June 7,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last Fall, Cabinet directed the Department of

Justice to develop proposals for the retention of outside legal counsel for all

legal services required by government and certain of its Agencies, Boards and

Commissions. All of these groups were advised of the new policy and were

directed to provide my officials with a description of the outside legal

services they would require for use by the legal profession in developing its

proposals. The outside Agencies, Boards and Commissions were also advised to

terminate existing arrangements for legal services.

A request for proposals was then sent to every law firm and

sole practitioner in the Province. Each Agency, Board and Commission was

provided with the proposals received on its behalf. Each of them, in

consultation with my officials, then developed a list of law firms which it -

the Agency, Board or Commission - thought were qualified to meet its

requirements for legal services. This list of qualified law firms was then

provided to Cabinet, who selected the law firms to be retained to provide

services to the government itself, and to the Agencies, Board and Commissions.

Mr. Speaker, following careful analysis and thorough

examination the successful firms were chosen. In certain cases one law firm was

selected to provide services to an Agency or a Board or a Commission, in other

cases a separate firm was selected for each region of the Province in which the

Agency operates and finally, in certain other cases, lists of certain law firms

were approved from which government may select a law firm on a case by case

basis at the rate proposed by the law firm, or, if applicable, at the rate

specified by the government or the Agency.

Except for the cases where lists of law firms were approved,

specific retainers will be entered into between the successful law firms and the

various Agencies for a period of two years.

Mr. Speaker, government are confident that this new procedure

will eliminate patronage from its legal contracts. A list of the successful law

firms is being tabled at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I received a copy of the minister's statement a few minutes

ago and will make some preliminary observations about it. First of all, the

government was shamed into initiating changes or at least going through the

motions of making changes in the way it contracts out legal work after the

revelations by the news media and the Official Opposition, about what they were

doing with a lucrative Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, otherwise known as

Employment for Noted Liberals contract.

Members will recall that early in their first term of office,

the Wells Administration took the ENL contract away from a non-partisan firm,

Stewart McKelvey, and gave it to Halley, Hunt; a firm in which, at the time, the

current Minister of Justice was a senior partner. After the minister came into

the Cabinet, according to the news media, the Premier directed that the contract

be switched from that firm because the minister's wife was a partner in the

firm.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I went public at the time - I objected to

that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS. VERGE: With leave, I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, he doesn't like it.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the report we have needs, of course, to be examined,

but I hope that the government has addressed, in addition to the direct legal

services being provided to the government, the extra services, for example, in

ENL, where although direct services to ENL might be a very small amount, the

actual value of such a contract would be greatly increased by the amount of

money companies have to pay to the law firm to get grants and loans from ENL to

do the legal work involved with that. So I hope that has been addressed, as

well.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, last week, my colleagues asked

some questions in the House about the large increases proposed for tuition at

Memorial University. I want to ask the Minister of Education: In addition to

those huge tuition increases that will average at least 20 per cent, can he

confirm that the University now plans large increases in residence fees, meal

charges, text books, in some user fees, and, indeed, intends to institute some

new user fees for most of the services provided to students on campus? Will the

minister admit that he has now been made aware of all of these new proposals?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I had to put this in context for

the hon. member. The reality is that there has, to this date, been no increase

in tuition. There have been no increases in any services that the University is

offering; however, Mr. Speaker, there is a whole list of proposals which the

University will consider when the Board of Regents meet in June. I cannot

anticipate or prejudge what the board will decide at that meeting. I would

think, Mr. Speaker, using my common sense, there will be an increase in tuition.

Now, whether it is going to be 20 per cent or 5 per cent it is far beyond me, or

anyone else, to say, but I anticipate there will be an increase, Mr. Speaker.

The University is trying to deal with a shortfall in its funding, they are

looking at a whole range of ways to deal with it, and one of the ranges is to

increase the cost of some services.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Now that the

minister has confirmed, in fact, that is one of the options and it is part of

their plan - last week, he also said in answer to some questions here in the

House that the University planned to recover, I think, it was a third of the

$11-million shortfall from students. Now, we understand, by the way, that is

going to be closer to 40 per cent and close to about $5 million. I want to ask

the minister: Why is he sitting idly by and allowing our students in this

Province to be saddled with these kinds of huge increases? Why is he sitting

idly by allowing that to occur? Is it because he and his government, in fact,

have a plan to see the reduction in the size of the University in order to cut

down on costs in future? In order to do that, what they are trying to do now is

limit admissions to the University to only those who can afford it, or to the

rich and the wealthy. Is that his plan? Is that the reason why he is allowing

this to go on?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is no Machiavellian plan

with government to making a smaller university. The reality is that the Province

is now paying for about 82 per cent of the cost of a university education per

student. The Province is met with a fiscal problem. We cannot give the

University an additional $11 million, so we said to the University, `Here is

your budget, you have the leeway to deal with it.'

As I told hon. members last week, unless the University does

something extraordinary, it would be unreasonable for the Province to interfere

in the day-to-day running of the University. I am sure the very students who are

shouting and asking us to stop an increase in tuition, they would be the very

students who would be complaining bitterly, and rightly so, if we were to poke

our noses into the running of the University and say, `Look, you can offer them

a math course here, you cannot offer a degree in Classics or what-have-you'. So,

Mr. Speaker, it is a long tradition in the Western democracies that governments

do not poke their noses into the day-to-day runnings of the Universities and we

do not intend to do that, Mr. Speaker, unless it becomes absolutely, totally

necessary. Now, I recognize the frustrations of students. Frankly, I wish we

could give a free education to all of our students but we are paying 82 per cent

of that cost, Mr. Speaker, and government does not have the extra money to give

free tuition.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this

government's initiatives are what is causing the problem. That is the problem,

Mr. Speaker, and the government has been consistent over the last four years in

the way it has treated the University and other government agencies. Now, the

increases that the minister has confirmed will cost individual students in this

Province, on average, about $500. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister would know that

when that is applied to students from outside of the St. John's region, then the

burden on them is going to be even that much greater. I ask the minister: Is he

going to do anything at all, is he going to lift his finger at all, to help this

situation, help ease the burden for these students? Will he call in the

University officials? Surely, he can sit down with them and discuss other

options, surely he can do something. When is he going to stand up and, for once,

speak out on behalf of the students of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about

other options. Now, what could be some other options? Some other options: one

could be a cap on enrolment. Is that desirable, Mr. Speaker? No, that is not

desirable. Another option would be to discontinue offering some courses at the

University. Now, would that be a desirable option? not from where I stand, Mr.

Speaker. There are a whole list of other options, but the lesser of all these

options, the lesser of all the evils, would seem to be some participation on the

part of the students into dealing with the extra costs. Now, Mr. Speaker, when

you compare the tuition at our University, compared to an Arts and Science

course at Dalhousie, ours at the moment, before any increases, is $1,700 per

semester. At Dalhousie, the same course is $2,415, at the University of Moncton

it is $2,050, Mount Alliston is $2,625, the University of New Brunswick is

$2,350, Mr. Speaker. So, for this Province, which did not cause the recession,

which did not cause the problems which we inherited when the government changes.

Considering our ability to pay, the recession that we are in,

the fiscal problems that we are having, when every single sector and every

single board - hospital boards, school boards - and agencies of government are

being all asked to help share this burden, I believe it is reasonable to ask the

people who are benefitting directly from the education at the university to pay

a part. Whether that is going to be 20 per cent remains to be seen. That is left

in the hands of the Board of Regents which is going to meet in June.

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

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

What a feeble answer. What a lame duck answer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable

simply to sit back and say, `We can't do anything.` That is what this government

has been doing for four years. `We can't do anything.` What a response from a

so-called responsible minister.

I want to ask the minister - he says: What other options are

there? There are all kinds of other options, I am sure, and priorities that

could be discussed. The minister keeps saying he is not prepared to stick his

nose into the business of the University. Nobody is asking him to intervene.

They are only asking him to get off his you know what and talk to the

University. So will the minister call in the President of the University, look

at some other options, look at some other ways of easing the burden on the

students of this Province? Will he look at it? Will he consider that kind of

approach?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is doing a great

job of posturing. It is the first time I have heard him mention students in this

House until he gets the galleries full of them, so he is doing a great job of

posturing.

Of course, he talks about all the other kinds of options. He

is not telling us what these options are, Mr. Speaker. We have looked at a whole

lot of options and none of them are desirable. We had to choose the lesser of

the evil.

Call in the President? Mr. Speaker, there is a process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. minister could get to the end of the answer,

please.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the President of the University

keeps in touch with me, as minister of the department, on a fairly regular

basis. There is a process in place; however, the way the system works, we put in

place boards, senates, to run the University, and I do not want to be part of a

government which goes in and tells Dr. Art May who to admit and who not to

admit, which tells Dr. Art May which courses to offer and which not to offer. We

cannot have that kind of interference in the University.

We will bend over backwards if there is some way that we can

help to lessen this burden, we will certainly do it, but we are hamstrung by the

debt which hon. members ran up in seventeen years of spending like drunken

sailors, coupled with a recession which we have no control over, Mr. Speaker. We

are open to the concerns of students.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. DECKER: Maybe if the hon. member is so concerned -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - he will talk to his friends in Ottawa to do

something with the student aid, the student loans -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - which they haven't touched since 1984, Mr.

Speaker. That's where the real problems are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker -

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

The Chair is having a little difficulty hearing the questions

and answers. I'd like to restore a little decorum to the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't engage in

the kind of silly little games that the minister is playing here today. Suffice

it to say, I'll put my record of speaking up for students in this Province up

against the minister's any day of the week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the minister one final question.

Will he table in this House, before the House adjourns for the Summer session,

whenever, an itemized statement of all fees and other charges that are now being

paid by students, and the annual increases in those charges since 1989? Will he

table that in the House - including the increases that will be approved by the

Senate of the University in the next few days? Will he include that as well?

Including the increases to be approved by the University in the next few days.

The Premier is so anxious to table those, will he confirm that too?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) 18 per cent in 1985?

MR. SIMMS: This year's?

PREMIER WELLS: Eighteen per cent in 1985.

MR. SIMMS: This year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can table the increases

in the tuition fees. But the hon. member is asking for some other things also,

things which have not yet taken place. It's difficult for me to table the

outcome of the meeting of the Board of Regents which won't take place 'til June.

But after that's available, anything that I have the legal right to table I will

table, Mr. Speaker. Of course I will. I'll table this as well.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, according to Stats Canada, half

of the new jobs created in Canada by the year 2000 will require five years of

post-secondary education. The people we need to train for these jobs are now

graduating from high school this year. That's happening when the University is

raising barriers to University enrollments, to make the University smaller in

effect, as the president put it in his annual address to the convocation.

Does the government agree with the plan for a smaller

University in this Province? How will the minister assure that young

Newfoundlanders who are now in school will be able to compete for jobs that will

require five or more years of post-secondary education?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is no plan to make a

smaller University.

As a matter of fact, the plan of government is to enlarge on

Grenfell College on the West Coast. The plan of government is to ultimately

build a college in Central Newfoundland, so there is no plan to make a smaller

college.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MR. DECKER: The participation of our students in

university: for the last five years, between 37 per cent and 39 per cent - now

the 35 per cent figure was around, but on closer examination between 37 per cent

and 39 per cent - of all the students who finished Grade XII in this Province

are in Memorial University.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me give you another statistic. In

addition to that another 5 per cent are studying in universities throughout the

country. On top of that another 3 per cent or 4 per cent of people who finished

Grade XII three or four years ago come back to university, so we have in excess

of 50 per cent of our students - our people who graduated the last five years -

in a university. Now, Mr. Speaker, that can challenge any other Province in this

country except Prince Edward Island. We have the highest rate of participation,

so we are preparing for the five years down the road when the importance of a

university education will be essential to getting a job. We are doing a darn

good job and we are not going to take second place to anybody.

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

Kenmount.

Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister a very

specific question dealing with student aid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Will the minister increase the provincial

grant portion of student aid so that students who need it can get help to pay

the higher cost of tuition, board and lodging, and other university services

they will pay this Fall?

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the federal government's

contribution. I am talking particularly about the provincial grant portion, and

I would agree, in asking the question, that the minister not use, or I would

state that the minister not use, the federal argument - they are not doing a

good job either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker. He says: Do not touch -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have not recognized the hon. -

MR. DECKER: Do not touch my brothers and sisters in

Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have not recognized the hon. minister. In any event, I

could not hear if the hon. member would speak.

Order, please!

I would ask the hon. members on both sides of the House to be

quiet so I can hear the hon. minister. Thank you.

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker. He says: Do not touch my

friends in Ottawa. Do not touch my buddies in Ottawa, who have not increased

student aid since 1984 or 1985. Do not touch them. Oh no.

Mr. Speaker, in fairness the hon. member is on the right

track though. It is logical to assume, as the cost of a university education

goes up so will student aid have to go up; however, if the Province were to say:

Increase your tuition by 20 per cent and we will increase student aid by 20 per

cent, that would be giving the University an open door to increase the tuition

every year and unload it on the Province with student aid.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at the whole

concept of student aid to see if there is some way we can -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: We have been increasing student aid, yes, but

other provinces in Canada are also looking at a student loan program, which is

one of the things that we certainly can look at - but I am not going to make any

commitment to it - but we are looking at some way to help the average person in

this Province to get into university and get a university education.

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

Kenmount, a final supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister was asking for

options a few moments ago, and in view of the financial constraints stated by

the minister as factors precluding significant funding to MUN to reduce the need

for student tuition fees, and

whereas the Province continues to fund the Harlow

campus, will the minister undertake a review of the entire Harlow campus

concept, and this analysis used as a source in which we can try to find monies

to be able to make university education more accessible to our Newfoundland sons

and daughters?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the university is looking for

$11 million. Harlow campus costs $270,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, he has a little

start made - albeit a small one.

I visited Harlow last year with the intention of closing it.

So I went over with that as my intention; however, while I was there I met with

some people from another university, which used to be a polytechnical college,

which has just been given a university status in Great Britain. I see Harlow as

a contact for this University with the British university system. This new

polytechnical college has already entered into an agreement with the University

of California. They are looking for a university in Canada to hook into. I

believe for the sake of $270,000 we have a potential there to tie that

University into the whole European system, so we can become one of the big

players on an international scale. I would be doing an injustice to that

University if I were to squash Harlow until we fully explore the possibility of

making a better opportunity for our people in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Premier about Grenfell College in Corner Brook. Grenfell College, as the

Premier should know, provides the only opportunity for university education in

Western Newfoundland. The student enrollment at Grenfell is now twice what the

facilities were designed to accommodate, and the science lab and library

facilities are particularly inadequate. What happened to the government

commitment, stated in the 1989 Speech from the Throne, and specified to begin in

1991-1992 in the government's White Paper on post-secondary education which was

adopted, to expand facilities for Grenfell College?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's facts are not

quite accurate. Grenfell College does not have double what it was built for.

It's built to accommodate about 800. This coming September it will have about

1,200 or 1,300 students enrolled. When it was built for 800 that meant five days

a week, basically classes from 9:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m. What the University has

done over the past little while is they have extended classes into the evenings

and on Saturdays, so this makes the building quite capable of handling up to

1,000 students without any major problems.

The University and government are looking at - this

government is committed to expanding Grenfell College. There's no doubt about

that. But hon. members, if they would take their blinkers off, will recognize

that we have a fiscal problem in this Province which we're trying to deal with

in a rational manner. Grenfell College was built for 800. By playing around with

the timetable it's quite comfortable to have 1,000 students in there. The

enrollment this year, if we accept all the people who apply, will be in excess

of that. We are looking around for some other space over in Corner Brook, as the

hon. member will know. There are three high schools over there, two of which

have been closed out, one which is about to close out in the future. We're

looking at the possibility of making some space available in that. The last

thing we want to do is to put a cap on enrollment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary to the

Premier. I'd like the Premier, who represents Bay of Islands, to address himself

to Grenfell College. Why is the Premier's government reneging on its commitment

and jettisoning its own timetable for Grenfell College construction, and instead

embarking on spending not contemplated in the White Paper to improve science

labs and start first-year University courses in Gander and Clarenville? Could it

be that the government really doesn't have a plan at all?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member - our plan for

the Central region - what we're hoping to develop in the Central region - we're

hoping to develop a network of first-year courses. Come this Fall we will have

in excess of 600 students involved in first-year courses. Next Fall when we

bring Clarenville into this we'll have over 700 students. The next logical step

is to bring them into a University network so that we can go with the

second-year course at one spot, or whatever we want to do in Central

Newfoundland.

We are totally committed to advancing Grenfell into

ultimately a degree granting University, a campus of Memorial. We are totally

committed to our extensions to the Central region as well. But what the hon.

member has to recognize is this: that the whole country is in a recession.

Apparently we're coming out of it, and let's hope we are. We're trying to

wrestle with a $70 million shortfall, and we're trying to spread the pain, Mr.

Speaker, as equitably as we can throughout the whole system. I suppose you could

say we ought to close down the Northern Peninsula and do everything somewhere

else. But that's not our philosophy.

Our philosophy is one of fairness and balance where we try to

treat all our people reasonably. We cannot stop all our plans for Central

Newfoundland and build up Western Newfoundland at the expense. The hon. member

should see the big picture and there is a place in the big picture for Grenfell,

a place for Central, a place for the Avalon Peninsula. There is a place, Mr.

Speaker, for everybody and we have to treat everybody fairly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, some fairness, some

balance.

Mr. Speaker, final supplementary, the University senate

recently gave approval for Grenfell College to offer some third and fourth year

courses constituting three Bachelor of Arts programs, what will the government

do for Grenfell so the college will not be forced to lower first year admissions

to make way for the new third and fourth year courses?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with the

president on several occasions, as a matter of fact at the convocation where the

hon. member was present, the president made the suggestion that he might have to

for the first time, put a cap on first year enrollment at a college. We are

looking around to see if there is any possible way to do that. One of the ways

that we are looking at it, as I said, was to try to take advantage of some other

spaces in one of the schools up in that area which I understand is about to

close. We are looking at every possible option that we can possibly find but at

the end of the day it might come down to this: do we offer third and fourth year

courses or do we accept everybody who applies? When the time comes to make that

decision, Mr. Speaker, again we will hopefully make the decision which is in the

best interest of education in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

for the Minister of Health. In the community of Beachside, a student has been

diagnosed with meningococcal disease and has been hospitalized. The local health

authorities have agreed to vaccinate only those persons in close contact with

that particular student. Beachside is a small community, compact, population

280. The council is asking that the entire community be vaccinated, will the

minister over-rule his local officials and ask that all of Beachside be

vaccinated, Mr. Speaker?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite

is not a medical doctor, neither am I, we have officials in place who are, and

we are following the appropriate protocols in Beachside as we are everywhere

else. I have been in contact with the medical people as a result of this case,

just to see what has been done and so on and I am satisfied that things are

progressing as they should. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. According to

information coming out of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association

Annual Convention in Corner Brook, restrictions will be placed on new doctors

setting up in this Province. What barriers does the minister plan on putting in

place to stop new doctors from setting up practice in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there are presently no new

barriers. What we have in place are two committees, one is a long-range

committee looking at the supply of doctors in the Province, of family physicians

and specialists, because in some parts of the Province there are shortages and

in some specialities there are general shortages. So we have a long range

committee looking at this whole question and it has to do with enrollments in

medical schools across Canada and so on. In addition to that we have a

short-range committee which is to bring in a report as soon as possible. The

problem is this, there seems to be an oversupply of physicians in Canada. The

medical schools are turning out quite a number. Last year it was decided that

some medical schools would cut back on their enrollments.

Now in Ontario the plan, if you read the paper recently

there, is that physicians who practice in Toronto will receive 25 per cent of

the fee

schedule rather than the whole 100 per cent. So, there is a fear that a

great number of physicians may decide to go in those parts of Canada where there

is no such barrier and we do not want everyone ending up in St. John's because

we have sufficient general practitioners in St. John's now. The more physicians

we have, the more the health care system is driven, tests and things of that

nature. So, we are looking at this question, we have not made any decisions and

an expert committee will advise government on this

matter, whether we need to take any steps in the short run

and in particular, we will be sorting out the physician supply problem for the

long-term.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess in a round about way, the minister has said that they

are looking at it. In fact, they put a committee in place to look at the total

area of doctor services, and in fact the Medical Association now is considering

various options, I understand, and since your department's budget for fee for

service doctors is capped, new doctors would not significantly increase the cost

to this Province, but really, reduce the earnings of doctors overall if we

spread the same amount of money over new doctors. I ask the minister: are the

barriers to new doctors setting up practice, are they aimed at reducing cost

overall or, are they aimed at preserving the current income that doctors are now

receiving in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there are no barriers in place

now and I am sure that the point that the member raised is something that we

have to consider, but we must also consider another point. Even if the

physicians' salaries, the total thing is capped, which it is, we have a certain

amount of money that we spend on physicians salaries in the Province, no matter

how many come here, we will just spend that much on physicians salaries, but

every time a physician opens up a practice and somebody comes to see that

physician, you have tests that are ordered, you have people committed to

hospitals.

If you cannot get in with one physician, there is another

fellow down the street, you go down and see him and eventually - it is generally

known that physicians drive health care costs, not only the cost of their own

salaries, but the whole health care system, and serious people in Canada are

concerned about this and what we need in Canada is the appropriate number of

physicians and what we need in Newfoundland is the appropriate number and in the

appropriate places. There are some parts of Newfoundland where we have severe

physician shortages and we want to direct physicians there and we are taking

various steps to encourage physicians to establish in places where we need them,

but there are other parts of the Province where we do not need more physicians

because all that will do, will be to increase the cost of health care and we may

have to close down some more hospitals.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

Bills entitled, "An To Amend The Liquor Control Act", "An Act To Amend The

Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991, The Teachers Pension Act, The Uniform Services Pension Act, and the

Memorial University Pensions Act".

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Schools

Act".

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, by agreement among the members

we are going to debate the concurrence motion on the Government Services

Committee report this afternoon. Now, Standing Order, I think, 121 Sub (1) deems

that if a motion is before the House for the concurrence -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, 121 Sub (1). It is on the Order Paper

as well but 121 Sub (1) says, upon the making of a report under Standing Order

120, and the report was made on Friday, as Your Honour will recall, a motion

shall be deemed to be before the House that the report be concurred in. Before

we begin I know my friend for Grand Falls, the Leader of the Opposition is

anxious to get out of the House, but before we do perhaps we could see if we

could come to an agreement on speaking times. My understanding is the rules are

silent and therefore the normal rules would apply, but I believe there is a

consensus among the gentleman for St. John's East representing his parliamentary

group, the gentleman for Grand Bank representing his parliamentary group, and

myself representing the group to Your Honour's left, that we should speak for

ten or fifteen minutes each.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten.

MR. ROBERTS: For ten, and that a member may speak more

than once, if he or she catches Your Honour's eye. The only other motion I would

make then, before we call Order 3, is that I move formally the House do not

adjourn at 5:00, and that is simply to enable us to sit after 5:00, if we need

to, to clean up the debate. It is limited to three hours so the latest we could

sit would be 5:42, assuming the clock on the wall is correct, so I would move

that the House do not adjourn at 5:00, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed?

It is moved and seconded that the House does not adjourn at

5:00 but continue until the end of the three hours provided for concurrence,

carried.

The rules, as I understand it, do not provide for the exact

time for speakers but in accordance with the agreement we will go with ten

minute maximums and a member may speak twice.

Motion carried.

We are now in concurrence debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was not informed that I was scheduled but I am pleased to

stand and speak in this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your Maiden Speech, is it?

MR. OLDFORD: No, this is my second Maiden Speech.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the new

members who were elected on May 3. Of course, I am one of the veterans now. I

also want to congratulate the people who were re-elected. I also thank the

people of Trinity North for their fine judgement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OLDFORD: - and their vote of confidence. Of course,

modesty is one of my great attributes so I do not want to carry that too far.

Obviously they made the right decision in electing a Liberal member and I am

pleased to be back to represent the fine people of Trinity North.

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign we campaigned, of course, on

the issues of the day and these were issues related to the budgetary problems

that we were facing in this Province, and obviously there was a need to control

spending. I found, as I was going through the district, people were generally in

agreement with what the government was proposing to do with the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OLDFORD: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I was really surprised - well not so much

surprised, I suppose - to see the concern of senior citizens when it came to the

affairs of the Province. Seniors were telling me that this government was doing

the right thing and that we were going to do well.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to the committees - the government

services committee - I want to thank the committee members for their diligence

and for their contribution to the process. We dealt with the estimates of the

Department of Finance, the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and the Department of

Municipal Affairs, and I must say, the meetings went well.

I want to thank the Member for St. John's East Extern who was

on that committee, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes; the Member for St.

John's North; the Member for Harbour Grace, and the Vice-Chair, the Member for

Bonavista South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pleasantville.

MR. OLDFORD: And the Member for Pleasantville.

Mr. Speaker, we did a thorough review of the estimates. The

individual estimates were scrutinized and reviewed and I must say, a good job

was done.

I must commend the ministers for their co-operation. A couple

of them were a little bit long-winded in their opening statement. As a matter of

fact, I think if we had let them go we would have had a two-and-a-half hour

opening statement and half-an-hour for questions and answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. OLDFORD: Oh, I do not want to name them. They know

who they are.

One of the shorter meetings we had, and one of the better

meetings, was when we reviewed the estimates of the Department of Finance. I

notice the Member for Mount Pearl has left, but I was really excited about the

exchange between the present Minister of Finance and the former minister - the

Member for Mount Pearl. They both showed a great knowledge of what was going on

in their department, and it was a learning experience for us - for a lot of the

newer members on the committee. There was none of the rancour. It was a very

valuable exchange between the minister and the former minister. I must say, it

was a pleasant experience for me - this being my first time as Chairperson -

that this meeting went so well, as did all the other meetings, of course.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to again thank the members of

the committee; thank the ministers and the officials for their great level of

co-operation; and with that I move concurrence.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was the Vice-Chairperson of the government services

committee, and I must say, it was a new experience for me. Not knowing what to

expect, I thought it was going to be a situation where we would go and sit down

- because I was not prepared for it at the time - and the minister would tell us

what he wanted to and we would just accept that, but I was pleasantly surprised

in that it gave us a chance not only to question the minister but also the

minister's staff - all of whom I had not met before. So that was a learning

experience for me and I found out a lot of why things are done the way they are,

and the cost of going into doing the things.

One thing that disappointed me, I suppose, especially, in all

the committees that we examined, was the professional services and the purchased

services - that there were lump sum figures given there. It might be hard to

itemize each one, but surely I think there should be a lot more information put

forward in the estimates than just figures, because when you ask questions as to

what money is spent where, then you have no other choice but accept what is put

back at you because you are not aware of the amounts of money or where the cost

is incurred. Salaries were also questioned in the estimates committee, and we

were all of the opinion that salaries, especially in the administration levels,

were supposed to be a reduction rather than an increase, and you will notice in

many of the estimates that it shows an increase and the reason for that, we were

told, is because, they are estimates and it is guesswork rather than salaries

that are finalized up until this point, and I was a little disappointed in that.

Also, a little bit disappointed in the grading scales,

especially for administration purposes. Step progression, which is something we

do not believe in and when we saw it here on the books, it was something that

gave us some concern because it is a way to give people salary increases without

having them negotiated, and the people who are in the process of negotiating the

wages are told that there is nothing there for you, only the people whom we see

fit to give it to.

Looking back at itemizing things again, we look at some of

the airport strips and ferry services, all put in in a lump sum, Mr. Speaker,

and I believe that is wrong, because we do not have a whole lot of them; it is

not the same as road work where you have a kilometre here and a kilometre

somewhere else, I think we can do a better job in putting those figures forward,

so that we can look at them and question them when we are questioning the

estimates committees -

AN HON. MEMBER: Easier to follow.

MR. FITZGERALD: - easier to follow and in that way we can

make sure that this money is spent and where it is going and the need is there.

I thank the government members and the new ministers for their co-operation and

our people, I think there were three rookies on our team and I must say they did

a superb job. I also had the privilege of sitting in on the finance committee

and that was a learning experience for me when we saw our member, the Member for

Mount Pearl, being so in tune with the finance department and so knowledgeable

about what was happening, so that gave me a lot of experience and I must say I

came away a wiser person.

Thank you very much.

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

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

I just have a few remarks in the concurrence debate this

afternoon starting off with the Government Services Committee. It is interesting

really to hear the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman make some observations about

the workings of the committees, and particularly interesting to hear new

members, because for those of us who have spent some time on the estimates

committees over a number of years, you sort of become immune to it I think after

a number of sessions, but for new members I guess, who come in with a lot of

optimism, who come in to scrutinize and to learn, it is most interesting to hear

the remarks of new members on the committees, and the Member for Bonavista South

has certainly pointed out some very interesting observations.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking the government services

departments and I want to, for a moment, just talk about the transportation

system in the Province and the need for improvements and so on. I did not have

the occasion to show up at the committee that night, but I understand things

were very interesting. We have a new minister in that department and I have had

a number of discussions with him about needs in my area of the Province where we

do need some major road improvements. We have had pavement in most of the

district now for so long that it has outlived its - the life of the asphalt is

gone and it is starting to break up and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is this, Fortune?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, really in most of the district. A

lot of times, of course, back in those days when the Premier was I guess, the

Premier was in government before, that when it came election time there was

quite often a great rush, a flurry of equipment and a lot of times the proper

preparation was not done - and the Government House Leader too, of course the

Government House Leader, I forgot him. I can see he was itching, he wanted to be

signalled out as well as being part of that regime where, they will pull in the

bulldozers and the old rollers and the asphalt spreaders

over beaches, they paved on - and in our area of the

Province, Mr. Speaker, they even paved the beaches, I say to the Government

House Leader. And, of course, we have done quite well to get this long out of

it. But now the old road work is cracking up. It is much like the government,

the Minister of Education, particularly, it is starting to crack up. But, no, we

have -

MR. SIMMS: Who is going to tell you about Frank Moores

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He was going to talk about Frank, was

he?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, one of Frank's (inaudible). What was it,

`Ed'?

MR. ROBERTS: The Fortune - Hermitage by-election which

blessed us with Roger Simmons. They laid the pavement on top of the snow and

ice, including the potholes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On top of the snow and ice, laid

pavement.

MR. ROBERTS: Not only that, they lost the by-election in

the bargain.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there are some serious road

improvement requirements that I brought up with the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I am having trouble hearing the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am having trouble hearing myself, I

say to you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: A terrific speech!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Such personal attacks from all sides. It

reminds me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Even the Speaker is interrupting!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Even the Speaker. It reminds, me,

talking with the Government House Leader, of the story I am told of an election

years back when Mr. Hickman was the member for the area.

MR. ROBERTS: Just happened to be running for us.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, he was for your side then.

MR. ROBERTS: That is a long time ago.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is a long time ago -

MR. SIMMS: He was running with Walter Carter.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - when Premier Smallwood came down and

promised to do the road. Mr. Hickman believed the promise and was quite serious

about the need to have this road done. Of course, when the election was over and

Smallwood was returned to power, Mr. Hickman was a member of that. Mr. Hickman

went out of his way a month or so after the election - he came in to see Mr.

Smallwood. He went up to the Premier's Office and said: `Premier, I came to see

you to remind you about the election promise that you made.' The Premier looked

at him and asked: `Haven't you heard, Alec?' He said: `No, Premier, what is it I

haven't heard?' The Premier said: `The election is over.' Of course,

consequently -

MR. SIMMS: Never mind the promises.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never mind the promises. That is a true

story, by the way. Alec Hickman told me that himself.

MR. SIMMS: `Beaton' was there, for sure.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, `Beaton' was there.

MR. SIMMS: Beaton was there in those days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it is a true story. Anyway, I just

wanted to go on record, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation would be here, but he has gone about the Province, I

believe, inspecting roads - on the great Province-wide tour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Get up and tell us about it now. Rookie - make

your maiden speech, come on!

MR. HARRIS: Where has he gone?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He has gone to the West Coast, I believe

- out through Central and gone to the West Coast.

MR. HARRIS: Trying to use up his $8,000 car allowance.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I tell you one thing about the

current Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - knowing him like I do,

I say, it won't take him long to use up his $8,000 car allowance, because he

will put some miles on that car now.

Having said that, even though we all have responsibilities to

the House, I think the minister is keen to leave and go out in some regions of

the Province to look at the transportation needs. I know, my colleague, the

Member for Humber East, has brought up the matter on the floor of the

Legislature. She has discussed it privately with the minister and he is going to

have a look at it while he is out there. All I say is that the minister

certainly has a new attitude.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why he went out there.

MR. SIMMS: Do some looking.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and he is going to some driving and

some looking. Whether he is going to resolve anything when he is out and about,

I don't know. But I give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he wants to go

out and see first-hand the transportation needs in the Province. He is going to

look at it and then he is going to prioritize. I am sure, with the influence

that minister has in his department, Mr. Speaker, whatever he prioritizes, those

are the things that will get done. I see the Member for Fogo is smiling, because

he worked for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, of course, in

Social Services, so he knows just how dominating that minister can be in his

department. And what he sets as priorities are priorities.

MR. SIMMS: And he's not very political.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not very political. In case members

wonder why I am being a bit complimentary to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, it is because I have had a brief discussion with him, as well,

Mr. Speaker. I am hoping now when he comes back, the first thing he will do is

read Hansard, where he will see all those compliments that I have made about

him, and then he will be willing to spend about $1 million this year in the

district of Grand Bank for road improvements.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of all hon. members, I would like

to welcome to the public galleries a delegation from the town of Lewisporte:

Deputy Mayor Curlew; Councillor Peckford; Town Manager Moyles; and the

Development Officer, Michael Moss.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am one of the

members who served on the Government Services Committee, so I thought it would

be appropriate and an opportune time to speak to the experience that evolved as

a result of the opportunity of serving on that Committee for the first time. As

all hon. members would know by now, I am a first-time MHA representing the

district of St. John's North, and I must say that I was pleased with the

opportunity to be able to serve on the Committee that examined the Estimates for

the Department of Finance, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation,

Employment and Labour Relations, as well as Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I,

like my hon. colleague from the other side of the House, entered into the work

of the Committee with some reservation as to what was involved and how the

process flowed once the work started, but I would have to say that once we

commenced our discussions and our activities, the questions that evolved

naturally from the presentation of the estimates by the ministers allowed for

participation by all of the Committee members with great ease. I think, at the

end of the evening, we came away infinitely more informed about the process and

about the workings of the department than when we entered into the discussions.

I would like to commend the Chair of the Committee, the hon. the Member for

Trinity North. He runs a mean Committee and he chaired the sessions very, very

well and ensured that the debate - that the time allocations to the various

members was done properly and fairly. I would also like to congratulate the

Vice-Chair, who, like myself, was a rookie MHA but who also participated and

played his

part very well.

One of the things that impressed me, Mr. Speaker, about the

workings of the Committees was the infinite knowledge that the ministers seemed

to have of the workings of their departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is actually amazing, isn't it?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: It is actually amazing that ministers

who are in their departments for only a very short time had such a grasp of the

workings of the department; I refer to the hon. the Member Carbonear and also

the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the

Member for Port de Grave. Now, I realize that they are not rookie MHAs and they

should know something about what is going on, but I believe they did themselves

more than proud in the examination of their estimates.

The minister walks in just a minute too late to hear me

commend him for being so knowledgeable, so I will say it again: The Minister of

Municipal Affairs seemed to be knowledgeable beyond his years and he seemed to

be competent beyond his length of time in office in sharing information with us.

I was most interested in the extent of the knowledge that the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations had in sharing on his Committee. I thought the

hon. the Member for Exploits, who is the minister of that department had, not

only sufficient knowledge, but it seemed as though he had all knowledge. There

seemed to be no question too difficult for him to handle and I commend him for

being so well read.

I also appreciated the level of information that the staff

were prepared to share with us in the Estimates Committees. The staff that staff

these departments, the deputy ministers, the ADMs, the directors and whoever

they were that came along to the various meetings, had great knowledge of the

workings of their departments. That is a very positive thing, but I would also

caution all of us, as members of this Legislature, that at the end of the day,

we are responsible in this House for the direction that this government takes

and for the money that is spent on behalf of this government. So, I would

caution the ministers and give them a little reminder that they should not be

unduly dictated to, or unduly directed by their staff, if it takes them outside

of the broad policies and outside of the broad mandate that this government has

laid out to operate under within the next four years.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that concerns me greatly came

out of the examination of the affairs of the Department of Municipal Affairs,

and that was the fact that we learned that the Federal Government has decreased

their commitment and their contribution to social housing from $40 million, I

think it was last year, down to $17 million this year, and next year, if I

understand correctly, their commitment to social housing will be zero - it will

be zilch, it will be nil, it will be nothing. That, I am sure, is a concern to

us a members of the Legislature because, after all, we still have a major task

on our hands in this Province to ensure that our people who cannot afford it

wholly on their own, are suitably housed, are maintained properly in dwellings

that give them adequate protection, and that give them a decent standard of

living and a decent place in which to live. So I would express disappointment

that the Federal Government is withdrawing from this program and leaving us in

the position which we will be left in, with no money to carry out that sort of

thing.

I was appreciative of the information that the Minister of

Finance shared with us. Undoubtedly, the Minister of Finance has a very, very

good grasp of the knowledge and workings of his department. I was interested to

know, by way of examination of his estimates, that they are doing due diligence,

as it were, to ensuring that whenever and wherever possible, they are

refinancing the public debt of the Province to ensure that we are taking

advantage of the reduced interest rates that are universally in vogue at the

moment.

So I commend the Minister of Finance and suggest and ask him

to continue to ensure that every time there is a possibility to save a dollar on

debt and interest charges that he proceed to do so and that he ensure that we

get the best bang for the buck, as it were, out of our dollars that we have

available to us.

I would like to also commend the three members who served on

the Committee from the other side of the House - from the Opposition benches.

They were very sharp in their questioning. They were very astute in the way that

they went about handling their work, and they did not seem to want to drag out

the work of the Committee unnecessarily or unduly.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether, on their behalf, it

represented a great desire to be overly co-operative or whether it is not a

situation where they are still suffering severely from postelection blues. I

think that had a fair bit to do with the attitude of the members from the other

side of the House, and I can understand their lack of fire in the belly, if you

like. I can understand their lack of desire to be unco-operative, because, at

this point, I am sure they have nothing to be gained by that. The people of the

Province, of course, spoke loudly and clearly on May 3, and I would suggest that

in the years ahead, they will improve their level of performance in terms of

aggressiveness on the Committee. But postelection blues, like postpartum blues,

or whatever it is after you have a baby, won't last forever, and I am sure they

will come around and come along and get more into things.

It was a unique experience, Mr. Speaker, to be able to serve

on the Committee. It was an enjoyable experience, and I believe that the

workings of the departments that we examined are in very, very good hands, the

departments being headed by very capable ministers who seem to have been able to

give great diligence to their work. As I said before I would only caution the

ministers that they ensure that they are at all times fully in charge of their

departments and at the end of the day realize that the buck stops here, as it

were, in this Legislature and that we carry on as a government, as a

Legislature, to execute the programs and policies that were annunciated during

the election campaign. The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, expect

performance. The people of this Province expect us to do what we said we would

do, and that is to be frugal in the administration of the affairs of the

Province, to be frugal in the way we spend the dollars that we have available to

us, and that we hold the line.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Leave to finish up.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to

participate in the debate. As I say, it has been a pleasure, an enjoyable

experience, and I believe that the affairs of this Province will be the better

served because of the activity of the committee on which I served, and because

of the people who sat on that committee, and who also serve in this House.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: A great job, Lloyd. It must be nice to get

up and be able to speak every now and again, Mr. Speaker. I assure the hon.

member, Mr. Speaker, that there are no post-election blues in me. I am not back

on the ground yet. There is lots of fire in my belly and you ain't seen nothing

yet. I am a PC and I have been a PC since I was born, was and always will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are only young yet.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the

Government Services Committee and I must say it was quite the experience. I did

not realize at first exactly what the committee meant when I became a member,

but as we sat down in the informal sessions going through the different

department estimates it was very enjoyable to say the least, to get into the

workings of the department and find out a lot of the ins and outs that are not

brought out in the House from day to day. I must say I missed a couple of the

sessions due to district commitments, and I am sorry for that because the few

that I did attend were very educational to say the least. As we went through the

estimates the hon. member before me spoke with some -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I hate to interrupt the hon. member but the conversations to

my left are becoming very, very loud and I am having difficulty hearing the hon.

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. I suggest that hon. members to my left,

if they are going to engage in conversation, turn the volume down a bit, or if

not the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes is going to have to turn the

volume up.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The poor fellows over there do not get a chance to speak very

often so I understand it.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Government Services

Committee was truly an experience. I must say some of the ministers who attended

answered the questions very openly, and also the people who were with them from

the different departments were very quick on answers, and if they did not know

the answers they certainly delved into it until they found the answers for us. I

was surprised on a couple of instances, Mr. Speaker, especially with the

Department of Employment and Labour Relations. I must say it was one of the

better meetings we had but I was surprised to find that the new announcement

last week concerning the Conservation Corp would created a few less student jobs

this year in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that worried me. I welcomed the new

initiative but I thought there may be some new dollars instead of taking it from

the existing pot and cutting back on some student jobs that we had for our

Province. That was a major concern.

In Municipal and Provincial Affairs I must go along with the

hon. member who spoke before me with regard to the cutbacks on social housing on

both levels of government, federal and provincial. It will have a detrimental

effect on our Province in the long-term, and I think that our provincial

government should lobby as much as it can to have at least some dollars

re-instated and put their money where their mouth is, also.

With regards to Works, Services and Transportation, it is one

of the meetings that I just happen to have missed and I regret that because I

was looking forward to sitting down in an informal session with the new Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that as we went

through the estimates I found that the government has chosen to cut back in

several different parts of each department; I realize that cuts have to be made

but there are some instances there that I was very worried about and I will

leave some of them for Question Periods in the future as I try to find out some

more information on them, but I have to thank all the members of the committee.

I thank the Member for Bonavista South, the Vice-Chair and

the Chairperson of the committee, and their willingness to allow everybody to

have the opportunity to speak when they wanted to and there was no rush to get

the job done as such. We took our time and went through the estimates as best we

could. The courtesy of the members opposite also, I commend. We all seemed to

sit back and enjoy it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fire.

MR. MANNING: I told you I would save the fire for later.

Mr. Speaker, I will again welcome the members from all sides of the House who

partook in the Government Services Estimates Committee. It was an enjoyable

experience and I learnt much from it. Thank you.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government services, this does include the Works, Services

and Transportation department?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like just a few

words, if I may?

As a matter of fact I just came in from the Common Room after

returning two phone calls to secretaries of local service districts in the

Jackson's Cove area and the Harry's Harbour area, both of which are served by a

roadway which was rebuilt and partly paved during the years of the Peckford

administration, however, since coming to power, the Wells administration has

steadfastly refused to complete the paving on this road. That is rather much a

shame because the road was completely rebuilt, ready to be paved, and now, even

to pave it, extra expense would be required to upgrade the road surface to

finish the job.

The secretaries of both local service districts, asked me to

send an invitation to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to

attend the public meeting in their area, preferably sometime in the Fall, to

publicly discuss with the local people the state of their particular road. I

will write the minister and pass on their request for a meeting and as I

understand it right now, the minister is on the road touring the Province,

looking at the state of the roads in the various parts of the Province, and I

can only commend to him that if he happens to be in the Green Bay area, that he

take a hard look at the bridge at South Brook which is in terrible shape and

that he visit Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove area and see first hand what needs

to be done with that road.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too was a member of the Government Services Review

Committee and I must say that the past two weeks have been a learning experience

for myself, especially when it came to those committees. I have to disagree with

the Member for St. John's North, when he said that the questions from this side

of the House were few - well, he did not put it in those words but he certainly

implied that - but I have to say that when I went to those meetings I was quite

prepared because I did not know really what to expect and I had an armload of

questions, but when it came to the ministers themselves, I must say that with

each minister I was impressed in a different way.

With the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I was

impressed with his sincerity, and his staff, I have had a fair bit of dealings

with his staff in the past and with a number of the people who were there, and I

asked certain questions of the minister that I had asked those people before,

hoping that the answer would be different than I had received previously. I

think the minister is thinking along the lines that I've been thinking these

past number of years, and hopefully he'll follow up on that.

With respect to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, I have to agree with a previous member who stated that that minister

does know his department well. I did have a fair number of questions for that

minister and he seemed to have the answers. I had to accept them as he presented

them because of the amount of time that was involved in these meetings. I really

couldn't get all the time in, have all the time allotted to me for the questions

I had. Actually, in one of the departments I voted against the estimates because

I didn't get all my questions answered.

With respect to the hon. Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. I must say, for the short period of time that he's been there

he's obviously putting in a fair bit of time to know his department, and I

congratulate him on that. His staff whom he had at that meeting, I was

thoroughly impressed with those people. They really knew their stuff. There are

some questions that I didn't get answered.

One thing with respect to the process, with the committees

themselves. I find that the process is really too short. The amount of time

allotted, with basically three hours per committee, and we didn't really go into

any overtime, any extra nights or however the case may be. I don't know if you

can really get into the in-depth study of the departments that you would like

to, although I must say I came away, just after three hours, a lot better

informed than before I went there. Some of the questions I didn't get answered.

I went through each department

section by section, and at one of the meetings,

after the meeting was over, one of the deputy ministers came up to me and he

said; Jack, I must say, you're one of the first who went through the estimates

section by section. So I said: I'll take that as a compliment. He said: yes,

it's meant to be one.

I did get the feeling, though, that the process itself is

just a formality. We go to it, we bring up our questions, we get our answers,

and - done deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That's right, I know. What can we say?

That's the process, that's the process we're in, and that's the learning

experience that we're going through at this point in time.

With respect to some of the question that I did have in

particular, I did have some major concerns with the Workers' Compensation with

Employment and Labour Relations. The minister says that there's been $3 million

cut this past year, or a $3 million savings. But if you look at the Workers'

Compensation appeals tribunal you will see that there's more money allotted for

salaries. So I ask the question, would there be more people employed? Obviously

there's going to be. That begs the question then: are there more appeals? The

answer was: yes, there seem to be more appeals and people seem to be using the

system more because when they go through this appeal there's a 50 per cent

success rate. So I don't know if we're spending on one hand and saving on the

other, if we're getting the correct facts and figures, or it's just an illusion

that we are saving money. I don't know.

One thing I will say with respect to the Workers'

Compensation and that is this: that I have people coming into my office already

with respect to the workers' comp. People who have been cut off who have been on

it for a number of years. One example is a fireman I had in my office the other

day who's been on workers' compensation and has been cut off. I've been talking

to other members from the other districts and they're having the same problem.

Numbers upon numbers of people contacting them with respect to worker's comp

being cut off.

Is the government saving money on the backs of the injured in

this Province, people who have been out fighting fires and doing their duty with

respect to government services, whatever the case may be, saving money on their

backs? I certainly hope not but that appears it may be the case.

I noticed throughout the four different departments that

there were a lot of cuts in grants and subsidies in all sections. I asked the

question on a number of occasions: who, or what people, are being affected by

these cuts to the grants and subsidies? I got some answers here and some that

are certainly understandable, type of thing, but there are some that are really

beyond my imagination why they would be cutting them.

One that pops to mind is the $10,000 cut for the arenas

throughout the Province. We all know that people's recreation and health, how it

affects, how being in good shape basically affects their good health and

actually saving money hopefully down the road with the Department of Health,

keeping them out of hospital and that type of thing. So maybe the government

should be looking at reinstating that.

Another one was the cut to the fire fighters - the

Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Fighters and Fire Chiefs. We had

that cut and I made argument at the municipal affairs review meeting. I could

not really get the minister to budge on that one, although he understood where I

was coming from on that. I have had a number of calls on that issue from

different firemen, and I think that is going to be addressed down the road.

We have people in this Province, firemen, who are out - or

fire persons I suppose they are referred to today - risking their lives. It is

only a very small amount of money they are asking for, and they should be

recognized for their efforts, for the time they put in, and for the risks they

take. It is only a small amount of money, and to think it is being cut - well,

what can you say? It is there. I know the minister has a hard job to do, but

hopefully he will reconsider that in the near future.

I was speaking to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. As I said earlier, the hon. minister has spent some time getting

to know his department, but I was trying to question him on the Outer Ring Road.

I do not know if it is parliamentary to be making comparisons, but it is like

trying to get an answer out of a wily old fox type of thing. He answered you but

he did not really answer you. So I spent a fair bit of time at that and did not

get an answer first nor last, and I will hopefully pursue that.

One thing I was concerned about in the estimates, I was

speaking to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and he mentioned

the Torbay Bypass I believe it is referred to, when that does get up and running

and constructed, the other connector roads, as they are referred to now, that

are the responsibility of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation,

will become the responsibility of the municipalities involved. Of course we know

the impact that the cuts by this government has had on the municipalities when

it comes to roads and road maintenance. The cuts have been from $2,200 per

kilometre per year down to $39 per kilometre per year this year, and possibly

none next year, and to pass over more roads to those towns is just going to be

unbearable.

One thing I would like to mention is that this past Spring

the former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was in a meeting with

the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities and he guaranteed,

promised, and set in stone that there will be no changes this year to the

figures that were sent out to the municipalities for their budgets this year. Lo

and behold, what do we get? The $89 per year this year has been cut to $39 per

year. I am telling you, it is getting to the point now where the towns are

finding it almost impossible to operate with that kind of money coming in.

Another area that I have noticed and want to bring up is the

C A Pippy Park. The grants and subsidies to the park have been cut this year by

$200,000 and apparently it may cause layoffs within Pippy Park itself. I find it

ironic that we have the Outer Ring Road being held up because of Pippy Park, and

how the Pippy Park is supposedly going to be divided, whatever the case may be.

Now we are getting a $200,000 cut to that park. So we have the government here

working at loggerheads itself in that respect.

One other point under municipal affairs and housing was the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I noticed, in discussions with the staff,

that they have 6,400 lots developed over the past number of years; have 2,000

acres of industrial land, of which 600 acres has been sold.

I know that the Housing is into subsidized housing and I

certainly agree with that. I had some discussions with the minister on his

beliefs with respect to competing with private industry and I plan to follow

that up. I will sit down now, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for your time but I

might pop up again when I get a chance, thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join

in this debate on concurrence for the government services estimates committee. I

want to take this particular opportunity to say a few words about workers'

compensation. I suppose it is an expansion of the question that I raised last

Friday to the minister in the House, regarding the cost of workers' compensation

and the savings that have been demonstrably obtained in the last year as a

result of the decrease in the number of workplace accidents. In one year, Mr.

Speaker, it has been demonstrated that - although there was a 14 per cent

decrease in accidents and related cost of compensation associated with those

accidents, there was as well a decrease in the size of the workforce. So, one

would expect a decrease in the amount of accidents and a decrease in the claims

associated with them and the expense involved but the decrease that occurred in

workplace accidents was far greater, three times as great said the minister, as

it would have been expected by the decrease in the number of employees,

resulting in a 9 per cent saving in costs of workers' compensation and the

number of accidents that were attributable to fewer accidents and the prevention

measures being undertaken.

So, Mr. Speaker, it has been shown that in just one year

alone, a 10 per cent saving was able to be achieved by a greater concentration

on the prevention of accidents - which serves a two-fold purpose, Mr. Speaker,

we are not just talking about money here. It is not obviously just estimates

committees, we are talking about the cost of government providing services. We

are talking here about human suffering, we are talking about workers who are

injured on the job. With each of these statistics or dollars, we have someone

who has an injury, Mr. Speaker, or in some cases a fatality and a death arising

out of workplace accidents. So, we are talking here about human cost as well as

social costs and government cost.

It has been demonstrated, Mr. Speaker, that in one year and

one year alone, a 9 per cent decrease in workplace accidents has been achieved

by a greater concentration on prevention. So, that, Mr. Speaker, tells us

something about the nature of the work being done by the Workers' Compensation

Commission and the importance of an emphasis on prevention. Not only that, Mr.

Speaker, it underlines for me the criticism that was provided this government

last Fall when they were bringing in the plans to reduce workers benefits, the

benefits of workers who were injured. It was criticized, the government was

criticized, the Workers' Compensation Commission was criticized for wasting

money by not attending to the rehabilitative needs quickly, by having a

bureaucracy that was unable to make decisions fast enough and a procedure that

was unwieldy by a system of medical referrals that was not allowing injured

workers to get access to medical rehabilitation, let alone new job

rehabilitation and that these problems were what was causing the system to be so

expensive, as well as the lack of attention to the needs of prevention,

occupational health and safety, education in the workforce on these issues. If

those problems were resolved and addressed than the government would not have

the excuse to reduce the benefits to injured workers.

The approach that the government took, Mr. Speaker, I believe

was punitive to injured workers and it was unnecessary. It has been demonstrated

to be unnecessary by the results of the experience of the last year by having in

one year, decrease the number of workplace accidents by 9 per cent over and

above the normal decrease that one would expect from a decrease in the size of

the labour force is a very considerable achievement, Mr. Speaker. I think that

the government really ought to review, reconsider and indeed change its approach

of abandoning injured workers to a lesser form of compensation as has been done

last Fall.

So, Mr. Speaker, that's one area that comes out of that

estimates committee that I think is something that all hon. members ought to pay

serious attention to. Because it is something that affects - it doesn't affect

each person right now, but it will affect them in the future. A worker who is

injured who will all of a sudden discover that the benefits that that person

will receive from Workers' Compensation is far less than he or she expected and

was entitled to six months ago before the government made these changes.

I think the lesson of the annual report of the Workers'

Compensation Commission as disclosed to the estimates committee, in this

particular case, shows that the government action was hasty. I understand that

this type of economic circumstances that we're in, the emphasis on deficits, the

that ends up being arbitrary, because they think and they conclude that the only

solution to problems such as this, the only solution to the financial burdens of

a system such as Workers' Compensation, is to cut back benefits.

If this government continues with that approach we can see

the health care benefits being cut back. We can be sure that they'll be looking

for - we've already seen it in health care, in hospital services. We've already

seen it as well in cutting back certain services which used to be covered on MCP

which are no longer covered. We're seeing it in the creeping of user fees in

programs such of this nature. We see that approach overall being very

detrimental to the people of this Province.

The crime and the tragedy are that it's not necessary. The

report of the review committee to Workers' Compensation disclosed a whole list

of the reasons for the unfunded liability problems in Workers' Compensation. A

whole list of them. If all of those others had been addressed - the other ones,

except for the reduction of benefits - there would be no need to reduce the

benefits. For that reason I'm very critical of the minister and the Department

of Employment and Labour Relations, and the government in general, for taking

the approach of reduction of benefits, particularly in such a critical area as

workers' compensation.

Yes, there needs to be a system in place that's fair and

reasonable, but there needs to be a level of benefits that actually compensates

a worker for the loss and for the injury, and doesn't in fact punish that

injured worker for being a victim of an injury. If there are people abusing the

system - which we often hear as one of the reasons for the high cost - well

then, find out who they are and eliminate them from the receipt of benefits.

That's the solution. Not punishing other injured workers because some other

person is pretending to have a claim when they don't. The answer is to make sure

that the claims are processed properly, are processed promptly; that medical

assistance is provided in a prompt and efficient manner; that rehabilitation

services are made available in a timely way to individuals to get them back to

work as quickly as possible.

That's what reduces the length of the claims and that's what

reduces the cost of workers' compensation. Number one, prevent the accidents;

number two, have an efficient system that provides medical rehabilitation; and

number three, make sure that system works and gets people back to work as

quickly as possible. That's what will reduce the costs of workers' compensation.

Not the reduction of benefits that we've seen this government choose to

implement as the only way out of a government that has no ideas, that has no

solutions, and is making no attempt whatsoever to be creative about finding

them.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that in considering these estimates we

ask the government to bring back the level of workers' compensation benefits to

the level that they were prior to the implementation of the reductions in

benefits to injured workers introduced last Fall. We have the evidence now from

this annual report of the success in increasing emphasis on prevention of

injuries by occupational health and safety training. We have seen the evidence.

We have seen that it works, that it reduces accidents and reduces costs, and I

think we will see, if the government continues and makes sure there is

sufficient monies available to have the proper occupational health and safety

training programs, enforcement programs and prevention programs to take action

to further reduce the cost of workers compensation by reducing the number of

accidents, by reducing the pain and suffering caused to workers through

industrial accidents and therefore, of course, reducing the financial cost of

the system to employers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - who are the ones who have to fund it at an

obvious cost to the economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the wish of the House to concur the

report?

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak for just a few

minutes in the concurrency debate on the government services committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for

St. John's East when he talked about the wise investment of spending money on

the prevention of accidents in the workplace rather than what the approach -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) shaved your moustache.

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. members opposite - somebody

referred that if I were to shave my moustache I would bear a striking

resemblance to Gorbachev, I think they said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well I am referred to quite often within

this party as a `Red Tory`. I did not think I had moved that far to the left. I

certainly hope not anyway.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, again I want to reiterate and repeat

what I mentioned about the hon. Member for St. John's East, the Leader of the

New Democratic Party, when he talked about the wise spending of money in the

campaigning on the job in accident prevention rather than the approach that was

taken by the minister last year when they brought in the infamous bill with

regard to changing the remuneration that was paid to injured workers through

workers' compensation.

We argued at the time - the opposition did - because of the

experience that we have gained through working in the workplace and listening to

the workers, that the approach had to be education of the workers in the

workplace and of the employers, because they too provide the funds for this

education process that was necessary to put in place so that we could make this

workers' compensation fund more beneficial - make it work for the worker, so to

speak.

The attitude that the minister of the day had was that if we

were to merely cut the benefits of an injured worker we would be able to save

the fund. Of course, that was being very shortsighted we felt, and spoke long

and hard over it. We fought for the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian -

the ordinary worker out in the workplace. We are seeing the benefits this year,

where the employers have spent, and the government has spent, more money in

education. We are seeing an improvement in the fund - the stability and the size

of that fund now, Mr. Speaker.

This, of course, comes under the Department of Employment and

Labour Relations, and I just want to have a few words with regard to the

department's involvement. In my district we have seen a lot of problems

occurring over the last few months, potential problems occurring within -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I am glad to see that the minister is here

participating in the debate, Mr. Speaker, as we are mentioning his department. I

have had discussions with the minister with regard to the ongoing problems

associated with the negotiations between the unions and the mining companies, or

representatives of the mining companies through QNS & L, the operating railroad,

and he has informed me that he has been kept up to speed by his officials with

regard to the problems that workers in Western Labrador are having with

negotiating a package for the next three years because of some of the definite

problems with the re-organization that the Iron Ore Company of Canada has done

in Western Labrador and on the Quebec North Shore with the railroad and dock

workers.

We have found that the railroad workers who reside in Western

Labrador are practically being excluded from the collective bargaining process

because of the arrangement that has been forced upon all the unions in Western

Labrador and the Quebec North Shore, and this has been tremendously unfair to

these individuals. While there are only twelve people involved in Western

Labrador the principle is something that this government should not ignore. I

will be keeping the minister abreast of exactly what is happening as I have been

talking to the union membership, because this does have the potential of having

drastic consequences on the whole process of negotiations in the mining industry

in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

While there are over 100 people employed on shipping the iron

ore on the railroad, and about half of the actual railroad is in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and the other half being in Quebec, we only have

about 10 per cent of the workforce. This has occurred, historically, I guess,

since the completion of the railroad back in the early 1950s. Now, there are

several things that could be done, and one of the things we should be doing -

and the minister has informed me that the department is keeping an eye on the

negotiations, government has to sit down with representation from the mining

company, and they should stress to the mining company the importance of

returning the proper manpower levels, or employment levels to the people of this

Province, Mr. Speaker.

One hundred per cent of the iron ore that is presently being

mined by the Iron Ore Company of Canada is now coming from this Province and we

deserve to have a greater number of jobs than we presently have within this

Province. We are losing tax revenue and opportunities for employment for our

residents under the present arrangement so it is important. It is important that

we ensure that our people have a better opportunity, a greater opportunity, for

employment because the mining industry is coming on tough times in this Province

and indeed throughout the country.

While the railroad in Labrador City, the QNS &L, on the

surface only looks like ten to twelve jobs in reality we should be having - if

we were to have a true representation geographically which would make it, by the

way, as I have always said, make it more economical, and be more productive for

the mining company for the railroad to operate with 50 per cent of the people

living in our Province and 50 living in Quebec. You would think it would, Mr.

Speaker, and you do not have to be an economist or have a tremendous experience

in the operation of a railroad. If they could take a loaded train halfway South,

and then have a wait-over period that is required by national law, if they were

to have a wait-over and then take the empty train North and allow the people

from Quebec to operate the railroad and continue to operate the trains and take

the full train further South. We have often said in discussions when I was part

of the union that would be more beneficial to the company and a more efficient

use of manpower, so it could be beneficial to the industry, which is very, very

important today, because this is one of the industries that contributes, my

understanding is, about $700 million worth of revenue or wealth to this

Province.

MR. ROBERTS: That is in gross sales?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, about $700 million, which is a

tremendous contribution to the economy of this Province. So we have to be

cognizant of the contribution that this makes to the Province, on one hand, but,

on the other side, we have to be aware of the consequences of taxing this

industry too high, and anything that we can see to do: 1) we must be able to

create more opportunities for employment, thus creating more avenues of return

of taxes, that type of thing, but we have to be also cognizant of allowing that

mining operation to be competitive, because they are competing in the global

economy, and as we found out in the early 1980s, in Western Labrador, when we

had tremendous layoff and we lost over 1,000 jobs in the mining industry,

itself, direct jobs, high paying, highly skilled, highly productive jobs that

were lost and never ever returned. So, while we have to be aware of allowing the

mining company to be more competitive, we also have to be aware of the cost of

those jobs.

We should be able to help a company to be more competitive by

making the railroad more efficient, but giving more employment opportunities

within this Province, Mr. Speaker. So we have to do that, and I urge the

minister to continue to be involved in these negotiations that are taking place

in Labrador and on the Quebec North Shore, because this is very important to the

operation of the mines in Western Labrador.

I would also note that in Government Services, the Department

of Finance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: The Department of Finance comes under the

Government Services Committee, too, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to have a few

minutes to comment on the aspects of some legislation that the Minister of -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) speak more than once

(inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: While the Minister of Finance is here, I

would like -if the hon. the Minister of Justice doesn't mind, they have granted

me leave, so I would appreciate his allowing me to continue to speak.

MR. ROBERTS: The leave wasn't for unlimited time, it was

to finish the hon. gentleman's remarks.

MR. A. SNOW: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if I have leave, I will

continue.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) debate.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Are you getting upset or what?

MR. ROBERTS: No, to the contrary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Cool down boy, cool down.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Minister

of Finance wouldn't be swayed by the Minister of Justice here, who doesn't want

us to speak about any affairs that are occurring in the mining industry, I

suppose, about Labrador. He doesn't want it to be mentioned here in the House in

a negative tone or anything he sees that may be construed as being negative,

because of their lack of action or their inactivity in participating in doing

something that would be positive in Labrador, so he doesn't want me to continue

speaking about it, Mr. Speaker. But I have to tell him that I was elected on May

3, to speak up for the people who are operating and making a living in Western

Labrador, operating and working in the mines. And I want to say that I will

continue, as long as I am in this House, to speak up for the people of Western

Labrador, despite the Minister of Justice attempting to suggest that I should

not be up here speaking for them, just because it is negative for the government

of this Province. I will continue to speak, if it is negative or positive

against or for what the government is doing with respect to the impact it will

have on the people in Labrador or, more specifically, in Western Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to have a few comments on the

Department of Finance. We feel that their approach has been very shortsighted,

specifically in Western Labrador, on how they collect some of the revenues that

accrue to this Province.

I have asked them time and time again to look at how there

should be a different - a scales as is used in other provinces for the

collection of gasoline tax and fuel tax. Because they have to compete with the

Province of Quebec, and what we are seeing now is oversized tanks being put on

trucks so that trucks will fuel up in Quebec on their way through bringing

products in. They will gas up or fuel up in Quebec because of the tremendous

difference in the tax on gasoline and fuel. They fuel up in Quebec, these

oversized tanks, so that they can go all the way across Labrador and back again

without having to refuel.

Now, I am suggesting to the minister that what they should be

doing is have a graduated tax similar to what they have in Quebec and Ontario in

border situations, similar, by the way, to what we have - we have the

arrangement here in this Province, but we only apply it in Southern Labrador

where we have a graduated tax down there on the highway tax.

It should be implemented in Western Labrador. That way, it

would allow a level playing field. The truckers who are coming in won't be

influenced to purchase their gasoline just in the Province of Quebec. They will

just drive right on through and purchase the amount that they consume in the

Province of Quebec, but when they get over into the Province of Newfoundland, or

in the Labrador portion, they will be encouraged then to purchase their gasoline

and fuel oil in Labrador.

I would urge the Minister of Finance to look at that. He will

also, I would hope, have a look at the tobacco tax rebate system. He informs me

that he has a paper in the system and hopefully, it will be a positive reaction

to the requests that I have made and members of the community have made, through

the Chamber of Commerce, to the minister and to Cabinet committees.

Another important thing that we should be looking at is: one

of the problems approaching in Labrador is with the mining company operating the

mines in Wabush. They are suggesting that they may not become competitive unless

there is a major wage concession by their employees of about five dollars an

hour.

I would urge that the Minister of Finance consider sitting

down with his officials and officials from the Department of Mines and Energy

and coming up with an idea of how this Province can change its legislation to

allow the royalty - I know the Minister of Mines and Energy is very interested

in this - where they can change the royalty figure to allow Wabush Mines to be

more competitive. At present, they pay about $4.5 million a year to NALCAP, and

I believe that is one area where this Province could sit down and work together

with the operator of the mines, who really are the people we should be

considering.

Those are the people who produce the wealth, that employ the

people, produce the iron ore products, and produce a revenue to the Province. I

would hope that the Minister of Finance would be able to sit down with his

colleague in Cabinet and the mining company up there to be able to restructure

that royalty payment.

Those are just a few comments I would suggest right now. I

will be back in a few minutes, after one of my other colleagues here in the

House who is urgently pressing me that they would like to have a few remarks, so

I will conclude.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Government

House Leader, I would like to draw hon. members' attention to Beauchesne,

Paragraph 336: "Although difficult to enforce on occasion, Speakers have also

consistently attempted to discourage loud private conversations in the Chamber,

and have urged those wishing to carry out such exchanges to do so outside the

House. It has also been suggested that Members should not sit on chair arms or

on desks with their backs to the House when conversing privately." For the last

half-an-hour we have had loud conversations and hon. members have been turning

their backs to the Chair, and this Chair will not tolerate such behaviour in the

House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that all

of us in the House will only commend your determination to enforce the rules,

and I wish you all joy of it.

I don't want to get into a dispute with my friend from

Menihek. I have no desire to stop him from speaking. In fact, the more he

speaks, the more I am anxious to hear him speak. I have no desire to get into it

- not even the desire to ask him to be relevant to any subject before the House.

I want to make two points. The first is one of procedure. He

asked for leave of the House and he got leave, with my support - I was here - to

conclude his remarks. Leave does not, I say to my hon. friend, mean he can go on

at whatever length he thinks proper, and I say to him now that if he thinks it

does I shall have to rise on a point of order at the appropriate time and ask

that the rules be enforced.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) to withdraw leave.

MR. ROBERTS: I would say to my friend from Grand Bank,

withdrawing leave is a little like regaining one's virginity - it can't be done,

if he has ever tried either.

Mr. Speaker, the point to be made is that in this debate we

are allowed to speak more than once, and any member who wishes to speak more

than once should speak more than once. I have no difficulty at all with that,

and if my friend from Menihek wants to get into the debate again I, for one,

would welcome it.

I only want to make one point of substance in response to his

remarks. He spoke of the QNS & L situation with this bargaining unit that has

been melded by a decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. I am not sure if

he made the point it was the CLRB because, of course, railways are under the

jurisdiction of the federal labour legislation - the federal labour regime. This

is the CLRB, the Canada Labour Relations Board. I am of the same view as my

friend from Menihek, and I may add, the charge in this regard has been led by my

friend and colleague, the Member for Labrador, the hon. Bill Rompkey, who has

been persistent and vociferous in his representations on this subject. I think

the decision of the CLRB is a difficult one to understand, an even more

difficult one to implement, and, from what I know, appears to be very unfair.

I would say to my friend from Menihek, he may be aware of

this, but my friend, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations sent one of

his officials to Labrador. My friend from Menihek nods agreement. I don't think

he mentioned it, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, then, I didn't hear him, so I

apologize to him, but in the interest of fairness, let it be said that the

official went down to meet with these employees and to counsel them on the

remedies available to them. Unfortunately, there are no remedies that lie

directly within the control of this government or even this House, because the

QNS & L is a federal undertaking and that is really the end of it in the labour

relations sense; but I think they made a very strange decision and the

repercussions will be felt for some time to come.

I hope the CLRB or the employer or the union will agree to

change its mind because I understand the original application for consolidation,

while it may not have been a joint one by QNS & L, the employer, and the union,

on the other hand, it certainly had the acquiescence of all hands, and the

result was that a number - a fairly small number in the whole, but a significant

number - of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, people living in Labrador West,

are now in what I think is a very untenable position for them, in that their

bargaining unit really doesn't speak for them effectively and they also have

communications problems, in that most of these people are not bilingual, and I

understand most of the other members of the union are either not bilingual or

not very bilingual, if that is not an oxymoron, in itself.

That is all I want to say, Mr. Speaker. I have no desire to

hang up this debate. It is an interesting one. It is a chance for members to get

into anything that falls within the purview of the Government Services Committee

and the Estimates it considered, which is quite a broad range, indeed.

With that, I will give my friend from Menihek the opportunity

to get back in if he wishes. I would welcome it, but I do say again that simply

granting leave for an hon. member to finish remarks does not mean the hon.

member can then say: Well, I have the floor indefinitely and I will carry on.

That is an abuse of the rules of the House and I am not going to stand for that,

Your Honour, as one member of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the House concur on the report? All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There had to be unanimous agreement. The motion was already

put.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I think if hon. members on the

other side wish to speak, we, on this side would certainly, as members, concur

with going on. The debate is limited by time, Your Honour, as you know, to three

hours, so if hon. members wish to speak we will gladly hear them.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, we will go back, because the motion

was carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, then, Your Honour, I would ask that we

agree to revert to the debate on the Government Services Committee concurrence

report.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. The Chair is only enforcing the rule.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to

pass a few comments. I will not take up very much time.

Under numerous areas in the Budget and various expenditures

especially, Works, Services and Transportation for one, an area in which we are

now spending $20 million less than we did in 1989 under a capital nature,

capital program has dropped from $45 million to $25 million.

We also find in areas of the Budget there is increasing costs

for administrative and executive support. For example, in one area of the Budget

executive support has increased by $28,000 at the same time administrative

support has increased by $130,000 over last year. In road construction for

example, under the administration aspect there, $80,000. So, we are finding that

over all there is a tremendous increase in certain areas of administrative and

executive support in a Budget where numerous other cuts are occurring in all

other aspects and still we find dollars to substantially increase executive and

administrative support. That was Works, Services and Transportation; executive

support $28,000 increased, administrative support again increased up to

$130,000. We have road construction, the administration

part is increased by

$80,000. In Works, Services and Transportation we are seeing an overall net, a

decrease in expenditure from $203 million down to $188 million. We are seeing

certain areas of administrative and executive support going up.

In Municipal and Provincial Affairs for example, the general

administration there under administrative support, is increased by $148,000. We

are finding that overall there are cutbacks occurring. There is a cap on MOG's,

on Municipal Operating Grants, of $42.5 million. That has dropped from something

like $49 million just a couple of years ago. There is a downward slide and they

have decided to cap it at that. In spite of increasing needs from

municipalities, and an increase in certain municipalities, numbers of

municipalities and municipalities joining together - with larger numbers you

would get increased incentives and so on by collection of taxes. So there is not

much of an incentive to join together and try to increase your opportunity to

raise taxes if there is a cap.

There is a greater incentive - in other words a municipality

that has 10,000 can get a higher amount of matching revenues from government

than three with 3300 people each. So, when you lump them all together you will

get a higher return. It does not seem very logical and it is certainly not going

to entice the joining together of municipalities if you are going to put a cap

on it. There are only so many dollars that are going to be spent and it is going

to be spread thinner and that is what basically has been happening.

So they may as well face the real facts and tell the truth up

front and say that it does not matter if you are going to increase the

incentives on taxes and matching amounts. It is going to be taken away on roads,

it has practically disappeared, thirty-nine dollars per kilometre of road for

Summer and Winter maintenance. We are going to be seeing household amounts

dropped and probably eliminated over the next year or two. We are going to be

left in the final analysis with municipalities having to tax the residents in

areas where they do not have a business tax base in rural areas. They are going

to have to increase their property and other taxes so substantially that it is

going to cost less really to live in a city than it is in a rural area. So,

there are some of the drawbacks and some of the pitfalls that is happening. I

have noticed over the past year that this is happening within the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It is very, very sad to see some of the

downward changes occurring all within a one year period. I cannot speak for it

before that but I have watched it very closely over the last several months and

that is what is happening.

Not only in that area but Employment and Labour Relations

general administration has increased, executive support has an extra $16,000

tacked on there, administrative support has tacked on another $33,000. We seem

to be finding dollars that increase administration costs and executive support

costs but we do not find ways to put the real dollars out in places where they

are needed the most, benefits for the people and so on across the Province. We

have seen municipalities in other areas put in a situation where they have to

tax their people to death.

They have taken away some of the avenues for recreation even.

They have taken away $10,000 in grants, electrical subsidy grants were very,

very important to arenas out in rural Newfoundland. I had the opportunity to be

president of one independent arena association that does not depend upon any

municipality in this Province. They said when it was put there it would not

work, well it was put there and $120,000 was raised. We got $200 and $300

through those Canada Works Programs. We got $1 million from the Province and we

put it in Mobile and it opened in 1987. It operated - we made a profit of

$64,000 the first year, and we made a profit of $52,000 the second year. The

third year it was at $31,000. But now, with increasing costs, and trying to

produce -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. In fact, we used it to pay off a loan

that we took to finance it also. We had loans over $120,000 and we paid them off

in three and half years. The arena has no debts whatsoever. But now we're in the

situation whereby the $10,000 power subsidy, with increasing costs of operating

facilities, and with declining numbers in rural areas, it's become necessary now

to increase registration costs for kids and so on to keep these arenas

operating. Ten thousand dollars goes a long way when it's spread over 300 kids

having to pay registration for minor hockey and for figure skating. Especially

when families have three and four kids in these programs. A lot of families have

two kids in these programs - the majority of people.

It is costing the parents of this Province. It's an indirect

tax that's put upon the parents of this Province in areas that can least afford

it. In our area we don't have the luxury of having an opportunity to tax people.

This is an independent fund with thirteen communities. Each has a person sitting

on the board of directors. They don't have any tax. We operate it solely upon

rental fees and upon a canteen that's at that facility. We're in a position.

It's not funded. It can't be offset from municipal taxes. There are only a few

municipalities there that have towns and they have their own share of problems.

I'm finding it very disturbing that they would pick on the

little people across the Province here, the people who are out volunteering

dozens of hours a week to try to keep recreation programs going across this

Province. For the sake of $500,000 or $600,000 in a budget out of $3.5 billion

they can't find $500,000 to be able to assist a handful of arenas across this

Province.

There are certain specific areas which are experiencing

extreme hardship. A small arena up in St. Mary's - The Capes, in Trepassey area.

It's a community that has diminished in size dramatically by the downsizing or

the closure of the fishery in the area. The only industry really in the town has

disappeared. The town can't afford to carry it. They announced: we will not be

paying for the light bill, we're officially going to wipe our hands clean of it

and we're going to cut the power to it. There's a committee struggling now

trying to form a regional committee to be able to keep that facility going.

For the sake of $10,000, in about fifty arenas across the

Province, $500,000, and this government has to, with a stroke of the pen,

inflict hardship upon tens of thousands of kids who can't afford to be able to

pay their way. The opportunity was there at one time when they could get summer

jobs. That's now gone in rural Newfoundland. Ninety-five per cent of the jobs in

rural Newfoundland were obtained by work from fish plant or spin offs related to

the fish plant. That hasn't hit areas as difficult in - urban Newfoundland

hasn't been hit as hard in that. Because it didn't depend upon a fishery as much

as rural Newfoundland. The only avenue to be able to raise some money, to save

some money for their kids to be able to buy their equipment, pay the

registration, has now disappeared.

The burden is back on parents now. The burden is put back on

parents' shoulders who cannot afford any longer to be able to provide recreation

to the kids. I'm seeing it every single day it's happening in my district. We're

seeing parents who can't afford to be able to reach out and give those extra

funds. Ten thousand dollars, believe me, makes a big difference when you don't

have a municipality to be able to fall back on. You just have the people out in

the community -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's correct. They've worked very hard up

there to keep it operating. They put a tremendous amount of time and effort into

it. I think this government should go back and reconsider certain special cases

where we don't have the luxury of a tax base upon municipalities to be able to

assist those areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tons of money.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, tons of money. The Minister of Finance

says: tons of money. He probably is not impacted as much. I'm sure the town of

Gander is not impacted as much by the downturn in the fishery as other areas of

the Province.

Maybe he does not have the sympathy level, maybe the number

of employees have not disappeared; in rural areas the number of employees is

almost nil. The Town of Gander is a little bit better off than a lot of the

rural areas in the Province, and maybe the minister does not have a feeling then

for these rural areas because he does not have to experience it on a day to day

basis. He is not getting calls from people who are experiencing those hardships.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think the government should look at

trying to curtail the inflation, the increase in their administration and

executive support. If it is tough times as they are saying and they have to

realize savings, why do they not cut back on their administration, the $130,000

administration support in Works, Services and Transportation; why do they not

cut back on the $148,000 extra administration they are spending in Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, increase of $16,000 executive support and numerous other

areas. Let us cut it where we can afford -

MR. TOBIN: Cut it to the bone.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. Let us cut it and let us put

it out in the hands of people who can use it the most.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak in this debate today and I am pleased,

Mr. Speaker, for one particular reason, and that is, to have the opportunity to

come into this House today and commend the Minister of Finance of this Province

for doing the job that he has done in recent days to be able to put our finances

in order, our Minister of Finance must be, has to be, is the number one Minister

of Finance in all of Canada, we are leading the way in setting our finances

straight for the first time since Confederation.

Here we have today, in every issue of the papers that came

out in the last few days, agreement after agreement, signed, sealed and

delivered - agreement. On the weekend you would turn on the radio and you would

hear, yes, now the police have accepted a program, 90 per cent in favour, then

you turn the pages of the paper, here are NAPE and CUPE hammering out the deal

and the allied workers, the health professionals, the allied health

professionals, massive vote in favour of an agreement. Here we have a government

that is now recognized and a Minister of Finance recognized from one end of the

country to the other as setting the course that governments have to deal with

the public finances of the country, and, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be lost on the

people of this Province.

The other thing that happened just a few days ago: in 1989,

when this government said that it was not happy with the way that we were going

to be dealt with under the Hibernia formula, this Minister of Finance said: no,

we are not going to accept that as the regime of what is supposed to be set for

the course of time; we went to that table and we said: no way, there has to be a

change in that, and it is not lost on the people of this Province and neither

should it, that