May 16,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 25

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for the

Status of Women, I am very pleased to announce that the proportion of women

appointed to government boards and commissions has shown yet another increase

since last quarter. This increase demonstrates the commitment of our government

to equal representation.

The overall proportion of women on government boards and

commissions has risen from 34 per cent last quarter to 35 per cent for the

period ending December 31, 1994. This is the highest this figure has been since

monitoring began in October, 1986 when the female participation on boards and

commissions showed only 23 per cent.

Government actively encourages women to take their names and

resumes to the Women's Policy Office databank for possible appointment as

vacancies arise. Under the former minister, Patricia Cowan, a promotional

brochure entitled "Government Appointments to Boards and Commissions: A Woman's

Guide" was developed. It is available from the Women's Policy Office for women

who are interested in participating. At the time of its release a procedure was

developed to ensure that women were considered for every government committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that the Women's Policy

Office has also recently taken on the role of being a repository for names of

women who are interested in participating in the new provisional boards for the

Province's nineteen economic zones. In co-operation with the Economic Recovery

Commission, the Women's Enterprise Bureau, and the Provincial Advisory Council

on the Status of Women, the Women's Policy Office has agreed to send out

information on zonal context to those interested in participating. Every effort

is being made to ensure gender equity in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly support whatever efforts are being made by the

government to achieve gender equity in the Province. Thirty-five per cent of

female appointees to government boards and commissions is better than 34 per

cent, but it is still a far cry from 50 per cent. It is still far short of

equality.

I commend the minister and the members of the staff of the

Women's Policy Office for their leadership and encourage them to keep up the

effort. As a final comment in reaction to the minister's encouragement about

zonal contacts, I would just like to say that sounds like something out of

science fiction, but perhaps when the zones are set up we will make further

advances towards gender equality.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further statements by ministers?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. Does the hon. the Member for St.

John's East have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions about forest management which I had hoped to

put to the Premier. In the absence of the Premier, I would ordinarily direct

them to the minister responsible. We no longer have a Minister of Forestry but

there is a Minister of Natural Resources. He is not here today either, so I will

direct my questions to the Deputy Premier or as the Premier calls him the Acting

Premier.

The questions again have to do with forest management. As

members of the government must be aware, a large part, a very large part of the

Province's economy is dependent on the forest and the Provincial Government has

sole jurisdiction over forest resources, it is not like the fish with split

jurisdiction. In the case of the trees the Province has sole constitutional

authority. The question is: Does the Acting Premier, does the government agree

with the people knowledgeable in the field of forest management who say

harvesting and silviculture have not been in balance and our Newfoundland

forests are in trouble?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize that the Minister of

Natural Resources isn't here; he is at a mining conference speaking, I think, in

Halifax today so I will take the hon. the Leader of the Opposition's questions

under advisement and bring the answers back.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this is shameful. I am asking

questions about the Province's forest resources and the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology is standing and saying that nobody, sitting in the

government benches today can answer; there is not one of them over there who can

answer a question about whether our Newfoundland forests are in trouble? I will

ask it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has

responded to this question a number of times, I don't know where the leader was;

I think perhaps the campaign may have been on at the time, but the questions

were asked at the time and the minister referred the questioner at that time, to

the Budget where you will see that there is $10 million, 100 per cent dollars,

put in by the Province to help silviculture and to sustain and produce economic

benefit for the Province and I think he answered it quite well at that time.

MR. DECKER: I thought so too.

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

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

I guess I have to ask the question to the Minister of

Fisheries since I am not permitted to ask one to the Member for Eagle River, the

parliamentary assistant to the Premier, about his recent trip to Ottawa on

fisheries meetings with the federal minister Mr. Tobin. So I want to ask the

Minister of Fisheries, has he been briefed by the Member for Eagle River? Has

the concerns that were raised about the TAGS program, the appeal process and

others, can the minister inform the House whether those concerns have been

adequately addressed now to the minister's satisfaction as a result of the

meeting between the Member for Eagle River and Mr. Tobin?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I have not been

briefed by the Member for Eagle River but I was briefed this morning by the

Minister of Fisheries for Canada. Indeed the questions of concern have been

discussed, not only by the Member for Eagle River but with the member from the

District of St. George's who represents and is responsible for fisheries in this

Province. All the questions have been addressed, concerns have been discussed

and actions will be taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, supplementary.

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

I thank the Minister for being so specific with his answer, I

thank him very much. I want to ask the minister now about some public comments

he made within the last few days concerning a reduction in the fishing industry

processing sector. I understand now, from the ministers comments, that the

industry renewal boards will look at the reduction in processing as well as

reduction in harvesting. Now with the harvesting reduction there has been a

minimum of a 50 per cent reduction mandate given that board. Can the minister

inform the House if the board has been given a mandate, a percentage of

reduction for the processing sector as well?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my hon.

friend from Grand Bank for the question.

The reduction or the realignment of the processing sector

will take place in due course. That realignment, Mr. Speaker, will be in view of

the resource availability in this Province and the board indeed will be making

recommendations along those lines as soon as they have an opportunity to review

the entire issue.

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

House Leader.

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

like pulling hens teeth I say to the minister. Has the board been given a time

frame in which to reduce the processing sector in the Province? Have they been

given a time frame of six months, twelve months, eighteen months? Could the

minister as well inform the House what the make-up of the board will be. Who

will represent this Province on that decision making board? What is the

federal-provincial ratio on the board? How well are we represented,

numbers-wise?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can tell this hon.

House that no time frame has been set with regard to the realignment of the

processing sector. I can just tell you that it will be done in as expedient a

process as possible, making sure that every issue is addressed and that the

proper decisions are made with regard to the future of the fishery in this

Province.

The board will consist of members of the harvesting renewal

board which has already been established, plus one other individual from the

industry of this Province who has been named to the board, one additional person

to the harvesting renewal board.

MR. SPEAKER: Further supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I

would like to ask the minister - the minister in a previous answer indicated

that - I sort of thought he said the reduction in the processing capacity would

depend upon the resource available. I think that is what he said. I'm wondering

if the minister can inform the House really what process is going to be followed

in determining the number of plants that will come out of the system. Will the

people in the communities where fish plants are located have an opportunity to

make presentations or representation to the reduction board before decisions are

final? Can the minister inform the House of that?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have not been

advised as to how the exact process will take place at this stage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. HULAN: That advice, when the discussions occur - I

say to the Member for Ferryland that we will not lose this process as a result

of three chicken legs. We are going to deal with this process properly and the

process will be taking place in due course. There will be direction from this

office, from the minister's office, with regard to how the general procedures

will occur for the committee, but those have not been set as yet.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister of Social Services.

I would like to ask the minister if her department has paid

outstanding Hydro bill arrears since the decision was made not to take

part in

such payments back in April?

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.

We have not paid out any arrears.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if her department has not

paid any arrears, I would like to ask the minister if her department has taken

part in a monthly payment where arrears can be deducted from the monthly payment

to social services clients, arrears that were built up in the past? Has that

been a policy of her department?

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, that was the

policy before the latest budget.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the

minister that I have been made aware of at least two cases, one in Torbay and

another one in Deer Lake where Social Services clients outstanding arrears to

Newfoundland and Labrador Light and Power have been paid. I ask the minister, if

she is not making those decisions then I ask her who in her department is and

why isn't she treating all people on social services fairly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: - who happen to be in the condition they

find themselves in today?

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of the

cases that he is referring to but then again I probably would not be aware of it

happening because I don't make these decisions on a day to day basis, that is

why we have staff. If we have people out there who are not adhering to the

policy then you should make that known to me so that we can have consistency

across the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the Member for Humber Valley has the floor presently.

MR. WOODFORD: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the

Minister responsible for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

In the last federal budget, Mr. Speaker, in last springs

budget the federal government announced that they would be dropping the Atlantic

Regional Freight Assistance Program in the Atlantic provinces. This program, as

the minister is fully aware, I suppose, takes out of the pockets some $7 million

in the Province of Newfoundland. Some of the products shipped was something like

- in the food sector there was 34 per cent, 35 per cent in the newsprint

industry - and in the Atlantic Provinces some 74 per cent or 75 per cent of the

monies in the Atlantic Provinces were interprovincial subsidies.

Could the minister tell the House today if he has met with

his federal counterpart on this particular subject, and could he tell the House

if there will be a phasing in approach and/or transitional funding?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: The answer to the first part of the question

is yes. I met with Minister Young myself. My officials and his officials met

together prior to the budgetary decisions. Once the budgetary decisions came

down it was clearly told to us in Atlantic Canada that the subsidies would be

dropped. The subsidies will be coming back in portion to the Atlantic Provinces.

The provinces will have to decide themselves how that money will be spent in the

Province. To date we have not made a decision on how the money is to be spent,

but the monies are discontinued, the subsidy is discontinued to the provinces,

and we will receive over a five-year period a sum of money. I think it amounts

to about $20 million, $22 million for the Province. (Inaudible) the smallest

amount, because New Brunswick received about $26 million a year. But it is three

hundred and twenty-three million dollars in total over a five-year period.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister

has admitted that there will be transitional funding over the next four years or

five years, or the phasing in approach, I would say. Would the minister tell the

House then if there was any move by government or his department especially, or

has he contacted companies such as Abitibi-Price or Kruger, with the possibility

of the monies that would be allocated for instance to the trucking industry,

trucking wood, did he approach those two companies for the purchase of

lightweight trailers for the Province?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I did not say

there would be a transitional period with the companies. What I said was that

the federal government has given the provinces a five-year amount of money based

over five years. We as a province can make a decision how we spend that money.

The answer to the second

part is, I have not approached

Abitibi or Kruger. Kruger and Abitibi have approached me, my department, about

the impact on the wood trucking industry. We have as a government put a team in

place between the department of the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture, ITT and officials of my department to look at the impact on

industry. When we get that intergovernmental committee together and they make a

recommendation to government, government will then decide on how they will spend

that amount of money.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the

minister tell the House today then and make a commitment to the House that if

they go back and give in to the wishes of Abitibi-Price or Kruger with regards

to the purchase of those lightweight trailers - the trucker will be able to haul

more wood, no question, nothing wrong with that - but to make sure that if there

are any monies allocated to Kruger or Abitibi-Price or any of those larger

companies that the truckers or brokers in the Province will benefit and not

those large corporations?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will not make

any commitment today to anything or anybody on this issue. The committee will

make recommendations. The one thing that we are as equally concerned about as

the hon. member is is about the impact on the independent trucker, not on the

company. But we will make no commitment and no decisions until the

interdepartmental committee comes back with a recommendation to our departments

and then the government as a whole will receive the recommendations from the

ministers' committee and then we will make a decision.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. I would like to ask the

minister, with the latest review of TAGS appeals and more specifically with the

independent review board, does the minister see that this is proceeding as

planned and everything is okay? Does he have any concerns about this latest

process?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my discussions with

the federal minister this morning I am pleased and I am convinced that

everything is being done to address the issue at hand, and I would like to

report that to the House at this time.

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

Baie Verte -White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I had a hard time hearing the

minister but I do think he said - and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong

- but I think he said he had a brief discussion with the federal Minister of

Fisheries this morning.

Mr. Speaker, if what he just said is true, the discussion

must have been very brief, because I can tell him there are a lot of concerns

with the independent review board, and I can tell him that a lot of my

colleagues on this side, and I know, on that side, are getting numerous calls.

As a matter of fact, as of yesterday morning, the calls that I got were people

who were at the brink in this Province waiting for decisions.

Can the minister tell me if he has any concerns that

decisions are not being made quickly enough and the process is really failing?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sort of take objection to the hon. member suggesting that

it wasn't true - `if it was true', he said. I had a long conversation this

morning with the federal minister and I am pleased, and I am convinced, and I am

quite happy, that he is dealing with the issue at hand very, very well, without

question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister that

there are thousands of people in this Province who are not pleased and are not

happy at all with the process as it stands right now. As a matter of fact, I can

tell the minister who is responsible for fisheries in this Province that the DFO

officials have told me themselves, as of yesterday, that they are not pleased,

because the truth is, DFO has lost control of this appeal process with TAGS.

They have no control of it. They are saying that everything

now goes to HRD, Lloyd Axworthy, and the real truth is that Lloyd Axworthy and

Ottawa are deciding the fate of fishermen in this Province, and they have no

answers. And we have people in this Province deciding to leave the Province

within the next few weeks because they don't have answers.

Is the minister concerned at all about that?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned about - and I

am going to challenge the member right now, to give me the names of those DFO

officials who are undermining their minister. I challenge you, Sir, right now to

give me those names. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that a

falsehood has been expressed in this House today.

Thank you.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, what a ridiculous statement by

the minister! I am certainly not going to tell him the names of any DFO

officials so he can axe them, as was done over on that side of the House before.

Those officials told me point-blank and were very upset in conversations with

me; they said: We have lost control of it.

The Member for Eagle River who dances off to Ottawa had

better go back on a return flight to Ottawa and get some straight answers. They

can't even use the 1-800 number to call HRD. DFO officials are telling us they

can't get any answers and they have their hands washed of it, and now HRD and

Lloyd Axworthy are making those decisions.

Is the minister satisfied with that process of HRD?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: I am quite satisfied with the actions of my

federal counterparts in Ottawa on this issue, and I again say, I wonder why the

hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay is allowed to express a falsehood in

this House when he cannot name the people from DFO.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister will have to withdraw the remark accusing the

hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay of expressing a falsehood in the

House.

DR. HULAN: I withdraw the remark if it is offensive, but

I will again, Mr. Speaker, ask you to ask the hon. member to provide the names.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I didn't ask the hon. gentleman to ask a question. I asked

him to withdraw the remark and I take it that he has.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

As he is fully aware, with respect to the situation that has

been developing for some time for the Dockyard, we have discussed it privately

and questions have been asked in the House. Have you talked to the federal

minister, Young, about the Dockyard, and if you have, can you inform the House

and the people of the Province, especially the workers at the Dockyard, what

came from that discussion?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House,

I will have the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations answer because he

just met with the federal minister. I can tell the House we are arranging a

meeting with the President of Marine Atlantic, through the Premier's Office. I

think he is in Europe for the next few days, but there seems to be an agreement

that we can meet him, if not later this week, then certainly earlier next week;

but with your permission, I will ask the minister, because he has met with him

just recently.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday, I had a conversation with Minister Young whom

I would affirm that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology - and I have

already discussed it with the Member for Kilbride, that the minister put Mr.

Morrison on call, actually what he said was, `within hours, if the Premier's

Office so desires.' Now, Mr. Morrison, I have been informed, has gone to Europe,

I guess on business, and the Member for Grand Bank says: `to sell the Dockyard'.

Well, perhaps so and that might be some welcome news. But Minister Young is

totally informed and will be kept informed, I say to the member.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is laughable. There is no

question that Minister Young is informed. The problem with the Newfoundland

Dockyard is not Morrison, he is a symptom of the problem. The Problem is the

policy in the hidden agenda of the Federal Liberal Government, to sell that

yard, to scuttle the Newfoundland Dockyard, to dismantle it, while at the same

time, Mr. Speaker, it pumps $363 million into a shipyard in Quebec and pumps a

$40-million to $50-million contract into the shipyard in Halifax. The question

is this: How long will this government sit down and take what the Federal

Government is doing to them without a peep, without a murmur? That's the

question, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

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

You know, the hon. member should be a little more

responsible. He knows that this government, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, the Premier and this minister are dealing very seriously over the

Dockyard, and have been. I don't need to remind the hon. member that the $360

million that was given to MIL Davie in Sorel, Quebec was given by the previous

Tory Administration, so there is no need for that kind of rhetoric.

This particular problem, I suggest to the member, is too

serious and we should be as we should have been on the fishery, we should be

working collectively on this issue. And I can assure the member that we are

doing everything we possibly can and will continue to the satisfaction of the

workers at the yard in doing our best to ensure that the yard stays open and is

open for business.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Education and Training.

On examination of the Budget for the department, I find that

there have been increases in the allocations in the Minister's Office. In the

Human Resources Division within his department there is an increase of

expenditures from $257,400, to $395,200 and, at the same time, we have drastic

cuts in Adult Basic Education, Youth Services, Teacher allocations. How can the

minister justify a 50 per cent increase in the Budget for Human Resources within

his own department and, at the same time, drastic cuts in the classroom level of

the educational system of this Province?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will have to refer

specifically to what the hon. gentleman is talking about. Of course, the hon.

member will know that when government does its Budget, government attempts to

address some issues and we have to make a judgement call in some cases, but I

can tell the hon. member that the Youth Resources Division of the department

does a good job, we make available resources to various groups around the

Province and we are quite proud to do that. However, I will take the question

under advisement to see specifically where that extra money is being spent.

Now, if the hon. member is trying to say why you buy oranges

instead of apples or why you paint something black instead of white, I tell the

hon. member, that is a judgement call, and if that group continues on the rate

they have been going since they have had their new leadership, they will never

be in a position to make that judgement call.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, a

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is self-evident

here. It is quite obvious that the bureaucracy within the minister's office is

the only thing that has had increases in allocations and the evidence is very

much shown in the Budget statements.

Mr. Speaker, I know of a school in this Province where,

eleven teachers have been allocated for seventy-three students. I know of

another example where thirty-four teachers have been allocated for 715 students.

One is a ratio of 6.1, the other is a ratio of 21 and this includes all

administrators, guidance counsellors, everything. How can the minister explain

such wide discrepancies in the allocation of teachers in this Province?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education and

the government do not allocate a single teacher to any school in this Province.

The Department of Education, as the hon. member knows full well, allocates

teachers to school boards, and school boards, in turn, determine how to allocate

these teachers to their schools. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the way it has been

since Confederation, I would suggest it is probably the way it was before

Confederation and that is the way it is, I suppose, in every educational

jurisdiction in the country. So I don't know what the hon. member is talking

about unless he wants us to over-rule every board in the Province and say, `You

put all your teachers in Mount Pearl and put no teachers in Springdale or

whatever the case might be.' The government does not allocate teachers to

schools. We allocate them to school boards, Mr. Speaker.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that all

school boards in this Province are answerable to him. I say to the minister,

when is he going to change from being an arms length minister to being a hands

on minister? What the children of this Province need is a hands-on minister who

is going to make sure that the best educational opportunities are provided for

all the children of this Province. When it is convenient he becomes arms length.

When is he going to practice some hands on?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am going to need a kind of

person and kind of physician that the hon. member talks about just as soon as I

become a deputy minister of some department, an administrator at some community

college, a president of some university, Mr. Speaker. If it is an administrator

the hon. gentleman is talking about, the bureaucracy is full of administrators

who, by and large, are doing a good job. Maybe I should talk to the hon. member

and explain to him the role of a legislator in the democratic system and maybe

he could be enlightened by that but if he wants an administrator I am neither

qualified nor do I want the job to be an administrator, Mr. Speaker. The role of

a minister is one to legislate, to seek policy, to look at the big picture, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

A duration of benefits under the TAGS program is determined

by the number of weeks employed in the fishery between 1987 and 1991. Now,

people who are injured and on Workers' Compensation during one of those five

years are now being dropped from the program early because they sustained an

injury on the job. Many of these people have not obtained any response from HRD

or DFO, they have to take their case to the Canadian Human Rights. I ask the

minster, does he think it is unfair for people to be dropped early from a

program because they sustained an injury on the job and will the minister go to

bat with the federal ministers on behalf of those people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The story that the

hon. gentleman puts forward is interesting. I would have to say, on the basis of

the story, I might have to agree with his proposal but certainly I will assure

the hon. member that I will wish to speak to him about this and be happy to look

into it for him, no problem. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

speaker's gallery a delegation from South Africa which includes Cynthia Nthute

from people opposed to women abuse in Johannesburg and Nozipho Ncaphai from

Ilitha Labantu (Sunbeam of the people) in Cape Town, South Africa and they are

here sponsored by Oxfam Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And

Distribution Of Food."

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the risk of engendering the ire of the Government House

Leader, I again stand to present a petition with regard to the electoral

boundaries issue. This petition is signed by some forty-nine constituents of

mine, some of whom are from communities that will remain in what is left of

Green Bay district after redistribution, some of whom are slated to be moved

into Baie Verte district. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

WHEREAS our communities have been in Green Bay for many

years; and

WHEREAS a recent government proposal will see some of our

communities assigned to Baie Verte district;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the Honourable House

of Assembly not to entertain or approve any proposal that would see our

communities removed from Green Bay district.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third in a series of petitions that

I have been presenting on this issue. I have more petitions to present, and as

of this morning I am told there are more in the mail. One of my duties as an MHA

is to bring forward my constituents' concerns in this Assembly. Of course, one

of the ways one can do that is in Question Period, another is in general debate,

and another is through the age old method of petitions.

At times I find the petition method useful because you are

allowed to stand and speak on an issue as often as you can get petitions to

address the subject, and I have a number of petitions on this subject and I do

not intend to let the matter drop. The people of Green Bay, having had their

lives disrupted by the electoral boundaries report, want me to speak on their

behalf. Their organizations, their development association and their joint

councils, want me to speak on their behalf and I am so doing.

It is unfortunate that apart from certain dismissive comments

on the part of the Government House Leader no members on the government side

seem to have either the inclination or the intestinal fortitude to stand up and

address this petition. I would ask that certain members who have from time to

time in the last little while made a few comments, rather mild-mannered comments

to the news media on this subject, stand and address this issue, put themselves

on the record in this Assembly today.

The current Member for Windsor - Buchans has informally made

a number of comments as to his concerns. I have seen a small comment or two to

the media from him, but the creation of a district called Windsor - Springdale

is a subject that should be of some importance to him personally. Whether or not

he runs again come the next election is not quite the point. Constituents that

he currently represents are being affected by this electoral boundaries change.

There was a great fuss and bother about the amalgamation of

Grand Falls and Windsor some time ago, and it was achieved with the expenditure

of considerable sums of public monies and after much acrimony and debate. Now it

is rather unfortunate that out of this electoral boundaries process we would see

the communities of Grand Falls and Windsor again being split, with the border

between the two electoral districts following along the border between the two

former towns of Grand Falls and Windsor. So it is time that the government

decide, number one, if they are going to do this, and if they are going to do

this and put this report before the Assembly for approval, then it is time for

government members to stand in their place, take a stand, and let the people who

sent them here know where they stand. The people of Green Bay know where I

stand, and it is about time that the Member for Windsor - Buchans and certain

other members over there stand and be counted as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the

petition presented by the Member for Green Bay. The Member for Green Bay

presented a petition here on behalf of his constituents dealing with the need to

have their wishes and their voices heard.

The House of Assembly, as I said the other day, put in place

a system, as the act clearly states, whereby the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court appoints a commissioner to go around this Province and have public

hearings into the changes to the electoral boundaries of this Province.

That system was put in place and the people from Green Bay,

Mount Pearl, Ferryland, Burin - Placentia West, Humber Valley, St. John's East,

Carbonear, Gander and Straits of Belle Isle had the opportunity to go out and

present their views, their wishes and their desires as to how they believe their

geographical area should be structured. That was followed to a `t' under the

act, as it should be.

Halfway through it, or a little better than halfway through

it, the Government House Leader, instructed by Cabinet, went to Clarenville and

asked the commissioner to change the rules. The Cabinet had asked him to go to

Clarenville and have it changed. The commission responded positively to the

minister's request and did so. Then the report was brought back to this House.

The wishes of the people of Green Bay and other parts of this Province - in

Twillingate, Fogo, Harbour Grace, Trinity North - were brought back to this

House by the commissioner who was duly appointed by the Chief Justice in

accordance with the act.

That was not to be. The Government House Leader and the

Premier and a few more didn't like it. There was no district left for the

Premier. The Premier of this Province did not have a district. So he called up

Ed and he said: Ed, come in boy, and we will have a look at this. I don't have a

district. If for some reason I decide to run again, which is highly unlikely,

because the boys in the back benches will have me kicked out before the next

election, I haven't got a district and something has to be done. So they said:

We will talk to Mr. Justice Mahoney again.

Mr. Roberts invited Justice Mahoney out to lunch. You had

lunch. He said: John, I want you to again for the third time become involved in

this game and to cut up the districts so that the Premier and a few more have a

seat. Mr. Justice Mahoney refused. No more, he said, I've had it twice. Ed had

to leave with his tail between his legs and go out in search of another judge. I

don't know if he called the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which he should

have done according to the act, but I heard he then approached another judge who

said: No, I am not going to participate.

Then he found Mr. Justice Noel, a very reputable person, a

very fair person I would think but Mr. Justice Noel was doing work for the

government in terms of changing legislation and reviewing policies and all of

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: A former member of this House.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, a former member of this House, Mr.

Speaker, from St. John's North, I believe a Liberal member. He accepted. Then we

got the report. What does it say? It says on the cover: A report by the

electrical boundaries commission. He was not appointed as electrical boundaries

commissioner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Electoral!

MR. TOBIN: Electoral. The electoral boundaries

commission, I would say to the member. Mr. Speaker, he was not appointed as a

commissioner to do the electoral boundaries, but yet his name appears on the

cover as the commissioner for the electoral boundaries commission.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a few words with

respect to the petition.

Let me first of all say to the gentleman from Green Bay that

he need not worry about raising my ire any more than he need worry about raising

the level of intelligence of the debate that he and his colleagues are bringing

to this issue. There are arguments to be made, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member

has not yet found them and apparently is not even aware that he should at least

be looking for them.

As for the theatrics of the gentleman from Burin - Placentia

West, let me say I continue to enjoy them. I don't know why he did not get the

actor of the year award last Saturday night. His leader was very quick to come

in here yesterday and rightly, in my view, praise those who were honoured by the

acting community but the gentleman from Burin - Placentia West is among the very

best actors we have. For a while there he almost had me thinking he might have

believed a word or two of what he said, but I know he did not. I know his

colleagues did not and I know nobody who listens to him does but it is an

entertaining performance. It is an entertaining performance and I encourage him,

not that he needs the encouragement mind you, I encourage him to carry on and we

look forward to Act 336, it is nearly as good as page 52 of the speech from my

friend from St. John's East Extern, that page that he keeps getting stuck on

whenever he is speaking here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, let me say I do take seriously, my colleagues

take seriously the concerns of the people from Green Bay who signed this

petition. That, Sir, is a matter very different from the tactics of the

gentleman from Green Bay. The gentleman from Green Bay is making use of the

rules, he has every right to do that. I don't say anything except to encourage

him to carry on presenting these petitions but I would say to him two things; I

would say that I hope he will try to make arguments instead of indulging in ad

hominen attacks and secondly I would say to him that repetition of a weak

argument does not make the argument any stronger. Whether or not a bill will

come before the House is yet to be decided. The government will decide and the

government will then, in government time if we are going to do a bill, bring it

forward. The House can discuss, the House can debate and the House can decide.

The government will decide, in consultation with our colleagues the Caucus, what

we are going to do. That has not been decided yet. If we bring a bill in then we

will address the matter and deal with it at length, be happy to deal with it and

to hear what other members say. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move the Orders

of the Day now be read.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this brings us to the happy

point where again we hear from the Opposition and I would look forward to the

Budget Debate which is Motion 1, if you would call it. I forget which of the

hon. gentlemen - my friend from Baie Verte - White Bay adjourned it so we will

hear his speech whenever he is ready and whenever Your Honour calls it.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. The hon. the Member for Baie Verte

- White Bay.

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

I started just yesterday with a few comments but of course I

would like to continue with a few more today on a variety of topics relating to

the budget, Mr. Speaker.

Recess

MR. ROBERTS: I suggest perhaps we could resume debate.

Obviously the time that elapsed is not to be counted against my friend for Baie

Verte - White Bay who has the unique distinction of having emptied the House

without saying a word. If it is in order perhaps we could proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Motion Number 1. The hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay

was just getting into his debate.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct pleasure of

clearing the House but I hope you will not hold that against me in my time. I do

not think you will.

I did get to start it yesterday, but I have a few issues that

I would like to raise and discuss today, Mr. Speaker. The first comments have to

do with the so-called balanced Budget that was brought in. Just a little while

ago I read an

article in The Globe and Mail of the message that a

balanced Budget might be sending to our counterparts in Ottawa.

Sometimes in a Province in the state we find ourselves in,

Mr. Speaker, it is a concern, and economists would ask, what message is that

sending to our federal counterparts who we rely on for transfer payments, etc?

So, sometimes we have to question a balanced Budget and what kind of internal

message that sends to our federal counterparts as to what Newfoundland is doing

with their books at a time of crisis, especially the fisheries crisis, Mr.

Speaker. Maybe we should second-guess, or at least consider, what that kind of

message sends to the federal government who we rely on heavily for transfer

payments to this Province. Maybe it is not as rosy as it seems from the outset,

and economists warn us that that message may in fact hurt this Province's

ability to obtain federal funding.

The first thing I want to talk about when we talk about

balanced Budgets is priorities. The average Newfoundlander in the street over

the last few weeks, just to talk to him and comment about a balanced Budget, and

Newfoundlanders in general ask, what do we mean by a balanced Budget? It sounds

good but is it really as good as it sounds? They want that explained to them,

and I try to tell them that a balanced Budget sounds good on the surface and it

can be good underneath, but we have to look a little bit deeper than what we see

in front.

I have fear of, and the question is raised by the average

Newfoundlander, working Newfoundlander or unemployed Newfoundlander, is a

balanced Budget what it seems? Mr. Speaker, that is where I have the concerns,

when we look at the priorities of spending in the Province. The first one I want

to mention is transportation. This week in particular, and I am glad the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is in the House, I have talked to

officials who tell me that basically the provincial paving allotments have

already been considered for this year, and they are pretty well on line and

ready to be announced, Mr. Speaker, I think, in the very near future by the

minister.

I do know that $15 million for provincial paving this year is

an absolute disgrace. The minister knows it and he would probably admit it if

only he had the guts to stand up and admit it, $15 million at a time when

provincial paving in this Province is needed more than ever. Roads and paved

highways around this Province are run down, and then we have so many roads in

this Province that are not paved, Mr. Speaker.

Many times in this House of Assembly I have presented

petitions on behalf of constituents in my district who are appalled with the

road conditions. As a matter of fact about three or four weeks ago now we had

students from three different communities who got off the bus that travelled

over this gravel road of potholes and decided enough was enough, so they decided

to close off the road. After doing that they immediately called me and sent in a

petition which I presented in the House of Assembly on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, a simple thing that was said to me in those

communities was priorities. They said, how can they justify, although the

differential has to be set aside as to where the money is actually located, how

can they justify, any government, federal or provincial, spending $110 million

on a Ring Road in St. John's when there are roads unpaved in districts where

students have to travel in a bus. Now, anybody here who travels by car, in a

good car, in a good quality car, must realize that those roads, even in that

kind of car, are bad enough.

Now, if anybody has travelled in a bus they will understand

exactly what I am talking about. I certainly do not expect the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation to relate to anything I am saying to him,

because from what I have heard the last trip made by the minister to check out

roads in this Province was by helicopter. I do not expect him to understand what

the students in the school bus say to me. These students have said to me, we are

not driving in this bus any more over these potholes. We get to school sick.

MR. EFFORD: You are certainly not getting any roads.

MR. SHELLEY: Now, I want to make note of that, Mr.

Speaker. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation just said again, as

he has said many times in this House, to many members, you are certainly not

getting any roads. I am going to send a Hansard showing what was just said to

the people in my district, because that was a joke, once or twice, but after you

have said it twenty, thirty, or forty times, a minister of the Crown no matter

what political stripe has an obligation and responsibility to every person in

this Province, and those school students that I just spoke about should expect

just as much from that minister as any school student in his own district, Mr.

Speaker. I can take a joke like anybody can, but time after time - I relate to

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who left the chamber but he

heard me in the beginning.

Fifteen million dollars has been allocated for transportation

and provincial road paving in this Province this year, something that I know

that the minister, and I certainly know that his officials are fuming about. The

truth is that it is pittance, it is not worth the paper it is written on. Down

from $45 million to $50 million, now we are gone to $15 million. Not only that,

I've also learned that out of that $15 million $1 million is for signs, another

$500,000 is to fix cracks in pavement, another $500,000 is for emergency money.

We are now left with $13 million. Let's not stop there. Another $5 million has

already been committed. That leaves us with $8 million in this Province for

provincial paving and upgrading this year. It is a total disgrace. There is not

a member in this House who can stand and say that is fine and they are satisfied

with that.

Now that is why I talk about a balanced budget. That is why I

said to my constituent: What do we really mean by a balanced budget? I will tell

you what it means. It means no roads. You go over that same road with the same

school bus, your kids still get sick as they go to school. That is what the

balanced budget means. It is sickening. Is that the price that we are going to

pay so we can stand up and say a balanced budget? Is that the price that we are

going to pay? Or are we going to look at the priorities of a ring road in St.

John's or a renovation of offices here in this building or a renovation of an

elevator outside so we can get to the fifth and eighth floor faster.

It is a simple question of priorities. Where the hell are our

priorities when it comes to spending in this Province? That is the question we

have to ask. I can't believe the amount of money that is going to be spent on

provincial roads this year. I guess what they try to do to buffer the whole

situation or to ease it off a little bit is to brag about the federal agreement

on Roads for Rails. In my district this year, thank God, finally, since 1989 it

was signed, because I was in the office the day it was signed, the Baie Verte

Highway will go ahead, twenty kilometres. Much needed work needed to be done.

But the provincial roads - Westport and Burlington roads for the last three

years have gotten five kilometres. The people have been pretty satisfied with

that. That is pretty reasonable. We can't spend a lot. They've been thanking the

minister, because I've seen the letters they've sent him. Five kilometres, three

years in a row.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans,

that is too bad. But what I say is that it wasn't any great deal. It was five

kilometres a year for three years. Now there are 3.4 kilometres of paving left

for Burlington Road to finish it, to finish the job that the minister started.

For which I commend him, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans,

if you want to speak on that like I'm speaking about the roads in my district,

for God's sake somebody on that side stand up and talk about this so-called

balanced budget with the smoke screen on the front. Speak about it like we are

doing over here.

The truth is, I agree with the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

There should have been more money. There would have been more roadwork done,

there would have been more jobs. What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, something that is

reasonable -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I don't bloody care what member of

government there was. I'm here talking about today. I'm not ready to talk about

the seventeen years you keep bringing up. I don't give a hell about the

seventeen years before that. I want to talk from today and onwards.

Five kilometres of road for Westport and Burlington for three

years straight. It wasn't a lot. People were satisfied. They are not asking for

the world or gold roads, Mr. Speaker. They asked for a little bit and they got

the five kilometres for three years running. Sensible thing to do. Lo and

behold, what happens this year? Fifteen million dollars for the entire Province.

Westport and Burlington, sorry, you only have three kilometres left to do, but

too bad, we are going to stop it right there. Machines out there ready to roll

and they are going to stop the last three kilometres of a four-year project. How

bloody ridiculous is that.

The priorities of spending in this Province have to change.

The priorities have to be given back to people who pay the taxes. I say that

because I really believe that rural Newfoundland - there is no other way to put

it, but having the boots put to them. Everywhere you look in this Province you

can bring it back to rural Newfoundland. Down loading on municipal services to

municipalities. It started at the feds. This is where we have the problem, the

link, the chain of events that is happening in this Province, the chain of

events that is changing the landscape of this Province.

The federal government, the federal cousins of our government

here in this Province, has said nothing, not a peep when the federal priorities

have changed. The federal government has down loaded to the provincial

government, the provincial government right away and said: Sorry, that is a hot

potato, we will pass it right down to the municipalities. What is the reason

behind it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It is not true, I say to the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board. You had better talk to some of the municipalities

around this Province. The down loading is right down the tubes right to the

municipalities, right to the councils. Here we have volunteer elected councils

in this Province and I've got them coming to me - I know the minister has them

coming to him too - elected volunteer people who have been getting the boots put

to them. They are saying: We are trying to make our communities survive and what

happens? Every time we turn around we get a slap in the face. Down loading of

services on the municipalities.

Roadwork, Mr. Speaker, that I just explained. Hospitals - and

the Minister of Health gets up and refers back that we've got the greatest

system of health care, it is getting better. I mean, how naive, how gullible

does he think people are? Mr. Speaker, the first thing you have to do, a

psychiatrist will tell you, when you have a problem, is to first of all,

acknowledge the problem and the problem right here, in the government of this

day, is that they don't acknowledge the problem first. If you are an alcoholic

or a drug dependant, you first acknowledge the problem and then you find a way

to treat it, but before you can do that, you have to acknowledge the problem.

And the problem is clear and simple, and I say to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board in all sincerity, that rural Newfoundland is being hurt to the

limit, where it is nothing short of the word that we hold back so often, of

resettlement in this Province - and another headline today, Mr. Speaker, about

migration in this Province.

Until we realize that, my solution would be involved with a

step that your government is simply missing and that is: consult with people who

are living in these communities, ask them what their problems are, ask them to

spin back and let us spread out what is happening in these communities. When I

see a small community like Shoe Cove or like Harbour Deep, Mr. Speaker, working

as hard as they can with volunteer people on their councils trying every

possible way they can to help themselves - because, Mr. Speaker, like they have

said to me: We are not talking about saving our jobs, as in the fishery, we are

talking about saving a way of life. We have our homes here, our families grew up

here and it seems like it is an attitude in this government that - why the heck

do you live in those small places anyway? Get out of there, move into Gander,

Grand Falls and Corner Brook; get out of there, you are not allowed to be there,

you don't deserve to be there.

Well, Mr. Speaker, these people have another answer to the

government which says that to them. They say: We built our homes here, we own

them; the crime rates are low here, our children can grow up with a bit of

integrity. They know they have to move out for the purpose of education and job

opportunities but they want to live there and, Mr. Speaker, they have every

right to live there and have services; they pay tax dollars like anybody else,

as well as anybody from the bigger centres in this Province, but what is

happening is changing the landscape of this Province. The federal counterparts

of this government have said nothing. Every time they make a move at the federal

level, bring it on you, not a peep; what they do is take the hot potato and pass

it right on to the municipalities, Mr. Speaker. That's what is happening, and

what we have to do is say: Hold on a second, rural Newfoundland is worth

fighting for.

I live in rural Newfoundland and I have every intention of

remaining there, it is a great place to raise a family, a great place to keep

your integrity, to work. And if they were only given a chance, that's what one

mayor said to me last week when I was in my district; he said: You know, if we

were given even a half a chance to survive instead of downloading - and we see

the downgrading, all the examples are there, the roads that we just spoke about,

roads that you can't send a trike over, let alone a busload of kids; potholes

not done, and then what do we get for an answer from the Provincial Government

this year? Not only are we not going to keep the amount of money in provincial

roads that we have over the years, we are going to decrease it. How ridiculous,

Mr. Speaker, at a time when this government should be saying increase work,

increase construction, a time when upgrading of roads is badly needed. One

member of a council said to me: If this goes on one more year, our community

will be impassable, we will have to leave our cars inside or out and travel by

trike or skidoo into our community. That's the stage, Mr. Speaker, that we are

getting to in this Province. So that's the transportation, and then hospitals,

health care, let's go again into rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it here before, I will say it again;

I said it before I was elected and have been quoted as saying it in the school

where I taught: When we live in 1995 in a part of this Province that holds

approximately 12,000 people in my district, we have one hospital with five

acute-care beds. I was born in that little town in 1959 in a legion where they

had a clinic; here I am in 1995, with two children, three and five years old,

and I had to sit in a bloody hotel in Grand Falls to watch my children being

born, Mr. Speaker, and it was the first time I thought about entering politics,

when I said: How bloody ridiculous is that. There I was sitting in Mount Peyton

Hotel in Grand Falls in 1993 when my first child was born.

I was born in Baie Verte, but now I have to travel with my

wife, sit in a hotel, she has to be in a hospital that is not even in her own

community and have a child born. A friend of mine said the same thing to me the

other day; he went to Corner Brook, sat in the Glynmill Inn and stayed there -

he doesn't have relatives or anyone in Corner Brook - while his wife was in

Corner Brook Western Memorial Hospital having a baby; and, Mr. Speaker, there is

no Minister of Justice - Minister of Health - Justice either for that matter -

who could stand anywhere and say that there is better health care in this

Province. So those are two simple stories that relate to anybody in this House,

I know they do.

At the same time, a young child - my child, or anybody else's

- who has to have a common operation such as a tonsillectomy or an appendix

operation, can't have it done in the Baie Verte hospital. That is too

complicated; that is too big a task. We have to drive for two hours to Corner

Brook, and then, Mr. Speaker, here is the catch of it all: We were told when we

were downgraded, `Don't worry about it; we are going to increase ability at the

Corner Brook hospital and the Grand Falls hospital, so you can go to either one

of those and you will be taken care of.'

Well, I brought the best example to this House just a month

ago that you are probably ever going to see. A man in my district with severe

back pains, in agony, his wife was telling me, went to Corner Brook hospital in

January. He needed a myelogram - on his spine. The doctor said, `Yes, you

definitely need a myelogram before you have your operation done. `Now, your

myelogram, by the way, Sir, will be in November.' This was January; he was going

to get the myelogram done in November. Here is a man with pain in his face, and

he has to wait for eleven months.

Mr. Speaker, I will say something about the squeaky wheel. By

the way, the last time I brought that up in the House of Assembly, when the

Minister of Health stood and said, `No, there is no problem', lo and behold that

same man called me two days later and said, `By the way, my appointment has been

moved up; I am in this week.' So I wonder sometimes what wheel gets the grease.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the priorities on rural

Newfoundland and urban Newfoundland have to change. These are taxpayers; these

are people just like anybody else. Now, besides living in Baie Verte and

travelling to the hospital - then, of course, connect this with transportation.

You might ask me why on that, and the answer is simple. We have to now travel

over sixty kilometres of deteriorating pavement, roads in a crucial stage that

have to be done right now, so that is why I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, not only the construction industry but simple,

basic decent road construction in this Province is badly, badly needed.

Just over a month ago, a delegation from Ming's Bight, a

small town in my community, met with the minister and his officials, and so did

I, and they told the minister what stage we are at with road construction in

this Province. Their road hasn't been touched in twelve years, and the depot

there on the peninsula, I have to say, does a magnificent job. Every time they

are called, the graders go and do what they can do, but this delegation said to

the minister, `It is simple. It is no good to send a grader to do our roads

again because there is nothing left to grade.' And the minister, in his wisdom,

and his officials, agreed. They said, `That is right; there is no more grading

to be done. We are throwing good money after bad. We are sending paid employees

down with a grader to do something that is not worth it.' So why do we keep

doing it?

Isn't there a priority that this budget should have had more

money in transportation this year? I would say that there is not a member in

this House who would deny that. There should have been more money in the budget

for Works, Services and Transportation this year because the state of the roads

in this Province is at a breaking point, of being impassable. There is nothing

more to it than that.

Municipalities and these small communities, as small as they

may be - Burlington Road, for example, 3.4 kilometres left, and stopped right at

the last minute. It is totally ridiculous, and it is something that can upset

anybody, and it would upset any member in this House when they are speaking for

their district.

I know there are members over there who have some pretty bad

conditions in their areas. I know that my colleagues do - we have talked about

it many times. And the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should be

addressing it now, should be starting to make his Cabinet colleagues realize

that there has to be more budgeted for next year. It is not going to save

anything now, but we certainly have to say something about it now and make him

aware of it now.

I know that as I speak now there are petitions on the way to

me for next week in the House of Assembly. It is a very, very serious problem,

something that has to be addressed, something that we cannot jump up and say,

`Yes, we have a balanced Budget, but you are going to have to go over the same

bloody road, and worse again next year.' Now, where is the priority? for this

Premier and this Minister of Finance to come in next year and say, `Here we go,

another balanced Budget.' Whoop-de-doo! What does that matter to a man in Shoe

Cove who just took his five-year-old, who just started school, off the bus

because she was sick of beating over potholes? The priorities have to change.

As I said just a few minutes ago, what we have to do is start

to remind this government that the chain of events happening is right in their

lap. It is coming from the Federal Government into their lap. They are taking it

like a hot potato and passing it right down to the municipalities of rural

Newfoundland. This government have to roll up their sleeves, not worry about

getting their hands dirty, and say, `No, we are not taking that anymore. No, we

can't accept what you have just proposed.' Everything they propose, there is not

a wink, there is not a blink.

I remember reading in The Western Star just over a

month ago, a quote from a letter the Premier had written to Paul Martin. I wish

I had it in front of me, but the quote is something like - the jist was this:

Mr. Martin, we realize that you had to make some major cuts and we are trying to

balance the budget in Canada. We are all for that.' I would help anyway that I

can, too, Mr. Speaker, but what is he saying? In the next phrase he says, `So

come on with the cuts. Whatever you do I will be hard-pressed not to accept

them.' That is what the quote was, `I will be hard-pressed not to accept any

proposals you have referring to the budget that will be inflicted upon

Newfoundland. Now, Mr. Speaker, what kind of statement is that coming from a

Premier of a Province that is in crisis - a crisis with the fishery, a crisis

with so many other things in the economy? What kind of a statement is that? What

kind of a message, like the economist in The Globe and Mail said, is this

government sending our federal counterparts? `We have a balanced Budget, boys,

we are in a crisis but we have a balanced Budget. Don't worry about us, don't

worry about increasing our transfer payments, don't worry about helping us out

an extra little bit.'

This is the same Federal Government - remember now,under

different stripes - who cares about the stripes? P.C., Liberal, Trudeau,

Mulroney, all of them before, that mismanaged our fishery. That is what we have,

Mr. Speaker, we don't talk about Tories and Liberals and red and blue. We are

here today, these members here in this House of Assembly, we have to deal with

what is in front of us, not talk for seventeen years about Tories and ten years

about Liberals. Like my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes keeps

saying - twenty-eight years old, seventeen years a Tory, he was eleven years

old. Who gives a darn? He doesn't. We want to go on and talk about what we are

going to do for the next few years.

And that is an attitude, Mr. Speaker, that has to change in

government, as a whole, I believe. We can be here every day I stand and talk

about the Churchill Falls mistake. If you want to talk about mistakes, $820

million every year. So we could sit up and talk about that. I could use the full

half-hour to talk about that. I hardly mention it because it is not worth

talking about now. That is the game, that is what we have to play. So let's look

forward, Mr. Speaker.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I run this right into the rural urban

argument about the electoral boundaries - not the electrical boundaries, as the

member for Grand Bank mentioned earlier, it's the electoral boundaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was in shock.

MR. SHELLEY: He was in shock at the time. He was talking

about extending the transmission line but, Mr. Speaker, I had to run this right

into how it relates to the decision on electoral boundaries. Mr. Speaker, there

is nobody in this House, and I have talked to members on both sides, who objects

to the public saying that we can run this Province with fewer members and we

could save money. That is good, I can accept that. I think most people can

accept it. If it is going to be - the first thing, Mr. Speaker, and this is very

important, if we are going to change the members and change the `landscape' of

this House, let's do it independently like it was done in the beginning by

Justice - Noel was it, the first one - there are so many who did it now that I

cannot remember how many - Mahoney, yes, I'm sorry. Justice Mahoney did the

first one independently.

It cost $400,000 to send Judge Mahoney around, independent,

he came back with forty-four seats, perfect. He passed it into the Premier and

the Cabinet - hold on now, he said forty the first time. Now that is

significant. If we were going to do that, Mr. Speaker, we would have some

trouble, all of us, with our districts but we all have to swallow it because it

came independently. It came from a mandate that this man - this justice minister

and the commission was paid $400,000, let's accept it and let's go for it. I

will vote for that. I will support that. It might be hard to swallow in my

district. It might be harder then what I have now but I will take that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, no, that didn't happen, we went the second

time. And from what we are hearing, Judge Mahoney was asked to do it again but

he said, `No, I am sorry that's it.' He refused. He did it independently, what

was asked him in the first place. It went to the second justice and he refused.

Lo and behold, finally we get a friend of the minister, the fugitive from

Justice, we get a friend from him who says, `Yes, I will take it. I will deal

with it.' So he did it. Now he comes back, Mr. Speaker, after a third or fourth

time, whatever it is now; now it is down from fifty-two to forty-eight, Mr.

Speaker. Now, first, two things; I don't believe that that is significant

enough. If it is gone from fifty-two to forty-eight what difference is that?

That is no difference, let's face it, let's be real about this. There is no

difference in fifty-two to forty-eight. As a matter of fact, the way the

districts are going and the way one of the members has already said, `Well, we

can hire extra staff to help a few of the members who have the big geography

area.' So where is the savings? What was the reason for it? Wasn't it for

savings to the taxpayers of the Province? We have spent enough money on the

commissions going around for the last year-and-a-half to make up for what we are

going to save for the four MHAs who are going to be lost. So, Mr. Speaker, where

is the logic and the commonsense? I just can't see it. For the life of me I just

can't see it. If the whole purpose was to bring down the number of members in

this Province to save the taxpayer's dollar, we have just spent that much on the

commissions that went around the Province. I don't see the rationale in it.

The second point I would like to make on that is if we are

doing the changes and going to forty-eight, numbers is all that the Minister of

Justice and the Premier have talked about, the numbers, one person, one vote.

That's fine. That sounds good on the surface. But I wonder - and I even think I

have an answer to it now - but I wondered why the Premier was thinking about -

why wasn't he thinking about the geography? Why wasn't he thinking about the

number of communities? I finally came up with an answer and this is something I

believe now, so I will give the Premier a chance to rebut some time when he is

in the House or if we get to speak on electoral boundaries.

Was he ever really a good, what we call, constituent MHA? one

who went out to the communities, met with the fire departments, met with the

Kinsmen groups, met with the volunteer groups, met with all the councils. I

wonder if he was. I ask that question because I can tell you that I am, I do

that. I know a lot of members on both sides of the House who do. I have

twenty-one communities, one which is isolated - Harbour Deep. I've been in every

single one of them, I don't know, ten, twelve times, many times. I meet with

twenty-one councils, I've met with fifteen fire department, I've met with five

development associations in my district, I've met with Kinsmen and groups,

women's groups. That is what a lot of these members do. Compare that to an urban

MHA, and we have talked about it openly. Those people meet with the one council,

the one fire department, the one development association. Right away, that

wasn't taken into account, I don't think, when these decisions were made on

electoral.

Very quickly, with time running out here, the other point

that I would like to mention is the geography. Everybody talks about the

geography of Newfoundland. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage made the best

point I heard, in the media the other day. I can make some. The geography in the

member's district - it now means he will have to fly to Gander from down on the

South Coast, fly over to Stephenville and go down to the other part of his

district. I just don't see the logic in that. I just can't understand that for

the life of me. That is bloody ridiculous! That member is not going to be able

to serve that district as well as he is doing now. The Member for Fortune -

Hermitage will not be able to serve that district as well as he is doing now. I

must say, to all intents and purposes, he is doing a good job now. He will not

be able to continue that job.

I can tell this House of Assembly, I will work harder - and I

know all members will work harder, we will try our best, but the reality is

simple. With the geography, I will go from twenty-one communities to

thirty-three. I will have to drive up the Trans-Canada over into Springdale and

down that side of the shoreline. I'm figuring it will be somewhere between eight

hours to twelve hours driving, to cover my district.

Whereas an urban member can

drive around his district in twenty minutes, which he should be able to do - to

visit somebody who needs to talk to him, a council that needs to meet with him.

I have to drive for eight to twelve hours just to talk to a development

association over in Green Bay. You know, with the time you spend here in St.

John's, that logic of it I can't see, the geography, the number of the

communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: How are you going to be able to travel

with the (inaudible) roads?

MR. SHELLEY: Of course, now, on top of all of that we

come back to Works, Services and Transportation again, and we have the great

roads we talked about. I said six to twelve hours, but with the road conditions

we can say sixteen hours, easily. Mr. Speaker, I'm a member who likes to get

into the district, the different communities. I think that this decision is

going to interrupt that and we will not be able to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few

more comments just to finish on electoral boundaries. All I'm asking, Mr.

Speaker, is that when the final decision comes down on electoral boundaries,

that above all the numbers and the quotients and the minuses and pluses that the

Premier talks about, let me just throw another little thing into his solution:

Common sense, logic. Ask the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, how can you now

serve your district? Isn't that the whole reason for a member, to see if he can

serve his district to the best of his ability? Isn't that the whole reason? Or

is this just a perception, a smoke screen, to say to the public of this

Province: Yes, we will decrease the number of seats, we will be the government

that decreased the number of MHAs in this Province. From what? From fifty-two to

forty-eight and then we will hire ten more bureaucrats, or ten more staff, to

make up for the four we just lost. Let us be honest with the public of this

Province, Mr. Speaker, what are the real reasons behind changes in electoral

boundaries?

They are always asking advice from us, although I do not

think they take it, but I will give the Premier that advice. On top of his

quotients, minuses, and pluses, and with his little calculator on numbers, one

vote, one person, with all this - I do not know what word I can use on that - I

cannot use that word, but with all that, Mr. Speaker, I ask him to sit back in

his seat and say, hold on, now, let us use a little bit of logic and common

sense. Let us go and ask the members who are really constituent members, the

members who go out in their districts and talk to the councils.

They are not the typical member they see elected one year and

then wait until four years later for him to put a pamphlet on their porch again.

They are not those members, Mr. Speaker. Let us take notice of the members who

really go out and do their constituent work. Let us listen to those people. So,

if we are going to change the electoral boundaries and go from fifty-two to

forty-eight let us ask ourselves if we are doing it for the right reason or is

it just a perception we want to give the public.

I ask the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, when he gets his

chance, to speak on the electoral boundaries and give us his opinion on what he

thinks a real constituent member is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: Well, sometimes that is too late.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: Well, that is why I have a lot more to say

on it and I think a lot of the members in this House will have a lot more to say

on it, and I will continue to say more on it, Mr. Speaker.

I want to end off on one more issue, if I can continue. This

past year we had a ruckus, a racket, whatever you want to call it, in this House

on job creation programs. Every year before I even considered entering politics

I heard the same argument in here, no matter what government was here. I say to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that I hear the same argument,

Mr. Speaker. There are going to be no job creation programs this year, they are

a waste of money, throwing money away, and all these arguments. That is what we

hear year after year.

Mr. Speaker, another suggestion, or advice again, for the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Why not this year, now, soon, meet

with his colleagues, and like I said before, admit and realize there is a

problem every year with employment in this Province, and put monies in place now

in their so-called balanced Budget and make long-term plans so that at the last

minute we do not call it make-work projects and go scrambling around for $5 or

$6 million to help a few people who are out there in desperate need.

Realize now, like I realize, and I am sure many members

realize, that next year there is going to be a problem again. There are going to

be people in a squeeze and at the last minute cannot help themselves out. That

is a reality in this Province. With seasonal work and with the economic

situation we have in this Province the reality is that we are going to have

people again next year looking for a few weeks work to qualify for UI.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, the people we raised in the House this

year were people who found themselves in critical situations because of the

economy of the country and the economy of our Province. They are not people

looking for hand-outs like some of the members I mentioned. They are people who

found themselves stuck, so what I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, and his colleagues, and the Premier, is to start looking at it now

and realize that we will have the problem next year. Let us put the money in the

Budget now and make long-term solutions with those projects.

Now, I want to mention one, and we mentioned it last year,

and we had a press conference on it this morning, we cannot send enough people

in the forests to plant trees, thin brush, and cut brush along the side of the

roads. That is work that needs to be done in this Province. There are people

willing and able to work who could do that type of work. We cannot send enough

people in the forests of this Province to do that work. Let us consider that as

one of the alternatives for next year when we decide on the amount of money for

these so-called job creation programs.

In other words, let us do something that is productive,

creative, and something that is going to be long-term and give some people who

are looking for these few weeks work a little bit of integrity so that they can

go work for their money. These are not people who are looking for handouts. They

are people who are saying to this government, we want to work. Give us good

meaningful work and something that will be beneficial, and I cannot think of

anything more beneficial than sending a person who wants to work into the woods

to plant trees, thin brush, and cut brush along the side of the road. It is

something that is beneficial and sustainable for the long time life of that

particular industry.

That is the advice I give to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations. Let us use it to the best of our advantage for the long-term.

I spoke to the minister about this before. Instead of throwing that $5 million

out the last minute when we have to present all these petitions, sit down with

the Premier and your colleagues and make plans now. There is going to be another

crisis next year. That is the economy, that is the way we are running.

If we are going to set aside $5, $6, $7 or $8 million let us

sit down and spent it properly and wisely. That money will not be wasted if we

do it like that, but it will be wasted if you wait and do the same thing you did

this year. At the last minute push it in and throw out some projects. A big rush

on in the communities and nobody knew what was going where. They did projects

they were not too sure about. Let's send it out now. Send out the applications

and say that you are going to get this much money this year; come up with a

good, viable alternative, alright?

Mr. Speaker, the last one that I want to mention today is

education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is a good idea. Like I said, I would be

here until the cows come home but we are not sure if there are going to be any

cows to come home.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman looks like he was here

when the cows came home.

MR. SHELLEY: If I look like I was here since the cows

came home, he must have been on the cow that I rode in on. He has been here a

lot longer than I have. When I have been here as long as the fugitive from

justice has been here, I don't know if there will be any cows left in

Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, on education very quickly, just the other day,

of course, we saw a demonstration by students who were doing ABE courses. Now I

relate to this one very, very well for a simple reason. I was an instructor at

the community college in Baie Verte for an ABE course before entering politics

and, I can tell you, I spoke to these people.

The best experience I can remember in teaching those people,

these were people who, for all kinds of reasons - and I know friends of mine, I

know many people - back in the sixties and seventies, decided to quit school at

an early age and pursue, of course, job opportunities in mines, like in my

district, and other places, so they had all kinds of reasons for quitting school

in Grade VIII, Grade IX and Grade X because they had job opportunities,

something that is very different these days. So these people now, of course,

with the changing of technology and the way the world is changing these days,

decided in their wisdom, because they were told by people in government: Go back

and get your education because you cannot make it in this world today without an

education...

Of course, when we all speak at graduations and so on these

days, as I did the other night, I say that to students all the time: Make sure

you finish high school and go get a trade or a degree in something so that you

can better yourself, but don't give up. It is not such a big, bad world after

all. You can do something.

So here we are, in government, encouraging students to go

back to school, finish their education, do good for themselves, take themselves

up by their boot straps and do something for themselves. Now, isn't that what we

all say to our people?

Now, in the midst of all of that, lo and behold we see cuts

to Adult Basic Education. No, it is not eliminated like the minister said. I

realize that. My argument is there was not enough ABE in the first place. These

are people who took our advice and said: Yes, we are going to go back and get

our education and be productive members of society so we can contribute to

government and not take away, and not look for hand-outs.

What happens when they get up and get into those classrooms,

the people who were out here a couple of days ago? As soon as they got up and

decided to do something for themselves they were pushed back down again by a

government that decides they are going to have cutbacks, federal and provincial,

to these ABE courses. It is a bloody shame when you look at that. It is so

hypocritical of this government, to talk about people who never made it through

their education degree, had the guts finally - and it took a lot for a lot of

people who were out of school for ten, fifteen and twenty years - to go back and

finish their Grade XII. They get in their now and they find out there are cuts

to this program, something that was good; it was a good plan. Let these people

get their education and be productive and pay into the government coffers, more

taxes, more revenue for this Province. It is an investment into the future. That

is why I was appalled to hear that.

On the same note, last year this government decided to cut

provincial grants to students in this Province who badly needed it, because I

was one of those students who got that provincial grant. I was one of those

students who, without the help of that provincial grant, would have not finished

- and I have said it before and I will say it again here - my two degrees at

Memorial University. Because I come from a big family and I could not put myself

through, that provincial grant allowed me to get my degrees, and that is the

reason, maybe, why I am standing here today. The provincial grants and the cuts

in ABE are ridiculous. It is a shame, a bloody shame. So these are some of the

things that I talked about earlier about priorities and what government should

look at as priorities.

We should really look at the people who are affected by cuts

before we make the cuts; it is as simple as that. Let us not make it in a back

room of Cabinet in solidarity and secrecy. Before you make a cut in government

in this Province, you should, first of all, ask the person who is going to be

most affected by the cut, not ask your buddies who are sitting around a Cabinet

table how it is going to affect them, ask the people who are going to be

affected most, what that cut is going to mean. So a balanced Budget, Mr.

Speaker, I am going to tell you this, that there is a lot more behind the words

balanced Budget than what we have seen, and it is going to unfold very quickly.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's all I want to say for today but I

will have more opportunity to have a few more comments on the Budget again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and speak

in the Budget debate. After listening to the eloquent speech by the hon. Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay, for the past forty minutes or so, it is a hard act

to follow but I will humbly submit and try to do what I can.

I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by the

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay as it relates, not only to the Province in

general but indeed to parts of the District of St. Mary's - The Capes which I

have the honour of representing in this House. I would like to touch first, if I

could, on a major concern in my district, and it has to do with the unemployment

situation. For many years we have enjoyed the lucrative results of a great

fishery in my district which brought many, many jobs to the people, but over the

last couple of years since the moratorium has been put in place, we not only see

people who have been directly involved in the fishing industry such as the

fishermen and plant workers and people who worked around the fishing facilities,

but indeed we have found that many, many people in my district who were

indirectly involved in the fishing industry, have had the sad occasion of being

left out in the cold I would say, Mr. Speaker, such as baby-sitters, people who

work in the restaurants, truck-drivers, people who, indirectly had work as a

result of the fishing industry and these people will receive no compensation;

they receive no help from anybody and have been left out in the cold.

Just this morning I received a call from a community in my

district in St. Mary's Bay, the community of Branch, where they did a little

survey over the past couple of days and the information that I received this

morning was, that there were eighty-five people in that community now who are

receiving nothing whatsoever from any government agency, either UI or social

assistance - in some cases yes, some people have qualified for social assistance

but the bare minimum in a lot of cases - and we have eighty-five people in the

community of Branch at the present time who have no chance of work and really

have nowhere to turn.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to come up with a very positive

feeling when your community is reaping the benefits of a positive fishing

industry to come to where we are today, and Branch is repeated today, throughout

this Province. There are several communities in this Province I would take a

chance at saying that are in the same ball game as Branch finds itself, and

these people are searching for help, they are searching for answers, they are

searching for somebody to assist them in every way possible but it is very

difficult to talk to people who in some cases, say that they are sending their

children off to school without the proper necessities that they need. They are

concerned about next week, they are concerned about tomorrow and this is

repeated throughout the Province and definitely repeated in other communities in

my district.

It is a major concern that we have. It is okay to say that we

have a balanced Budget, Mr. Speaker, but we have to ask, at what cost? We

realize that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations cannot come up with

a program tomorrow that would answer all the questions and all the concerns that

the people have who are looking for work in the Province, but I say to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that he should certainly search in

his wisdom and try to find some type of program that would not be termed as a

make-work program anymore but find some kind of program that would have some

element of training in the program and also have some type of on-the-job

training, giving people the opportunity to go out into the workforce with some

type of basic training.

I think if we came forward with some type of program that

would give the people of the Province an opportunity to do that, we may see

better results from money that is spent in trying to create jobs in the Province

than what we have seen in the past.

I had a lady who called me yesterday who is trying to get a

job as an office administrator, she just finished a course at one of the

colleges here in town and a two-year training course and she told me she was

willing to work for a month without pay just to have the opportunity to show the

employers her skills. A few years ago you would never hear tell of this because

there was plenty of work and there were plenty of jobs for everybody, but we

have people now who are willing to go to work for a month just to have an

opportunity to show their skills to their employers.

The unemployment situation is desperate. In my area just

during the Easter weekend there were eleven young people who left the community

to travel to B.C. I'm sure this is going on in other parts of the Province.

There are positive things that are happening in this Province and I have no

hesitation in saying that there are positive things happening in my district,

but the fact of the fishery closure has certainly brought hardship to a lot of

communities and a lot of individuals. I'm very concerned about what the future

holds. As I said, there were eleven people who left my district during Easter

weekend to travel to B.C. I'm sure that you can see this throughout the Province

in other districts. People are leaving on a continuous basis trying to find work

if they are not receiving any compensation for their involvement indirectly or

directly in the fishing industry.

I hope that the government in its wisdom, that the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, may find something that will alleviate the

hardship that the people of Branch find themselves in. Not only the people of

Branch, but indeed the people throughout the Province and other parts of the

District of St. Mary's - The Capes.

I would also like to touch on another issue that has been

brought up in my district on a continuous basis, and that has to do with the

roads. We have, over the past number of years, been very successful in receiving

some money for roadwork in the district, and I will touch on that in a few

minutes when I touch on a few of the positive things that are happening in the

district. There are several pieces of road in my district that certainly are in

desperate need of some type of work after the winter months. I'm looking forward

in the next couple of days to bringing forward some petitions here in the House

that would bring forward the concerns of those people.

We have a road between Branch and St. Bride's that is in

desperate need of help. The access road down to Point Lance - I believe it is

Route 100-13 - is in desperate need of some type of repair and maintenance.

There are schoolchildren on these roads every day and the bus drivers are

complaining about the condition of the roads. The parents are calling concerning

the situation with the road. I hopefully will bring forward the concerns through

a petition here in the House in the next couple of days from the people in those

communities, and that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will

address this very important concern, and that he will hopefully find the funds,

or find the manpower I should say, to have the necessary repairs carried out.

We also have other roads. I bring up once again, as I have in

the past, the concern of the people on the road to the community of Mall Bay in

my district that is still unpaved, and the condition of the bridge that is on

the road to that. I bring forward the concern of the people, they are going to

bring forward a petition to me also in the next few days that I hope to present

here in the House to bring forward the concerns of the people from Mall Bay in

relation to the condition of the road and definitely in relation to the bridge

issue and the safety factor, if nothing else.

Last winter we had a job creation program announced by the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, if I can just touch back on that

for a minute. We were successful in my district of having $170,000 approved for

the District of St. Mary's - The Capes under that program. Due to the strict

criteria that were enforced by the Department of Employment and Labour Relations

we received much less than $100,000, approximately $100,000, for the people in

the district. So we had to return through the associations and the committees

that had applied and received the funding around $70,000 of their funds to the

department. This was a very difficult thing to do as so many people were there

looking for work. We hope that the government will come up with some type of

program. I certainly don't believe in a quick make-work program. Some type of

job training and on-the-job work afterwards I think would produce, as I said

earlier, much more positive results for the people than they have in the past.

I would like to touch on another important issue in my

district. I've had an opportunity to have a couple of meetings with development

associations and councils over the past couple of weeks. It concerns the plan

the government has for developing the economic zones in the Province. We've gone

through it several times and we are very concerned about a couple of things. One

is the time frame that has been put on the people in the communities to put

together their economic zones and their committees. Indeed, the size of these

zones is a big concern.

The zone that affects my district, Mr. Speaker, will be

economic zone number eighteen which will run from Long Harbour and Mount

Arlington Heights up to the community of Bay Bulls. There is some concern being

expressed and I hope that some words the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology said in the House last year, that the plan for the zones or the lines

that make up the zones are not carved in stone. We hope that through discussions

with his office, if it seems possible or if it is possible, that the people in

that particular zone think that a subdivision of that zone or whatever the case

may be, may be better in the long run, is that the minister will look at that

and hopefully that will give some opportunity for those people to have a say but

there is some concern about the size of the zone, there is a major concern.

We have six development associations who are in economic zone

eighteen now. There is a very large concern throughout the district whether

those six development associations will be there afterwards. If it is going to

be two or three, who will they be, and the amount of funding they will receive

to operate, because out in districts now and especially in my district, I have

four development associations who are definitely a major integral part of the

community and have been for the past twenty-five years. Their efforts have

certainly not gone unnoticed I am sure by people on both sides of the House of

Assembly who have development associations in their districts. I think there is

room for improvement but there is also room to take in the positive aspects of

development associations over the years. I hope that the government in their

wisdom, when they are putting together these economic zones for the Province,

have the opportunity to recognize the efforts of the development associations

and indeed, make sure that they stay around for years to come, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to touch on, if I could, Mr. Speaker,

education issues that the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay talked about

earlier. I am certainly concerned about some of the cutbacks in education as it

relates to rural Newfoundland. Indeed, over the past number of years we have

seen some due to the low enrollment in some of our schools, Mr. Speaker, that we

have brought forward some amalgamation of schools in the district. In the case

of the Mount Carmel area, there was a new school built that brought all the

schools from that area together. Out in the Cape Shore area they closed out the

school in Point Lance and Branch and brought everybody over to St. Bride's.

I understand fully, Mr. Speaker, that the government has to

do those things in some cases because of the situation with dollars that are

funded through the school boards and what they have to operate under their

budget but my concern is the availability of some programs in relation to

sciences, a music teacher or a phys ed or whatever the case may be. There is

some concern that some of those programs are not being offered to the people in

rural communities as much as they are being offered to the people inside the

overpass, Mr. Speaker. It should not depend on where you live. I realize that we

cannot have many of the things that they may have in the urban centres but I

believe that the basis and hopefully a few add-ons can be certainly there for

the people of rural Newfoundland and the children of rural Newfoundland to enjoy

in their schools, Mr. Speaker. I say that the availability of these programs is

important for the overall learning of the student. Indeed, when they head off to

university or some post-secondary school, Mr. Speaker, they have the background

that will enable them to receive the training that they need and not be playing

catch-up with people who have been fortunate enough to live in a city and have

all these programs at their fingertips for years to come, for years to pass.

I would like to touch on, Mr. Speaker, if I could, a concern

I have in relation to some fisheries issues. I don't believe that the Minister

of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture is in the House at this time but it goes back

to some of the questions that were raised by the hon. Member for Grand Bank

earlier in relation to the TAGS program. I have several people in my district

who have been in the fishing industry for many, many years and because of some

rule or guideline that they don't reach or they don't match in relation to what

the criteria that has been set down for the TAGS program, those people are not

qualifying for the program and therefore cannot partake in a lot of the

training.

I have women - many, many women in my district - whom I have

assisted with TAGS appeals, who have been trying to better themselves through

ABE courses, or some type of training that has been offered in their

communities, and because of the strict criteria that has been brought down under

the latest TAGS program those people are not qualifying.

Mr. Speaker, I have people who have been in the industry for

twenty-five or thirty years in a lot of cases, and because they missed one or

two years, whatever the case may be, out of those twenty-five years, they are

not qualifying for the program.

I think this is unfair. I think there should be opportunity

for these people. The Federal Government came down a few months ago and

announced a Level III process, and for some reason or other, everybody was under

the impression that the people of the Province, or indeed the people who are

affected most in the Province, the fishermen and the plant workers, would have

the opportunity to go in and sit down in front of this appeal board and talk to

them, and express their situation and their case to them, and hopefully they

would receive some help, but for some reason or other this new TAGS III appeal

process has been circumvented by somebody upalong and they will have no in-house

hearing. There will be no opportunity for a TAGS recipient, or a person who is

trying to become part of TAGS, to go in and sit down with this appeal board and

express their concerns, and express the history of themselves in the fishing

industry or whatever the case may be.

For some reason or other, the government have decided they

are not going to allow that, and I think it is a sham that the Level III process

has even been put in place at a time when there are so many people who have been

involved in the industry for so many years are being left out in the cold.

Mr. Speaker, I say it is a very important issue, and I say

that my biggest concern in many cases, is the fact that there are a lot of young

people being affected in the communities because their parents who have been

relying on the jobs in the fishing industry, now are receiving no money, and

therefore, those young people cannot partake in further education because the

funds are not available to them.

I think the TAGS appeal process certainly should be looked

at, and that the Provincial Government should be taking the gloves off with the

Federal Government in relation to the many people who are being affected on a

day-to-day basis on TAGS. They are being taken off one by one, where there is

going to be no big hurdle for anybody to jump over because nobody realizes the

situation, I don't think, as it is happening day by day when people are coming

off it.

I would also like to touch, if I could, on an issue in my

district over the past couple of days that several members have discussed, as it

relates to the crab industry. I believe the Member for Pleasantville is well

aware of the situation with the crab. It is an issue that has been brought

forward by the crab fishermen in my district over the past couple of days. It

relates to the sale of crab this year and the fact that because of a rule that

the provincial Department of Fisheries has in place, that 85 per cent of the

crab caught must be processed in the Province, there is a possibility that the

negotiated price of $2.50 between the buyers and the fishermen is going to drop

to maybe below $1 a pound.

This certainly is a major concern in my district because I

have three instances where one fisherman has spent over $50,000 in preparing for

the crab fishery this year. There was a gentleman at my house on Sunday who has

spent $27,000 and another who has spent about $18,000 preparing for the crab

fishery this year, based on the fact that they could have had $2.50 per pound

for crab. Now, I realize that we have to try to create as many processing jobs

in the Province as we can, but there should be a balance so that the fishermen

can have an opportunity to make a dollar.

I am glad to see that the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture is back in the House. He may be able to enlighten us a bit on some

of the discussions they are having in relation to the crab fishery. It is

certainly a major concern in my district over the past couple of days because of

the fact that many fishermen, as I said earlier, have geared up for what they

believe to be a very lucrative crab fishery this year. For some reason or other

now, the possibility may be that they won't be able to sell their crab. The

Japanese market, from what I can understand, is hot to trot for whole crab or

sections of crab, and due to the rule of processing 85 per cent in the Province

the cost of taking the meat from the sections of the crab is going to drive the

processing costs up. Those costs will be passed on to the fishermen in the

Province and therefore will drive down the price that the buyers are willing to

pay for the crab.

I don't know if the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture would care to enlighten the House on the negotiations with the crab

fishermen, and if anything has changed today in relation to the fact of the

guideline of the 85 per cent being processed in the Province. Would the minister

care to answer a question on that?

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: No, no go. Well, that is all you can do. If

the minister is not willing to answer, I don't think there is anything I can do

about that. I will have to leave it and he will have to answer us in Question

Period,I say, Mr. Speaker. But it is a major (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having difficulty hearing the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: I'm getting my points across slowly. Mr.

Speaker, I bring up the crab issue because it has been a major topic in my

district over the past couple of days. We have seen fishermen who have spent

tens of thousands of dollars gearing up for a crab fishery when now they may not

even receive as much as a dollar a pound.

We all know that we are not going to ask the government to

come in with a rule or a guideline that would allow 100 per cent of the crab to

leave the Province in sections, in whole crab, but I think there should be

somewhere a meeting of the minds that would at least allow a certain percentage

or a greater percentage to leave the Province. If the markets in Japan want that

type of product such as the whole crab or the sections I think government

certainly should be able to accommodate the fishermen. Because if the fishermen

cannot go out and catch the crab at a fair price they are not going to go at

all. Therefore, neither the fishermen nor the plant workers will have the

opportunity to reap any benefits from the crab fishery this year.

I think it is a major concern. I try once again, and I ask

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture - I wonder if the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture would care to answer a question on the crab

fishery.

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible) tomorrow.

MR. MANNING: Tomorrow? No go today I say, Mr. Speaker -

he won't answer today. You had some discussions this morning, I believe. I'm

just trying to see if I can -

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is that, Mr. Minister?

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I can't hear you.

Mr. Speaker, it is a big concern in my district and that is

why I raise it here today. I certainly hope that the minister can enlighten the

people of the Province tomorrow - if he doesn't care to do so today, that he

will enlighten the people of the Province tomorrow on the situation with the

crab fishery. Because we have boats in my district, and I'm sure throughout the

Province, that are geared up ready to go at the crab fishery, but for some

reason, the provincial Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture has a rule

in place that 85 per cent has to be processed in the Province. The price has

gone down to around a dollar a pound and therefore they can't go out and pursue

the crab fishery this year. You will have some answers tomorrow, you say, Mr.

Minister? That's good. It's good to hear.

DR. HULAN: The issue is being addressed (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is that, Mr. Minister?

DR. HULAN: I say the issue is being addressed

(inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Okay. Is it going to be a positive answer

for the fishermen, I say to the minister.

DR. HULAN: It is going to be good for the Province.

MR. MANNING: Good for the Province. We will have to wait

and see, won't we, Mr. Minister?

I would like to touch on a -

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, okay, Mr. Speaker. The minister, I

hope, will have some answers for the crab fishermen tomorrow. He has alluded

that there are negotiations ongoing and that there will be some answers. We will

have to wait in anticipation. I'm sure the crab fishermen throughout St. Mary's

- The Capes and throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are waiting

in anticipation for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture to come

across with an answer.

I look back, and if I could touch for a few moments on

another very important subject that is being discussed in my district. It is in

relation to the electoral boundaries. Several members before me have stood and

talked about the electoral boundaries situation and I'm pleased to have an

opportunity to say a few words.

Under the latest proposal for changes to the electoral

boundaries, my district is combined somewhat. Some part of my district is gone

with the new Ferryland district while another part has been combined with

Placentia. Over the past couple of weeks, people have been calling and asking

about it. There is a concern about the size of the district in relation to the

service that is possible and in relation to the urban versus the rural district.

I can attest to the fact that - I've represented St. Mary's - The Capes for the

past two years - that it is a steady job every day just to keep the calls

answered, to follow-up on the enquiries from people, and indeed to give the best

representation that they can possible have.

With the concern now of the fishery crisis, the economic

crisis, and the social crisis that is happening in rural Newfoundland, it

certainly is a concern that a new district would run from the town of Dunville

down to the community of St. Shotts on the Southern Shore. It is a concern that

has been raised and I am sure over the next few weeks as the Electoral

Boundaries bill is brought before the House, we will be having some discussion

on it. It is a concern that has been raised by a lot of people, for the simple

reason that people are concerned that at a time when people are looking for more

representation than ever before, and are seeking the help of members of the

House of Assembly, or their members in Parliament, that the opportunity for

those people to have at least a one on one with their members would stay in

place.

I look forward to the debate that will be forthcoming on the

electoral boundaries issue, and having my say on behalf of the people of St.

Mary's - The Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of conversation in this House is unbelievable. The

hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes is only about two feet away from me, a

good gunshot away, and I have difficulty hearing the hon. member. I suggest that

hon. members keep their level of conversation down.

MR. NOEL: Perhaps the speaker should raise his level a

little.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Pleasantville that I

will speak in my tone and I am sure that Hansard will record what I say. As I

look around, several members of the House are not too concerned about it anyway.

I have been bringing forward the concerns of my district

through the Budget Debate for the simple reason that my district for hundreds of

years has been dependent upon the fishing industry as the mainstay of the

communities, and as everybody is aware, through the moratorium over the past

couple of years, those communities have been dealt a heavy blow. To say or to

think that people in the district of St. Mary's - The Capes are sitting back

enjoying the TAGS program is a major mistake, because we have many, many people

in the district who were indirectly working because of the fishing industry and

who have received no compensation or no assistance from anybody. This is

creating some major problems, and as you drive around the communities today you

can see many people who are preparing to move on to the mainland in search of

employment. I think it is a sad commentary on rural Newfoundland.

There are no easy answers, Mr. Speaker. I am not standing

here today to even ascertain that I have the answers, but I think we certainly

should be taking a more serious look at the negative impact that the moratorium

is having on all parts of rural Newfoundland, and government certainly should

come up with some type of assistance. I am not talking about a job creation

program that will see people get their twelve weeks of work and then go on UI. I

am talking about some type of program that would see people involved in some

type of training for a length of time, and then government would give those

people an opportunity to go into the work force, would help out an employer or

assist an employer in taking that person, and not for ten or twelve weeks. They

could do it over a year period and give that person ample opportunity to get

some type of training and also have some work.

That then gives the employer, whether it is in rural

Newfoundland or in the urban parts of the Province, to take somebody into their

employ and allow them to learn skills and show their skills to the employer. If

there is a positive aspect to that it would be in the fact that the employer

then may keep that person on for future employment in the company.

I think we certainly have to look at some different ways to

create employment in rural Newfoundland, and not to have an attitude that if you

live out there you have to put up with what you have. I don't think that is fair

to the people of the Province, I don't think it is fair to the people of rural

Newfoundland, and I certainly don't think it is fair to the people of St. Mary's

- The Capes. I say that in all honesty and sincerity, as members on the opposite

side would say.

I would like to touch, if I could, on a couple of positive

things happening in my district. We all can't be talking negatively all the

time, so I will touch on a fair number of positive things that are happening

just to show that people haven't given up and thrown in the towel, as they say.

For example, out a