May 19,

1994 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLII

No. 45

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

public galleries a group of teachers from the Harbour Grace Branch of the NLTA.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations.

The other day he said that following the resignation of the

executive director of the Appeal Tribunal just over a year ago, government

decided not to fill that position, but to have Mr. Seabright do the work of the

executive director on a part-time basis, and I ask the minister today: was Mr.

Seabright paid in accordance with the salary scale for that position, prorated

to the hours he worked, or did he claim the same per diem or hourly amounts for

that administrative work, as he charged for the time he spent in hearing

appeals?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the appropriate point on the order proceedings today, I

will table the complete information that I have been gathering so that there is

no misunderstanding; but the short answer to the question just asked, the

arrangement with Mr. Seabright - and I will table the documents, the exchange of

letters putting the new arrangement in place - was to spend a couple of hours a

day doing the administrative duties that were done previously by the executive

director and to bill at the hourly rate that was normal for him in the position

as CEO and Chairman of the Board.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I thank the minister for the answer.

Could he now tell us then for comparison purposes, what is

the difference between, or what would be the difference between the hourly rate

on the salary scale for the executive director's position and the fee charged by

Mr. Seabright, and secondly, would the minister table in the House - if he does

not have it there today - the number of hours that Mr. Seabright actually spent

at the commission's offices doing the administrative work of the executive

director and the total amount claimed and paid for that particular work; I

gather he has some of that information, but will he table all of it?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, those issues are dealt with

in the information that I will table today because I wouldn't want members of

the Opposition to do as they did with previous information, to twist it or

contort it in any way. It is straightforward; it spells out the case and shows

exactly the time spent and charged with respect to administration versus the

time spent on hearings, preparation and decisions.

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

MR. SIMMS: We shall see, Mr. Speaker, who is twisting

what when we are finished with this.

I want to ask the minister this question: Did the work of Mr.

Seabright, as acting executive director, include approving appeal hearings,

assigning the people to chair those hearings and write decisions, and approving

the payments?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, not to my understanding. Those

were the duties carried out by the executive director before. Most of those

duties have been transferred now to the senior office manager, who is the person

who does those kinds of arrangements, and verifies the claims and so on, and

passes them on to the Department of Employment and Labour Relations for final

payment.

In fact, with respect to the previous question, the

information that will be tabled shows that in last year as compared to an annual

salary of $67,496 for the executive director the year before, the amount claimed

by Mr. Seabright for duties relating to administration were in the range of

$16,380 compared to the $67,496 paid on a salary basis the previous year for the

same duties.

MR. SIMMS: How much per hour?

MR. GRIMES: Sixty-five dollars an hour.

MR. SIMMS: Sixty-five dollars an hour, and that is the

rate that the executive director (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just for the record, I would like to recognize the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister is saying that the rate of $65 an hour being

paid to Mr. Seabright to do the work of this acting executive director is less

than he would have paid per hour to the other original executive director; is

that correct?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it is better

to wait until I table the complete information so there will be no confusion.

There was no hourly rate for the executive director. It was a salaried position

at $67,000-plus a year.

Mr. Seabright, when he did the duties a couple of hours a day

that were billed for, at the rate of $65 an hour, charged just in excess of

$16,000 last year for administrative duties.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: So the minister says he has all the

information that we are looking for. Remember, now, I asked him if he could tell

us the number of hours that Mr. Seabright worked and claimed for, and also we

would like to know the hourly rate that would be applicable to the executive

director.

MR. GRIMES: There is no hourly (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, if he is making $67,000 - even the

minister could multiply five days a week times -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: We will do it. We asked him to give it to us

for a purpose. The minister didn't tell me. Did the work of Mr. Seabright, as

acting executive director, include approving the appeal hearings and assigning

the people to chair those hearings? I asked him those questions and he didn't

tell me - he didn't give us the answer. And when he is on his feet, would he

also table the job specifications for Mr. Seabright as acting executive

director?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly table the job

description for the executive director's position which was there before and the

arrangement that's made, as outlined in the letters, I will table as well. We

asked Mr. Seabright in the minimum time possible to provide the administrative

work that was required for the efficient running of the Workers' Compensation

Appeal Tribunal minimizing the cost and making sure that there was no jeopardy

to the hearing

schedule so that people could get their hearings heard.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I'm asking the minister very directly -

responsibilities of the position of executive director, in the past, included

approving appeal hearings and assigning people to chair those hearings. Did Mr.

Seabright, in his role as acting executive director, continue to fulfil those

functions? Did he approve appeal hearings and did he assign people to chair

those hearings and write the decisions, was it up to Mr. Seabright?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the bulk of the actual

administrative arrangements in terms of just saying, `A hearing will be held

next Friday at two o'clock. Would you please find out which of the sides persons

representing the employer are available, which of the sides persons representing

the employee are available, which of the five either the Chair or the Vice-Chair

are available - most of that work that is done by the senior office manager used

to be done by the executive director.

The reason we didn't fill the executive director's position,

again at a $67,000-plus salary, was because there wasn't a full-time job to be

done at that salary level. Many of the duties were done by the office manager,

who has been doing them now for over a year, and then, the other duties of a CEO

at the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal were done by Mr. Seabright, who, by

legislation passed and introduced by members opposite, is designated in that

legislation as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Workers Compensation

Appeal Tribunal. It is one of the things that the government is now reviewing in

terms of the structure of whatever kind of appeal process remains for the

future.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll give the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition another question on the matter.

MR. SIMMS: This will be the final one. I'd like to ask

the minister - see if we have this straight now; $67,000 was the salary paid to

the former executive director. That works out, by anybody's calculation, to $32

or $33 an hour roughly. That's what it would work out, five days a week, etc.

Now, the minister is saying, the former executive director did all of these

duties that I just asked him about, which he now says is being done by the

officer manager. He is now saying that he paid, or he's paying, or Mr. Seabright

is being paid probably twice as much an hour, $65 an hour, to do even less work

than the former executive director had to do. Is that correct? I would like to

try to get it straight.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition has so much difficulty understanding something that

is straightforward. It is clear that members opposite, in putting together

legislation to set up and structure the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal,

put in that legislation a description different from any other tribunal in

government. This is the only one where, by legislation, the Chairman is also

named as the Chief Executive Officer, and in this instance, the minor

administrative duties that did not require an executive director and did not

require the attention of the Chief Executive Officer were handed over to an

office manager who was already on staff, with no change in salary.

In this case, the other duties of a Chief Executive Officer

envisaged by the members opposite when they put the position in place that need

to be performed for the efficient operation of the Worker's Compensation Appeal

Tribunal were done on the basis of a couple of hours a day, if necessary, billed

when used and when the services were provided and needed, and they came out last

year to just over $16,000.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. A couple of days ago the minister and the federal minister, Mr. Tobin,

announced a $25.6 million capital works program to approximately twenty-two

municipalities in the Province. Could the minister table a breakdown of the

funding that will be put in by each of the three involved, namely, the Province,

the municipalities, and the Federal Government?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: On an individual project basis? I am not sure

what the hon. member is asking me for. In St. John's, for example, if it is

water and sewer, the City of St. John's will repay sixty-six and two thirds of

the total cost. If it is in Salmon Cove, in my district, the town council will

pay nothing. The Federal Government will pick up one third and we, then as a

government under NMFC, will have to finance the remaining two thirds.

If that is the kind of breakdown he wishes, well, it is not a

problem. Maybe what I should do is give him the list of names of all the

communities in the Province who are still more or less paying their own way and

that would answer the total question for all the Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to

table the amount of funding put in by each of the three involved. That is all.

The minister stated a couple of days ago as well, that the

Province would be putting in some 48 per cent of the funding. Could the minister

explain how this is so, especially in view of the fact that - it is like, for

instance, the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, a Town like Happy

Valley - Goose Bay, that has very little in the line of water and sewer debt,

would have to pay approximately two-thirds towards this particular capital

program. Could he explain how, then, the Province would be putting in 48 per

cent of the total cost?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, some of the communities that he

mentioned, like St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Gander and Mount Pearl,

have substantial tax base. We know that probably the largest tax base in the

Province rests right here in St. John's because of the number of businesses,

because of the number of offices and apartments and so on.

MR. HARRIS: And the highest rate of taxes.

MR. REID: Yes, they do have the highest rate of taxes,

but I say to the hon. the Member for St. John's East, they have the highest rate

of services as well.

Mr. Speaker, what basically happened here is that if under a

regular capital works program we were announcing funding without the one-third

from the federal people, the wealthier towns in the Province, those who can

generate taxes, yes, sure, they pay their own way, which they should do. St.

John's, for example, is only up to something like $67 a household towards their

debt charges.

Then we get out in the hon. member's district or in mine, or

let's go up on the Labrador Coast or the West Coast or Central Newfoundland or

the Bonavista area, and you have communities out there - a lot of communities -

with a corner store the only business to tax in the whole community. Those

communities cannot survive on the small amount of business tax and taxes that

are collected. So, as I said earlier, on a number of occasions, what this

government has done is offered those communities which can't really afford the

large amounts of money for infrastructure - water and sewerage and road - what

we've said is: Okay, we will pick up your share, we will pick up your one-third

as well as ours. But don't forget, the Federal Government will pick up the other

one-third.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on

another matter. In the district of St. George's, the minister and his department

have been active, along with the member, in trying to get a number of

communities in that area, local service districts and unincorporated areas,

formed into some kind of a regional body. Could the minister tell the House what

procedure has been followed in giving the people a say as to whether they should

be united or not?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, all I know about the possibility

of talks among people in the St. George's area was that the hon. member asked me

about two weeks ago, would I send one of my ADMs out with him to his district

and the ADM went out and had a meeting with a number of people and what I

gathered from what the hon. member has told me and the staff, that it was a very

positive meeting and everyone felt that maybe it was time to look at combining a

number of local service districts into one and so on, and I basically commend

the member and the people in the St. George's area for thinking that way because

I think most of you on that side and especially the hon. member who asked me the

question, believes in a regionalization concept and by doing that, by coming

together it is going to make those communities a lot more viable to operate. I

haven't made any final decision. Whether or not we are going to hold any other

meetings or not at this particular point in time, I can't say, but I will

encourage anybody anywhere in the Province to come together as communities to

try to do their best to survive with the little we have I suppose, as a

government right now to offer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the

Minister of Education.

I have here a copy of an advertisement that the government

has published in all the major newspapers of the Province in recent days in

relation to the teachers' strike.

In it, the ministry or the government makes the following

statement with respect to the 2 per cent savings clause and I quote: `It

prevents government from assigning teaching positions where they are most

needed.'

Let me ask the minister this: If you succeed in getting rid

of the 2 per cent savings clause, will you lay off the teachers or do you have a

plan to reassign them to other positions?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that

this year we gave interim assignments to the school boards and we gave these

assignments as if there were no 2 per cent rule. Now a logical assumption would

be that there would have been no extra teachers in the system if we had totally

wiped out the 2 per cent rule, however, we could not do that.

We recognized that even if there was not a 2 per cent rule,

there are places in this Province, because of the small schools and other

factors that would need extra teachers, so we did not wipe out the full 363

teachers, Mr. Speaker, we recognized exactly what the hon. member is suggesting,

that there are special circumstances in this Province where you have to put

extra teachers in, so if there were no 2 per cent rule, there would have to be

extra teachers allocated to the system.

Would it be 363, would it be 500? In our estimation, Mr.

Speaker, it is somewhere in the vicinity of 200 teachers in excess of the normal

teacher/student ratio are required to meet the special needs in the Province.

There might or might not be some special cases in addition to them which we are

quite willing to look at if that be the case.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on April 21, the minister had

said and I quote: It was determined, taking into consideration declining

enrolments and what have you, that in order to do an adequate job, a perfect job

in delivering the courses, the system will need or would need 7,293 teachers.

I say to the minister: how does the minister then propose to

reassign those teaching positions? Will he lower the overall pupil/teacher

ratio, will he approve allocations for small schools, what is his plan and will

he communicate that plan with the members of the House?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in due course all of these

things will be revealed. The reality is that for the past number of years the

department has been hamstrung because of this clause in the union contract or

the letter which is attached to it, and which made it difficult for us to assign

teachers on a basis of need, we were hamstrung.

Now, if that 2 per cent clause is in the new agreement then

we will have to play by these rules. If that new clause is not in the new

agreement and if in the negotiating process government does not get the 2 per

cent out, then we will deal with that but it would be extremely imprudent for us

to come up with a whole set of rules right now, only to find that within two or

three weeks a new contract is in place with the 2 per cent rule into it and that

could happen, depending on how negotiations go.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the superintendents of the

Province have not been informed of the plans of the ministry and the minister

has indicated that he has not been at the bargaining table to discuss these

matters in the negotiating sessions so I say to the minister, the fact is that

since you have refused to give the details of the plan the obvious comes forward

when one almost has to say that the only plan you have is to lay off teachers.

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't interpret the

situation in that light at all.

The superintendents have been given an interim assignment of

teachers. They know perfectly well the reality that there is a teachers'

contract in which there is a 2 per cent clause, and come September we might have

to revert to that, depending on negotiations. The superintendents can see now,

though, what the system would look like if there were no 2 per cent rule - 7,000

and some-odd teachers, as the hon. member pointed out; I gave the answer

earlier.

Now, I also said that there might be some exceptions. We have

to make some policy changes to deal with the isolated school, and I don't mean

the small school. There are dozens of examples in this Province where small

schools exist simply because there is a small schools policy, not because they

have to exist. They are two and three kilometres apart, and they are 1,000 feet

apart, and they would more logically be under one school and make a viable

school which would not need these extra resources.

The hon. member knows that, and the superintendents of school

boards know that; however, the Department of Education is hamstrung until this

issue is settled. Is there a 2 per cent clause? Is there not a 2 per cent

clause? I suppose nobody knows that, certainly no frail human being would know

that, until the process works its way through.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was to

be placed to the President of Treasury Board. In his absence I will direct my

question to the Premier.

Yesterday, the President of Treasury Board confirmed that he

is not interested in getting the $23 million from teachers' compensation just to

meet this year's budget targets, that you want the permanent savings.

Now if you get rid of the 2 per cent clause and lay off about

363 teachers, you will save about $8 million in the present fiscal year. What

else does the government intend to do to get the additional $15 million you want

from the teachers in permanent savings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury

Board is dealing with this issue on a collective bargaining basis, and I don't

propose to do it by answering questions from the hon. member in the House. I

think it best to leave that bargaining with the President of Treasury Board and

the representatives of the NLTA.

The President of Treasury Board has made the government's

position on policy fairly clear, and I don't think the objective of achieving a

resolution of this problem can be served by my engaging in a debate about what

government wants, or might seek or might not seek. We will leave that to the

collective bargaining process. I think it would better serve a resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, a

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am not into a debate with the

Premier. I am merely asking the questions, and the people of this Province

expect answers.

Mr. Speaker, my question again to the Premier is: Do you

intend to lay off more than the 363 teachers covered by the 2 per cent clause,

and will those lay-offs be in addition to the 320 teachers that you have already

ordered school boards to lay off at the end of this school year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As nearly as I know, all of the

assumptions in that are incorrect.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Totally incorrect. The Minister of

Education may best be able to answer what numbers of teachers might be involved

or might not. I don't have that detail off the top of my head, but I can say to

you, so far as I know, the government has no intention to lay off any extra

numbers of teachers or anything, but whatever the solutions or the resolutions

are to finding a way to make up this 2.5 per cent compensation adjustment, let's

leave that for the collective bargaining process. I know that some proposals

have been put forward, and the matter is being discussed, or some correspondence

is being exchanged. Leave it to the collective bargaining process.

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

for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, again my question is to the

Premier, in the absence of the President of Treasury Board.

The government plans to take another $21 million or $22

million from the benefit package of the nurses and the members of NAPE and CUPE.

Can the Premier confirm that this government has made a new demand to teachers

of a 2.5 per cent wage roll-back, and will he tell us, and confirm for us today,

that this wage roll-back offer will also be made to the nurses and to the

membership of NAPE and CUPE?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the

situation is no wage rollback has been proposed to any public sector group. What

I know the minister has talked to public sector unions about is finding an

adjustment of some aspect of the total compensation. Not wage rollback. Nobody

is suggesting wage rollback so far as I know. He has asked each of the public

sector unions to help find this shortfall. He has also put another proposal to

the public sector unions and that is being discussed through the normal

collective bargaining process. I don't propose to get involved with thwarting

that process by a public discussion of it here with the hon. member.

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 Health. Last year the Province brought in a

policy which specifies that new doctors will only receive half of the regular

MCP fee

schedule if they practice in the St. John's area. As of May 16 that

policy was extended to include Clarenville, Buchans, Port Saunders and Baie

Verte. Government claims the purpose of that disincentive is to get doctors to

establish and stay in rural under-serviced areas of the Province. I ask the

minister: Is the policy working, and will the minister table whatever evidence

he has to show that more doctors are practising in rural areas as a result of

this policy?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have extended a

50 per cent rule to other areas. Since it has barely been extended it is very

difficult for us to judge the effect of it at this point. I suggest that the

member get on with some more serious questions.

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

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

minister should get on with some serious business of doing something for the

health problems here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe he plans to do what he did to

finance. One of the great fears is that the disincentive will have just the

opposite effect to which it was intended. A year ago 48 per cent of new doctors

graduating from the MUN School of Medicine said they planned to stay in this

Province. After the fee reduction policy was implemented only 12 per cent said

they plan to stay here. Is the minister concerned that the policy may backfire

and new doctors will leave this Province in greater numbers than they would if

the policy had not come into effect?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have a very serious problem

in getting doctors to go to rural areas. We have much more serious problems. We

also have problems in that they tend to congregate in areas where they are not

needed, such as St. John's and some other places. What we have to do - we just

can't keep -

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

DR. KITCHEN: We will probably need an extra doctor here

in the House of Assembly to look after the hon. member. He seems to have

something wrong with his throat. It seems to be open all the time.

Apart from that little specific, that special need we need

for that particular member, Mr. Speaker, we have sufficient doctors in some

parts of the Province and there is no point in hiring other doctors where they

are sufficient and in excess. In effect, that is really what we are doing when

we are allowing doctors to practice in areas where they are not needed. The

doctors are paid on a fee for service. They set up housekeeping wherever they

wish. If we do it that way then our bill will go high from that area, and in

addition what happens is the areas which need to be serviced are not serviced.

We can't permit in medicine, any more than any other profession - we can't have

all the politicians from one area. We have an area by which they are spread out

around the Province. Similarly with teachers and with most other professionals

that government hires. We can't have them bunching up in areas where they are

not needed and creating shortages in other areas.

That is government's policy, and that is what we will

continue, and see if this particular measure will work. We believe it will work.

It is a measure that was put together in conjunction with the Medical

Association. It is not something that government has imposed unilaterally. It is

something which the joint management committee came up with as an interim

measure while we are waiting for a longer term report that will study the

situation in greater detail. We are hoping very much, Mr. Speaker, that this

particular policy will work and if it doesn't work we will change it. Thank you.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have three

doctors on the opposite side of the House and I sure hope it is not contagious.

If not we will be calling for an undertaker, not a doctor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, disincentives alone have

rarely worked to solve problems like this. Ten years ago Quebec introduced a

balanced program that cut fees for new doctors in certain areas to 70 per cent,

and in other designated areas they increased it to 115 per cent. Now that policy

has worked. Has the government considered a similar approach in this Province, I

ask the minister, or are you determined to keep the present fee reduction plan

in place for another five years as you originally planned?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what the member is proposing is a variation of

what we presently have in effect on a temporary basis. I don't know what else we

can add. We've moved into this, we have a long range committee in place which is

studying the question in great detail but we do have a very serious problem here

and just adding more money to the budget is not going to solve these problems.

The hon. Minister of Finance, not long ago, indicated the serious financial

position that the Province is in. Just throwing money at the problem is not

going to solve it. That was the solution that was put forward for years and

years by the Opposition, when they were government, and which has led us to this

terrible financial situation which we now presently face and now they're

proposing exactly the same thing. Throw a few more dollars out is the wrong

solution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: I would like to provide answers to two

questions, one from a couple of days ago, the continuation of concern expressed

about payments and billings at the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, and

once I have done that, Mr. Speaker, also the question yesterday about breach of

privacy with respect to claimants at Workers' Compensation.

If I could, before I table the documents, Mr. Speaker, have

just a minute or so of explanation. I have provided information here showing the

letters that showed the arrangement agreed to with Mr. Seabright after the

executive director left and the basis on which he was to assume the executive

director position and to bill for those duties. I have given documents that show

all the payments paid to every chair and vice-chair since the Workers'

Compensation Appeal Tribunal has been put in place since 1987.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member wants an answer I think I will hear what

the minister has to say, and then if anything further is required we will deal

with that then.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If there are further questions I should clearly demonstrate I

will take them under advisement and provide answers at the appropriate time as

necessary. Nuisance questions I do not bother to spend a lot of time at because

this does take some work and effort for staff and I would rather not have them

doing things that are a nuisance. I would rather have them do something that

needs to be dealt with.

I am also tabling Mr. Brake's report in which, I think, upon

reading it everyone will understand that the characterization given to it by the

Opposition is totally unfounded and they actually should apologize to Mr. Brake,

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time.

The explanation shows clearly that the Opposition in taking

two documents that were provided earlier, a calendar year statement of the

number of decisions in the Workers' Compensation annual report, which for the

first time, by the way, in the appeal tribunal is trying to give more and more

information each year. The 1993 annual report was the first time ever that the

number of decisions by the chairperson was recorded. I encouraged him to do that

and to continue into the future.

That number was divided by the researchers for the Opposition

into fiscal year numbers for total billings and payments which led to

conclusions they drew. Unfortunately, I guess, in their conclusion there was

either inefficiency or that people - I think, the phrase they used, were milking

the system.

When people read the documents, in my opinion at least, I

think, the conclusion will be that it was a classic example of selective

statistical sampling at its absolute worst, Mr. Speaker, because similar unfair

use of selective statistics that I have looked at here could certainly raise

questions about vice-chairs pre-hearing costs in 1987-88 that appear to be out

of whack for no reason. Vice-chairs pre-hearing costs in 1992-93 are laid out in

the documents.

This kind of use of these statistics serve no purpose. The

information is here for all members to look at, and I table that. With respect

to Mr. Brake's report. Mr. Brake did regularly express concerns about increasing

costs at the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal because his concern always

was, and remained to the last day he worked for the Appeal Tribunal, a more

effective system for claimants and a more efficient financial operation. It was

never suggested that people were excessively billing the system. His concerns

were about the cost of running the system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am just looking at our rules. I am not sure the extent to

which tabling answers that are in writing, how much latitude the minister has in

giving a speech about the contents.

MR. GRIMES: I am concluding my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly from the point of view of

clarifying which questions are being answered, I think, is legitimate and so on,

but I ask the minister to perhaps try to focus in on that part of it.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I just wanted to provide a couple of comments so that

it would not raise other unnecessary questions and we would not have to repeat

this procedure again.

Two other very brief comments, Mr. Speaker, that people

should be aware of because it is not in this report. Prior to presenting this

report Mr. Brake had brought a couple of matters to my attention. There was a

prior practice at the tribunal which had been in place since the beginning of

1987 that allowed tribunal chairs and vice-chairs to bill hours while attending

conferences, seminars, and so on, even if they were not foregoing any income

from other sources. It was stopped immediately. There was a prior practice at

the tribunal that allowed members to claim a per diem meal expense which was

higher than government rates, and as soon as it came to my attention it was

stopped immediately.

The other issues that Mr. Brake was concerned about are clear

in the report and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the accusations made

by members opposite.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question

yesterday by the hon. Member for Kilbride, a breach of confidential information

at the Workers' Compensation Commission, the relevant

section in the act is

Section 18 and it outlines that an employee of the commission or person

authorized to make an inquiry under this act shall not divulge except in the

performance of his or her duties or under the authority of the board of

directors information obtained and so on. There was no breach of that particular

section, Mr. Speaker. What the commission did was release the names of several

of its claimants to a firm so they could ask them - Mr. Speaker, it's important

that this be made clear. It is the answer to the question - so that they could

ask them on a volunteer basis if they would participate in a questionnaire so

that the Workers Compensation Commission could improve its level of service. The

people were called, they agreed or disagreed. If they agreed they filled out the

questionnaire voluntarily. If they disagreed, Mr. Speaker, they just refused to

participate, the information was tabled.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No, the minister is in order.

Petitions

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased this afternoon to

rise and present a petition on behalf of students in several of the schools in

the St. John's - Mount Pearl region. Particularly, Beaconsfield Senior High

School, Bishop's College, Booth Memorial, Mount Pearl Senior High School and

Eugene Vaters Colligate.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition says that the

students here - I'll read the text it says: below are the names of students from

the schools of St. John's and Mount Pearl who believe that the government, due

to its unwillingness to fairly negotiate with our teachers, are robbing us of

our right to an education.

Furthermore, we the students will not stand by and watch our

government, which is supposed to be for the people, take away our right to a

proper education and our chance at a post-secondary education. We ask that they

work their hardest to come to a quick and fair resolution to this problem. We

hope that there can be some sort of a quick and fair resolution to this problem

without interrupting our school year needlessly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the students of this Province who are in

their graduating years, as I said yesterday to a similar petition, are in great

levels of anxiety. Mr. Speaker, I can only tell you that the parents that I've

talked to and the students that I've talked to, students who are in the gallery

today from another school - but, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that if you were in

Grade 12 today, Level III, and you wanted to find out what you're going to be

doing in September, another mere three or four months from now, you would have

great levels of concern.

Students are concerned about their marks. Now the minister

has said he's got a contingency plan. The minister said that they're going to

evaluate in all the 3,000 Level courses, all eighteen courses. Now note, there

are only eighteen courses for which public examinations have been made up. In

addition to the fact, these examinations are already completed, they were done

in March. They include the entire curriculum. For example, one school I

contacted told me that in honours math, Level III honours math course, that they

have three chapters left to study and yet they know that the examination that's

made up will be on the entire course. So therefore the exam itself is invalid,

it's unreliable. It doesn't measure what was taught. Mr. Speaker, so these

students are wondering, what do we do now? How do we measure up? How can we

measure up? What will be done for us? So, Mr. Speaker, the students of this

Province and the parents of this Province are concerned about the marking

system.

Now let me also explain. I don't know of one single student,

after many years of teaching in a senior high school, I don't know of one single

student who ever had all 3,000 Level courses in their final year, normally it's

a combination. It's about eight credits that would be in the 3,000 Level and

then the other six credits, normally there are fourteen credits in your final

year that you would have about eight credits that would be in the 3,000 Level

and about six credits that would be in Level II courses or Level I courses,

depending on the individual student's profile.

So if we had all of the Level III marks completed, we still

can't complete the evaluation without the active participation of the teachers

of Newfoundland and Labrador. So therefore the idea the minister has, that he is

going to mark all of the examinations, in addition to the fact that if we place

these students' evaluation totally on that, it is totally an unfair evaluation.

It is the cumulative examination for courses that have been taught in a

sequential kind of manner, an evaluation carried out at specific times

throughout the year. We have to have the evaluation of the teachers who are in

the school system, to be fair to the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister can come up with all kinds of schemes. I know

that yesterday he gave directions to the consultants in his department, and said

to them: You must get ready to start to mark the examinations.

Now these people have not taught these courses, and here is

the Minister of Education, giving directions yesterday to consultants in his

department, that they would have to mark these examinations, even though they

haven't taught the courses at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am

pleased to rise and speak on the petition so ably presented by my colleague from

Waterford - Kenmount. Over 400 people signed the petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Students.

MR. A. SNOW: Four hundred people signed the petition.

Those people happen to be students. This will give you an indication of the

importance that these students place upon the value of their education.

Mr. Speaker, while I haven't visited the schools of

Beaconsfield High and Booth Memorial, and Mount Pearl Central High, I, in my

district, have several high schools that have students who are concerned about

their education also. While the particular schools in Western Labrador aren't

shut down because of a job action, they are concerned about their education.

They understand in Western Labrador about the consequences of strikes.

I fully support the prayer of this petition, but if I may

digress from the petition for just one minute, in a sense of not speaking to the

dilemma that the people of Beaconsfield High find themselves in, and talk a

little bit about how I compare the students in my district.

In my district, the NTA is presently reviewing, I understand,

the conciliation board report with regard to the status of negotiations. They

have taken a vote on the conciliation board report, and I think it will be made

public in a day or so, and we may indeed find ourselves in a similar situation

in our schools in Western Labrador as in the rest of the Province.

The people in Western Labrador have been blessed, for the

last thirty years, with the best education system in this Province, by far,

probably the best in the country. Why is that? Some people even smile now on the

other side, thinking that all I am doing is bragging about my particular

district. Yes, I am proud of it, but I have often said that one of the reasons

why we have the best education is because we have the best teachers. We have the

best teachers in Western Labrador because we treated them with respect and pay

them handsomely for the work that they do, and the people of Western Labrador

were rewarded. They were rewarded in the fact that we have, in Western Labrador,

some of the best results of any schools in the country - a 94 per cent

graduation statistic from high schools in Western Labrador, that's what we have,

or 96 per cent, I believe.

Eighty-four percent of the people who graduate from high

school in my Town of Labrador City go on to attend a post-secondary institution.

Why do they do that? Because they understand the value of an education. They

understand and believe that they need the skills necessary to further develop

themselves and their community.

They got that not just from their home, or from the community

they live in. They got it from their classroom, instilled in them by the

teacher. That teacher, Mr. Speaker, is treated with respect, he is paid

handsomely for his wages, but he or she works.

MR. EFFORD: Are you saying the crowd around here don't

work, they are not good teachers?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't say that - you don't treat

them right, is what he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, that is the type of respect

that the teachers of this Province are getting. That is the type of respect that

is causing this work stoppage! That is the type of respect that puts this

government at 25 per cent in the polls; it is because of arrogance such as

yours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: That's what is happening in this House, with

education.

MR. EFFORD: No, that's wrong!

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, you are right - it's wrong! You

shouldn't treat people like that! You have to treat them with fairness and

balance and honesty. You don't force them out on the street with threats of

cutting out a severance pay package.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to continue, and

perhaps members could cease speaking across the House. Thank you.

The hon. member has about another twenty-five seconds or so

left if he cares to continue.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the collective bargaining

process has been poisoned in this Province, because of the attitude of this

government that has just been expressed by this minister. It is tremendously

unfair and it shouldn't be allowed to continue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem at all sitting

here in my seat and allowing a member opposite to present a petition -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: - but when a member -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the minister.

MR. EFFORD: - when an hon. member presents a petition and

praises up the people in his own district, saying that they are a better class

of teachers than in any other part of this Province, I totally disagree with it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the teachers in my district or in anybody

else's district in this Province.

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

There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, that may very well be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is no point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Another point of order, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, what has to be clarified

here - the minister missed the point.

MR. EFFORD: No I did not.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What this member is saying is that if

you treat people decently and you pay them as they should be paid, you don't

take away their morale, as this government has done now with the NLTA. That's

what the member says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You can't whip people year after year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I -

Are you going to protect me, Mr. Speaker?

I suppose I can understand political posturing. I'm not sure

it fools anybody. I'm not sure anyone in this Chamber, in the galleries, or

anyone on the floor of the House is fooled by the posturing. If they are just

let your mind go back to 1983 when the Tories were in power and Brian Peckford

with his tie flying back over his head, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Member for Menihek have a point of order?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. If the hon.

minister is referring to what occurred in 1983, I was not in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. A. SNOW: If he is talking about political posturing,

I wasn't in the House here in 1983, and he knows that.

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

I ask the member to resume his seat.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: I was talking, Mr. Speaker, about 1983, and I

assume the hon. member was in the world in 1983.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand political posturing, but I

cannot understand the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount when he makes an

accusation which is totally untrue. I can only assume he must have been misled.

He makes the statement that I have given orders to consultants in the Department

of Education to get ready to mark exams, and that is totally untrue, totally

unfounded. There is no basis to it whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, it is a figment of

someone's imagination and the hon. member can only be ill-advised.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the petition put forward expresses the hope

that there would be a quick and fair resolution to this strike. That, Mr.

Speaker, is my feeling, that is government's feeling, that is the feeling of the

people of this Province, that there would be a quick resolution and there would

be a fair resolution, Mr. Speaker. That would be ideal.

Now, I am assuming Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that there will

be a quick and fair resolution, however, I cannot take the chance, I cannot risk

the futures of the children of this Province by assuming that there will be a

quick resolution. I can assure you that there will be a fair resolution; the

resolution that we sign will be fair, I can assure the people of that but I

cannot assure them that it will be quick, so in the event that there is not a

quick resolution to this strike, then we have an obligation to the students of

this Province to try to put a process in place to deal with the issue. And we

have announced that we are going to try, we are going to try our level best to

put on the public exams this year.

Now, the hon. member tries to raise a lot of reasons why it

should not be done. Okay, that's political posturing, he is welcome to do it,

but we don't have the luxury of getting up like a bunch of `naysayers' and

saying this can't be done, this can be done. I know full-well, the hon. member

talks about the number of his students who are doing 3000 courses. The fact of

the matter is there are 19,000 students in this Province who are writing 3000

level courses. Some of them are doing more than others, we know that. The hon.

member doesn't get up and think that he somehow has a special option on all this

knowledge because he taught in a junior high or a senior high or whatever he

taught in, that doesn't give him any special right, Mr. Speaker.

We recognize that before we can give a mark, before we can

give a certificate, it has to have some basis. There has to be a public exam,

there has to be a year's evaluation, we have to take into consideration the

midterm marks and all these things. We know all that, we are trying to deal with

it under very difficult and trying circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and it doesn't

help matters when members opposite, because we have a few teachers in the

gallery, get up and try to posture as if they were God's gift to this Province.

If they hadn't run us into debt and made the mess they did in the last seventeen

years, it would have been a lot easier for us to deal with that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry, there is a further petition.

I didn't realize the member was on his feet.

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just to

clarify.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I have to apologize to the House and to the

individual in the gallery, whoever wrote the note. There is a note addressed

apparently to Mr. Grimes. When the Page gave it to me, it looked like Mr. Simms,

and I did read it. I do apologize.

MR. ROBERTS: I hope it said good things about the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Well, it said: Roger, why not mention about

the P.C. appointment of Ed Maynard to the Workers' Compensation Board. I won't

say who signed the note, but there, I have mentioned it.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a note for all to know.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to stand in this hon. House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If members are finished, I would like to hear the hon. the

Member for Harbour Main. Thank you.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in this hon. House today and present a

petition on behalf of the students of the Roncalli Central High School of

Avondale. The petition is signed by 120 students of that school and the prayer

is as follows:

`We, the students of Roncalli Central High School of

Avondale, do hereby petition government to take into account the problems that

students will be encountering during this present school year because of the

teachers strike.

Students in some schools have not yet completed the school

year and have not been tested on this core material. This, in effect, means that

students have not received all the credits they might have otherwise obtained.

We petition government on two fronts:

(1) To maintain the Memorial University entrance

qualifications at 65 per cent as it has previously been and start the 70 per

cent entrance requirement next year.

(2) To grade students up to the 16th of May, thereby

eliminating the need for public exams. Students who are in danger of failing the

Grade XII year could have the option of writing a June or later date public exam

in the form of a supplementary.'

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this

petition. I commend the students of Roncalli Central High School for the

positive attitude they have shown, the reasonable requests they have made, and I

commend them on their initiative.

I ask for unanimous support in the House for this petition. I

personally have no problem in supporting it, and I certainly have no problem in

signing my name to it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to commend the students who took the effort to

collect this petition for presentation to the House. It shows the deep level of

concern that these students have, along with the 100,000 students who are off

from school as a result of this teachers' dispute which has been forced on them

by the government, and it underlines the concerns that these students have.

I have talked to a number of students, and I have been trying

to encourage the students that I have talked to not to despair about their

school year, to expect their government to resolve this dispute quickly, to be

reasonable and not take the kind of stance they have taken in forcing the

teachers out on strike in order to defend their position.

Now, we see opposite a number of people who are former

members of the teaching profession, the Minister of Finance, the President of

Treasury Board, himself, is one, the Minister of Labour is another. I see quite

a few, including the Member for Port au Port, and others, who were members of

the teaching profession. They know how concerned - particularly in high school,

and high school graduating year students - how concerned they are about their

future because in many respects they feel that this is about the only thing that

has been offered to them by society, a chance at a decent education so that they

might, at least, have some future for themselves.

So I commend them for their thoughtfulness in trying to find

practical solutions for themselves, but I say that the practical solution for

all the students is to have a government that is going to respond to the

situation that we find ourselves in, to undo the damage they have done by

putting the teachers on the street, to undo the damage they have done, starting

back last fall, in refusing to sit down with the teachers and discuss the whole

area of the restructuring of schools, and the whole area of restructuring of the

education system as a result of changes proposed by the government, to put that

on the table from the beginning, instead of taking the position that the

President of Treasury Board said, `It is none of your business, we are going to

our own thing over here on the one side with respect to school restructuring,

and over here all we are going to talk about is your contract.'

Mr. Speaker, that is not fair. It is not fair to the

teachers; it is not fair to the public, and it is certainly not fair to the

students, to take the kind of position that the government has taken in forcing

teachers - and I have heard a number of teachers speak to the minister today on

the radio, calling in and saying to the Minister of Education that the

principles that were at stake in this particular strike had to do with the

teachers trying to protect rural schools, trying to protect small schools,

trying to protect education in smaller communities in the Province.

I heard them tell the minister that this was an important

principle that they were going to bat for, and that all they could hear from the

minister and the government, by their advertising in the paper, was about greed

- greedy teachers wanting it all - when what I heard teachers say today to the

minister was that this doesn't affect the teachers in St. John's who are out on

strike. This doesn't affect the teachers in Gander who are out on strike. The 2

per cent clause that the minister is waving around and trying to shove down the

throats of the teachers protects rural schools. It protects rural schools.

No other alternative had been put forth by this government,

other than to take, and not take from the teachers in St. John's - they are not

protected by the 2 per cent clause - they are okay, but rural Newfoundland, and

rural schools that are struggling to exist; and if the teachers in St. John's

and Mount Pearl and Corner Brook are going out on strike for that principle, I

have a lot of respect for that, but I don't have respect for a government that

refused, back in October, to discuss the whole restructuring issue, and who put

the teachers in a position, through their negotiating stance and upping the ante

the way they did, and challenging the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Association, threatening the security of senior teachers who were forced to

resign because this government wouldn't commit themselves publicly in this House

to taking a position that they wouldn't impose the removal of severance on them.

This is what's wrong with the school system, Mr. Speaker, this is what's wrong

with this strike, and those students deserve to have better consideration from

this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak to the

petition, but does the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount want to speak to

this same petition?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: You can have leave if you want leave to speak

to the petition.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The rules of the House provide that Your

Honour shall recognize one person from each side. We've had a person from Your

Honour's right. If my friend, the Minister of Education, speaks now that will

end the discussion on the petition. We're quite prepared to hear the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount by leave if he wishes to speak to the petition, but I would

ask that he be recognized before my friend, the Minister of Education speaks.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, only three people may speak to the

petition. So does the hon. member have - in this case we would have four people

speaking to the petition. Does the hon. member have leave of the House, then?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank

my colleagues on the opposite side for giving leave.

Mr. Speaker, some of the students who signed this petition

are in the galleries today. My colleague on the other side has outlined the

prayer of the petition and I would like to be able to address some of the

issues. Some of the issues, in particular, relate to the 65 per cent criteria

which we raised to 70 per cent entrance requirement at Memorial University for

this coming autumn. The minister responsible for monitoring the affairs at

Memorial University, we would ask that he have dialogue with Memorial University

so that students who find themselves in particular circumstances - this might

not be a year in which you can have the kind of reliability in the data that the

university might want to have. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of

Education to take upon himself to consult with the President of Memorial who

indeed will talk to the Board of Regents and the Senate to see if that can be

varied in the particular circumstances.

The other prayer of the petition is that the students' grades

will be tabulated to May 16, thereby eliminating the need for public

examinations. Mr. Speaker, we sincerely hope that within the next several days,

next week, that this whole issue can be resolved. The minister said earlier

today that he is hopeful we can get a resolution that permits the school system

to finish up the school year so that the Level III students, the Level II

students and all the other students - and we have concentrated most particularly

on the Level III students, the ones who are eligible to graduate this year.

However, we want to point out, that does not mean that we are not cognizant of

the primary, the elementary, the junior high school students, the students who

are in French immersion, students who are in special programs; all of these

students need to finish their year as well.

I think, in this particular case, all of the signatures are

from students in one school, Roncalli Central High School in Avondale. We

congratulate them on wanting to have a voice, speaking up on their own behalf.

And the two young men who are in the gallery, who brought in the petition today,

we want to say congratulations to them. I want to encourage them to speak up,

because I can assure you that the voices of these young people will need to be

listened to by the ministry, by the government, by the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association and all the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

That is not to say that we are not understanding of the position of the

teachers, but we also want to make sure that we, as a community and the

government as a government, make every effort to assure that when next September

comes along that the students of Newfoundland and Labrador have been treated

fairly and reasonably, and that when they get ready to go off to post-secondary

education they will not have the constraints that appear to be placed in their

way now by the frustrations that are self evident to everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The petition puts forward two requests. The hon. the Member

for Waterford - Kenmount has already mentioned them. We petition government on

two fronts, to maintain the entrance qualifications for Memorial University at

65 per cent as it has previously been, and not at 70 per cent which is proposed

for next year.

Now, the hon. House knows that government does not have the

authority to dictate to the university, and I do not believe government would

want to have that right. Memorial University would lose it's status as an

international renowned institution pretty fast if government started telling the

university how to set its exams and these sort of things.

The House knows that government cannot do that, however,

personally I believe this is a reasonable request, and on behalf of the students

I will indeed speak to Dr. May. I will not dictate, I will not demand, but I

will ask. I will make known the wishes of the students on this issue, and in

view of the fact that there are unique circumstances this year I will certainly

bring that issue to the attention of the university.

For years the entrance requirement was only 60 per cent, they

might indeed deal with it, but in the event that some media should pick up that

we are going to dictate to the University, and immediately that would start a

problem, I want to reiterate right now that I will discuss, I will bring it to

their attention, and I will even go so far as to offer my personal opinion,

which I think is a reasonable expectation.

The second request is that we grade up to the 16 May thereby

eliminating the need for public exams. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is an option that

we still have not totally given up on. We tried to get the marks back some weeks

ago but the vast majority of teachers in the Province refused to make available

to the department the marks and the full year evaluation. Now, not withstanding

the fact that the marks were not made available the mid-term exam marks might

not be that difficult to get because there are report cards somewhere in

existence which would have the marks, but it is going to be more difficult to

get the evaluation of the year's work of each individual student. That is going

to be more difficult.

I cannot say to the students that we are going to base simply

on the year to date without going with the public exams. We still intend to do

it, but that is not to say that there will not be some insurmountable reason

whereby we cannot do it. We can only try. If the strike goes on much longer, if

the strike goes on until the end of June, for example, and we have to do this,

we will try our level best to make sure that the students who are writing the

3000 exams will have a certificate, will have a mark that they can take to the

job market, or can take to a post-secondary institution. In order to do that we

need three things. We need a written exam, we need some evaluation of the year's

work, and we need the results of the mid-term exams.

Hopefully, we will have all three of these factors, but if we

do not have all three we will have to try and find some way to prepare a

certificate which will be accepted. A certificate is more than just a piece of

paper. It has to be something which is accepted either by the employer or by the

post-secondary institution. I cannot perform miracles, Mr. Speaker. We can only

do our level best, and if we can get good will on the part of the parents, the

teachers, the students, and government, to deal specifically with the case of

the 3000 students, I believe if good will prevails in the end no student will be

deprived of a future career, a future job, or whatever the case may be, because

of the unfortunate event which is now taking place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I am anticipating you will call Orders of

the Day. I am awaiting that.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Your Honour, in order to implement the arrangement I outlined

yesterday may I first move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House do not adjourn at

5:00 p.m.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you be good enough please

to call the business we are going to address today, and that is the concurrence

motion for the Government Services Committee report to the House. The

understanding is that the House will adjourn when we conclude this debate, which

is not more than three hours. We will know at 4:00 p.m. whether there is to be a

Late Show or not. If there is a Late Show that will add half an hour; if there

is no Late Show we will go straight through till about 6:15 p.m.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Just to that point, Mr. Speaker. I would

just like to inform the Government House Leader that we've agreed to forego the

Late Show, so three hours hence we will conclude the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: That is of course fine with us, Mr. Speaker.

It is in the hands of members. When you call the order we will carry through

till 6:15 p.m., deal with the report, and then we will adjourn until tomorrow

morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, the concurrence motion on the

Government Services Committee.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to take

a few minutes to begin the debate.

I must say I was pleased again this session to chair the

Government Services Committee, especially on the Estimates. I want to take the

opportunity to thank the members of the Committee: The vice-chair, the Member

for Bonavista South, and the Members for St. John's East Extern, for St. Mary's

- The Capes, for Pleasantville, for St. John's North and for Harbour Grace.

The departments that we were charged with were Works,

Services and Transportation, Municipal and Provincial Affairs and Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing, Finance and the Public Service Commission, and Employment

and Labour Relations.

We had some very good discussions, I must say. The Department

of Finance: We didn't use up all the three hours that we had allocated. It ended

up to be a fireside chat between the Member for Mount Pearl and the Minister of

Finance, and that is the usual way it goes. In past years they just sit and chat

and talk about old times. Finally we got through it. I think it comes from the

fact that the Member for Mount Pearl was a former Minister of Finance.

MS. VERGE: Ed Roberts and I (inaudible) fireside chat.

MR. OLDFORD: It went quite well and as I say we got

through it very quickly. Municipal and Provincial Affairs, there was also good

discussion, good questions. We got a little problem at the beginning. We got

tangled up with the scheduling. I don't take the blame for it but I take the

responsibility for some mishandling of the scheduling. I want to apologize to

the minister for the fool-up there.

Works, Services and Transportation, we did a review of their

estimates. The Member for Humber East sat in as a substitute for one of the

members. The hon. member and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

didn't see eye to eye on all the issues. I think the Pasadena road was a main

issue. They didn't agree on who invited who to lunch. Other than that things

went well. The Department of Employment and Labour Relations: One problem we had

was keeping the minister in line, trying to curtail some of his longwinded

answers to some short snapper questions. We got through it.

I commend the members of the Committee. There was some

excellent questioning and I must say some very detailed answers. Good answers

given by the ministers and their officials. I think that the very responsible

attitude of the members ensured that the interest of the general public was well

served. I can't speak for other committees but I must say the members of the

Government Services Committee did a - led by the Member for St. John's East

Extern, we stuck in most part to the estimates, to the subheads. I think because

of the questioning we got some detailed answers and a detailed review was done.

I'm sure that, as I said, members of the general public got a

better understanding of the process. Somebody mentioned yesterday we didn't get

much media coverage, and I don't think we did in any of the committees, and that

is unfortunate because the whole purpose is to review the estimates and make

sure that the tax dollars of the people of the Province are spent in a fair and

equitable way. Also, the estimates review gives the members of the committee,

members of the general public, a greater appreciation of departmental programs.

Again, I want to thank the members of the committee and I

look forward to working with this group in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was very happy to have taken

part in the Government

Services Committee, and play the part as vice-chairman. I think I certainly owe

the chairman a compliment for the job that he performed. He was a very lenient

chairperson, and gave everybody ample time. He didn't have the clock out all

night long, saying: You must do this, or you must do something else. I think it

was a very relaxed mood in each meeting that we had, and I compliment the

chairman for that.

There was no problem in getting members to show up. I think

we had pretty well a full slate of our committee at each meeting, and everybody

participated fully.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I suppose -

and I have to say this - the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

certainly impressed me on how well he knew his department. I have to give him

credit for that. He certainly knows the department well, and answered most of

the questions himself. He did a good job, an excellent job, and I have to

compliment him.

Some of the concerns that were raised, and I think they were

legitimate concerns by the committee, were the lay-off of electrical inspectors

and boiler inspectors. Even though the minister answered it in an honest way,

and put forward the reasons for doing it, I don't know if he convinced many

people that his actions were the right actions, taking into consideration the

safety factors involved there. I know that I wasn't convinced, and after coming

from the construction trades myself, I know full well what happens out there

when you are working with contractors, what the bottom line is. The bottom line,

sometimes, is to go there, make a quick buck, get out of there, get your money,

and go on to the next job.

Sometimes I fear that we might be in bed sleeping, and I

don't want to be putting fear out there, but our houses are all wired with

electricity. Most of the fires we see are domestic fires, and a lot of them are

electrical fires, and when you see this type of installation now being put

forward without inspections, the gyproc being thrown on the walls, and nobody

knowing what is inside, I still have grave, grave concerns that maybe we are

moving much too fast, and haven't thought out this procedure quite to the extent

that it should be.

I understand that it is being done in other provinces, much

similar to the new legislation that is about to be brought about here. I

understand that from the minister, but I still have to be convinced that it is a

positive thing. I hope that we are not making the wrong move.

Lay-offs at Hibernia was a concern that was expressed to the

minister. Many of us have been getting a lot of calls about our own native

Newfoundlanders being laid off. In my district, for example, one gentleman had

been working there at the same job for over a year as an iron worker. He got

laid off, and the reasoning for his lay-off was that he wasn't competent in

doing his job. Now if somebody told me, after working somewhere for a year, that

I wasn't competent in doing my job, I think it should be my supervisor who

should be laid off, not me, if it took somebody a year to realize that.

Having travelled around, and chased construction around

myself, in every other Province that I have had to go to work in, whenever there

were lay-offs, it was always people from other provinces who got laid off first,

and the people who were working with the local jurisdiction, or the local union,

were always the people who were kept on, and they were the last to get laid off.

It seems like on the Hibernia project that this is not the

case. Many of our local Newfoundlanders are being laid off while other people

from other provinces continue to stay here and work.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there was a concern that that is probably

the whole reason why the shift was changed around. The shift was changed around

for no real apparent reasons until, when you stop and look at the numbers that

are there from other provinces, and you will find out maybe that the shifts were

changed that would accommodate those people and not have them lying around the

bunkhouse or whatever for four and five days, rather than catering to the local

labour that is working there and enjoys the time home with their family.

Mr. Speaker, another concern raised was the act of

advertising for welders at the Newfoundland Dockyard in papers up in Nova

Scotia. A lot of people here in our own Province that we felt were qualified to

do the work, and were certainly qualified to go and write the test, or perform

the test, weren't given that opportunity. I understand the minister has since

come to realize that those people should have an opportunity to perform this

work and be given the opportunity to write the exam and take

part in the actual

practice, the theory part of it as well. I understand that some of that is about

to be changed as well. I hope that doesn't continue to happen in the future. I

think we should look forward to having our own people working much sooner than

having people brought in from other provinces and giving those people an

advantage over our own.

Before I leave that I would like to comment on the overtime

that is being paid out at Hibernia. That is another grave concern while we have

many of our people out there today unemployed. I don't think anybody would

dispute the fact that if they were offered a job, or would refuse a job, but if

they were told they were going to be getting forty hours a week would say that

they weren't interested in taking that job because they wanted overtime.

Especially when you look at the rates of pay that are being paid out there at

that project.

I put out a news release on it, in fact, and spoke about

exactly that, about my dissatisfaction with the lay offs there. Our own local

Newfoundlanders were being laid off and many of our people were out there

working sixty and seventy hours a week, working in excess of thirty days. Mr.

Kimberly had picked it up on the news. I think he is the public relations - or

Mr. Simpkins, Bill Simpkins, had picked it up on the news and decided he was

going to give me a call. He called me on a cellular telephone and said: You are

wrong, the comments that you made are all wrong, you should be coming to me

before you say those kinds of things because I know what is happening. Why don't

you call me?

I said: I don't believe I am wrong and I stand by the story

because I got it from very informed sources. After I put my comments forward to

him and the concerns that I was hearing from my constituents we hung up and he

said: Well, if that is happening I will check it out, but I don't think it is,

and I will get back to you. That night I had a phone call from two other people

who were working there in a rebar shop who had been working in excess of thirty

days up to that time, twelve hours a day, and had been working in excess of

thirty days and couldn't get a day off. I asked the gentleman: Is it a job that

you are performing that requires a lot of skill? He said: Absolutely not. I

didn't see the type of machine that we are operating there until it was brought

into Hibernia. I got four hours training and I've been performing the duties

ever since.

To me that is wrong. When you have those people out there

working twelve and fourteen hors a day, thirty days without a day off, and when

they go to look for a day off to be told: If you are not interested in working

then maybe we will get somebody here from another province who is interested in

working. I don't think we need that. I think our Newfoundlanders, our own

people, are capable of working. They want to work but I don't think that they

should be expected to work thirty days straight without a break, twelve hours a

day, while other people are out there today without a job and without an income.

I think we should be looking a little bit further than that. I think that we

should be making sure that we get as many people working productively on that

project and earning a living, and I suppose - well, the production would be

certainly much more efficient than it is right now. Because nobody can perform

on the twelfth hour or the tenth hour. Safety would certainly be much more

adhered to, and the bottom line is we would have a lot more people working.

Works, Services and Transportation, another department of

government that was part of the Government Services Committee. In conversation

with the minister - and it is too bad that he is not here because I hope he

hears it - I brought up a concern about the closing down of several depots on

the highways. I indicated to him at that time that I failed to see where there

would be any big savings there, when you consider the cost - some of those

depots being a fair distance removed from the ones that were closed down.

In the morning now there is the situation where those people

are expected to drive all the way over to this depot that's going to be kept

open, pick up their truck, their grader, their loader or some piece of equipment

and drive it all the way back again, Mr. Speaker - back in the morning, over in

the evening. Mr. Speaker, I fail to see where there will be a great saving in

laying off the clerk in that particular depot and allowing this kind of action

to continue, but the minister assured me that wasn't happening, that what would

happen is, all of this equipment would go back to the depot that was closed out,

the depot that was being phased out in the summertime and re-opened in the

winter.

The workers, the employees with Works, Services and

Transportation who normally came to this particular depot - and I'll speak of

the one in my area, Upper Amherst Cove - would still go there. They would pick

up their truck, grader or whatever and continue to do their work, and that's not

happening, Mr. Speaker, that's not happening. What's happening is exactly the

fear that I put forward to the minister at the Government Services meeting.

Right now, those people are leaving their job a half-an-hour or an hour earlier,

depending on how far they are from the depot, driving all the way back to this

new depot to get there at quitting time and then go through the same procedure

again the next morning. So I think if you tabulate the extra expenses incurred

by this action, you will find that it works out to many, many more dollars than

the few dollars we saved by turning off a few lights in the depot or laying off

the clerk at that particular depot.

MR. SIMMS: Cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

MR. FITZGERALD: Cutting off their noses to spite their

faces.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another concern, and it was raised, I think, by

the member over here who was - salt and sand. And I'm glad the minister is here

because I don't know if he heard the comments I made a few minutes earlier, but

if not, I'll repeat them, Mr. Minister. What I was referring to was a question

that I had put forward to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at

the Government Services Committee meeting. The question was and the concern was

that I fail to see where there will be much of a saving by closing down some of

those depots in the summertime and allowing workers to take their truck, grader

or their tractor and have them get in their own vehicle in the morning and drive

to the new depot and pick up that piece of equipment and then drive back to

where they're working, leave an hour in the evening, half-an-hour or

three-quarters -

MR. EFFORD: That's the way you'd do it.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and go through the same procedure

again. Well, the minister said, no, that won't happen - that will not happen. He

said, what will happen is - and I'll repeat it again - he said what will happen

is, the gates will be open at the depot that was vacated and the trucks and

tractors will go in there. They will go in there in the morning and pick up

their machinery and go on to work as they've always done. That's what will

happen, he said. He said you don't need supervision. He said those people don't

need supervision to go and get in their truck or car and go to work.

MR. EFFORD: Are you talking about winter or summer?

MR. FITZGERALD: I'm talking about the summer, the depots

that were closed down in the summertime. So, Mr. Speaker, I think if you will

find a copy of Hansard, because this is printed, that that was the minister's

comments: No, this won't happen. They will be allowed to take their vehicles

back there. That's where they will go, they will pick them up and go on to work

as normal. My concern was that I don't see how you're saving a lot of money by

laying off the clerk at that particular depot and turning off a few lights if

you're going to allow the extra costs of moving back and forth between the new

depot and the place of work.

MR. SIMMS: That's a reasonable question.

MR. FITZGERALD: A reasonable question, and from what I

understand, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what's happening, this is what I'm

told. In fact, Mr. Speaker, some of them are going back for lunch. So, Mr.

Speaker, this is a concern that was brought up and maybe the minister can

address it, because I'm sure he was honest when he said that was going to happen

- but it isn't happening.

The other issue that was brought forward - and it was brought

forward, I think, by myself at the Government Services Estimates Committee of

last year when we talked about the rocks - not boulders, as the Member for Burin

- Placentia West referred to them, but a lot of rocks, probably even a

quarter-inch or bigger, that are put in the salt that goes on the roads. It is a

nightmare, and I said this to the minister before; when the salt trucks go out

on some of those local roads, you almost have to to stay off them for two or

three hours until the rocks get either worn off or else they are thrown away by

the tires of the traffic going by.

The minister can shake his head but this is a big concern. In

fact, I related to him a story about a person with a fairly new car that had two

windows broken by a salt truck, two windows broken and it had to have a paint

job.

MR. EFFORD: Tailgating.

MR. FITZGERALD: Not tailgating, glitter on the highway,

glitter on the highway, it is the same story. And being in the insurance

business myself, Mr. Speaker, I can truly realize the cost of replacing a

windshield, of what's being charged today, and the costs that are incurred by

the customer as well. A lot of people today are finding when the salt truck goes

by that they have to stay off the road for a couple of hours, for fear that they

may go out and get their windshields broken, or other things, and that is a very

big concern, Mr. Speaker.

I think, on the Trans-Canada Highway they use salt alone. Now

I fully realize that is probably much more expensive and I am sure it is, than

using salt and sand, but maybe we can do something, that we can get the size of

that rock down a little bit further than we have.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, screen it; screen it, Mr. Speaker,

you are paying to have screening done so maybe you can screen it to a little

finer stage, because there are a lot of rocks getting in that and it is causing

a lot of problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking.

MR. FITZGERALD: Shocking, sure it's shocking.

Mr. Speaker, the meeting on the Department of Finance, I

think, was one of the shortest meetings we had, and it was, as the Chairman

said, pretty well controlled. A lot of questions were asked by the Member for

Mount Pearl, but, Mr. Speaker, one of the questions that I brought forward was,

wondering about the Atlantic Lotto Corporation. I thank the Minister of Finance

for having his staff provide me with the information I was looking for, and I

think that's the way it should be done. If you go and look for information, if

it is a question that is asked, then you should be afforded the answer. There is

only one thing that I didn't see in that and I would like to find out and that's

the salaries of some of those employees. I suppose that is public knowledge and

that it is being paid from public funds.

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. After some

misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, and a lack of, I suppose, communications or

communications breakdown, we had to postpone that meeting for a couple of days,

but finally, the meeting arrived. However, there were some questions asked that

were not answered and I am still waiting to find the answers.

A question was asked, which referred to salaries in the

minister's office. In 1993-1994, the budget was for $181,100 and the revised

budget was for $261,800, a difference of $80,700, so the question that was asked

was, why the extra $80,700, and I think the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs at that time stated that it was because there were two ministers for a

particular term. So I asked if he would provide me with the figures on the cost

there, because if there were two ministers, you know, another minister occupied

the position, so I suppose he was paid the same salary and there was no big

change in staff other than what the minister would bring by. I am still waiting

for that information and I am sure the minister will provide me with it.

Mr. Speaker, another concern - and the minister referred to

it today in Question Period - was about the infrastructure funding. He referred

to a lot of communities out there that don't have a big tax base, and that is

what I am finding in my district today. A lot of people don't have a tax base

and because of that, they are finding themselves in arrears; and because they

are in arrears, and unable to pay their arrears, they are going to be

disqualified from receiving any money whatsoever under the infrastructure

program.

I ask the minister if he would take another look at that,

because in a lot of those communities, there is certainly a need there, and if

some communities can be financed -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that

the hon. member opposite is speaking with leave? If so, I withdraw leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. member was given leave of the

House to continue with the discussion.

MR. EFFORD: I withdraw leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: I fail to understand why people can sit

here and listen to a member from another side, from our side here, to put

forward his thoughts and his concerns -

AN HON. MEMBER: Vice-Chairman of the Committee.

MR. FITZGERALD: Vice-Chairman of the Committee. Those

people sit here with interest, and all of a sudden, a minister can leave the

House and drift in and take control of the House like that. Is that permissible,

Mr. Speaker? He should continue to stay outside the House until the leave has

been granted and has run out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There was no specific time limit put on the hon. member, so

obviously, the hon. member could continue forever, I guess, unless the leave was

withdrawn, or until he completed his speech.

My understanding is that leave has been withdrawn, and the

hon. member will have to wait and take another turn.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sook.

MR. EFFORD: You can call it what you like; I withdrew

leave. You have full opportunity, when your time comes around again, to get up

and have your ten minutes' debate. Then you will sit down, and ten minutes again

- that is a full opportunity - but you are not going to get the whole afternoon

from this minister, or this Member of the House of Assembly, to get on and on

and rant there like you have been doing.

I want to address a couple of points made about the

re-arrangements and the re-organization of the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. The one thing I pride myself on doing, as a minister, and

previous to that, my former time in business, is not standing still,

implementing change. The Tory way of operating for seventeen years was standing

still and going in reverse. We don't intend to do that in the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation.

Back after Newfoundland joined Confederation there were very

few roads in this Province - very, very few roads. Of course, what needed to be

done first was to start constructing the Trans-Canada across Newfoundland, and

all the roads leading to and from communities had to be built up. You needed a

wide spread of department services right across the Province, and that's the

reason why so many depots sprung up all over the Province, it was because of the

number of roads that had to be built. That's going back some forty-five or fifty

years. Are we saying now, that we need to keep the same number of depots open

today in this Province as we did when we first started constructing highways?

The Tory thinking there explains the reason why we have ended

up in such a financial mess as we have in 1994 because of the administration, to

think they operated that way for seventeen years. That is exactly the proof of

what I have been talking about all these years.

What we are saying now is that we have closed out thirty-five

depots, and I will say this - we are going to close out some more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. EFFORD: We are not going to keep depots open that we

do not need, just to keep somebody out there in a job, or to keep somebody

happy. It is absolutely no reason to keep the depots open.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: If there is an area that requires change, it

is going to be changed; make no mistake about it. If we have a reason to do

something in the department, and it makes sense to do it, if there is some

logical thinking put behind it and it is proven to be the right thing to do,

it's going to be done; and to keep open the thirty-five depots just because you

need to give a clerk a job, or you need to give somebody working a job - I mean,

how silly can you get?

What I am saying to the hon. member opposite is, if he was as

successful in making decisions in his business as he is here today, making no

wonder he is not in business anymore, because you would never, never get

anywhere thinking like that in the financial world.

Now, here is what we did. We took out the depots where there

was absolutely no need. One of the things that has been happening over the years

is that the people driving along the road have been looking at staff of the

department at the side of the road replacing a culvert or digging a ditch, one

and two people scattered all over different regions in the Province. What we are

going to do now is we are going to implement, the same as a construction

company, work crews.

In other words, if we have some maintenance to be done on a

piece of road in any particular area, in any region - let's use the example of

St. Mary's - The Capes - and there is a

section of road up there, twelve,

fifteen or twenty kilometres, whatever, and we need to do shouldering and

ditching and culverts or whatever, regular summer maintenance, instead of

picking at it with one or two men, we are going to designate a crew from the

department to go out: `Now, there is your job. If it takes a week or two weeks,

do it' - the same as if you were operating a construction company.

I think that is the sensible approach to take. This nonsense

about leaving the depot 8:00 a.m. and driving two hours to the site, then

leaving at 2:00 p.m. and driving two hours back, and only doing - that's the way

the Tories did it. That's the way you people did it. That's the reason why there

was never any work done, it was never done the proper way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: It is not going to happen now, Mr. Speaker.

It is going to be done the right way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Now, they are talking about sanding roads.

Just imagine! Here we are, talking about all the major issues facing this

Province, and we are standing in this House of Assembly, and one member is

saying: Well, the sand you use is too large, you should shake it, and you should

sift it, and you should squat it, and you should stamp on it.' How silly are we

getting! The sand is too large, the pellets of sand. Well, I tell hon. members,

I will do everything in my power to make the sand as fine as possible next year.

I will crush it and I will sift it and I will shake it and I will do whatever

possible, so hon. members opposite will make sure that when they are tailgating

next year they won't get the windshields broken out of their vehicles.

Now, that is something to be discussing in this House of

Assembly -with all the things that we have facing this Province - whether salt

pellets are too large or sand particles are too large. Now, we can't do anything

about the weather. I have power to do almost anything, Mr. Speaker, but I can't

change the climate. Sometimes you get some rain, sometimes you get some wet

snow, and then you get a cold frost; the sand freezes and you get large

particles of sand frozen together. Just imagine, if we have to go out after

every change in temperature and every time it gets cold and shake that sand -

just imagine having to shake that on the side of the road.

You see, Mr. Speaker? I sat here for three hours in the

Estimates Committee and that is the type of question I got for three hours - not

one question pertaining to either issue, either sub, in the whole of the

estimates of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation - complaining

about the size of salt and the size of sand, and here again this afternoon we

are going through the same silly thing.

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

MR. EFFORD: Ah, they're up now!

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like a few

words on this debate on Government Services. In particular, I would like to make

reference to my district of Green Bay with regard to municipal services and

transportation services.

On a more general note, I would indicate that when the

Premier first came to power in 1989 he, at the time, indicated that the previous

government, from his point of view, showed too much favouritism towards

government districts and that the Liberal policy platform was going to be one of

real change. There was going to be real fairness and balance in the allocation

of monies for government services. Therefore, I fully expected that the district

of Green Bay, which at the time, I newly represented, would be treated fairly

with regard to government services, especially in matters relating to municipal

infrastructure and transportation infrastructure.

I would like to address each of these points in turn, but

before doing so I would indicate that in terms of municipal services provided by

the Wells Administration, the record of the government has been spotty, somewhat

hit-or-miss. With regard to transportation services provided to my district

since the Wells Administration came to power, the record of the Wells

Administration has been downright awful, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HEWLETT: I will address each in turn, Mr. Speaker,

and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can get up if he wishes

afterwards and address my comments when I'm finished.

With regard to municipal services, as I indicated, the record

of the Wells Administration has been somewhat spotty. Some years, the district

of Green Bay has done well with regard to water and sewer services, some years,

it has done terribly, other years, it has done so-so. Therefore, while it has

not been as good as I would like, it's not been a dead loss altogether either.

With regard to the most recent infrastructure program that's been brought about

by the new federal government in Ottawa, I was disappointed that in the first

round of project announcements there the other day, no councils in Green Bay

were included on the list. However, in general conversations with the minister,

he has indicated to me that Green Bay should do well out of that particular

program. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that when the second round of projects

are announced, my district will do okay. A number of councils have water and

sewer proposals in. I know South shore Green Bay has a proposal in for a

regional ice arena located in Trition. I sincerely hope that some of these water

and sewer projects and that particular arena will be among the projects

announced in the second round.

With regard to transportation, Mr. Speaker, the record of the

Wells administration has been absolutely abysmal as it applies to Green Bay. A

few years ago they tried to practically destroy the ferry services to the two

isolated islands in my district by trying to amalgamate ferry services for half

the year. It was only due to long and strident protest on behalf of the

residents of Little Bay Islands and Long Island that that particular matter was

sorted out and the government went back to giving these two very distinct

islands their own distinct ferry service.

With regard to pavement, Mr. Speaker, not one shovelful, not

one spoonful, not one molecule of asphalt has come into Green Bay from the Wells

administration. Mr. Speaker, in Green Bay the road to Harry's Harbour -

Jackson's Cove is still unpaved. There's no pavement on Long Island and there's

no pavement on Little Bay Islands. The roads to both ferry terminals for both

islands are unpaved and with regard to existing pavement, we have pavement there

now that is so old that it's broken up. The highway from South Brook to Brighton

is falling apart. The highway to Little Bay and Beachside has fallen apart, Mr.

Speaker, and the only road in Green Bay that's been recapped, as regards to

pavement, is the road into Springdale which was paved by the Smallwood

administration and recapped during the days of the Peckford administration.

Mr. Speaker, I've also gotten absolutely nothing spent in the

Green Bay area on the Trans-Canada program that's currently under way. I asked

the hon. the minister about the bridge and intersection at South Brook and he

indicated to me in the last sitting of the House that that particular matter

would be taken care of. Under the Trans-Canada program, the minister did -

subsequently he undertook to give me the date that the intersection and bridge

at South Brook would be done, he never did. I wrote the minister when the House

adjourned from the last sitting, the minister hasn't replied. I put a question

on the Order Paper in this particular sitting with regard to the bridge and

intersection at South Brook and the minister still hasn't replied.

Now, Mr. Speaker, therefore as I've indicated in general

terms, municipal affairs has been spotty but not a dead loss. I'm optimistic

that something good will come for my district under the infrastructure program.

With regard to transportation, the situation has been blatantly partisan,

blatantly negative, an absolute dead loss and I do hope that the Wells

administration will see fit to be as fair to Green Bay as it has been to any

other district in this Province. I call upon the minister to come clean and give

me a straight answer with regard to the intersection and bridge at South Brook

on the Trans-Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell the hon. member, I know exactly how he feels. I

know exactly how he feels. From 1985 to 1989 in the great District of Port de

Grave, we did not receive one dollar.

MR. HEWLETT: Two wrongs make a right, is that what you're

saying?

MR. EFFORD: I remember one time I had to bring a

committee of people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: I remember one time I had to bring a group of

people in from the small community of Mackinsons to protest the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs office. For eleven days straight we sat in his

office for a mere $11,000 because they didn't have decent drinking water. They

were willing to absorb all the costs except $11,000 and he said: absolutely no,

you are not getting it. Only then we went to the minister - the then Member for

Bonavista - Trinity - Conception, the federal member Morrissey Johnson, did we

get the money but you people were in government and you have the gall to stand

to this floor and tell me that I'm partisan?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: You talk about a hypocritical nature and

manner in which to operate. I know what it's like to sit in a district year

after year after year and get no money for anything. Like the Minister of Public

Works, then the hon. Haig Young from Harbour Grace District, looked at the

people and said: Are you Liberal? Yes. Well, you don't get anything. Are you

Liberal? You don't get anything.

Now there is not a partisan bone in my body. All I have to do

is try and help those districts that have been neglected for so many, many, many

years, to try and catch up. That is what we are trying to do, the roads in the

districts that were neglected for seventeen years, not an inch of pavement, not

a rock, not a shovelful of gravel was put on the road. What are we going to do,

still neglect them? How silly can you get?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: As far as the ferry systems up in the hon.

member's district, you know full well that the ferry systems up there are

operating on a regular schedule; the people on the islands are quite happy;

there is absolutely nothing wrong. The only time they had a problem was when one

of the boats experienced mechanical problems and had to go on refit. Then they

weren't satisfied to share. They were not satisfied to share the services, and

you know very well -

MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: It is not, and the people up there were quite

happy with the service they were getting, no thanks to the member.

If you are going to stand in this House and complain about

the fact that your district is not being treated fairly, then you have to take

full responsibility, because every other MHA comes over and talks to me about

any concerns they have. You have never yet requested a meeting on behalf of the

people in your district. Not on one occasion, one second, have you asked me for

a meeting. So I am going to say to the hon. member, there is no problem with

arranging a meeting with my office any time he wishes. I may not say yes, but

you can certainly ask.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments on the Government

Services Committee and say, due to some scheduling, I only got to make a couple

of the meetings, but I did have the opportunity to attend the committee in

relation to Works, Services and Transportation.

I have to say, as I hear the minister elaborate today on

bygones, I ask myself: Does he want to go down in the history books of this

Province similar to former ministers, as he calls them, in relation to how they

treated the people of the Province and how they treated the districts of the

Province?

I believe we have to look at need, and not look at party

politics, when it comes to some of this. I have to admit that I ran into some

ministers on the other side who laid the partisan side of politics aside as they

deal with problems from my district, and I have to commend those. I say I would

be remiss if I didn't commend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

today, as he took care of something in my district that had seen some partisan

politics over the years.

I say to the minister, there were several things brought up

in the committee meetings that were a concern to myself, in my district, and I

am sure to many other members on this side of the House in regard to some work,

and in regard to, mostly - there were many questions asked about the

restructuring that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has

touched on over the past little while.

I brought up some questions yesterday in the House in regard

to roads in the district, and the minister more or less said that because of the

restructuring, this work would be done when the time was right. I have to ask,

and am concerned also, we discussed the sand and the salt situation that the

minister touched on earlier.

I have to wonder, years ago when we were little fellows home,

we used to watch as the grader would pass up the road and you would have two men

walking behind it with shovels, flicking rocks off the side of the road. I don't

know if that happened in other districts, but I know for years and years I

watched it home, as two men would be employed as they walked behind the grader.

I am wondering now if we are going to head back into those times and we are

going to have to have men walking behind the sand trucks.

It is a sad day when you look, and I wouldn't call them

boulders, as the Member for Burin - Placentia West called them, but they could

be classified, in some cases, as beach rocks. That is a concern. I raised the

concern with the minister back during the winter when I had some correspondence

from St. Mary's Bay North especially, in regard to the Salmonier Line and the

condition of the Salmonier Line during the winter months, and in regard to the

portion of sand and salt that was being used there.

We also talked at length concerning other parts of the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and I must say that the

minister was very forthcoming with his remarks. He was partisan sometimes when

he would be answering the questions, but he was very forthcoming in his answers.

I have to give credit where credit is due; he didn't beat around the bush. Now

he may have been more or less trying to pull the wool over our eyes in some

cases, but he didn't beat around the bush, and it was enlightening at times to

listen to him go on and on about the wonderful things that have been happening,

the wonderful things that have been happening in the Department of Works,

Services, and transportation since this minister took office.

We talked about the past, and what has happened in the past

with regards to services within the different districts of the Province. We had

the opportunity to ask about our own specific districts, especially my district

where we saw the closure of two highway depots for the summer months. I

questioned the minister on the closure of the two highway depots in my district.

I have to wonder sometimes the real reason for the closure of these highway

depots.

The reason we were given, more or less, and the minister

alluded to it today, concerns the construction of the roads over the years, and

today we do not have the need for as many depots, and with the restructuring

they are going to save some government dollars in this cash strapped economy we

are living in. I wonder really how much money is being saved by the

restructuring? I would like to have a figure.

Well, take District 1, which includes my district. I ask how

much is really being saved? How many jobs were lost in District 1 due to the

restructuring? How many people retired in District 1 because of the

restructuring? How many people decided to retire because of the restructuring? I

would also like to know, Mr. Speaker, how many superintendents were in District

1 before the restructuring, and how many superintendents are in District 1 now?

I would like for the minister to answer that if he could. I am only concerned

about District 1, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MANNING: I was elected to represent the District of

St. Mary's - The Capes and that is included in District 1. I would like to know

right across the Island but I will deal with my own district in the first few

minutes I have and then we can go on after. I would also like to ask the

minister when he is checking this out, or answering those questions - he might

not have the answers off the top of his head today, he just might, but I will be

surprised, he talked about restructuring. I understand restructuring. I have no

problem with restructuring and cutting down and saving money.

Twelve years ago at the St. Bride's depot, for example, there

were twenty-two men, two dozers, two graders, four dump trucks, a loader, and a

back-hoe. Today -I should not say today, before May 1, there were seven men, no

dozers, there was a 1973 grader, almost as old as I am, I say, Mr. Speaker,

there were two dump trucks, a back-hoe and a loader, so I say we have been

restructured a fair amount over the years. That was before 1 May.

Today at the St. Bride's depot there are no men, no dozers,

no grader, no dump truck, no back-hoe and no loader. Now, this all happened in

my hometown before last night. I wonder, would they have moved the building had

they known what happened after our bowling game last night? After our bowling

game last night he may have moved building and all out of St. Bride's. At least

we hang onto our building now.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a fair amount of restructuring.

This is only one depot I got the chance to look for information on last night.

Like I said it has gone from twenty-two men down to seven men before 1 May, and

now none, Mr. Speaker, so I say that we have been restructuring a fair amount

over the past number of years, the roads have improved, I have to say the roads

have improved. We are sixty years on the Cape Shore, Mr. Speaker, and we had a

cow path for a road, a cow path. We had a load of gravel I think, in sixty

years. Now after the right people were in office I have to say that we had some

work done with our roads and were brought up to a modern day road, but even with

asphalt on our roads, we still have some problems with regards to shouldering

and maintenance that have to be carried out after the winter with asphalt et

cetera, and I am concerned about the plans that the department has in regards as

to how they are planning on doing this work.

The minister has spoken several times about crews, you know,

instead of one or two men heading out to do some work, and I have no problem

with that, Mr. Speaker, if it was done in a fair way but if the minister

believes for one moment that people in the depot are not leaving at eight

o'clock in the morning and spending an hour to an hour-and-a-half travelling,

taking their break at ten o'clock, half-an-hour dinner and then have to be back-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - to the depot at 4:30, I would say the

minister is sadly mistaken -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: - and he is out of touch with what's going

on out in the district -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - and that he should get some more

information and I would say, Mr. Speaker, he should -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: When did you become Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Have some respect (inaudible).

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

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

I wanted to rise in this debate today especially after

hearing the Member for Green Bay say that there are one or two roads in his

district that are not paved. I hear the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes say

that the roads should be built on the need, not the partisan politics, and I

quoted you, I wrote it down when you said and I am sure Hansard will record -

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the people

of this Province and the members of this House, how would they feel if they had

to represent the people who had no roads? How would they feel if they had the

people isolated for twelve months a year in a community in the northern part of

this Province on the Coast of Labrador, how would they feel if there was an $800

million agreement signed in June, 1988, an $800 million agreement in June, 1988

that gave the Labrador 3 per cent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: That was the Conservative government that

was here then.

MR. MANNING: The minister is not interested (inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: The minister will do whatever is in his

power and he has nobody to look over there and say one word of shame to, because

he has a record here beyond reproach by anybody who ever sat in that chair on

the opposite side; but the point that I want to make is this: that the greatest