne Speech only.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Say what they like, it was mentioned in

this year's Throne Speech only.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Planning and Priorities

Committee met on Tuesday of this week and reviewed in detail the proposal for

adjustment to the economic plan which they had reviewed in previous weeks and

had gone back and made some adjustments and there were further adjustments. It

is in process of preparation. And for the first time in its history this

Province will have a strategic economic plan that will provide for co-ordinated,

managed economic development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: For the first time in its history it will

have a strategic economic plan. Mr. Speaker, the Government will make the plan

public when it is ready to make it public, and I expect that will probably be

sometime by the end of this year, I would think. The necessary adjustments will

have been made to it by that time, and the detail would have been done to make

it public around about that time, but I ask the House not to hold me absolutely

to December. I expect sometime around about the end of the year, or early in the

coming year.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier says for the first

time in its history the Province will have an economic plan. I say for the

second time in its history the Province will see a resettlement plan. That is

what is coming out of this Government, Mr Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier was elected

Leader of the Liberal Party he said the following: We have to stop blaming our

problems on others and start coping with them ourselves. Now, Mr. Speaker, is

that another broken promise by the Premier? How is it that whenever the Premier

is questioned about his record he blames his failures on the Federal Government,

he blames them on previous Provincial Governments, he blames them on unions, he

blames them on doctors, he blames them on the poor, he blames them on the widows

of this Province. For God sake, he even blames it on the weather, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I want to ask the Premier of this Province when is he going to give up this

litany of blame on somebody else and accept the fact that he is the Leader of

the Government, and provide accountable leadership to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

should get whoever drafted the question he just read to consult with the Federal

Government. They have at long last recognized that there is an economic

recession in the country. It took them six months of denying it when we

identified the problem, and led the nation in identifying the problem, and in

setting forth a proposal to deal with it. Now, Mr. Speaker, we did not cause the

national economic recession. We did not cause the high interest rates. We did

not cause the growth in unemployment rates. We did not cause the reduction in

the fisheries. We are not prepared to stick our heads in the sand and blind

ourselves. I just got through advising the House that we contributed to the

unemployment statistics by the layoffs in the public service. Anything we caused

I will acknowledge, but I will not be so blind and stupid as to take

responsibility for what the hon. Member's friends in Ottawa have caused to this

country.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly loan the person

who is drafting my questions to the Premier, if the Premier will allow that

person to draft the truth for the people of this Province. Let me say to the

Premier that finding others to blame is the last defence of an incompetent. What

we see here is an incompetent Government. Everything this Premier touches, Mr.

Speaker, he bungles. I ask the Premier again: when is he going to provide the

economic leadership to the people of this Province, create the jobs, create the

opportunity, create the reason for hope, and, yes, even create an atmosphere and

an opportunity for people to trust and believe the Premier? When is that going

to happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Clearly, we have been doing it for the

past two years. That is why the public of this Province continue to give their

support to this Government and this Party. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that is why.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, have we been perfect?

No. We have not been perfect. We have even made a mistake here and there. I

understand that and I accept that proposition, but clearly we have given the

kind of leadership that was lacking in the past, that caused this Province to be

in the economic mess that the former Government left it, and caused us to have

to deal with this massive problem. We are dealing with it and we are satisfied

that we have the confidence of the people of this Province to continue dealing

with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, but as usual she is not in her place again

today, so I will direct my questions to the Premier. The Premier will be aware

as well that the Transport and Allied Worker's Union have requested the

Department of Employment and Labour Relations to draft amendments to the Labour

Relations Act so that the union may become the official bargaining agent for the

owner-operators, which is the truckers.

Now about one month ago the Minister promised and assured the

union that her Department would bring in the necessary amendments to the Labour

Relations Act to make that possible. Let me ask the Premier, why has the

Government reneged on that commitment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am not

aware, and I will check with the Minister when I see her. I am not aware that

there was the commitment that the hon. Member speaks about. I met with the

truckers at least four weeks ago, I think, about three or four weeks ago anyway,

I met with a committee of truckers in a room up here and a representative of the

Teamsters Union was with them and we discussed the problems. I undertook to

immediately address the basic problem and that is that construction companies in

this Province are using their immense power and position to unfairly treat the

truckers by pressuring them to accept less than the Public Utilities Board would

approve for them and causing them to be in a position where they do not get a

fair return for the effort that they make, because, Mr. Speaker, the legislation

that the former Government had in place did not adequately provide for

penalties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, when I looked at it the

penalty for a contracting company probably pressuring or inducing a group of

truckers to operate for far, far less than they should be getting and maybe save

thousands and thousands of dollars by so doing, the minimum penalty was $100 and

the maximum $500. So, Mr. Speaker, we put a committee of the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, Employment and Labour Relations and Justice to

immediately draft the legislation or to draft amendments to the regulations to

solve this problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise that yesterday I was

delivered a copy of the proposed draft amendment to the regulation. The matter

will be considered by Cabinet very quickly. It may even be considered by Cabinet

tomorrow, and we will deal with the issue at that time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at the same time the truckers talked to me

about the possibility of amending our legislation to allow the Teamsters Union

to have a position to have province wide bargaining for all truckers that would

be applied to all contractors. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations gave any undertaking, but I certainly told the

truckers that I could not give them such an undertaking without doing a full

assessment of the impact on Labour Relations of such an amendment to the Labour

Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, the matter is being assessed. We are looking at

what is happening in the rest of the country. I have gotten some information on

the situation elsewhere in the country, and it is a matter of making particular

provision to try and accommodate a peculiar situation that will not unduly

disrupt or adversely effect some other aspect of the construction industry. We

must move with reasonable caution to make sure that we do what is right. But,

Mr. Speaker, we will not hesitate to take steps to immediately change the law to

require substantial penalties to ensure that there is no continuing breach of

the law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Well let me say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker,

that the truckers of this Province are getting some very, very confusing signals

from this Government because the Premier should be aware that the union

contacted the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations over the last few

weeks regarding that request, and they were informed - and this is what the

truckers have told me over the last couple of days and told me again today -

they have been informed by her officials that these amendments were gone to

Cabinet for consideration. Now, in fact, the Union's legal council, Mr. Randy

Earl, and the Minister's officials jointly drafted these amendments at the

Minister's request over the last month. Now what is the hang-up? Isn't the

Premier aware that all of this is taking place and that these things have gone

to Cabinet already? What kind of a game is he playing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not deny that proposed amendments

were drafted. What I am saying to the hon. Member and he knows, he served in a

Cabinet before, you take a look at proposed amendments and consider the impact

of it. That is what the Government is doing. The Government is not going to rush

at amending legislation without being sure of what the consequences will be for

the overall. Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that this whole proposal has been looked

at, that proposed legislation may well have been drafted to deal with the issue,

I do not suggest that. But, what I am saying to the Member is: I do not know

what the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations said but I will check with

her and find out precisely what she said. But I can say to the House with

certainty when I met with the truckers I gave no such commitment that any such

legislation would be introduced. As a matter of fact, I recall specifically

advising the Committee that I met with, that I had some concerns about it and we

would have to take a careful look at what the consequences would be before we

could rush at such legislation.

What I did undertake to do was put in place a committee

immediately to address the question of the enforcement of the existing laws and

to protect the rights of truckers to have the rates approved by the Public

Utilities Board paid to them as they should.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier to

explain to me what this letter is all about that the Minister of Employment

recently sent to the business agent of the Transport and Allied Workers Union,

just five days ago, saying that: I am not convinced that the introduction of the

amendments to The Labour Relations Act is either appropriate or necessary.

Now that is a very confusing signal to be sending to the

truckers of the Province. Does the Premier not realize, in the next couple of

days this House is not going to be sitting any more until November, does he not

realize that over the summer he is inviting labour confusion and confrontation

in the trucking industry and the industries that are serviced by truckers? Will

he agree, Mr. Speaker, to immediately bring these amendments that have been

drafted by the Department of Employment and Labour Relations legal counsel and

the truckers legal counsel before this House so they can be given speedy passage

by both the Government and the Opposition?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. Member to

the letter he just read from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

She said she is not convinced that it is either appropriate or necessary to make

such changes in order to deal with the problems. We are convinced that it is

necessary to change the regulations that have been in effect for many years in

order to deal with the problem. Whether or not that is enough or there should be

a change in The Labour Relations Act we are going to continue to assess. We are

going to look at what the situation is in the rest of the country and try and

maintain a reasonably comparable basis for operation throughout the country and

make sure that we do not rush at an ill-advised amendment that has an adverse

impact on some other aspect of our economy or operation in the Province. We are

going to do it right.

But, Mr. Speaker, I agree we should move immediately, and we

are moving immediately to correct the situation that has existed for many years

where contractors have been able to pressure truckers to work for far less than

they are entitled to. Mr. Speaker, we are endeavouring to do that. I have also

agreed to meet with - I met with one of the representatives, Mr. Pearce, of the

Teamsters Union this morning on an urgent basis. He had not arranged a meeting,

he had just asked if I would meet with him for a few minutes, and I did. At that

time, we arranged a meeting for, I believe, sometime on Monday, noon or

afternoon on Monday we will be meeting to review exactly where the Government is

on the issue. By that time I may well be in a position to advise him of the

decision of Cabinet with respect to the change of regulations. I did indicate to

him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That quickly. It is no problem. We were

not seventeen years sitting on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We dealt with it, Mr. Speaker, in little

more than seventeen days after we met we prepared draft regulations and Cabinet

will consider it to ensure that we give the maximum level of protection that we

can to the truckers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Let me say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that a

change of regulation is not what is needed, it is an amendment to the Labour

Relations Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: What the Premier is trying to do, is bamboozle

everyone, while he can sit back and do nothing on this issue. Will the Premier

tell me why truckers should be treated differently than fishermen, for instance?

Fishermen have these same rights under the Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act; now why do truckers have to be treated differently, why cannot

the Premier, why cannot the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations simply

take these amendments that have already been drafted, bring these amendments to

the House of Assembly, and with the concurrence of the Opposition tomorrow, we

will give these amendments speedy passage, so that truckers can be afforded

their democratic rights in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that

truckers are treated differently than fishermen for the same reason yesterday

and the day before and the week before and the month before, as it was in the

past seventeen years; I operate on a logical assumption that there was some

reason for their being treated differently.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is reason to change and change is

the right thing to do, we are prepared to make those changes, but, Mr. Speaker,

we are not prepared to jump at it because the Opposition get out of control on

one or two days in the House; we are going to do what is right to correct the

problems that they allowed to exist and we will continue to do an assessment of

whether or not it is appropriate to amend the Labour Relations Act.

If we find that it is the right thing to do, I can assure the

House that we will take steps to do it. If we find that there was good reason

for the past seventeen years why it has not been done, and should continue, then

we will not do it, but, we will make the decision on an intelligent basis, Mr.

Speaker.

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

for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Will the Premier confirm, Mr. Speaker, that

the main reason these amendments were turned down last week, when they went to

Cabinet for approval, was because of pressure from the Road Builders Association

of this Province, who want to deny collective bargaining rights to these

individual truckers?

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier confirm that? Can he confirm the

reason why these amendments were turned down when they went to Cabinet, was

because of pressure from the Road Builders Association of the Province, and is

he aware as well, that there are about 900 carrier plates out there right now,

and 600 of these have already said that they want the Transport and Allied

Workers Union to be certified as the official bargaining agent for the truckers

of this Province, is that not enough, two-thirds, to convince the Premier that

these amendments are needed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: At least three things need to be said to

those comments, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, the proposal has not been turned down, it

has not been accepted, but is has not been turned down; it is still under

assessment. Now maybe the hon. Members Opposite do not understand that, which

probably goes a long way towards explaining the mess they left this Province in

after seventeen years of Government by their means.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I know nothing of any Road Builders

Association or group, I have had no representation from them, I have no

knowledge of whether or not anybody else has, but I can say, speaking for

myself, I have not.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, if 600 signed up, they can apply now to

be certified, but, Mr. Speaker, you have to acknowledge that the normal labour

relations procedures are such that it would make it almost futile for most

contracts by the time you got through certification process and so on, the job

may well be over, so, it is not enough to simply say: well the Labour Relations

Act presently provides for you to be certified if you want to be certified.

We have to deal with it responsibly and we are going to deal

with it responsibly, but, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House and the people of

the Province, including the truckers of the Province, that we will not rush

headlong into it and make a wrong decision; we are going to move very carefully.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the President of

Treasury Board, who is also responsible now for Social Services.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the findings of the Public Service

Commissioner's Report, which was tabled in the House on Monday and the

unfortunate consequences thereof, does the Minister - and I am sure the Minister

has read the report - intend to remove Mr. Ambrose Stoyles from the Social

Assistance Appeal Board?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is going

to be an enquiry into that report and I guess we will wait until that is over.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would seem very strange

that the Minister of Social Services would have to resign but the person who

took

part in the whole affair would not have to resign. Now is it not important

that the Minister act quickly to establish the credibility of that Board? Is the

Minister not aware that, from the report, Mr. Stoyles improperly obtained

questions for a competition in which he was a candidate? The findings of the

Board clearly contradict Mr. Stoyles sworn evidence of the Commissioners'

investigation. Now is that not enough to disqualify Mr. Stoyles from remaining

on the Social Assistance Appeals Board?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

interpretation

given by the hon. Member is the hon. Member's

interpretation. I do not know if

it is a correct

interpretation, and I guess we will find out after the judicial

enquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the report specifically

questioned Mr. Stoyles' credibility. Is it not obvious that Mr. Stoyles placed

great personal importance on his political patrons? Does that not bring into

question his ability to overrule on appeal the decisions of those to whom he

feels a personal obligation? Because he is in a situation where he has to rule

on whether people or his former bosses or whoever it might be are right or

wrong.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the occurrences in

recent days create a problem in terms of that Board. But the hon. Member can be

assured that we will handle it in a proper manner.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask a

question of the Premier. Does the Premier intend to review qualifications and

procedures for the appointment of individuals to quasi-judicial boards? The

Public Service Commission report reveals that Mr. Stoyles placed great personal

stock in his political connections, yet as Chairman of the Social Assistance

Appeals Board he is expected to rule on decisions of those whom he considers to

be his patrons. Will the Premier not agree that this incident exposes the

inappropriateness of patronage appointments to quasi-judicial boards? Will he

put in place a selection procedure which is fairer and based on merit for such

appointments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated in

this House that I am not at all happy with the manner in which those

appointments were made. I will not say any more about those particular

appointments. I have also already indicated in this House that we will be

putting in place a procedure to provide a better basis for such appointments, a

special committee of Cabinet, or made up of Cabinet and other representatives of

the Public Service or otherwise, we have not finalized it yet. We are going to

put a special process in place to provide for it.

We have got to make sure that people who perform those

functions are competent and independent to perform the functions on a proper

basis. That does not mean that we will not ever appoint anybody who has ever

supported the Liberal Party. There is a great number of competent people out

there who have supported the Liberal Party. As a matter of fact, it is obvious

that the vast majority of the people of the Province fall into that category.

Nor will we fail to appoint people who may be supporters of the Party opposite

if they are competent, merely because they are supporters of the Party opposite.

We will make sure that we put in place competent appeal boards. I am not happy,

as I have acknowledged, with the way in which this appointment has taken place.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Premier and follows on the last question. Given the fact that the Chairman

of the Social Assistance Appeals Board, whose qualifications apparently were

earned while he was sitting as a member of that Board, and given the fact that

the Public Service Commission has questioned his credibility before that board

and hence his integrity, and given the statements that he made to the Public

Service Commission, is it not right and proper that he ought to be asked to step

aside so that people who have appeals before that board can have some confidence

they are dealing with a board and a chair that has the prospect, at least, of

somebody who has not had their credibility and their integrity called into

question by a Public Service Commission appointed by the Government of this

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is quite

correct when he suggests that the individual who was appointed to be chairman of

the board in fact earned his qualifications or credentials, or learned them

while he was appointed or after he was appointed, and I believe that was the

thrust of this, yes, and he is quite accurate. I acknowledge that he did not

have the legal background at the time of the appointment. But, Mr. Speaker, the

hon. gentleman who is also a lawyer, as I am, knows how darned expensive lawyers

are and even Government cannot even afford to fill boards with lawyers. So, we

have to appoint people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - and train them in the legal aspects that

are necessary. Now, this is how this gentleman, I understand, earned his

qualifications and that is what the hon. Member was referring to.

With respect to the second part of the hon. Member's

comments, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. Member that the matter has to be

reviewed. As the Minister has said, we will take the matter under advisement and

we will take the action that is appropriate in the circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting to

the House Social Legislation Review Committee with respect to the Bills, "An Act

To Revise The Law Respecting The Provincial Court", "An Act To Revise And

Consolidate The Law Respecting Jurors", and "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act."

Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my

Vice-Chair, the hon. the Member for Humber East, the hon. the Member for Harbour

Grace, the hon. the Member for St. George's and, on a number of committee

hearings, the hon. the Member for St. John's East also sat in. Even though I do

not have concurrence from all the Members of my Committee on one of these

particular Bills, I do have majority concurrence and I would like to submit this

report to the House, right now. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: As Chairman of the Internal Economy

Commission, I table, today, certain information related to the activities of the

Internal Economy Commission for the year 1990.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with

section 14

of The Liquor Control Act, 1973, I lay before the legislature the 1990 annual

report of the Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board, which I received yesterday.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, since the Liquor Licensing Board is in the

process of being combined with the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, I would like

to pay special tribute to the former Chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board, Mr.

Ed White, who has performed remarkable service in that position for the past

number of years.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the Member for

Grand Bank, I believe, asked me a question concerning the status of Blue Ocean

Products in Argentia. I think he was responding to a rumour, or something, to

the effect that maybe that plant would not be operating this year. I have made

the necessary inquiries, Mr. Speaker, and I am advised by the owner of the plant

that, in fact, it will be operating this year and it looks very good for them.

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: During my absence from the House on May 27,

the hon. the Leader of the Opposition posed a series of questions, a half-dozen

questions, to the Premier, with respect to the Holyrood fourth thermal

generating unit. I will not read the entire document, Mr. Speaker, I will table

it, but in general terms there was an assumption or a statement made or an

implication made that the introduction or the start-up of Holyrood four would

increase the SO 2 emissions from that total plant by an additional

48,000 tons, and that is an incorrect assumption or statement, to start off

with. The total SO 2 emissions for the entire Province, including

Holyrood, is 45,000 tons. Hydro has given the commitment - and under that

undertaking, we release the project at the EPR stage - that they would live

within their 25,000 tons in total emissions. The question was raised on how they

could accomplish that, and the answer to that part of the question, Mr. Speaker,

is that they intend to, in all future tender calls for Bunker C, look for Bunker

C with a lower sulphur content than currently is used. The current content is

2.2 per cent. It had been 2.8 some time ago, and will be further reduced until

the emission levels are what they should be. The greater details are included in

the document, Mr. Speaker, and I will table it for the hon. Member.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise, today, to present this petition to the

House of Assembly, on behalf of approximately 2,000 people who are either

directly or indirectly involved in the trucking industry. The prayer of the

petition reads as follows: `To the hon. Members of the Newfoundland and Labrador

House of Assembly, we, the undersigned of this petition, hereby ask the

Provincial Government to take immediate action to have the dump truck

owner-operators of the Province certified under the Labour Relations Act of

Newfoundland and Labrador.'

As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed

by approximately 2000 people from all across the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, not just on the Avalon Peninsula, not just in St. John's, but all

over. From Port aux Basques to Bell Island, people have signed this petition

today. What these people are saying, Mr. Speaker, what the independent truckers

are requesting, is really not unreasonable. It is not unreasonable, as the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations seems to want to indicate. What they

are looking for is not unreasonable. They are simply requesting the Minister and

the Government to help in the process of allowing the Transport and Allied

Workers' Union to become certified, if you will, as the bargaining agent for the

truckers.

Now, the Minister has admitted, in the letter she sent to the

Transport and Allied Workers' Union, that the situation truckers are facing in

this Province is a very, very frustrating one. She has admitted that in the

correspondence, but still she refuses to act, and still the Government refuses

to do anything to try to help the truckers out of the dilemma they are in. The

legal cousel for the truckers, and the Minister's officials sat down, over the

last couple of weeks, and drafted up the amendments to the Labour Relations Act

that would allow that to happen. They sat down and actually drafted up

amendments at the request of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations,

and she informed the truckers that the request was going to Cabinet for

approval. Now, the question that the truckers have to ask, and the question that

the Minister should answer is simply this, What happened from the time the

request left the Department of Employment and Labour Relations and the time that

it was supposed to be dealt with in Cabinet? And it was dealt with in Cabinet. I

can tell the Premier and I can tell the Ministers what happened. The request was

scuttled by her colleagues in Cabinet; it was scuttled by that great defender of

corporate interests, the Premier himself. That is who scuttled those particular

amendments that were drafted, both by the trucker's legal counsel and by the

Province's legal counsel, as well. The Premier knows full well what happened, as

every Minister sitting in the front bench of this Province knows what happened.

They know that there is really only one vote that counts in Cabinet, and that is

not a vote that understands the plight of the ordinary working person of

Newfoundland and Labrador, not a vote that understands or cares anything about

the rights of workers to negotiate on a level playing field with the people who

employ them.

The truckers are very, very frustrated, today. They are in a

very frustrating position because, if the union should go through the Labour

Relations Act in an attempt to sign up each company on a project by project

basis, by application to the Labour Relations Board, then the project is

finished before the application is even dealt with, and they have to start the

same process over and over again. These people are going bankrupt, Mr. Speaker,

and everyone over there is sitting back with his hand under his head, reading

his newspaper, going asleep, and nobody seems to care what is going on. You have

the truckers in the Province going bankrupt. They have mortgaged their homes,

let me say to the President of Treasury Board, and the Minister of Finance

should have better sense than to be saying it is a silly issue. It is not a

silly issue. These people have mortgaged their homes, mortgaged their families.

You cannot go out and pick up a dump truck for $100. It is a $100,000 investment

that these people are involved in. They are individual business people running

their own individual business, and the Minister of Finance should be ashamed to

sit there today and say this is a silly issue. It is not a silly issue, let me

say to the Minister. Tell that to the truckers of the Province who have

mortgaged their homes. A $100,000 truck is a big investment.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: He should be ashamed!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind visitors in the galleries they are as welcome as the

flowers in May, this is their House, but they are not allowed to participate in

any way, shape or form, and I remind them of that. Rules of the House apply to

the people in the public galleries as well as they do to members, and even

though, sometimes, one might feel that one should participate, I remind visitors

that the rules are clearly designed that they are not to participate. But,

again, they are as welcome as the flowers in May. It is their House, but they

have to follow the rules the same as members.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

The hon. Member for Harbour Main made a misstatement in this

House when he accused me of saying that the issue was a silly one.

What I did, Mr. Speaker, was ask him what he had done about

the same issue for seventeen years. That was what I asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister of Finance can try to weasel out of it

all he likes. What the Member for Harbour Main said is what the Minister of

Finance said. A silly issue was what he called it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what are we coming to in this Province when we

have a group of hard-working, dedicated, business people who want to get

together and organize as a group and cannot. That does not sound very reasonable

to me. We have 900 people with licences to operate these vehicles, in the

Province, and we have 600 of them who have already asked to be able to organize

and form a union under the Teamsters Union. Now, that sounds very reasonable to

me.

I do not know where the fairness and balance is gone in this

Province, if a group of people cannot get together, by their own decision, and

the organizers go out and work and sign up 600 out of 900 operators to form a

union. They only needed 50 per cent plus one. That is all I understand they

need. For any other business in the Province, that is all you need. If, anywhere

in this Province, 600 people out of 900 working in a fish plant came in here and

asked to be certified as a union, what would happen? The paper would be signed

immediately. Why can the truckers not be treated the same as any other workers

in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, what really upsets me here, today, is that you

have a petition, on behalf of all these people, presented in the House, and the

only people who can do anything about it, the Minister of Transportation, the

Premier, and the Minister of Labour Relations, are not here. Mr. Speaker, that

is shameful! They should be here to hear the concerns of these people so they

will not be sitting up their Cabinet rooms alone, rejecting these amendments

that were put forward without knowing the true facts of what these people are

looking for. They are not looking for anything that any other workers in this

Province want. They are just looking for the same thing that anyone else in this

Province gets. Mr. Speaker, that is not unreasonable. That is trying to be fair,

that is trying to put a bit of balance into the construction industry of this

Province. Right now, the companies have all the negotiating powers, and to

listen to the Premier's answers today, when he says he is going to increase

fines if you do not pay the public utilities rates, that is garbage, and he

knows it. It means they will hire you on for six hours and make you work ten

hours. They will pay you the rates for six hours and you still have to work the

ten hours. There are 101 ways that the larger companies in this Province know

how to get around those regulations.

MR. TOBIN: The brownbaggers.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The one who suffers is the fellow who

went out and mortgaged his house to buy a truck to try to make a living for his

family. He does not have a condominium down in Florida. He does not drive around

in a Lincoln Continental. He has his truck and maybe a pickup home for his

family to drive when he is on the road all summer. And what are they looking

for? - the same as anyone else in this Province. If you have more than 50 per

cent of that group and you want to be organized you go to the Labour Relations

Board and you get organized.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is all they are asking for, and that

certainly is very fair and reasonable. I do not know what they have to do to get

through to this Government. I do not know how many trucks have to be turned in.

I would suggest to them that any trucks that the banks are coming to take in the

next month, you should park it in the Premier's parking lot and leave the keys

in it, So that he knows how many of the trucks are going to be taken away. I do

not know how many of these people have to lose their houses before this

Government will wake up. i do not know how many of these people's children have

to suffer because they cannot find work in this Province. They have a truck,

they are managing their payments if they can get a bit of work. They are not

asking for anything unreasonable.

Now, I do not know how many of the families of these truck

owners have to suffer before this Government will wake up. I think I probably

know what the Premier, `King Clyde', wants to do. He wants them to go away to

Toronto again. They are only a nuisance around here for him because they are

opposing him. They are not supporting him like everyone did on Meech Lake. They

actually have the nerve to come in to this House of Assembly, which is theirs,

anyway, and suggest to the Premier that there is something wrong here. We have

600 out of 900 people who want to form a union, and this Premier will not let

them.

The Minister of Labour, as bad as she is, at least prepared

the regulations and brought them to Cabinet. And we all know, as the Member for

Harbour Main said, what happened in Cabinet. `King Clyde' said `no'! And `no' it

will be!

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

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

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

a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the

hon. gentleman and use up any of his time, so I am rising now at the end of his

presentation. I feel I must rise, because this is the second time today it has

happened, and I did not interrupt Question Period for the same reason, to make

this point to Your Honour: Your Honour knows, and all Members of the House know,

it is improper to refer to absences of Members in the House. And I think the

last case in point was an example as to why that rule and why that custom is in

the House.

The Member for Kilbride tried to indicate that the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation had no interest because he was not in the

House. Right now, the Minister is meeting with a representative group of the

truckers, and it is not that he has no interest in the issue. He is sitting down

and meeting with them and helping in trying to solve their problems.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is improper to refer to absences of

members for the reason that anybody can get up and tend to indicate that,

because a Member is not in his place, there is a lack of interest, and impute

motives, and that is entirely improper in this House.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Transportation might be out meeting with some of them but I can see some of the

representatives of these groups up there. If it is unparliamentary for me to

refer to members'absence here, I will withdraw, but I certainly cannot say they

are here because, if I did, I would be doing the same as this, and I will not do

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are a (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: `Scumbucket'? That is not parliamentary!

MR. TOBIN: Is that parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point

of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did not get too upset the day the

Premier called me a trained monkey. I was not overly upset by that, because I

know the Premier's - but when the Member for Mount Scio calls me a `scuzz' that

kind of puts me off.

AN HON. MEMBER: `Scumbucket'- he said, `scumbucket'.

MR. R. AYLWARD: `Scumbucket', was it? That is very, very

childish, Mr. Speaker, for a Member of this House of Assembly to be getting on

that way. That does upset me. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that would be

unparliamentary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The members of the public are here observing a very serious

debate and I expect they will judge the seriousness of the debate in the way in

which the Members will act in dealing with this particular matter.

I would advise hon. Members as well that when somebody says

something that is unparliamentary, it is not appropriate for some Member to

shout out, "Is that unparliamentary?" The correct manner is for a Member to rise

in his place and to say that he heard an hon. Member say a certain thing and to

ask Your Honour's ruling on it.

I did not hear the matter referred to. But if an hon. Member

said it, an hon. Member will know that he said it and certainly, in my view, it

is unparliamentary. If an hon. Member said it, then I would ask the hon. Member

to withdraw it. If not, I will check with the Hansard and see if it was said.

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Out of respect for the Chair I withdraw any

remarks I may have made, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations I am the alternate Minister and I want to

speak to this petition today which was presented to the House.

I would like to thank the members of the Truckers Association

for bringing their concerns to Government. I am a bit appalled at the hypocrisy

which we have seen displayed here today by Members on the Opposition who take

every advantage and every opportunity they get to make some political points.

The fact of the matter is, the Member for Harbour Main was the last Minister of

Transportation this Province had before the Government was changed. Not only

that, Mr. Speaker, he was also the last -

AN HON. MEMBER: He was Minister of Labour.

MR. DECKER: Oh, I thank the hon. Member for correcting

me, that is even more relevant, the last Minister of Labour.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this issue involves an amendment to The

Labour Relations Act. The hon. Member for Kilbride does not have a clue what he

is talking about. Truckers can sign up and be certified as he believes. The fact

of the matter is that by the time they get certified the job could be over and

it could be an exercise in futility.

It has been brought to the attention of Government that an

amendment may be necessary to The Labour Relations Act. As has been pointed out

by the Minister on various occasions and the Premier today, Government is,

indeed, looking at the reasonableness of amending this particular Act. However,

when a government is elected, we have to govern the whole Province. We have to

govern the truckers, we have to govern the fishermen, we have to govern the

employees of various sectors of the economy, and we have to make sure that when

we make an amendment to one particular Act that we do not trip off something

which could upset something else in the Province. It is like dealing with a row

of dominos, Mr. Speaker, if we knock one domino down, we could knock down fifty

others. So, before we take any action on this particular request, we want to

make sure that what we do will not in the long run make matters worse for all

the people of this Province, including the truckers, Mr. Speaker.

We are giving their suggestions, their requests, very serious

considerations. I can assure the truckers of this Province today that their

petition will be given the utmost review, Mr. Speaker, and we will deal with it

based on its merits. I can assure the truckers that we will not play favourites,

we will not give any preference to anyone who happens to be members of

construction associations or big companies or whatever. This issue will be dealt

with as expeditiously as we can possibly do it and in the end we hope that we

can find an accommodation which the previous administration ignored for

seventeen years. We hope that in the very near future we can find a solution to

this problem, if indeed there is a solution that can be found.

However, Mr. Speaker, I have to be upfront with the people

who brought this petition today, that if a change to the Act would in the long

run make matters worse, then we will not change the Act. But if it is essential

that this be done this Government has proven one thing in the last seventeen

months, Mr. Speaker, we do listen to our people, whether they be truckers,

whether they be contractors, no matter what they are, and we are going to

continue on with that position, and we will deal with this problem in due

course.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The Speaker, will know that there are only three speakers

permitted on a petition, the person presenting it, and one from each side of the

House, so I wonder if the Speaker could see if there was consent of the House to

allow me to speak in support of this petition, and in support of the truckers?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member have consent of the House?

No leave.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 331 residents,

mostly of Labrador City and Wabush, although I understand that the petition has

been circulated throughout Labrador. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

whereas a completed Trans-Labrador Highway would provide a land route which

would vastly improve the quality of life of Labradorians through easier access

to goods and services, and

whereas completed highways are a lifeline of

increased economic activity, and

whereas tourism would increase on the Island as

well as in Labrador, because tourists could take a circular route through the

Province instead of taking a backtrack, and

whereas with the present condition

of the Churchill Falls - Goose Bay road the tourism industry in Labrador would

receive such negative publicity that it would take years to undo it, and

whereas

the cost of bringing goods into Coastal Labrador is rising at an alarming rate,

we ask the Provincial Government to accelerate the construction of the Trans -

Labrador Highway to begin immediately so that it will be ready for general

public use as soon as the Ossokmanuan Bridge is finished.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of this petition, signed by

331 people, mostly residents of Labrador City and Wabush, because I would say

99.9 per cent of the residents of Labrador believe that the lifeline of any

economic activity is communications, and road transport is one of the best

methods of communications that we know of in this world today, Mr. Speaker. We

know that it can help diversify the economy, and we know that we need it in

Labrador because of the isolation, and also because of the sheer opportunity it

will offer in development. It is not just the immediate construction jobs that

will be available, Mr. Speaker, not just for the thousands of jobs that would be

created by building such a fantastic highway across Labrador, not just for that,

but for the opportunity of being able to increase exploration, to discover new

mines, for the opportunity of lumbering, and for the opportunity of tourist

development. That is what a highway could do in opening up all of Labrador. That

is what it could do if the funds were made available.

There is presently about 600 kilometres of highway across

Labrador, from western Labrador to Happy Valley - Goose Bay. The Ossokmanuan

Bridge that is referred to in this petition, Mr. Speaker, should be finished

next year. It would have been finished this year if the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation had not bungled with the awarding of the contract.

If he had not bungled that contract and thrown away $1.5 million of the

taxpayer's money we would have seen that bridge completed this year. We do have

600 kilometres of road completed, although the road that is asked to be

accelerated in construction, is the road that I speak to here, the one that

would be going from Churchill Falls down to Goose Bay. That is about 300

kilometres of road that could be vastly improved and would help the general

economy of this Province. Again, I want to reiterate that the people of western

Labrador want to participate and help this whole Province, not just their own

local area, because they recognize the importance of contributing to the whole

economy. They are not as narrow-minded as the Minister of Finance is. Yesterday

when I spoke in a petition he thought that the people of western Labrador were

parochial when they wanted an improvement of health care.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we saw that same Minister today, yelling

and screaming that it was a silly idea that this road construction start or the

unionizing of individual truck operators begin, he thinks that is silly, but I

want him to listen to what a representative of a union in western Labrador says

when he speaks in support of a highway across Labrador. He says: A very large

portion of our Province's revenue comes from western Labrador, but very little

is coming back in the form of services, and we have found that many of the

services that we have enjoyed for years have been discontinued. Now, Mr.

Speaker, he is not being parochial, he is being realistic because he lives in

western Labrador, but he is also saying that he supports the funding of a

highway across Labrador, Mr. Speaker, he supports it because he knows that the

1,600 people who he represents in the Steel Workers Union in western Labrador

all support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge that this Government, this regime

that now sits in its ivory tower in Confederation Building in St. John's get off

it's butt, negotiate a deal with the Federal Government and start a construction

programme to accelerate the construction of a highway across Labrador. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am

delighted to stand in my place in this House and support my colleague from

Menihek and support him in the petition that he did present to this House of

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, again, it seems to be a fairly reasonable

request. It is a way that this Government can increase economic activity for

that part of our Province, and if we increase economic activity for any parts of

our Province, obviously the whole Province will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I would expect, when I saw a report on how many

people used the Alaskan Highway, I believe it is, in going back and forth from

even Alberta and BC and through on to Alaska, since that road has been completed

there have been many millions of dollars in tourist money spent in those areas,

and I would expect that if we could get the Trans-Labrador Highway completed

after the disastrous bridge is done - the Ossokmanuan Bridge is completed, maybe

we can create a larger tourist industry. I am sure there will be a lot of people

interested in driving from Quebec right on through Labrador and coming out to

Goose Bay and getting the ferry back to probably the Island part of our Province

so that they could make a complete loop. I am sure this would improve the

tourist industry for the Labrador area. I am sure that all Members here in this

House of Assembly would support an acceleration in the up-grading because the

road is already built, it is just in such bad condition that it is extremely

difficult to travel over it safely.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Member of this House of

Assembly would support the acceleration of the completion and up-grading of that

piece of road, and hopefully some day in the future we can continue that road

down through the Straights area so that all residents of Labrador will have an

equal transportation system, the same as many residents on the Island part of

the Province have. People in Labrador deserve the same as everyone else, Mr.

Speaker, they pay the same taxes, they are part of this Province the same as

everyone else and they would expect the same services as anywhere else in this

Province.

I support the petition presented on behalf of 331 people of

the Labrador City - Wabush area, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully the road

construction and up-grading in the Churchill Falls - Goose Bay area can be

accelerated and completed quicker than it is planned to do now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am proud to

stand here today in support of this petition and the wishes of the people of

Labrador, not only in Labrador West, but I know the people of coastal and

central Labrador all share in the same aspirations as the Member for Menihek and

the Opposition have already stated. The people of Labrador must have access to

the outside world to be able to attain the level of social and economic

well-being they deserve. There has to be a commitment to building that highway

and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it will be done. I want to point out, however,

that it is strange in passing that the Member for Menihek has talked about

bungling, and talked about commitment and what kind of commitment this

Government has to the building of the Trans-Labrador Highway, I was even

surprised that the Member for Kilbride would stand in support of this. The fact

is that the reason we cannot get the money for the Trans-Labrador Highway is

because it was sold out by the previous administration. It was sold out, $800

million, Mr. Speaker, in the Roads for Rails Agreement that was signed by that

hon. crowd over there who stuck us in for fifteen years. They said to the people

of Labrador, you are going to get 3 per cent of that, that is what you are going

to get from us. When that hon. crowd over there were in government they should

have made a commitment to Labrador, and to developing Labrador, but instead of

that, Mr. Speaker, they put the heavy hand on us and said, you will never have a

road, you do not deserve to have a road. That is what the hon. crowd over there

said to the people of Labrador, and this Government here has said that it is not

fair. This Government here has said the Roads for Rails Agreement should be

reopened, and we have asked the Federal Government to do it, but they said, no,

we will not give you any more than 3 per cent of that $800 million over fifteen

years. When you are talking about bungling, Mr. Speaker, the cap should be put

on the man that has actually done the bungling, and it is the Opposition over

there that were the Government of the day, and let us never, never, tell the

people any different. This Government here is being responsible. They have asked

for the deal to be reopened so we will get our just treatment, so we will get

the opportunity to develop our land and to be able to give the people the kind

of access they require for our fisheries, forestry, tourism, and other

development, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to be dependent on a ferry forever and

a day, but I find it unbelievable that the Members opposite would have the gall

to stand up here today and say they have seen the light. You saw nothing. You

were in a Cabinet room and you signed a deal that perpetrated that kind of a

decision on the people of Labrador after six months in the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. Members that petition time is not a time for

debate. Petition time is a time to speak to the material allegations of the

petition, the numbers of signatures and the like, but not to get involved in

debate. I do allow a little tit for tat, but I think we were into an intensity

of debate that the Chair could not tolerate.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is always unnerving to me to see the

audacity being displayed in this hon. House from time to time by that crowd over

there, and their attitude towards Labrador. We have no lessons to learn from

them, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure every signature on that petition feels the same

way as I do here in this hon. House today. Let there be no aspersions cast, that

this Government is doing what is responsible for the people of Labrador. They

are asking for a commitment to be made. We are willing and able to make our

commitment, Mr. Speaker, and we are only hoping they will get up there and tell

their Tory buddies, who got us in the position we are in, to change the plan and

give us the kind of justice that the people of Labrador have been trying so long

to get, despite the Tory agenda.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 25.

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

Schools Act." (Bill No. 31)

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very important amendment. It is rather routine in

one sense.

Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Speaker,

provides that certain individuals in this country have the right to education in

their own language, in this Province the right to an education in French as a

first language. The present Schools Act does not have such a provision in it,

although in the Province we have a number of schools that offer French first

language instruction - Labrador City, the Port au Port peninsula, and, I am

pleased to report, in St. John's. This amendment to the present Schools Act

would certainly confirm that right as stated in the Charter; and secondly it

would provide an opportunity for the Government to develop regulations to ensure

that that goal is implemented in an appropriate way.

So I am pleased to introduce this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We in the official

Opposition are glad to support this Bill although we do not think it is as

important as the Minister suggests. We think the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

guarantee of the right to first language French instruction for francophones

throughout Canada is very significant. The Charter is the supreme law, however,

and Provincial legislation such as this is superfluous. Unlike the Minister I do

not think it is necessary to enact a Provincial legislation simply to give the

Provincial Cabinet the authority to make regulations to give effect to rights

that are enshrined in the Charter. That authority for making subordinate

legislation is already in our legislation.

However, it cannot hurt. And we are happy to endorse a

measure which underscores our respect for the Charter guarantee of French

language education for children whose first language is French. We have

concentrations of francophones in three areas of the Province, two represented

by Members on this side. I am speaking of the Port au Port peninsula, of course,

represented by the Member for Port au Port. I am speaking of Labrador City and

Wabush, represented by the Member for Menihek. The other area where there is a

concentration of francophones is St. John's.

In supporting this measure I wish to go on to say that the

Minister at the same time should enlarge the Bill by correcting a glaring flaw

in our Schools Act. The Minister interprets the present Schools Act as denying

to parents the right to choose a school for their children. There was an example

of an injustice resulting from the Minister's

interpretation of the present law

last September. At that time a family in Corner Brook, in the district I

represent, by the name of Day, tried to have their seven year old daughter

enrolled in the school closest to their home. They live on Reid Street in Corner

Brook. They tried to have their daughter enrolled in the Catholic school which

is a three minute walk away from their home. There was room for the child in the

school. When the parents made their first approach to the school principal the

spring before the principal indicated that the school would accommodate the

child. However, days before school was due to open last September the school

board refused to take the child. On opening day the parents brought the child to

the building and they were actually turned away. While they were there the

school board superintendent handed them a faxed letter from the Minister saying

that the Minister would not support them in their desire to have their daughter

go to the school closest to their home which did have room to accommodate her.

Instead, since the family could not mount a legal challenge

they have had to have their daughter bused to an integrated school about a mile

or more from their home. Now, Mr. Speaker, in washing his hands of

responsibility for this injustice, the Minister cited a flawed Act, but this is

the Minister's chance to correct the flaw that he sees. I do not agree with his

interpretation of the Act, I think that the parents have the right under the

existing law to have their child go to the school of their choice, which is

closest to their home and which has room to accommodate her, but the Minister

has his chance now to enlarge this Bill and to put in it a second Clause, which

will make plain that parents have the right to choose the school for their

child, and I will be proposing an amendment to that effect in Committee of the

Whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a very few words about this Bill. As the

Member for Humber East has said, it is not an earthshaking bill, but it brings

into line Federal Legislation, as I understand it, with the Provincial

Legislation or the Provincial Legislation coming in with the Constitution.

I just rose to say that, as a person who represents a

district which is primarily French, of french extraction; I could not say they

primarily speak French on the Port au Port Peninsula, but within a number of

communities they primarily speak French -

AN HON. MEMBER: How is the Member's French, by the way?

MR. HODDER: The Member's French has become a little

rusty, it gets a little better from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, for years and years and years, the people of the

case, the case of the community of Mainland, La Grande Terre, they were bussed

people of that community, in particular.

I think they resented it very much and when I was first

elected I used to hear a lot about it. What has happened now, is that a new

school has been built in that particular community and rightly so, but that was

not the first school that taught French; there was a school in Cape St. George,

which is another French community where French was being taught, but not wholly

French in the whole school, but in the community of Mainland, French is being

taught and it is a French school in every sense of the word.

In the community of L'anse aux Canards - in French it is

Black Duck Brook - there is probably as much French spoken in Black Duck Brook

as there is, percentage of population, in the other two communities. However,

geographically, they are situated out on Long Point and Long Point being that

end of the triangle that stretches north on the Port au Port Peninsula and they

are just as far away from Cape St. George as they are from Mainland which causes

great problems and I do not know the solution to that, but certainly, they have

the right to be able to speak in their own language.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that, and as I said I believe when I

spoke in the Meech Lake debate, there is something very precious about a

culture, it is not Quebec; the people of the Port au Port Peninsula do not feel

themselves as Quebecers, they are from Mainland or Black Duck Brook or Cape St.

George, they are from Port au Port and they are French Newfoundlanders; they

have their own customs, they have their own music and if you stand ten people up

beside each other at random, from the Port au Port Peninsula, about nine of them

will be able to play a musical instrument and the other one probably can, but

says he cannot, but the Member for Stephenville, I do not think he could play a

musical instrument but he may be of French extraction himself.

Recently, and this is something that the Government has said,

the people of Cape St. George want a new school; they need a French school as

there is in Mainland. The understanding has been when the school was built in

Mainland that when that school got to the end of junior high, by that time there

would be a road from Cape St. George to Mainland or from Mainland to Cape St.

George - you have to be careful how you say it these days - but nevertheless

there would be a road which traversed the Port au Port peninsula. Not only would

it link together the French communities but it would open up some of the best,

the most beautiful areas for tourism in the whole of Newfoundland.

It would rationalize tourism in the district of St. George's,

and in the district of Stephenville as well, because Federal-Provincial studies

long ago suggested that the Heritage Trail down through St. George's, through

the Stephenville area, and around the Port au Port peninsula would be an

excellent area, an excellent trail -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: The Hubelle (?) report would have been done

in - I can get a copy for the Minister. It was done by his Department. Wolfgang

Hubelle, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Somewhere about that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: The road across the Port au Port peninsula -

it was very difficult in this Province - I should tell the Minister this -I want

to answer his question. It was very difficult in this Province to get money to

build a new road until such time as the Government decided that - what was the

railway sale to get rid of the railway? Towards 2,000.

And then came the opportunity - and I have always felt that

it was right to get rid of the railway. I do not believe you should get rid of

railways and I should not let the Minister (Inaudible), I do not think you

should get rid of railways because I think that is the transportation of the

future. But the Newfoundland railway, the way it was built, its narrow gauge and

everything else, I think that it was a correct decision.

But during that time this Member, who was then on the other

side of the House, lobbied to get that on the Federal-Provincial list -the road.

But the Minister is not listening, you see? He asked the question but he is not

AN HON. MEMBER: He was interrupted by your colleagues.

MR. HODDER: But he is not listening, he does not want to

hear the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Okay, well I just have to finish up. But

anyhow, I was just saying that before we left office -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Yes. Yes, yes, yes. He asked me a special

question about the road across the Cape, why it was not done, and the Hubelle

report came in at that time. But the thing is the money became available and I

happened to be in a position to lobby. And when we left office the engine was in

gear. And now the new Government, I understand - I hope, I pray - that they have

maintained that. There were letters flying back and forth between Ottawa - and

there are copies in the Premier's office. And my understanding is that the

agreement had been made when we left office to put the road across the Cape. Now

the Premier tells me in Questions in this House that he is going to put the road

across the Cape and that that has not been breached, it is still there.

But anyhow, I should also tell the Minister that we do need

that road. Because pretty soon - and I should not say this to the Minister of

Education - if we do not start that road then we are going to have a problem

with where the school is going to go, whether people are going to leave that

school in Mainland and go to Cape St. George, whether the school will have to be

enlarged, because that was not the intent. But the road across the Cape will

save the cost of a school, I take it. And perhaps we still need two.

The other thing I should tell him is that we did build a

school while we were there. We built the first French school in Newfoundland and

there is nothing that has ever happened in my time - myself and the Minister of

Education, the hon. John Crosbie, opened the school and announced it and the

people of Mainland were so happy, with smiles on their faces, which the Minister

of Education probably saw when he went out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: I opened it.

MR. HODDER: You opened it, that is right. I was there

when the Minister of Education opened it. But the smiles on their faces to

believe that they were going to get their own school was the most uplifting

thing I have ever seen in my life. And, of course, I have to pay tribute, as

well, to the Member for Humber East, who was the Minister of Education when that

school was conceived. And it was because of her committee, that she formed,

which a girl by the name of Geraldine Barter -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: A girl by the name of Geraldine Barter was on

a committee which -

MS. VERGE: A woman.

MR. HODDER: A woman, certainly. She was on a committee

formed by the hon. the Member for Humber East. And she suggested that perhaps a

school should go.

MS VERGE: She lobbied for it.

MR. HODDER: She lobbied for it. And, when she came to me

very early on, I said, `Yes, Geraldine, I will do anything I can.' But you know,

I did not really believe it was going to work at that time?

MS. VERGE: We were in different Parties at the time.

MR. HODDER: Yes, we were in different Parties. I did not

think it was going to work, but I lobbied with her, and then, suddenly, we saw

it was going to work. She was right, there was a way to do it, and it was done.

And it was done in the right way, because the school actually came from the

community; it was not imposed on the community, it was not a Party that did it,

it was a combination. But the main thing about that school was that a person

from that community conceived the idea and saw it carried through. And she had

no political leanings, whatsoever. She was just a person who happened to be at

University. I think she has a doctorate degree, now, in French. And she, being a

very strong person, saw this thing through to the end. I think that is a

wonderful story.

Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not all about that. I just

would like to say before I sit down that I would urge the Minister to move

heaven and earth to get the road. Because the Port au Port peninsula -

forgetting about the French! I mean, they have an economic disadvantage there on

the Port au Port Peninsula, out in the Gulf region, where there is no fish left

- certainly, not only would the road rationalize the school and the francophone

population there, but the road would open up the area for tourism, which would

benefit a number of districts and help the district, economically, as well. I do

not think the Minister could ever do anything better than build that road. What

an imaginative thing, to build a new road while the Minister is still Minister!

If he does it, Mr. Speaker, I will be a very, very happy person. Certainly, I

know the Minister is a good man, and I know he is going to do everything he can

to get it there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want a minute to say

that I -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) over here.

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, no. I just want to endorse the

comments - now, it is not very often that I agree with the Member for Port au

Port, I must say; but I have to say that, today, he is supporting the bill, so I

support what he said. The road across from Mainland to Cape St. George is one

that is required, there is no doubt about it. The Minister of Development and

Tourism, a very hard-working Minister, has helped approve monies, only recently,

to help build the Cape St. George theme park, down at the end. He worked

diligently to get that through and, as a matter of fact, this summer it will be

starting. It is the realization of a dream for them, down there. So, this

Government is working very hard on getting that road through and also building

other things down in the Port au Port area.

The Minister of Education was at the official opening of the

school in Mainland and met a number of people who were involved in the building

and construction of that school. I was at the opening with him, and it was a

superb event. The French culture is flourishing in the Port au Port Peninsula

and Bay St. George. I endorse the comments, I add mine also, and support the

Bill, as presented by the Minister.

I would like to see the further development of the French

language in the Province. We are always promoting that. I have to say to the

Member for Port au Port that I have been getting a lot of calls from the Port au

Port district lately, because of a certain editorial that appeared out there a

little while ago, and I am just telling them to call the Member for Port au

Port. I am going to pay for an ad, this week, to say, Call the Member for Port

au Port, instead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Je parle en

franais?

AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: The member would not understand it if I spoke

It is interesting to see the previous speaker, the Member for

Stephenville, mention that the Minister of Education opened the school. I say,

big deal. It is a good thing that the school was built, since they certainly

would never have the facility in light of the cutbacks that this Minister has

reigned over for the last couple of years.

The credit for getting the school in Mainland actually goes

to the Member for Port au Port and the local people. The initiation at the

political level, the credit goes to the former, former Minister of Education,

the Member for Humber East, who really did the spade work, and the actual

construction of the school and the arrangement for the funding was done while

another Minister was in the portfolio.

I would be remiss when I speak to this changed amendment, if

I did not refer to the Member for Port au Port, because it was actually his

initiative, as I said, that led to the school being built in the area, but it

goes well beyond that, because the member probably has never received the

recognition he deserves for the amount of interest he has shown, not only in his

district generally, but specifically as it relates to the French population in

the Port au Port district.

I remember when I first came into the Legislature, hearing

the member constantly fighting for road signs in French. After a while, he was

successful in obtaining that, but it was a tough battle. Then, the member came

in, fighting for the school,

and did a tremendous amount of work; he was really the

liaison between Government and the local area, and you can picture the

bureaucracy that would result in trying to develop a French school and arrange

funding, especially where you had federal-provincial agencies involved. The

member was there in the middle, to make sure everything went smoothly, and it

certainly did.

Somebody asked the member if he could sing. He was saying

that most people of French descent in his area sing or play an instrument, and

somebody asked if he could play. I am not sure whether he can or not, I know he

is practising. I also know a famous jig or reel written by Rufus Guinchard, I

believe -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Emile Beniot.

MR. HEARN: - Emile Benoit, right - for the member, named

`The Jim Hodder Reel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Perhaps, some day, we will have the member get

up on the Table of the House and show us how it is done.

MR. SIMMS: You should build a monument to the Member for

Port au Port.

MR. HEARN: There is no doubt about it, certainly, in Port

au Port, they should build a monument to the member, but the place to build the

monument to the Member for Port au Port will be half-way between Mainland and

Cape St. George on the side of the new road when it goes through.

The member, on many occasions, has mentioned that road. When

I was Minister of Education, and when I spent a lot of time talking to the

member about building the school in the area, one of the things we discussed

quite often, was the road between Mainland and Cape St. George. The area is not

entirely dissimilar to our own area, the southern Avalon, where you can go

around the complete loop, right now, which has opened up a whole new area for

adventure tourism, in fact, an area that has become, perhaps, the most popular

in the Province, certainly having the most to offer. But, if we could open up

the road between Cape St. George and Mainland, the tourism potential alone, not

only the effect it would have on promoting and preserving the culture of the

area, you would have constant exchanges, perhaps one school with another, all

kinds of positive things for the people of the area. So, I am sure the member

will keep plugging at it and, hopefully, some day, that road will be a reality

and it will be called `The Jim Hodder Highway'.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the

amendment. I am not going to say I have no problems with it, because I have a

couple of concerns. When anything is brought in hurriedly, I always take a

second look at.

When the Minister stands, I would like him to give us some

assurances, not necessarily give us some assurances, but give the people who

will be affected some assurances, that the Government are not trying to put

themselves in a position of making quick arbitrary decisions affecting the

education of children of the French language.

Section 23 gives people of French, or any other descent, the

right to receive education or instruction in their own language, provided

certain factors apply. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations

respecting anything that might be required to give effect to Subsection 1. That

is where I have some concerns, because it appears that what the Government might

be trying to do here is bring in regulations to define where numbers warrant,

and I presume that is one of the reasons the Minister is bringing in the

amendment, because French education or second language education or instruction

- instruction is the word - has to be provided where numbers warrant, and the

numbers game is one that has been played for quite some time. Different people,

depending upon the situation, have their own

interpretation of what you mean by

sufficient numbers. If the Minister or if Cabinet, through regulation, can

without proper and open discussion and without enshrining such decisions in

legislation eventually as the new Act comes to the House, then the danger is

always there that bureaucratic edicts could affect the numbers listed in stating

where numbers warrant in the provision of second language instruction.

So, I ask the Minister to assure us that he will not use

unilateral mechanisms like regulations to define where numbers warrant, but will

bring in the appropriate legislation and, as we see the new Schools Act coming

through, that decisions of such importance will be there in the legislation so

that people will be guaranteed, down the road, any changes would have to be

properly debated and decided upon here in the House of Assembly, not just by

some bureaucrat who can change regulations with the Minister's approval and

affect the instruction of so many children throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

speaks now, he will close the debate.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members

opposite for their support, some more overwhelming than others. I want to pay

tribute to former Ministers in order of priority, the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes, first, and second, the former Minister, the Member for Humber East,

in that order -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: I will get to the Member next.

- for their contribution to the development of French first

language programmes. I want also to pay tribute to the Member for Port au Port;

he has represented his district well. Without patronizing him, I want to pay

tribute to him and to the Member for Stephenville for their work on behalf of

their area and the francophones of the Province, generally. I might say that I

am encouraged by a number of things we have done in the past five years.

Let me go back five years to the Mainland school. And, Mr.

Speaker, this Government opened the St. John's school for francophone first

language instruction. We are developing curriculum programmes. The Member for

Port au Port is aware of curriculum programmes that are being developed now for

francophone first language. We are doing good work in Labrador West in this

area, so I am encouraged by the number of things that are ongoing at the present

time. We are looking at the organization in governance. We have a committee, in

fact, looking at the governance of francophone first language instruction to

determine whether or not we need a different structure to promote this in the

future. So, I am encouraged.

One brief comment on the rights of non-adherence to choose a

school district of their choice, not the school of their choice. This issue will

be included and dealt with when the new Schools Act is introduced in this House,

and we are moving forward on that. It took thirteen years, I think, to get a

second draft done. We are about at a third draft; it has taken us a year to get

it done, and we hope in the fall to introduce that. This issue of the rights of

non-adherence to choose the school district, I stress that rather than the

school, will be dealt with at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all hon. members for their support, and

I guarantee, I assure the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - the Capes, that we

will continue to consult with the people. We have done that from day one on this

issue. It is vitally important that they be fully involved in any decisions that

affect the education of their children. We have done that, we had them involved

in committees, and we will continue to consult with them over the next years, so

that we provide the best possible education for these students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 9, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting a

Pension Plan For Teachers." (Bill No. 25)

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Does the Minister have something to add?

DR. KITCHEN: No, I am sorry. I was just speaking to No.

12, when it comes up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, last day, when we were in the

Second Reading stage, the hon. House Leader for the Opposition asked for a

comparison between the teacher's old plan and the new plan. I have these items

here, prepared, and if we could have them distributed, perhaps it would help in

the debate on this.

MR. SIMMS: I thank the Minister for providing that

information. Obviously we wanted it, so that we could make comparisons much

easier, because in this Bill 25 there are - what? -

DR. KITCHEN: Forty-seven or so.

MR. SIMMS: - forty-eight clauses, I think. Could I have a

look at one of those there, please?

We just felt it would be a lot easier if we had a one-pager

which could show us where the significant changes are, from the old bill to this

bill. Subsequent to that time, of course, we have had occasion to do some

research of our own, and we are, basically, familiar with the changes that have

occurred, having had a copy of the collective agreement and everything else.

So, there is really not much else to say on this legislation,

for obvious reasons. All this bill does is put in place what has recently been

negotiated between the Government and the teachers, has been accepted by the

teachers, has been approved by the teachers and, in fact, the agreement has been

signed by the teachers. So, if the teachers accept it - and they voted on it -

then there is not really much point in us adding much else to it. There is not

much else to add to it, therefore, it might be just as easy to proceed with the

question on the clauses, perhaps all encompassing, for that matter, rather than

go through all forty-eight clauses. So, Clauses 1 through 48, or something like

that, if you like.

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting A

Pension Plan for Teachers." (Bill No. 25)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Crop Insurance Act,

1973." (Bill No. 30)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Provincial

Court."

(Bill No. 2)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Bill came up for second reading and at that point there

were some proposals for amendments that were put forward by the Member for

Humber East, and I believe the Member for St. John's East. There was also a

presentation and a report of the Legislative Committee that dealt with this and

raised some issues with the Department. Pursuant to those considerations the

Department is proposing that we amend several sub-paragraphs of the Bill. I do

not know if my learned friend has received a copy of the proposed amendment.

Essentially what they provide, and I would propose, that sub-clause 16 (5) of

Bill No. 2 be struck out and substitute the following, sub-section 5: Each

member appointed under paragraphs 2(

a) to (d), (

a) shall serve for three years

during good behaviour, and (

b) unless dismissed for lack of good behaviour shall

to continue to hold office until he or she is reappointed or new members

appointed.

The second amendment proposed is that Paragraph 18 (

a) of the

bill be struck out and the following substituted, again I quote as Paragraph

(a): to consider all applicants for judicial appointment and make a

recommendation to the Minister with respect to those applicants.

Those are the recommendations the Department is submitting to

the Committee of the Whole, the ones we are prepared to support, and

notwithstanding other submissions, there are none other that we are prepared to

consider at this time.

Thank you.

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps the Minister would follow it as we go

through but remember to stop at Clause 16 and 18 to move the amendments, because

they have to be done there. My colleague has an amendment to move in Clause 7,

so perhaps we can go from 1 to 7 and get on with it, then stop at 7 and my

colleague can move her amendment.

On motion, Clauses 1 through to 6, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 7 carry?

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson I move that this bill be amended

by deleting sub-clause 7(7). As I explained when I spoke in the second reading

debate of this bill I object to the division in sub-clause 7 (7) of prematurely

truncating the term of office of the current Chief Judge. I disagree on

principle with the Legislature tampering with the independence of a Provincial

Court by changing the terms of office of the current Chief Judge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Justice on a point

of order.

MR. DICKS: Not to interrupt the hon. Member, but she is

referring to sub-paragraph 7 of Clause 7. I think she might in fact be speaking

of 7 (2) in my copy of the Act. Are you referring to the term of office, or do I

misunderstand your amendment? I just want to follow you as you make your

argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: The essence of my objection is to the changing

of the rules in mid-stream for an incumbent. I have no fundamental objection if

a provision for the term of office of the next Chief Judge upon his or her

appointment, being set at ten years. However, the incumbent was appointed to

serve until normal retirement age, which is sixty-five. This is consistent with

the arrangement for federally appointed Chief Justices. For example, the Chief

Justice of the Trial Division of Newfoundland and the Chief Justice of

Newfoundland.

I think it is wrong for the Government to have the House of

Assembly change legislation to alter the terms of office of an incumbent Chief

Judge. Therefore, I am moving that the bill be amended by deleting sub-clause 7

(7), which says that, "For the purpose of sub-section (2) - which on its own

would apply, not to the incumbent, but only to the next and subsequently

appointed Chief Judges - "the Chief Judge on the date of the coming into force

of this Act shall be deemed to have commenced his position as Chief Judge on

that date." This is a measure that is targeted at an incumbent Chief Judge, and

it has the affect of undermining what is supposed to be the independence of the

judiciary. It amounts to the Government, and its Liberal majority in this

Legislation, undermining the independence of the judiciary, and, on principle, I

object to that.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to indicate

that the Department does not concur with the member's comments, which were made

on Second Reading. It is not an attack on the incumbent, contrary to what she

states, and we do not agree with the amendment, as proposed.

Thank you.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, Clauses 7 through to 15, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 16 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I earlier read the amendments, as

proposed. I propose those amendments. Thank you.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clause 16 as amended, carried.

On motion, Clause 17 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 18 carry?

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the amendment, as circulated,

amends sub-clause 18(a), and I would move that sub-clause 18(

a) be amended as in

the draft that I read earlier.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get it on the

record, of course, that we support both amendments, as proposed by the Minister,

and they were, in fact, strongly proposed by the Member for Humber East in the

Committee stage. I just want to get that on the record, in case there is any -

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, now!

MR. SIMMS: Well, they were strongly supported and

proposed by the Member for Humber East. So, anyway, we carry it now, unless you

want to cause a racket.

MR. DICKS: I would like to put on the record, that they

were indeed carried forward to the Department by the hon. Member for Carbonear,

who did an exemplary job, on behalf of the Committee, of bringing the wisdom to

our attention.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clause 18 as amended, carried.

On motion, Clauses 19 through to 39, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 10.

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting

Juries". (Bill No. 3).

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are some amendments proposed to this Bill

as well. I do not know if my colleagues opposite have - yes, they have a copy. I

should ask the Table if I might have a current copy of the amendment because I

just want to make sure that mine is similar to the ones opposite and I would

like to read it into the record because we initially looked at - the ones that I

have before me, Mr. Chairman, are amendments to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, (inaudible).

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

MR. SIMMS: If the Clerk just gave the Minister the same

copies she just gave me, on page two you have the explanatory notes, and I think

that is probably the best way to explain them because it is fairly clear, and it

also points out which Clause we have to move the amendments at so we can move on

up to Clause 21, for example, if you know what I mean, then move them and then

explain them as per the explanatory notes.

MS. VERGE: Do we have the same -

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I presume he has the same copy, does he?

MS. VERGE: This has not been changed.

MR. SIMMS: No.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we have the same

copy, Mr. Chairman, I just had an earlier copy that I just wanted to double

check against, but I think we could move up to Clause 20. The only amendments

proposed are in Clauses 21, 32, and 42 I should add as well.

On motion, Clauses 1 through to 20, carried.

MR. DICKS: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Clause 21, this

arose out of committee and some promise made in this House as well. The

amendment that is circulated would clarify that a judge may determine whether or

not a party is to pay jury expenses to the sheriff or the sub-sheriff. What it

does is it proposes some controls on how we receive money, and I think that is

an appropriate amendment.

Sub-paragraph 21(4) allows the repayment of any surplus funds

and allows us as well to repay interest. The committee felt that it was

inequitable to hold money without paying interest on the judgement interest act

and we are agreeing with that. So those two amendments are in order, and unless

they need to be read into the record, I propose that they be amended as in the

circulated written proposals.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clauses 21 as amended, carried.

On motion, Clauses 22 through to 31, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 32 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We seek to amend

Clause 32 by adding a sub-paragraph (4) which will read as follows: a judge who

orders a trial with a jury under sub-sections (2) or (3) may make an order

regarding the expense of the jury and the conduct of that trial. So that vests

in the trial judge a discretion concerning jury expenses, and I would so move

that sub-paragraph (4) be added to Clause 32.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clause 32 as amended, carried.

On motion, Clauses 33 through to 41, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 42 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that sub-clause

42(1) be struck out and that we substitute for it a new clause as set forth in

the circulated amendment. The effect of that is to add enquiries under the

Public Inquiry Act to these vested summonses and so forth. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clause 42 as amended, carried.

On motion, Clauses 43 through to 46, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion 3.

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of

Loan By The Province." (Bill No. 23)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to have a few words about this Bill by way of

introduction. What we are asking for is the authority from the House to borrow

$325 million. That is basically what the Bill is requesting. Most of that money

is required to compensate for the difference between what we intend to spend

this year and what we are able to raise. The difference is not $325 million, the

difference is somewhat less, the difference is $295.1 million. The additional

amount I will go into in a little more detail in a minute, but the additional

amount we need is a bit for spare. We intend to go to the capital markets about

four times this year to borrow a total of about $624 million. We have gone once

already into the Canadian market and borrowed $150 million, but we did that

under the authority of the former Loan Bill which means that we now have to

raise $474 million, the $624 million less the $150 million. We do not need

authority for $279 million of that because it is for basically refurbishing our

debt. We are paying off old debt and borrowing new money to replace it. We do

not need authority from the Legislature for that because we are not really

increasing the debt in that fashion. That leaves, Mr. Chairman, $195 million

that we do not have authority for at the present time, so we need to borrow $195

million, and we estimate that, since it may be a bit late next spring before we

actually get around to getting the House going and that, we may be over what we

anticipate, we feel we need another $130 million, the authority to borrow, we

may not borrow, but we will see how it goes. We need the authority to borrow

another $130 million which gives us $325 million. That is what we are asking the

House for now, the authority to increase the debt of this Province by $325

million. That is basically what we are asking. Mr. Chairman, I might say that I

have no joy in introducing this bill to increase the debt of the Province more

than it is now. We now owe $5.35 billion and that is contained, if you look at

your Budget document, in exhibit 5 over there on Roman 11 in the back of the

book, over $5 billion made up of direct provincial debt $4.859, Crown

corporation debt including the hydro, housing, and NMFC, and others, of $2

billion. Then there is some money in sinking funds which have to be taken from

that leaving a total public sector debt of $5.35 billion. That works out to be

over $9000 for every single person in this Province, and if you add that to our

federal debt, as I indicated in the Budget Speech, that is a total of $24,000

for every man, woman and child in this Province.

The interest alone come to $527.8 million and that is over

$1000 for every Newfoundlander. Every Newfoundland has to pay almost $1,000 in

interest on the public debt of Newfoundland; every person has to pay $1,000

interest, which is a lot of money. It works out to be $1,000 a minute

altogether, every minute we have to pay $1,000 worth of interest.

I might add it is worse than that, the situation is even

worse than anticipated because, we do not include in this interest amount that I

mentioned, the amount that is shown in the Estimates for $527.7 million, we do

not show the interest that the Province pays through the Department of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs on the interest on municipal debt and if we added that,

what the Province pays plus what the municipalities pay themselves on the debt,

the NMFC debt, we have to add another $40 odd million a year in interest; so the

actual interest that we are really paying on that $5.3 billion debt, comes out

to about $570 million, so it is even worse than that. Some of it is not shown

directly under that account, and Mr. Chairman, it is so serious that we are

actually borrowing to pay the interest, because the interest is, as I said, is

about $570 million every year and we are borrowing to pay the interest. Now that

is something, to borrow to pay the interest on the public debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a mess they left us.

DR. KITCHEN: Well, that is the situation we are in, and I

am really dishearte