Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions — 26 March 1991 (41st General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLI No. 16)
1991-03-26
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 26,
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLI No. 16
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation.
MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.
Members of this House and the residents of the Province of changes made to Motor
Vehicle Registration Fees. The changes will take effect on March 28, 1991 and
are as follows:
1. All passenger cars and small pickups will pay an annual
registration fee of $65.000. This is an increase of $2.00 per vehicle.
2. The commercial vehicle fee table has been rewritten with
500 kilogram increments which will result in a more equitable fee structure
based on the mass of the vehicle. Implementing a uniform "fee per kilometre"
registered mass category will allow us to join other provinces as part of the
national standard across Canada.
3. The commercial vehicle fees have also been increased by an
average of 10 per cent.
4. Commercial vehicle trip permits will now be available for
intra-provincial trips. This will allow Newfoundland truckers flexibility in
special circumstances such as an unexpected breakdown or should they wish to
test-drive a commercial vehicle prior to purchase.
The old Motor Carrier Fee structure has been replaced by the
new regular fee
schedule for all commercial vehicles. This new regular fee
schedule will also provide for the administration of a province-wide highway
safety program for commercial vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, these changes will result in a more equitable
fee structure by distributing the increased costs of our highway safety programs
to all highway users. Our Department will continue to make necessary changes
where needed to provide the best possible service to the people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that copies of the new
regulations are available from the Queen's Printer and anyone with specific
questions on fees should contact the nearest Motor Registration Office.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting to note that hon. Members opposite are not
pounding their desks for this one, Mr. Speaker, another increase to the
taxpayers of this Province and another tax grab by the Department of Works,
Services and Transportation. They have frozen the wages this year of most public
servants and they have increased the taxes and fees for all people in the
Province, another step by this Government to drain the people of this Province
of any extra cent they can get out of them. They have cut down the services by
closing Motor Vehicle Registration offices in Clarenville and in Lab City, Mr.
Speaker, and they have increased the cost, or reduced services by the Department
of Transportation. It is interesting to note that the Minister has not given in
his statement the total amount of tax grab this will take out of the pockets of
Newfoundlanders and it is also interesting to note that a Private Member's Bill,
which was to be discussed here tomorrow in this House, condemns the Federal
Government for increasing freight rates to the Labrador Coast yet we have this
Government - and it is going to be interesting to hear the debate tomorrow, we
have this Government doing the exact same thing to the road network. I heard the
Member for Eagle River last week on the radio suggesting that you should build a
road in Labrador so that the people of Labrador can get their food and other
things by road. I suggest that he should continue to depend on Marine Atlantic,
Mr. Speaker, because his own Government is going to place the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. R. AYLWARD: - place the cost of transportation by the
highway system out of reach for most Newfoundlanders.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. Member's time is up.
MR. TOBIN: By leave, by leave!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister
of Finance perhaps I will direct this question to the President of Treasury
Board.
Could the President of Treasury Board tell us the reasons for
which the Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board is being merged with the
Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, and was this decision based on recommendations
and consultation with both boards?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The decision was based
on efficiency and streamlining the system, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I take it from that that the
Minister is confirming that there was no consultation with either board. In fact
I might advise the Minister, if he is not aware, that neither Board Chairmen
knew of the decision until the Chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board was called
into the Premier's office and unceremoniously fired, and the Chairman of the
Liquor Corporation heard about it through public notice.
Would the Minister tell us now, Mr. Speaker: in view of the
conflict of interest between the functions of the Liquor Corporation and the
Liquor Licensing Board - one being a marketing agency, and the other being one
to enforce compliance with the Liquor Control Act under the Act of 1973 - would
the Minister tell us how he sees both roles being joined together under one
board?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: There is no conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we will have evidence to
indicate that there is indeed conflict, in due course. Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the Minister, outside of the fact that both boards are very busy areas of
responsibility requiring full time, in fact, The Liquor Control Act states the
Chairman of the Board, and I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, The Liquor Control Act,
1973 with amendments,
Section 5, Subsection (3), 'The Chairman of the Board
shall devote his whole time and attention to the business of the Board, and
shall not engage in any other occupation.' Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of that,
and in view of the fact that as of the end of this month there is no Chairman
and there is no Board, since all have been fired by this Government, how does
the Minister propose that liquor licencing and enforcement of liquor regulations
will be carried on in this Province during the coming weeks?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: They will be carried on properly, Mr. Speaker.
I should point out that we had an obligation in this process, to the people of
this Province, to the taxpayers of this Province, our obligation was to not
spend beyond our means, to not carry on the practices of the past, to make sure
that the financial viability of this Province remained, and that we could
continue to go to the bond markets to get money for much needed capital works.
We had to be sure of that, and that was our obligation. To do so, Mr. Speaker,
we have decided, in this particular instance, the functions can be carried out
in a more streamlined manner. And in the interest of saving money in the way
that had least possible affect on the people of this Province we felt that we
could provide that service with a few less people, and that is precisely what we
did, Mr. Speaker, and we make no apologizes for it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, a final
supplementary.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the Minister makes no apologies. I would advise him
that what he is doing is going back to the era of the Smallwood days when
licences were issued from the Premier's Office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WINDSOR: It was the former PC Administration which in
1973 amended the Act or brought in this Act and created it too. Would the
Minister tell me, Mr. Speaker, if he is aware that there was a senior employee
of the Liquor Licencing Board, who the Board recommended to the Minister that he
be removed from the employment of the Board at least half a dozen times and that
the Minister refused to take the advice of the Board? Will the Minister confirm
that and tell us why Government refused to take the advice of the Liquor
Licencing Board and in turn, fired the entire Board and its Chairman?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, the Member is up to his usual
scaremongering tactics. There was an incident, I believe the one he refers to
was investigated by an independent group, and a decision was handed down in that
regard. One thing that I can tell the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, is that whatever
he believes we are going back to, one thing we are not going back to is the days
of the Windsor Government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister
confirm that his so-called independent advice was a meeting between the Minister
and the Board, the first time in history that a Minister of Finance asked the
Board to come in to explain their recommendation?
AN HON. MEMBER: No answer.
MR. FUREY: They set up the Board.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this incident was handled in the
best way possible; it was handled by an independent board that was set up under
the previous Government and the conclusion was a satisfactory conclusion for
everybody.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as
Members of the Opposition we are reluctant to bring this matter to the Minister
of Health's attention, but we would like to ask him a question. In fact, I have
notified the Minister of Health that I would be asking a question on the
meningitis problem in Newfoundland today. I would ask the Minister of Health,
because of the vast number of different signals coming from different persons in
the medical community, the Department of Health, the different news stories, if
he could give us a full and complete update on the meningitis problem in
Newfoundland this winter: Is it normal? Is it out of control compared to other
situations? And certainly to allay a lot of the fears of parents, particularly
on the West Coast, who may be keeping their children out of school tomorrow
because of this health scare, could the Minister at least bring the people of
this House and of this Province up to date on the meningitis problem?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for his
question. I am not sure this is the proper way to try to allay the fears of the
people. I should say employees of the Public Health branch have met with the
parents in the St. Georges area, where the most recent case of meningococcal
disease has occurred, and I believe now that the parents have a fuller
understanding of the disease, we can stop any panic. This issue has been dealt
with in the media and there are a lot of concerns.
I should say for the benefit of the hon. Member and for the
public, that the numbers of the meningococcal disease in this Province have been
increasing over the past five years; this same pattern has been occurring right
across Canada, right across the nation. In 1988, in this Province, there were
seven cases but no deaths; in 1989 there were eleven cases, in 1990 there were
thirteen cases. But in 1990, two people died with the disease. So far this year,
1991, there have been nine cases, and the hon. Member will know that the most
recent case occurred yesterday with the unfortunate death of the child from St.
George's.
Most of the cases in the Province have been scattered
throughout the Island portion of the Province, and the thirteen cases in 1990
came from St. Alban's, Victoria, Bell Island, St. John's, Grand Falls, Ramea,
Chamberlains, Corner Brook, Stephenville and Happy Valley. So it was on the
mainland part of the Province, as well. The nine cases this year have come from
Mount Pearl, Paradise, Kilbride, Corner Brook, Gander Bay, St. John's and St.
Georges.
I should tell the hon. Member that this is a delicate matter
to deal with, and I would encourage him and invite him to come over to the
Department of Health and sit down with the professionals, the medical people in
that department who would be quite willing to brief him or any members of his
caucus who would like to discuss this issue. Any Member of the House for that
matter, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, we thank the Minister for his
answer. Obviously, anything which allays the concerns of parents and the sick
people of the Province, we are more than happy to do whatever is necessary to
get that message out. I guess one of the concerns we have in getting this
message out to the people of Newfoundland is that we see different concerns; we
see Dr. Randell at the Janeway hospital saying over the weekend that the
widespread vaccination program in Mount Pearl may have been caused, I think in
his words, "the Department is not totally void of politics influencing what is
going on and public pressure." We want to know, and I think the public in
Newfoundland has the right to know, that if the Department of Health is going to
respond either to public or political pressures, then we obviously have some
real concerns about how the health care system is to be done in this Province.
We just asked the Minister to confirm that the meningitis
problem is being treated with all due concern for normal health practices that
would be in place anywhere in North America. And certainly in our case, in
Newfoundland, there is a concern expressed, at least by some parents involved,
that maybe certain health practices will not be done in this Province because of
our fiscal health care cutbacks. I want the Minister to confirm that this will
not happen in Newfoundland, that meningitis and other serious health problems
will be dealt with in a normal health care fashion, without any regard for our
fiscal problems.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. Member
that this particular situation is being handled as it would be handled anywhere
in North America. All normal procedures to prevent the spread of this diseae
have been followed. The disease I am told - and hon. Members will know I am not
a medical person, but I have medical people to advise me on this daily - is
normally spread among family members and other close contacts, so preventive
treatment is therefore routinely given to all the household and other close
members.
Now in the case of Mount Pearl, where there was a vaccine
given, there was a cluster within, and it seemed that people who were attending
certain schools also attended a teenage party and there was some evidence to
believe that the disease might have been spread from one to the other. The
result was that there were four people in a cluster, and the thing they had in
common was that they attended a teenage party, and they all attended the same
school.
The Department gave an antibiotic prophylaxis, which is the
normal way this is treated, which actually kills off the organism in the throats
of the people who are carrying it. This is the normal procedure which would be
followed right across the nation. Then, to make absolutely certain, they gave
the meningococcal vaccine, which is proven to be about 80 per cent effective in
adults. It is not effective in children under two.
So I can assure the people of this province that everything
is being done, and that the fiscal situation the Province finds itself in has
absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the way this is being treated, or any other
diseases being treated.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the
President of Treasury Board. The Government, no doubt, in preparing the
budgetary estimates for this year, would have prepared budgetary projections for
the next fiscal year and for successive years. Could the Minister advise the
House what the current projections are for the 1992-1993 fiscal year? And does
he indeed expect to achieve a surplus account in next year on current account
(Inaudible)?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we always project ahead, and for
the past year or so we have been doing some detailed projections looking ahead.
We discovered, for instance, that if we had not acted this year to curb our $200
million projected deficit, and if it were possible to borrow the money - which
it is not - to continue on the way we have been going, by the next fiscal year
we would have reached over $400 million, and over $600 million the year beyond
that. So we do do projections.
I will assure the hon. Member that projections are being
done, and we are hoping that by the actions we have taken this year we will
prevent a major problem from occuring next year.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not answered
the question. He said projections are being done. He has not told us what his
projections are for next year. We do not know, therefore, if you are projecting
a deficit or a surplus or a balanced budget for next year. Could the Minister
assure public sector unions in this Province that we have seen the end of these
drastic layoffs the Government has recently announced in the Public Service, and
that there is, in fact, no requirement for a repeat performance next year? Of
layoffs.
The Minister has not quite heard the question, Mr. Speaker,
so I will repeat it for him. What I was asking, can you assure public sector
unions that there will be no repeat performance of the massive layoffs we have
seen this year, based on your projections for next year's Budget?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose anybody who had a
crystal ball could make all kinds of projections. I noticed Members opposite
were talking about 8000 layoffs this year, and I notice the hon. Member for
Mount Pearl is down to 35000 or 4000 now, when in actual fact we have announced
the numbers. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give anybody any guarantees on anything a
year down the road. I cannot give guarantees on anything. We are following the
situation very closely; we are keeping up to date with the latest information,
but I can give no guarantees on what may happen a year, two, three or four down
the road. That would be a very dangerous thing to do, and it would be a very
irresponsible thing to do.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
I recognize the hon. Member for Mount Pearl if there are no
other people. I thought he was following on from the Member for Ferryland on
health, and I usually like to recognize someone else before I recognize a Member
twice. So, if the Member for St. East would concede?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary by the hon. the Member
for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my
friend for St. John's East. I have one quick final supplementary to the
Minister. Could the Minister assure public service unions that increases
negotiated for the 1992-93 fiscal year will indeed be honoured and we will not
see contract stripping, as we have seen this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we do not yet know. The
Legislation has not passed the House yet, and we do not know yet what the
options will be that the unions will choose. As I repeated a moment ago, it
would be totally irresponsible of me to give any kind of guarantee on anything
that may happen one, two, three, or four years down the road. I am not in the
business of taking irresponsible actions, Mr Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for
the Minister of Mines and Energy, or the Minister of Employment and Labour
Relations. The workers of Baie Verte mines have been waiting for some time now
for a decision on the some $500,000 they are owed by way of wages, benefits,
payments under the Labour Standards Decisions, and other entitlements in lieu of
wages and benefits which they are entitled to as a result of the closure of the
Baie Verte mine. Can the Minister of Mines and Energy or the Minister of
Employment and Labour Relations tell the people of Baie Verte when the
Government will make a decision on this matter, and whether or not they are
going to leave them hanging on their edge of seats, as it were, concerned about
their economic future? For how long are they going to do that, or are they going
to tell them what is going to happen to them?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, a decision has been made on that issue, and
before we did make the final decision I know we discussed it with the union from
Baie Verte mines in a meeting in Corner Brook some couple or three weeks ago.
Frankly, I am a little bit surprised that the final decision has not been
communicated to them. I assumed that it had been and I have not received any
contact from the union at Baie Verte mines myself on this matter saying that
they had not been informed. So I certainly welcome contact from them.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Well I am delighted to hear, Mr. Speaker,
that the decision has been made. The President of the Union, as of today, is not
aware of the decision. Perhaps if the Minister could tell the House what the
decision is then the people of Baie Verte can rest and at least know what the
Government has done. And hopefully it is good news. And if it is good news
perhaps you can tell the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have made a positive
decision. I do not recall all of the details of that now and the exact amount.
But certainly we can talk to the union about that, and I would like for him to
give me a call.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. GIBBONS: Just a second now, Mr. Speaker, I can call
on my colleague the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations who has the
details in front of her.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I have a note here saying that the $391,845.00 was
forwarded to the receiver on February 19, 1991. So if there are some problems
there, as the Minister of Mines and Energy has suggested, certainly I will
proceed to look into it right away this afternoon.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank both hon.
Ministers for making that information available. Presumably there seems to be
some communications breakdown and perhaps further clarification can be obtained
directly from the Ministers, from the people involved. But it does give rise to
a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Employment and Labour
Relations concerning payments generally to workers in cases of receiverships,
bankruptcies and things of that nature. Can the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations tell the House when she plans to introduce changes in The
Labour Standards Act to give some guarantee to workers that in the event of
bankruptcies and receiverships workers wages get a priority?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I might say to the Member for St. John's East that The Labour
Standards Act is being looked at actively now. There are a number of very
antiquated laws in The Labour Standards Act that I hope to correct. And that is
one that we are particularly looking at. I cannot tell you at this stage where
we are going to go with it. But it is one that we are looking at with a very
concerned manner.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the Member for St.
John's East.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that kind of
general comment from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations about the
review of The Labour Standards Act. What I would like -
MR. SPEAKER: The Member is on a supplementary.
MR. HARRIS: - to know is when the workers of Newfoundland
can expect protection from this Government in these hard economic times?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MS. COWAN: Certainly we will be moving on it as quickly
as possible. I cannot give the hon. gentleman an exact date, because there are a
number, as I said earlier, of antiquated laws all requiring immediate attention.
So we are moving on it as quickly as possible. And I can only assure the hon.
Member for St. John's East that it is something that is a priority with me.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WINSOR: My question is to the Minister of Education.
Yesterday in the House the Minister refused to confirm that Mun is considering
capping enrollments. Will the Minister then confirm that Mun is presently
considering raising its admission requirements for 1991-92? And that these
proposed changes will effectively cap enrollment because it adds new
restrictions to the number of students who can attend?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, Memorial over the past decade
has increased its entrance requirements for various programs and courses, and I
gather they are continuing to do that. But I have no knowledge of any major
change in policy for the next year. I could check the information for the hon.
Member. But I do not have any knowledge of that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: The Minister adds 'no major changes.' We are
asking the Minister is there any admission requirements into General Studies
Program? And let me ask the Minister this: will the Minister confirm that
presently there exists in this Province a difference in the average grades
achieved by rural high school students as compared to their urban counterparts?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to compare
grades and results. It depends on programs. We have some of the best schools in
the country in this Province. They are not all urban schools, they are rural
schools. Generally, in the past though, Mr. Speaker, the standards achieved in
basic subjects have been higher in the bigger schools, which happen to be in
urban communities. We are doing everything possible, Mr. Speaker, to improve the
situation in rural Newfoundland to enhance achievement and I do not think the
major gap is there anymore, Mr. Speaker, that was there some years ago.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Minister has already admitted that there is a gap,
will the Minister not admit then that by increasing the admission requirements
and raising the average from 60 to 65, or to 70, for MUN, that this restriction
will disproportionately affect the students living in rural Newfoundland more
than in urban Newfoundland and furthermore, since the Minister has indicated
that he might publicly get involved, or he has publicly said that Government
might get involved in the running of post-secondary institutions, will the
Minister intervene here and assure us that rural Newfoundland will not be
penalized by any new admission requirements at MUN?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member should listen to
what I said. I said there are gaps between large schools and small schools. He
should listen to what I said, also, Mr. Speaker, that no decisions, as far as I
know, have been made to cap any enrollments at Memorial. I am delighted this
year that in this very difficult period Memorial has not done anything to cap
enrollments. Mr. Speaker, many other universities across Canada have, and
Newfoundland is inheriting some of these students. The third thing, Mr. Speaker,
is that there is a bit of a myth about who attends Memorial University. I am
delighted to say that Memorial graduates thousands of students from all over
this Province. Doctor Harris some years ago, and I wish the hon. Member knew
what he was talking about, Dr. Harris documented the number of graduates from
rural Newfoundland. Thousands upon thousands have gone to Memorial and will
continue to go to Memorial, and this Government is committed to that, Mr.
Speaker. We are going to provide more student aid and more scholarships for
students so that all Newfoundlanders have access to post-secondary education.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I refer the Minister to Budget,
Page 193, subhead 4.l.08 - Adjustment Program for Fish Plant Workers, where we
see a revised figure of $7.3 million spent last year on the Fish Plant Worker
Adjustment Program. I was wondering if the Minister could inform the House how
much of the $7.3 million was paid to Fishery Products International for their
three plants and how much was paid to National Sea Products for St. John's?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MS. COWAN: I will have to get that information for him,
Mr. Speaker, and I will do that with dispatch. I will have it tomorrow for him.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank on a
supplementary.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary for the Minister. I am wondering in the meantime, while the
Minister is getting the breakdown per company, I wonder if the Minister would
undertake to table invoices for money paid out to both FPI and NatSea with a
detailed breakdown of expenditures per fish plant? Really what I am asking the
Minister is: when she tables the invoices for Fishery Products International
would she provide the information for what the payout was to Fishery Products
International to operate the Grand Bank fish plant, the Gaultois fish plant, the
Trepassey fish plant - not jumped in together but each one separately?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that matter
under advisement and if it is appropriate, which I expect it probably is, as
long as I am not required to reveal anything about the company, I will again
bring that to the House for tabling.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to undertake that. Last
year she tabled invoices for both companies but we did not get the breakdown per
plant. What I am really interested in finding out is what Government actually
paid to operate each of those plants. I think it was $11.5 to FPI and another $3
million to NatSea. I would like to see the cost per plant if I could.
Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Fisheries. I
am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries has held discussions as of late with
Fishery Products International, or has he received any indications from the
company that there could possibly be further plant closures within the next
twelve months, further plants belonging to Fishery Products International as a
result of the total allowable catch being set at a reduction over the next three
years? Has the Minister received any indication whatsoever from the company that
there indeed may be further plant closures in the operation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.
MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the short answer, I guess, to
the question is no. Fishery Products has not advised me that they contemplate
any further plant closures, and I can only take their word for it. Of course, it
will depend, I suppose, largely on the total allowable catches and the various
allocations, but only time will tell to what extent the TAC might be reduced
again next year. But certainly on the basis of information that we have at this
point in time, I have not been informed of any intended plant closures, and I
suspect that even FPI themselves would be unable to answer that question right
now.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Works, Services and Transportation as it relates to the statement he
made today about the increase in fees for vehicles in this Province. Will the
Minister confirm that the increase today as shown in the Budget of this year,
the increase in the cost for vehicle licences this year is the $1.6 million that
is shown in the Budget of this year under vehicle and drivers licence fees for
1991-92.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation.
MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the
Member for Kilbride asked a question about the statement I made today because
when the Member for Mount Pearl got up and talked about the Budget and talked
about it, he referred to the statement that I made today, to the figures in the
Budget about revenue. He referred to it as a net loss of $34,000 that we had
after he did his sums on it. Now we hear the Member for Kilbride get up and say
that there was an increase -
AN HON. MEMBER: You obviously do not know what you are
talking about.
MR. GILBERT: - there was a tax grab on the people of
Newfoundland, so I ask him to get his questions straightened away now, and get
their minds together over there.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will
the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation explain to this House
and the taxpayers of this Province where he expects to drain another $1.6
million out of the taxpayers of this Province for vehicle and drivers licences
this year? Mr. Speaker, where is it coming from?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation.
MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, as I just explained to the
Member, when the Member for Mount Pearl got up and talked about the increased
revenues, he talked about a decrease that we were having of $34,000 - the man is
talking about a tax grab, and actually the only increase from the figures that I
talked about today; what we are doing is cancelling the public utilities fee and
adding it into the licence fee that is going to be distributed over the whole
process. So the net gain of revenue from the statement that I made today will be
$90,000, not a $34,000 loss - the finance critic had his sums wrong. Actually
there is a net gain in the statement I made today of $90,000, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.
Before moving away to the next point, I should point out what
happened in Question Period, and I probably did not explain it when I recognized
the Member for Mount Pearl.
Normally the Chair tries not to recognize a person twice, of
course, unless there is nobody standing. But I thought that the Member was
following on from the Member for Ferryland, who was talking about a rather
important item - meningitis in Mount Pearl was mentioned. When the Member stood
I thought he was on a supplementary. So I explain that to all hon. Members.
MR. WINDSOR: Not to question Your Honour's ruling at all,
I appreciate why the hon. Mr. Speaker would have thought perhaps I wished to
comment on that. And I did not comment on that because I have been totally in
contact with my colleague, of course, and as health critic I am letting him deal
with it.
But just on your point. I do not think there is anything in
the rules that prohibits a Member from asking two, three or four questions. And
I just want to be clear on that point, that we do have a right to stand any
number of times.
MR. SPEAKER: Quite obviously.
MR. WINDSOR: And I appreciate Your Honour will try to be
fair on that and try to give every Member an opportunity. And you know, I would
hope that that is the only rule worth following, and that is that each Member be
given an equal opportunity to ask questions in this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I am not going to debate that. Quite
obviously, as I have said, when I have recognized a Member once then I try to
recognize other Members who are standing. But if he is the only one standing
quite obviously the Chair has to recognize him again and again. But there were
other Members standing and that is why I apologized to the other Members who
were standing.
Enough said.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a
petition of approximately thirty citizens, most of whom are residents of St.
John's and the immediate area. This petition was written and the signatures
collected in just the past few hours. The prayer of the petition is: we the
undersigned urge the Provincial Government to ask the University to rescind the
recent cuts to the MUN Extension Rural Programmes, MUN Extension Arts, and the
MUN Art Gallery.
I wholeheartedly support the prayer of the petition, Mr.
Speaker.
The petitioners are extremely upset, as are thousands of
people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, at the news that Memorial
University Extension Service is being terminated. Memorial University Extension
Service has provided invaluable supports and aided in the development of rural
and urban Newfoundland and Labrador.
The prayer of the petition mentions the rural programs in
particular. These programs have been delivered over many years through field
workers stationed regionally; these field workers have supported individuals and
groups in rural communities in achieving their own goals; they have aided in
informal as well as formal learning; they have provided the hand of Memorial
University to most of Newfoundland and Labrador, since the University has bricks
and mortar only in St. John's and Corner Brook.
The need for this kind of community development throughout
rural Newfoundland and Labrador arguably has never been greater since the
notorious days of the Smallwood re-settlement program. Today, the economy of
rural Newfoundland and Labrador is in jeopardy because of the decline in the
fishery and the decline in mining. It is also threatened because of the
centralization policies of the Wells' Administration. The MUN Extension Arts
program has been located in St. John's and has provided a nucleus for artists of
different disciplines in the immediate St. John's area, as well as artists from
other places when they are visiting St. John's.
I would like to quote from a letter I received just the other
day from some of the visual artists involved in that program. They wrote me
saying that they profoundly regret the loss of MUN Extension Arts. `We, as
visual artists, are devastated by the Memorial University decision to close MUN
Extension Arts. It is the only multi-disciplinary home for Arts in the Province.
Without Extension Arts, the cultural identity of Newfoundland and Labrador will
disintegrate.'
Mr. Speaker, after having met with two of the leading visual
artists, Ilsa Hughes and Diana Dabinett, who signed this letter and signed the
petition, I know that these words were carefully chosen.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners call on the Government
to rescind the cuts to the Memorial University Art Gallery. That is the only
public gallery in the whole Province. The cuts amounted to about one quarter of
the salary budget and have necessitated a drastic reduction in gallery public
viewing hours. The gallery now is only going to be open nine months of the year,
and during that time on a reduced basis - it will be open only two evenings a
week - and real artists, who realize just how much work goes into a gallery
exhibit, are now questioning whether all the work is worth it, since the public
will have such little opportunity to view exhibits at the Province's only public
gallery.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time as the Wells' administration
and Dr. May at the University are eliminating MUN Extension Service and cutting
the University art gallery, they are infusing millions of dollars of extra money
into the Premier's Economic Recovery Commission and the Enterprise Newfoundland
and Labrador, which is subordinated to the Recovery Commission. Collectively,
this is Doug House's empire.-
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. Member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!
MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great
pleasure to rise and support the petition presented by my colleague for Humber
East on behalf of MUN Extension. Memorial University Extension has played a
vital role in the development of rural Newfoundland, and the downgrading and
elimination of it can only inflict more injury on rural Newfoundland by this
Government.
One eminent Newfoundlander said of MUN Extension: the
Extension Service needs to be strengthened and professors in the various
disciplines encouraged to bring their expertise to bear upon local development
problems. And then he went on to say: Memorial University's School of Continuing
Studies and Extension should be reorganized and given a strong mandate to
co-ordinate community and economic development contributions by the University
to all regions of the Province.
Of course that was written by Dr. Doug House in his Report on
Employment and Unemployment, recommending that MUN Extension be upgraded and
improved as opposed to being eliminated, as this administration has seen fit to
do. I have no doubt that the administration knew well in advance what Memorial
University was intending to do in its budget, and they do have the authority to
re-instate MUN Extension if they so decided.
It is interesting to note that the Minister of Education has
said that the work of MUN Extension could easily be carried on by three groups,
and the three groups he quoted specifically were development associations,
Enterprise Newfoundland and the community colleges. I am sure that the Minister
of Education, like most other Members, has received letters from development
associations lauding the good work of the Extension Service, and asking the
Minister to re-instate it because of the valuable service they provide.
Perhaps the Minister is not aware that MUN Extension has
given valuable training to development associations. The development
associations do not stay forever the same; they are not static, they are forever
changing, and as the members change there is a constant need to do retraining.
That is a role MUN Extension has done and done quite well. Interestingly enough,
Enterprise Newfoundland, the second group he alludes to, it is my understanding
that right now, presently, workers for Enterprise Newfoundland are being trained
by MUN Extension. So what we have here are the trainees replacing the trainers.
Now that is an unusual situation. People who are experts in the field are going
to be replaced by novices, people who have just started, and as a result, that
second agency, Enterprise Newfoundland, is going to fail to act as the vehicle
that MUN Extension was.
Thirdly, the community colleges were supposed to facilitate
all the things that MUN Extension did. The budgets for the community colleges
are reduced by $1 million. Furthermore, there are some strong indications that
the community colleges in Baie Verte, Bell Island, and several other communities
in this Province are going to be significantly downgraded, further reducing the
expertise that would be out in rural Newfoundland to help.
What we have here, Mr. Speaker, by the elimination of MUN
Extension, is another attack on rural Newfoundland. MUN Extension was
instrumental last year in organizing a forum for fishermen throughout this
Province. That one, I think, was called 'Empty Nets', when they went throughout
the Province helping community groups organize, helping fisheries associations
and so on to articulate positions that are vital for the saving of both the
inshore and the offshore sector of our fishery. How does one of those community
colleges, or Enterprise Newfoundland, or a development association replace that
vehicle which provided so much service to Newfoundland? It cannot be done.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why? Tell us.
MR. WINSOR: Because there is no expertise in these places
to do it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINSOR: Everyone says it. I do not have to say it.
Dr. Doug House says it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. WINSOR: Dr. Doug House says it needs to be
strengthened. Dr. Doug House in his Report on Employment and Unemployment, he,
too, recommended that Mun Extension be improved and monies increased to improve
the delivery of service to Newfoundland, rural Newfoundland particularly,
instead of downgrading it. In the magazine, Decks Awash -
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct some
misleading information the hon. Member just quoted. Number one, Mr. Speaker, I
have spoken in this House about my involvement with Extension, and I paid
tribute to the Extension Service and the arts program on many occasions, in the
last few days. That is first of all, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, I did not say that
the work of Extension could be taken over by others. I said the void could be
filled somewhat by the community colleges, the Enterprise Newfoundland group,
many other groups and many people we have prepared, the graduates of the
University and others, who are involved in all kinds of ways in rural
Newfoundland.
Getting to the petition itself, I am sure Dr. May has
received this request; letters have gone to him about that. I, as Minister,
hesitate to get involved in telling the University what to do, Mr. Speaker.
MS. VERGE: Aw!
DR. WARREN: The hon. Member who just `awed' should
remember when she was Minister. She should know how the University is run. The
Government gives the University -
AN HON. MEMBER: She does know.
DR. WARREN: Oh, she does know. Okay,
Let us assume she knows.
MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) from Government.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we give the University a global
budget. The University makes it decisions. And, Mr. Speaker, let me say one
other thing.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. WARREN: The law requires it to be done as it is now
done. And if we lose confidence in the University, Mr. Speaker, we will replace
the Board of Regents and we will replace the President. But until that time, we
have to leave it to that group to make decisions on how the University is run.
It is a tradition in this country that you have autonomy at the University
level.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: What a weak, weak, weak performance.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have recognized the hon.
Member for Burin - Placentia West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I would like to
present on behalf of approximately 400 parents of the Marystown Central High
School. The petition is part of approximately 2,000 or 3,000 I have presented so
far in the House, and I think I have something like ten or twelve more petitions
I will be presenting over the coming days.
This petition says, `We are concerned about the serious
damage which will be done to the education of our children in the community if
there are any cutbacks in education funding. We are especially opposed to
funding cutbacks which will affect the Marystown Central High School by reducing
staff, making it impossible to increase staffing if required, creating class
sizes so large that students cannot learn, reducing or eliminating remedial
guidance and library services, making it impossible for the school board to fund
new programs and facilities. Decreased funding for education at this time would
undo the real progress of recent years and seriously harm the future of
individual persons of our Province. We now ask our Government not to impose
funding cutbacks on the education of our children.'
Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Education looking somewhat
bewildered by the prayer of the petition. I do not know why.
DR. WARREN: There are no cuts in elementary education.
MR. TOBIN: But the people are calling upon -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Education can say what he
likes. The Minister of Education knows full well that Dr. Vokey and other people
in the education system have stated quite categorically that if there was not at
least -
MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, would someone gag the Member for
Mount Scio - Bell Island. Tell him to get concerned about his ferry. You bring
in petitions on behalf of your constituents, never mind hiding behind the
Government front benches and letting down the people who elected you to
represent them. No wonder you are a total failure in this Legislature and to the
people whom you represent. No wonder, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to present this
petition on behalf of the people who elected me to come to the House of Assembly
and to speak on their behalf. That is what I want to do. I accept that as my
responsibility. I do not accept it as my responsibility to be lying to someone
who has been detrimental to the people who elected me. I do not see that as my
responsibility, and that is why I present the petition, and I shall never, have
never, and shall never refuse to do so for my constituents like some other
Members.
Now, these petitions that are -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: These petitions are signed by the people from
the Marystown Central High School, the people from the Marystown Elementary
school system, the St. Patrick's school system, the Pearson school system, the
Jamieson system and the Harford school system, and the Rushoon system and other
schools in my district that are pleading with this Minister to put in place the
necessary funding to do what needs to be done in the educational system. The
Budget does not provide the funding necessary, and in the Minister's own
admission, by the way, the Minister's own admission is that he needed at least 8
to 10 per cent of an increase in the Budget to maintain the status quo, to
maintain what he had last year. He did not get it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Yes, sure. I will be Tabling my petition. I
will be tabling my petition at the appropriate time, and I can tell the Minister
of Education that this is a petition submitted by the people of Burin -
Placentia West. It is a petition that I will be Tabling when I take my place in
this Assembly, of which I will be affixing my signature to because I support the
petition, and I want the Members opposite to do the same. I want the Members
opposite to do the same. There is no way that this Minister of Education can
stand and say that if we lose confidence in certain people, if we lose
confidence in the Board of Regents and the President of the university, he said
we will get rid of them. Let me say to the Minister of Education that the
confidence in the Minister of Education has been lost. There is nobody in this
Province who has confidence in the Minister of Education any longer to continue
to guide the educational system in this Province. He has been a dismal failure
in that portfolio. He has not been responsible to the educational needs of this
Province. It was only on Saturday I read a letter in a paper -
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. Member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the
petition presented by my colleague for Burin - Placentia West. You know it was
real interesting to watch the Minister of Education over there, real interesting
when the heat came on asking my colleague -
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The page is supposed to present the petition to the Table. I
am sorry.
MR. WINSOR: - when did he get the petition, and he seemed
to be suggesting that the petition came in prior to the Budget being presented.
What I find amusing about that is -
MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!
The Page is supposed to have that petition - if people want
it they can get it from the Table.
AN HON. MEMBER: They are taking over the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, he is just cutting into my time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. gentleman on a point of order.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, when a petition is tabled, every
Member has a right to ask the Table for a copy of that petition, which is
precisely what I did.
AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't. He did not.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The document was not tabled, the page was bringing it to the
Table and presented it to the Minister on her way. It has to be tabled, brought
to the Table.
The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And so the Minister
of Education was trying to suggest in some way that this petition was given
prior to the Budget, and the Member failed to present it. Now what is real
interesting in this, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Education had a
prepared press release done prior to the Budget being released, released it on
the Friday following the Budget with so much erroneous information in it, but
not one shred of evidence in it to suggest that he knew what he was talking
about.
In that media briefing the Minister suggested that Memorial
University had a $5.5 million increase in its operating budget. In Monday or
Tuesday of the next week, the Minister tried to skate around it by saying: if we
did not have a freeze then we would have had that money. Now, obviously the
Minister had written his press release long before the Budget was presented, but
I want to get back to what the Minister said about no cuts in primary and
elementary and secondary education in this Province.
While it might not show up as cuts I do not know why school
boards in this Province are, almost without exception, predicting that their
operating grants will be, in the case of the board with which I am more
familiar, some $200,000 less; the Avalon Consolidated Board has hundreds of
thousands dollars less; the R.C. Board has thousands of dollars less. Now, Mr.
Speaker, what the Minister fails to take into account in all of this, is that
the increase to school boards have been somewhat in the range of 10 to 12 per
cent and the Minister in his Budget only gave them nickels, nickels and dimes to
solve thousand dollar problems and that is where the real cuts have come, Mr.
Speaker.
Gasoline prices, added to by Dr. Kitchen's new tax have
increased steadily causing more problems, more pressures on boards, as a result
the program to elementary, secondary and primary education has been considerably
reduced and the Minister goes on to say that there are no cutbacks; well, let me
refer him to his own Budget Estimates. In program development, last year he
budgeted, you see, and this is what the Minister is good at doing, he budgeted
$330,000, he actually spent $580,000, this year he is going to spend $371,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINSOR: Yes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. WINSOR: He is spending over what he has budgeted but
that has no bearing, nothing to do with what actually happened. What has really
happened there is, the Minister has reduced spending by some $200,000. Some
$200,000 in program development; now, Mr. Speaker, if there is any area of our
education system that needs spending it is in curriculum development.
AN HON. MEMBER: Curriculum development (inaudible).
MR. WINSOR: Curriculum development, I have notes made and
I am going to in our Estimates on the Budget, I am going to have the Minister to
explain how the most important part of the education system has been so
neglected, that this Administration, in each of his Budgets, has spent
proportionately less on curriculum development than it has anywhere else and
that is what the priority petition is asking the Minister to do, to up its
spending so that students can have computer programming, so that they can have
increased facilities at the primary and secondary level and the Minister shirks
off his duties and responsibilities by trying to suggest that the Member
somehow-
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, as a very reasonable person, I
will call this a petition. It was a letter to Premier Wells, it is not a
petition, am I right? I will respond to it even if it is not a petition. It was
a letter to Premier Wells dated December 13, 1990 -
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
AN HON. MEMBER: December 13?
DR. WARREN: - and why the hon. Member kept it for three
months when decisions were being made, when decisions were being made in
December and January and February, when he had a chance to influence the
decisions, he held it. He kept it to himself, Mr. Speaker, and you talk about
representing your people -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful.
DR. WARREN: - Mr. Speaker, talk about credibility, talk
about credibility. Mr. Speaker, now to the petition. I would like to respond to
the petition.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the House.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the
petition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this letter was written to
Premier Wells on December 13, 1990 and it said: we are very concerned about the
serious damage which will be done to the education of children in our community
if there are any cuts in educational funding. I am especially opposed to cuts
and reducing staff. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only staff reductions in teachers in
this Province are those that result from declining enrollments: Creating class
sizes so large that students cannot learn. Mr. Speaker, the class size is held
at last year if it is not even a little lower. Because of declining enrolments
we have one of the lowest pupil/teacher ratios in this country and I am
delighted to say that: Reducing or eliminating remedial guidance and library
services. No remedial, no guidance or no library services have been reduced as a
result of the Budget. Maybe as a result of declining enrollments there may be
some reductions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the school system does not have
enough money. They are underfunded and I have said that over and over. This
Government is going to try and improve the funding in the future. We had some
freezes in some funds for elementary and secondary but this year the elementary
and secondary system tell me - Mr. Speaker, I am told by the superintendents and
the school boards that they will get by reasonably well this year and provide
high quality education on a level comparable to last year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition
signed by 494 parents of students of Newtown Elementary School. It reads: we the
parents of students in Newtown Elementary School would like to voice our
objection to cutbacks to the education system and feel that if the Provincial
Government is permitted to proceed with said cutbacks the quality of education
given our children will be drastically affected. Then it goes on for a couple of
more paragraphs but I will not read it all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen want to
deal with it then I will deal with it. The date on it is January 25 and that is
the day that the petition was drafted and circulated to all students to bring
home to their parents and signed, and that is what all of these are, individual
signatures by parents, including my wife's because of the fact we have a
daughter there. This was received by me a couple of weeks ago. The format may
not be entirely in keeping with the format prescribed by the House of Assembly
but it is a valid petition and it expresses the concerns of people, the parents
of students of Newtown Elementary School, and that is the concern I am here to
address, not whether or not the format is entirely in keeping with hon. Member's
wishes. The important aspect here, Mr. Speaker, is the requirement for improved
educational facilities. I have listened to the Minister of Education respond to
a number of petitions over the past couple of weeks dealing with education, two
or three this afternoon, and I say to the Minister that we in Mount Pearl are
not experiencing a reduced number of students. We are in fact a growth area,
probably in fact the greatest growth area in the Province, and I take this
opportunity to say to the Minister and the hon. Member for Waterford - Kenmount
who represents part of the City of Mount Pearl, about one quarter of the City of
Mount Pearl is represented by my hon. colleague, and he has confirmed as well
that we are desperately in need of additional school facilities, particularly
the Catholic school. My friend for Mount Scio - Bell Island has children in the
Catholic school system and I think will confirm that there is a move afoot now,
in fact a meeting was tentatively scheduled for tonight but it has been
cancelled now, to deal with the need for additional school facilities in Mount
Pearl for the Catholic school system. We are getting very much to the point in
the Avalon Consolidated system in Mount Pearl where we are going to need some
expansion as well. It is a very, very high growth area with two of the finest
schools in the province, I am proud to say, with the highest academic
achievement and also probably one of the greatest extra-curricular programs in
the Province. We are very, very proud indeed of the facilities we have.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, we do have probably the
finest schools in the Province but nevertheless the growth will dictate that we
do need some expansion there. The plans for the future, the projections for the
future, indicate that that growth can be expected for the next fifteen to twenty
years in that area. So, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to present this
request on behalf of the parents. I believe the Minister will take it in good
spirit. And that these are very legitimate concerns on behalf of these people,
for the thousands of people who we are representing in the great historic
district of Mount Pearl.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member. He did
it right. I am pleased to receive his intervention, and I assure him that I have
the same high regard for the schools in his community that he has. They have
excellent programmes. It is one of the, I think perhaps two, Mr. Speaker,
growing areas of the Province. Conception Bay South, I think, is a growth area,
and the hon. Member's area I think is a growth area as well. In all other areas
enrollments are declining. And certainly I will convey to the people who make
the decisions concerning schools his concerns.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take pleasure as
well this afternoon to rise in this Assembly to support the petition so ably
presented by my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl.
Of course after listening to the Member for Mount Pearl, I
guess there is very little left for one to say. He is very much abreast of the
educational - not only the educational needs of his district but very much of
the educational happenings in his district, and the success story that he has
relayed to the Legislature which all of us I am sure are very much familiar. So
I want to rise and speak in support of the petition and to support my colleague
who has presented it so well.
In essence the prayer of the petition is the same as we have
seen from any number of petitions over the last few weeks presented in the
Legislature. It is calling upon the Government not to cut back any further with
funding for education in the Province. Because even though we are talking about
a very progressive school system in Mount Pearl, that if we see further
restrictions on funding to the school boards then those school systems that we
can sort of hold up for acclaim such as Mount Pearl, if that is very negatively
affected because of further cutbacks in education, then it will not be too long
before we will not even be able to refer to the Mount Pearl school system and
their schools as being such success stories.
And I found it a bit amusing, I must say, when the Members
for Burin - Placentia West and Mount Pearl got up to present their petitions.
There were Members opposite asking about the dates on their petition.
MR. TOBIN: They already got a copy of it.
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, well, no, but the letter was written
to the Premier three months ago, and that did not have any affect on the
educational funding in the budget, I say to the Minister of Education. Now if
there is one person in the Province who you would think letters would have an
impact upon it would be the Premier of the Province. But it certainly did not
have any impact upon the Premier and the budget decisions, because we have seen
such drastic cuts in educational funding for the Province.
Another one who laughed the loudest over there was the
Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He laughed loudest about the
date on the petitions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: Not true, not true!
MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, let me say, the Member for Eagle River
was not even here when the Minister laughed, so I do not know how he can say it
is not true.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: My point is, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister
has been sitting on a petition from Burgeo since January. Sitting on a petition
from Burgeo since January, Mr. Speaker.
MR. GILBERT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Big Bird is up.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation on a point of order.
MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I have not been sitting on a
petition from Burgeo since January. I received a petition from 2,600 people from
Franois to LaPoile early in January. In view of the fact that the House was not
open I wrote the Minister of Health, passed the petition along and explained
their concerns.
MR. TOBIN: Table it in the House.
MR. GILBERT: I advised the town council of Burgeo who had
sent me the petition -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
There is no point of order. The hon. gentleman is just taking
advantage of an opportunity to explain a certain circumstance.
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The
Minister is trying to waste time again. The point is that not only did he have
the petition, he went on the cable channel up in Burgeo and told them everything
was alright, they had nothing to worry about. That is what happened to him. And
they are up there now ready to lynch him once again, like they were over their
fish plant. They are ready to lynch him now over the hospital issue.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Member to stay to the allegation of this
petition.
MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, the Minister incited
me. And he is such a walking target that it is hard not to react. But having
said that I want to finish by commending my colleague -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: - for presenting it, and to rise in this
Legislature, to go on record as supporting it, and to call upon the Minister of
Education that we know what has happened this year in the Budget, it is a fait
accompli, that we have seen drastic cutbacks in education, but please do not cut
us back any more in future years.
MR. BAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a
point of order.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to refer Your Honour to Standing Orders 90 to
97, page 31 of our Standing Orders. I have a concern, Mr. Speaker, that the
Standing Orders are being seriously abused and I feel that I have a duty to
point this out to Your Honour.
In terms of petitions, Standing Order 91 says specifically,
'A petition may either be printed or written and if more than three petitioners
sign it, at least three signatures must appear on the page containing the prayer
of the petition.'
Now, Mr. Speaker, a petition was presented here today and I
suspect a number of petitions have been presented in the last number of days:
that number one, contain no prayer and number two, do not contain three
signatures.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am specifically referring to
the one today done by the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West which
simply was a letter to Premier Wells.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!
MR. BAKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been in this House
very lenient.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BAKER: Because we believe that if the intent of
people is something to be presented to this House then we should live by the
intent, and we have been very, very lenient.
However, Mr. Speaker, obviously the intent of this letter had
nothing to do with a presentation in this hon. House. It was a letter to the
Premier expressing some concern, because at the time we were in the process of
examining what would happen with our Budget, expressing concern about reducing
staff in the high school, okay, creating large class sizes and similar matters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the implication by Members opposite was
that this was not dealt with. It was absolutely dealt with because in our Budget
considerations we neither reduced staff in the schools nor increased class
sizes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we did the opposite, class sizes will
actually reduce. The average class size in the Province will go down as a result
of happenings in our society. So, Mr. Speaker, it does not even fit the intent
of a petition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, going one step further, Standing Order 95
specifically states 'A petition, the granting of which involves an expenditure
of public money, shall if received, be referred to the government department
concerned.' And as the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation pointed
out that is exactly what he did with the petition that he received because it
involved the expenditure of money. And it was referred to the department that
was concerned.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my concern is if we continue to allow -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BAKER: If we continue to allow any piece of paper or
any copy of any piece of paper into the House as a petition then we are abusing
the rules of the House. If this kind of thing is going to be done, Mr. Speaker,
every single time a petition is introduced into the House then we are, on this
side, going to have to immediately raise a point of order, and immediately see
that the petition is checked out, and immediately see that everything is in
order. And in other words, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to insist on the
absolute rules in the Standing Orders be applied and we do not want to do that,
Mr. Speaker. We want to have flexibility.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think what we have seen here today and
what we have been seeing for a few days is this represents an absolute abuse of
our Standing Orders of this House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would submit to Your Honour that all of the petitions
presented by Members on this side of the House today have been important
statements of concern by our constituents. Each of the Members who has risen to
present a petition has done so conscientiously and followed the wishes of his or
her constituents. Mr. Speaker, the Standing Order 95 cited by the Government
House Leader says, "A petition, the granting of which involves an expenditure of
public money, shall if received, be referred to the government department
concerned." Well, most of the petitions presented in this House, by Members on
both sides, by the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde the other day as well as
several of us on this side today, are calling on the Government to reinstate
public funding for hospitals, health care services, the University, schools,
educational programs - which are diverse in nature. Once a petition is presented
in this House it is my understanding that the House of Assembly staff are to
refer it to the Department concerned but there is certainly no prohibition in
the Standing Orders to petitions calling for the expenditure of public funds
being presented in this House. I want to reiterate that all the Members on this
side who presented petitions today, and previously, are doing so at the
expressed request of our constituents, the citizens of this Province who are
paying taxes and whom we are suppose to be serving.
MR. SPEAKER: I have heard enough on the point of the
order but since it is the hon. Member I will take one more submission.
MR. TOBIN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to speak to the matter raised by the President of
Treasury Board and the Government House Leader because he accused me, Mr.
Speaker, of basically not representing the wishes of my constituents. What has
happened is that I have been contacted, and I will explain the petition, Mr.
Speaker. Maybe the prayer of the petition was not what the House deems, I am not
sure, I do not know but I thought it was.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TOBIN: I was asked by my constituents to present that
to the House of Assembly. I just want to give some history to the Member. Myself
and the delegation from Marystown met with the Minister of Education. At such
times there were a certain amount of petitions presented to them and there was a
follow-up in petitions that were later circulated and I was asked to do it in
the Legislature. I have done that, Mr. Speaker, but probably the prayer of the
petition was not what it should have been and probably I should have asked leave
to do it. I knew this was about to come because when the Member for Trinity -
Bay de Verde stood in this House yesterday and took strips off the Government
with a petition I could see the colour in the face of the Government House
Leader change and I knew he was going to stifle the presentation of petitions.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I ask the hon. Member when speaking to a point of
order to please speak to the point of order. There are rules in the House and I
have made some points on petitions some time ago. There are rules in the House
and they are made for a reason and once we start digressing we start asking for
trouble. I can certainly advise hon. Members of that fact. Every proceeding of
the House has different proceedings. Question Period is different from debate
and Petitions are different from something else and once we start letting the
rules relax we are going to get into trouble. The hon. the Government House
Leader makes a valid point. I said last week that hon. Members, when presenting
a petition that is not in the true form of the petition, should advise the Table
and should advise the Chair. In the past some hon. Members have done that. They
came to me to say that they were presenting a petition that is not in the form
and this House has not always accepted that. We have been very strict on the
form. Over the past little while there has been some flexibility but I do
believe that hon. Members still have an obligation to keep the rules, and
certainly if a petition is not in the form, advise the Chair beforehand, or the
Table, so that hon. Members will know what is being presented. Otherwise I can
assure hon. Members we will get into all kinds of problems with presenting
petitions and nobody wants to do any injustice to constituents. If a constituent
from Labrador, for instance, sends in a petition that is not in true form, I for
one would want to see that petition presented. I have seen petitions being
collected in St. John's in the last few days and not meeting the requirements
and there is no excuse for that. We can meet the
requirements.
Orders of the Day
MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of
the Whole, on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to
know is if the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation knows what day of
the year it is? Does he know what year it is first of all, if he could answer
that question I will pass him a supplementary, what month is it and what day is
it? I do not know where he is today, at all. It is amazing, amazing some of the
comments the hon. Gentleman is making today.
AN HON. MEMBER: We will have to get answers tomorrow by
the looks of it.
MR. WINDSOR: His colleagues are embarrassed over there
boy.
Mr. Chairman, we were talking to them about jobs. The
President of Treasury Board said, oh I am talking 8,000 jobs, talking 3,500
jobs, then he says -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: I have been very clear, very clear, since
day one, since Budget Day, my first assessment was 3,500 jobs in the public
service. Now I have said greater than 3,000 jobs, much more than 3,000 jobs,
nearly 4,000 jobs, and whenever I have used an accurate number I would say,
3,500 jobs is what I am predicting is going to be lost in the public service;
and I also said that if you use a multiplier effect on that you are looking at
well over 8,000 jobs in total in the public and private sector that are going to
be lost, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that is not a serious fact, then
they are only fooling themselves because there are jobs being lost every single
day in the private sector because of the downturn of the economy, largely caused
by this move of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
AN HON. MEMBER: What about up in Ontario?
MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: What about the jobs lost in Ontario
(inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Oh, there are a few jobs lost in Ontario, no
doubt, but that is because of the Government of Ontario, not because of - and
they are going to lose a lot more in Ontario, if the present NDP Government in
Ontario is allowed to carry on unchecked, I can tell you that; and that is one
of the serious problems. The hon. Gentleman is jesting here, but he is
identifying a real problem that we have, because as the economy of Ontario goes,
so goes the economy of Canada and so goes transfer payments, so what the
Government of Ontario was doing, was having a very serious, negative impact on
the transfer payments that this Province can expect. So, we may make light of
the fact that there are jobs being lost in Ontario, but it impacts directly on
the revenues of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is a very
serious situation.
But there are many, many jobs being lost right here in the
Province. Every day I speak with people who are in the position of having to lay
people off, and, Mr. Chairman, the impact of that is to make a bad situation
worse; here is a Government that is laying people off, laying people off because
for one reason, their revenues are down from what they had projected and that is
true, that is true. Certain of their revenues are below what had been projected
and so their answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is to eliminate $100 million of
public service salaries.
$100 million dollars have been taken out of the economy. Now
the spending power, the disposable income of public servants in this Province I
would suggest to this hon. House, is probably higher than the average
Newfoundlander; the average public servant enjoys a reasonable standard of
living and has a reasonable measure of disposable income, and it is that
disposable income that helps generate the wheels of the economy, and by taking
$100 million out of that situation, we are in effect making a bad situation
worse. And less money, $100 million less circulating through the economy, there
is less business, less business opportunity and less jobs in the private sector,
and less jobs in the private sector means less disposable income again, less
retail sales tax paid, less personal income tax paid, less corporate tax paid,
less payroll tax paid, our infamous payroll tax!
All of these things are negatively impacting because that
$100 million is taken out of the economy, so the Government that is trying to
resolve their problems here, and we recognize they have a current account
problem largely due to their own making, I say in all honesty and all sincerity,
very largely due to their mishandling of the economy in the past eighteen months
or two years since they have been in office, so now they are paying the price of
their actions, but their solution is to cut $100 million from the economy,
because there was nothing in this Budget and nothing in the Throne Speech, Mr.
Chairman, that deals with generating economic activity in this Province; there
are no new programs announced. You know, at a time when the economy is weak, we
do not need more unemployed. What we need are more job opportunities. And the
only way to get those job opportunities -
MR. EFFORD: Grow cucumbers.
MR. WINDSOR: - is to create economic development. And it
may well be cucumbers, I say to my silly friend from Port de Grave. It may well
be cucumbers. And if it creates jobs then let's build more cucumber factories,
or rubber factories, or lightbulb factories or anything else.
MR. EFFORD: You're not serious!?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: If it creates jobs, if it is a viable
economic opportunity, if it is a good investment, let's build them. Let's build
them out in Port de Grave, I do not care where we build them.
MR. EFFORD: Not on your life would they ever be put in
Port de Grave. Where's the press?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder we got no money!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. WINDSOR: Let's build them!
MR. EFFORD: "Scuttlebutt" on Sunday!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. WINDSOR: Let's stimulate the economy. Is my time up,
Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
No, I am just trying to get some order.
MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whatever we have to
do at this serious time in our history let's do it. When hon. gentlemen stood up
yesterday and they talked about - I have some notes hidden away here somewhere -
they talked about the Provincial debt. The hon. Member, I believe, from
Lewisporte, talked about the build-up of the Provincial debt.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) pick on him again. As pleasant
as it is, as tempting as it is, no, I am not going to pick on him. But I believe
it was the hon. Member for Lewisporte or was it somebody else who talked about
the Provincial debt over the years, and listed them all down? And he pointed out
that from 1982 to 1985 the Provincial debt increased by $1 billion. And this is
true. Over a four year period. During the worst recession the nation has seen in
a hundred years, we increased the Provincial debt by $1 billion. Only $1
billion, I say, not that $1 billion is not a lot of money. But when you consider
that this Government in the last two years has borrowed $1.1 billion, over the
last two years - one billion dollars over four years of the worst recession in
history -$1.1 billion borrowed in the last two years, the last two Budgets. Over
$600 million last year, $574 million is it, this year. Almost $1.2 billion
borrowed this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Well, if we can borrow $1.2 billion, why did
we not borrow another 50 to balance our Budget or another 100 so that we did not
have to lay off 3,500 public servants? Why did we not borrow another $200
million, so that we could keep 3,500 public servants and have $100 million to
create some jobs in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Not one programme, Mr. Chairman, in this
Budget or in the Throne Speech. Lip service to such things as the Economic
Recovery Commission that has not created a job other than their own. Not one.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.
MR. WINDSOR: Absolutely true. Not one incremental job
that would not have been created under the existing structure of Newfoundland
and Labrador Development Corporation, or the Department of Rural Development.
Not one additional job created by Economic Recovery Commission or Enterprise
Newfoundland and Labrador. Not a single one.
So, Mr. Chairman, if we really wanted to deal with the
financial situation of the Province let us first deal with the unemployment
situation in this Province. Let us create jobs in this Province so
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are actively employed, gainfully employed, and
contributing to the economy of this Province.
MR. HEWLETT: Clyde said: let there be jobs.
MR. WINDSOR: Let there be jobs so every man's son and
daughter can come home.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Just the sons. He does not want the
daughters. That is a sexist remark if I ever heard one.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: How could you let that one get by you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! Order please!
The hon. Member's time is up.
MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services
and Transportation.
MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting,
we have been here now about two weeks debating this Supply Bill and -
AN HON. MEMBER: Can you tell me what day it is?
MR. GILBERT: - as I pointed out - Well, yes I can because
I have listened to the Member for two weeks now -
MR. EFFORD: Cucumber day.
MR. GILBERT: - and, you know, lo and behold after two
weeks, I heard him a couple of days ago, he got up and he mentioned something in
this Supply Bill that referred to money that was going to be asked for, and you
know right now we have $993 million and out of it 22 per cent of it applies to
my department. But when the hon. Member for Mount Pearl got up sometime back he
talked about some fees that this department was collecting and the net result of
it as far as he was concerned was that we had lost $34,000. Now today I made a
statement in the House which outlined how those fees were going to affect the
revenue and why we were bringing them in, and what it basically is, you know, in
baby talk, is that -
AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Budget outdated now?
MR. GILBERT: - the Public Utilities Board, the fee that
was charged to commercial truckers has been done away with and it is increased
in the licence fee, and that is basically what it was. Now the only thing about
it is, unlike the tax grab that your colleague was talking about: that we had A
$2 million tax grab as a result of this, actually what it was, instead of losing
the $34,000 we are recovering $90,000. So you did not have your sums right.
MR. WINDSOR: You are recovering what?
MR. GILBERT: $90,000.
MR. WINDSOR: $90,000?
MR. GILBERT: Yes, instead of losing the $34,000 that you
said -
MR. WINDSOR: You are gaining $90,000?
MR. GILBERT: Yes.
MR. WINDSOR: So the Budget is not accurate?
MR. GILBERT: Yes.
MR. WINDSOR: But the Budget still says that you are
losing $34,000. So do we need an amendment -
MR. GILBERT: From the fees that you have mentioned that
is the revenue that we are deriving from it. Your colleague down there said that
we were raising $2 million. So anyhow, I will give it to him in the detail that
he wants -
MR. WINDSOR: I would be delighted. The Minister of
Finance might tell me tomorrow because we might need amendments to the Budget.
That was the question my colleague had.
MR. GILBERT: There were no amendments to the Budget.
MR. WINDSOR: The question is whether or not the amount
that you made today is reflected in the Budget (inaudible) -
MR. GILBERT: Certainly it is reflected in the Budget, but
not $2 million. What you talked about - he asked the same question that you
asked.
MR. WINDSOR: No.
MR. GILBERT: Yes he did, exactly the same question. Yours
was how much are those fees going to net the Government. You said you were going
to lose $34 million. He got up and said that this statement today was going to
be a tax grab and we were going to make $2 million out of it. I am saying no,
you are wrong.
MR. WINDSOR: I did not say you were going to lose
$34,000.
MR. GILBERT: Yes you did.
MR. WINDSOR: No your Budget did.
MR. GILBERT: No, you did.
MR. WINDSOR: Look at your budget document -
MR. GILBERT: So anyhow, that is just to answer that. In
all the time I have heard the Member for Mount Pearl talking that is the only
time that he referred to the Interim Supply that was in for this department and
he talked about the revenue. But I did hear him -
MR. WINDSOR: I refer the Minister to page B-4 of the
Budget where it shows $34,000 less (inaudible).
MR. GILBERT: You can talk to me about it again when you
get up. I will talk now.
MR. WINDSOR: The Minister should go read the Budget for
himself.
MR. GILBERT: Now what he did get up and talk about was a
trip to Bay D'Espoir when he was down with his friend who was at one time going
to run against me and did not have the guts when they did the poll. So he was
down to Bay D'Espoir with him and he went and he visited the Hilltop Tourist
Cabins. I will tell him that the gentleman who owns that is a good constituent
of mine, one who I have worked with for two years and I have helped him. As a
matter of fact I got a letter here from him thanking me for the work I did for
him.
Now, you know, it is an interesting thing that for the four
and a half years that I was here as a Member of the Opposition I was trying to
get the Ministers from over there to come down to Bay D'Espoir and see the
potential that was there. I could not get them to come down there. When they set
up the House Commission, and the Royal Commission for Employment and
Unemployment in 1985 it was going to solve our problems then - and he was the
good Dr. House then.
MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) but I never saw the Minister
down there.
MR. GILBERT: I presented a brief to the House Commission
and if the Member would like to have it, it tells a little bit about Bay
D'Espoir. As a matter of fact, the good Dr. House, when I presented this, said
it was an excellent one and the best one that he had received. So, you know, it
is surprising that here I was for four and a half years trying to get Members
opposite -
MR. WINDSOR: Can you send me a copy of it?
MR. GILBERT: Yes. Would you like to take that over to the
hon. gentleman? It is an excellent report and I recommend it. It tells a lot
about Bay d'Espoir.
AN HON. MEMBER: What about recommendations about hydro?
MR. GILBERT: Yes, there are many recommendations about
hydro there. Dr. House thought it was a great report. But the interesting thing
is, in those days I could not get a minister of the government to go down there.
In those days, Mr. Chairman, ministers of the government were going to places
like Hong Kong and Australia and Norway, trying to create tourism. You know, it
was very easy for them to make all those trips while they had their hand in the
public purse. Right now, though, when they have their hand in their own pocket,
they go to Bay d'Espoir and they recognize the tourism industry that is down
there.
It is nice to see that they are now recognizing the
situations we do have in this Province for a tourism industry. And we hear my
colleague, the Minister of Development, when he is talking about the new way in
tourism, with the adventure tourism, and he ties in the Mr. Kellys and the
venture that he has been trying to put together now for the last two years.
MR. WINDSOR: If I am not mistaken, when I was Minister of
Tourism I gave funding to your development association down there to do a study
on tourism potential.
MR. GILBERT: You never went down there. You might have
given it, but you were not down there.
MR. WINDSOR: I was down there (Inaudible).
MR. GILBERT: I will tell the Member for Mount Pearl, if
he really would like to get interested in it and really see a tourism
opportunity, what he should do his next trip, instead of going to Milltown, is
take his colleague who was thinking of running against me one time up to Ramea
and stay at the Four Winds. That is a bed-and-breakfast. It used to be the Lake
house and the Penney house. That is really a tourism opportunity he should avail
himself of.
AN HON. MEMBER: I was there.
MR. GILBERT: No, they would not let you in there. But
most people they would. But it is an excellent place, and it is one of the
places where we can see that there is great -
MR. EFFORD: Is that right? They won't let him in there?
MR. GILBERT: No, no.
MR. EFFORD: I can understand why.
MR. GILBERT: No, no. They have some quality there. With
him there would not be any of that.
In this Province, you can see the potential is there for
tourism. Those Members over there were here for seventeen years and they were
developing tourism. But the thing about it is they were going to Norway and Hong
Kong and Australia to develop tourism. And there was no trouble at all when they
had their hand in the public service pocket. There was no trouble at all to go
and develop tourism there. Now we find they are here and they are looking around
Newfoundland. They are paying for it themselves, so now they go to places like
Milltown and they say: what a great place Milltown is. What a great place Ramea
is. So that is the sort of thing we are trying to do over here, develop tourism
within the Province.
I am sorry my friend for Grand Bank is not here, because he
referred to the petition I received from the people of the south coast
concerning the dreaded cutbacks the Opposition had talked about that we were
going to have in the health care system. The petition came in, but it came in
when the House was closed. Now I could have sat on the petition and presented it
in two months time, when the House opened, but I thought the concerns of those
constituents - some of them were not in my district, they were in adjoining
districts, but I felt the right thing to do was to take the petition, forward it
to the Minister of Health, send a copy of the letter that I received -
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
The hon. Member's time is up.
MR. GILBERT: By leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty with what the
hon. Member is saying. Basically he is trying to say that Members from the
Opposition should not go down to Milltown. That is what he saying.
MR. GILBERT: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: I would say it is time for the Member to go to
Milltown. He has not been there since Jean Chretien took him around by the hand
in the last Provincial election. That is the last time he was down in his
district. He has not been around since he got -
MS. VERGE: That was when he was promising to abolish the
school tax.
MR. TOBIN: That was when he went around promising to
abolish the school tax. His advertising on the radio was: `when I am elected,
the people of Ramea, Milltown and Bay d'Espoir will no longer have to pay school
taxes.' Well, what happened to the Minister and his commitments to the people?
No wonder he does not go back to Milltown or Ramea or Franois or any place else
down there. Mr. Chairman, I can tell the Minister that I am familiar with that
part of the Province as well.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have more friends in
Franois than the hon. Minister has, a small isolated community on the southwest
coast. I have more friends in Franois than you have, and I probably get more
calls than you do. For the Minister of Transportation to stand up here and get
on with that foolishness. He does not even go to his district, like most Members
opposite; like some of the Members who are afraid to go home in the coming weeks
because of this Provincial Budget. That is what we have here in this Province. I
do not what is happening. There is something taking place in this Province that
is somewhat frightening. It is scary when you realize that there are Members on
the Government side who are scared to go back to their districts because of the
Budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Quorum call.
MR. TOBIN: When you realize -
MR. R. AYLWARD: Quorum call. No Whip over there. No Whip.
MR. TOBIN: One, two, three. four. five, six, seven,
eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Yes, let's go, boys. Get another quorum, will
we? Will we take them on a quorum, Mr. Chairman? I am tempted to. Because the
Government does not have a quorum in the House. The Government does not have a
quorum. There are not fourteen Members present in the House, and I am tempted to
ask my colleagues to walk with me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TOBIN: Oh, wait a minute now. We can walk out. That
is what is happening.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if there is no -
MR. DICKS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: There are sufficient Members in the House
(inaudible).
MR. HEWLETT: One and a half just came in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, there is no point of order, really.
There has not been a quorum call, but the Standing Orders state that fourteen
Members constitute a quorum.
The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.
MR. TOBIN: That is right, Mr. Chairman, fourteen Members
constitute a quorum. And we can call a quorum and every one of us can stand from
our seats so there are not fourteen members there, just in case the Minister of
Justice does not know. And it is up to the Government. The Government has to
have fourteen Members in their benches at all times. If they do not, then we can
stand and walk from our chairs.
So the Minister of Justice should learn the rules of the
House - who is responsible for having a quorum here - instead of standing up
wasting my time in this debate. Which he is trying to do again. The Minister of
Justice is trying to defer debate until he gets his group in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!
MR. TOBIN: Let us call a quorum. Let us call a quorum!
MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: (Inaudible) the hon. Member (inaudible) most
hon. Members (inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Now they have a quorum.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Minister of Justice on a point
of order?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh! No point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!
I would like all hon. Members to follow the rules and the
procedures in place for the order and operation of the House and the Committee.
If an hon. Member wishes to speak he can stand on a point of order only and
interrupt another hon. Member. Otherwise, he has to wait, of course, until he is
recognized by the Chair.
The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.
MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is time now the
Minister of Justice learned the rules of the House. He should learn the rules of
the House and never mind standing trying to defer until the Member for
Stephenville goes out and brings in his quorum. Because there were twelve
Members on the Government side when I said I was tempted to call a quorum. I was
tempted to call a quorum, but I thought the time of the House was too valuable.
As a matter of fact, when I talk about the ten Members who
were opposite, I am including in that the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.
When I am talking about ten people being opposite I am even including the Member
for Mount Scio - Bell Island. So, now, were there really twelve when you include
him? That is the question which has to be answered.
MR. R. AYLWARD: He's only half there anyway.
MR. TOBIN: He is only half there anyway, Mr. Chairman. I
would say the Minister of Justice would be well-served by taking
part in the
debate rather than trying to interrupt me to buy time for the Whip to bring in
his troops. This happened before when the Premier was off. It is no trouble to
know when the Premier is not here. All you have to do is look around and you
will see during Question Period the Minister of Education strolling back and
forth, and other people not listening to petitions.
Well, it is time for the Premier to fire some of his
Ministers and give the Members for Bonavista South and Stephenville, among
others, a chance. It is time for those people to be given a chance in Cabinet,
particularly the Member for Stephenville.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Did I ever make it to Cabinet?
MR. R. AYLWARD: If the Member for Stephenville was in
Cabinet they would not have gutted Youth Services, would they?
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, was I ever in Cabinet? I would
suspect the Minister of Education probably does not realize who was ever in
Cabinet. It is hard for him to realize I was in Cabinet, when he does not know
he is in Cabinet himself.
So, Mr. Chairman, what is happening in this Province today is
sad. You have the Minister of Education who had a petition presented to him by
my constituents several weeks ago, at which I was present, and today he did not
realize that these petitions were presented. Did he read the petitions? Did he
look at them before? I mean, what is taking place in this Province, when he had
a petition two or three weeks ago and when he sees it sometime later, he does
not realize what it is?
I am delighted the Minister for Works, Services and
Transportation is back. The last year we were in Government, I believe the
Provincial Budget for Transportation was somewhere in the area of $40-odd
million. This year, it is slashed to less than $25 million. That is the progress
we are seeing with this Minister of Transportation.
We have seen delayed by a year the Roads for Rails deal that
was brought in by our Administration. We have seen this Government go from one
end of the Province to the other making all kinds of promises, then breaking
them faster than they were making them, Mr. Chairman. And I have my Liberal
propaganda sheet here somewhere that I like to remind hon. Members of. As a
matter of fact, I believe I lent it to one of my colleagues. What we have is a
Government which has no commitment to rural Newfoundland in particular, nor to
all Newfoundland in general. But rural Newfoundland has been stripped from the
map as far they are concerned. All you have to do is look at the savage attack
they have unleased on the residents of Placentia, the residents of Old Perlican,
the residents of Port aux Basques, the residents of Bonavista and the residents
of Bell lsland. They have seen nothing but a savage attack.
And, Mr. Chairman, to the credit of some Members, they have
stood in their places and condemned Government for it. There are others, like
the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, who lack the courage to stand in the
House and support his constituents. We have some others like him, as well. But
they will be dealt with at the ballot box, don't ever worry about that. There is
no one who can turn their backs on their constituents and expect to come back
into this Assembly. The Member for Mount Scio - Bell should learn that is the
case. Anyone can get elected once, Mr. Chairman, but when you get elected three
and four and five times, as some of us have been, with increased majorities
every time, then the message is there that they are the people who have spoken
for their districts. Anyone can get elected once. So it is time now for the
Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island to stand and support his constituents. And
he has not done it, Mr. Chairman. They have basically closed the hospital,
$380,000-odd and eight or ten jobs, and not a whimper from the Member.
What is going to happen to the vocational school on Bell
Island? We all know what is going to happen, and the hon. Member should know
too, but not a whimper, Mr. Chairman. They have cut the ferry service. Your
colleague, the Minister of Transportation, who got up in this House a few
minutes ago and did not know what he was talking about, he has denied the people
of Bell Island the Beaumont Hamel. And in addition to that, he has cut the
present ferry service by six months. Where is the Member? Did anyone see or hear
the Member standing and taking a position?
MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
MR. TOBIN: Now we got him up. Now we got him up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, the record will show, both in
the media and other areas, that I have spoken out on behalf of my constituents
on all three issues the hon. Member is referring to. I have also arranged
meetings for delegations on all three subjects with the various Ministers
involved. Also, Mr. Chairman, -
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
MR. WALSH: - when I receive my petition I will present it
the day I get it, not three months later.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
There is no point of order. The hon. Member is just taking
the opportunity to give an explanation to the House on some comments made by the
hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.
MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!
The Chair has not recognized the hon. Member yet.
The hon. Member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. GILBERT: Mr. Chairman, thank you again. When you hear
what we have just been subjected to by the Member for Burin - Placentia West,
when you hear the attacks he is making on the Members on this side, on the
Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island who has worked so diligently for his
constituents. He has been working day and night as a matter of fact, and losing
sleep over the fact that the ice has been in and the ferry has not been working.
He has spent time on Bell Island arranging meetings with his constituents and
doing an excellent job. I would say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West
that if he were to look after his constituents in the same way the Member for
Mount Scio - Bell Island does he would be a lot better off, instead of doing the
stuff he does here in the house, trying to present petitions that have been sent
in three months behind, and things that are not actually petitions. He was not
elected to look after his constituents in that way, I can tell you.
Now we hear the Member for Grand Bank get up and squirt his
bit of poison every once in a while. He reads the paper, he listens to Open
Line, and his listens to his Tory friends, the few who are in Burgeo. There are
not many - 87 per cent of them voted for me the last time. There are 13 per cent
of them there and you can never -you know, there are some kids who just do not
like ice cream.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) their hospital.
MR. GILBERT: Now, that is an interesting thing. I am
going to talk about their hospital. How did you guess that? That is the
interesting thing we are going to talk about right now. For about four years I
was going through the process. When the previous Government was there they were
going to close the hospital. We fought them, and the people from Burgeo fought
them, and finally we won. Immediately after we were elected and took over the
Government, in October 1989 I took the Minister of Health down to Burgeo with
me. He immediately recognized what I had been saying for the four years and he
engaged a study. They went down and had a look at it, and in January 1990 the
Minister came to me and said, look, we recognize what you have been saying. This
hospital in Burgeo is over sixty years old. It is inadequate. It cannot provide
the service that is needed in that part of the coast right now, so we are going
to build a new one in Burgeo.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, consultants were hired and I am
pleased to report that on Monday and Tuesday of this week the consultants are
going to be down in Burgeo picking out the site for the new Health Centre. There
is $5.3 million in the Budget this year for the building of the hospital. The
contract will be called for the Burgeo hospital within the next few months, as
soon as the consultants report back. And, I tell the Member for Grand Bank, he
can come down with me and we will turn the sod for the first part of it. I will
let him come down and do that. The interesting thing about this whole situation
in Burgeo is, when we look at what has happened and look at the layoffs in
Burgeo, there has not been a medical layoff. The nurses are still there, the
three doctors are still there, there are ten nursing assistants there and five
of them have received temporary layoffs. But when I talk to the people at
Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook they say that none of these people
will be laid off, that because of the holidays, etc., that are coming, they will
be retained there.
What is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, and the Members over
there cannot realize what my colleague, the Minister of Health, was saying, but
in the next year and a half we are going to have a much better health service in
Newfoundland than we had before we started. Burgeo is an example. We had a
hospital there which could not be converted into a chronic care unit. We had to
build a new unit, and this is what we are doing.
The people who are being laid off now are the people who were
there as cooks, laundry people, cleaners. But the same service that is available
at Burgeo right now is going to be available next week when those people are
laid off, exactly the same service. The Burgeo hospital has been a referral unit
for the past ten years, Mr. Chairman. There has not been an operation performed
in the Burgeo hospital since I have been the Member for there. Obstetrics are
not practised there anymore unless there is an emergency. And if there was one,
yes, they have the facility there now to handle it. If you broke your arm in
Burgeo last week you would be taken into the referral centre, have your arm
x-rayed and you would then be sent to Corner Brook to have it set. So there is
no cutback whatsoever in medical services in Burgeo. The unfortunate thing about
it is that nobody likes to see anybody laid off. There are a few people there
who are going to be laid off for a short time, until the new hospital is
completed. When the new hospital is completed, not only will those people be
hired back but, I would submit, by virtue of the fact that there are going to be
sixteen chronic care beds there which will be filled, there will be more people
hired back in the hospital. Now that is another interesting point I would like
to point out to the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: How many beds?
MR. GILBERT: There are going to be twenty-two, I believe.
MR. MATTHEWS: Beds in Burgeo?
MR. GILBERT: Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS: That is fifteen chronic care and seven
acute care?
MR. GILBERT: Yes. Fifteen or sixteen, something like
that. The interesting thing about this is while all this is going on, and there
are going to be a few people who say it is unfortunate that some people were
laid off, but we are going to be building this $5 million centre in Burgeo over
the next couple of years and that is going to mean there are going to be a lot
of people working in Burgeo who are not working right now. So actually the net
loss of jobs is going to be minimal in this situation.
MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible) hammer.
MR. GILBERT: Now when the man talks about the hammer, it
is unfortunate for the people in Burgeo who are being laid off that they do not
have the same severance package the Member for Green Bay had. I would like to be
able to have that for them. That would be an interesting thing to have.
AN HON. MEMBER: That would be ten jobs.
MR. GILBERT: That would be ten jobs. If we only had that
sort of severance package for those people who are being laid off. But we do
not, Mr. Chairman. They are going to be hired back again. And that is more than
I can say for the Member for Green Bay, because he is not going to come back
next time. You do not have to worry about that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) severance for lighting
cigars.
MR. GILBERT: He is pretty good at lighting cigars. When I
heard the Member for Grand Bank get up and talk about my colleagues and my
friends in Burgeo, I thought it was only fair that I should get up and tell them
exactly what the situation is in Burgeo and how happy the people in Burgeo are
with the situation they now find themselves in. They are going to have a new
hospital, and their medical care has not been cut back one bit with the changes
we being made at this particular time. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of
Health, can confirm the fact that the medical people are still there. There are
three doctors there, all the nurses are there. It is the same thing. It is a
referral centre. I hear the fearmongers talking about what is going to happen
when this Burgeo hospital is closed down. The hospital is not closed down. The
chronic care unit is there, as it always will be. If there is need for more
chronic care, it will be put there. There is no doubt about it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
The hon. Member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
would like to thank the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I am so envious that the Member is
getting this great facility and I am only getting two. I am very envious.
Fairness and balance is coming out of their ears. The generosity is
overwhelming.
AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) personal care.
MR. MATTHEWS: Personal care. Well, there is one of them
going down there, too, I think. I will take one of them myself, I think. I will
soon need a bit of care. My back is starting to give out on me.
AN HON. MEMBER: You would be in conflict.
MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know if I would be in conflict.
Anyway, I want to say to the Minister, thanks for clarifying the Burgeo
situation. But from what we saw on the news during this past week or so, coming
out of Burgeo, there seemed to be a fair degree of concern. They had a
demonstration up there when they were changing shifts at the plant and the
people were very, very concerned.
MR. GILBERT: They have not had any since, though, have
they?
MR. MATTHEWS: No, they have not had any since.
MR. WINSOR: What do you want, them on every day?
MR. MATTHEWS: I do not want them ranting and roaring
every day, and calling for the Member's resignation. That would be unfair.
MR. GILBERT: (Inaudible) fearmongering by his words.
MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is not fearmongering. All I can say
to the Minister is that I had a couple of calls from Burgeo -
MR. GILBERT: That is right, there are only two Tories
there.
MR. MATTHEWS: No, they were not from Tories. And, I say
to the Minister, I had calls when the fish plant was in jeopardy and none of
them were from Tories. They told me, we used to be Liberals. But they could not
figure out, they said, `how come you know more about what is going on with the
Burgeo plant than our Member, Mr. Gilbert, who is in the Cabinet.' That is what
they said to me. I said, `I cannot answer that. You will have to ask Mr. Gilbert
that. I do not know why he does not know, but I know.' Consequently, all through
the bit and piece of the Seafreeze deal they used to call me. They called me
quite regularly. And, of course, last week at home, here in town, I get calls
again from Burgeo asking me about the hospital situation.
MR. GILBERT: The same two, eh?
MR. MATTHEWS: No very different people. But what I cannot
understand, Mr. Chairman, is there are only going to be three beds left in
Burgeo now out of twelve or thirteen, and the Member stands up and says
everything is going to be the same. He just admitted that there were going to be
some temporary layoffs.
MR. HEWLETT: A few.
MR. MATTHEWS: A few.
MR. GILBERT: Not medical. No medical layoffs.
MR. MATTHEWS: Medical layoffs? People working in the
hospital are being laid off. I consider that to be medical layoffs.
MR. HEWLETT: They are only ordinary Newfoundlanders.
MR. MATTHEWS: That does not matter.
MR. HEWLETT: A charperson.
MR. MATTHEWS: It does not matter about those people being
laid off. Because the people who can least afford to be laid off are the ones
who are getting the axe - the ones who can least afford it. Let me say again to
the Member that I can understand why he could not understand that, and why he
does not feel for those types of people.
MR. HEWLETT: They are the same crowd who do not read
books.
MR. GILBERT: (Inaudible) they will be hired back.
MR. MATTHEWS: But when is that going to be?
AN HON. MEMBER: In a few short months.
MR. MATTHEWS: A few short months. Oh, yes, they are going
to build a new hospital in Burgeo in a few short months.
MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible) that is what they are going to
do with them.
MR. MATTHEWS: In the meantime, those people will be laid
off and the people of Burgeo will have to travel regularly to Corner Brook.
MR. GILBERT: That is what they are doing right now.
MR. MATTHEWS: That is not what they are doing right now,
let me say to the Minister. And as I said a few days ago in this Legislature,
what this Government has done is incurring a lot of transportation costs and
accommodation costs on people from those regions.
MS. VERGE: What about when the road is closed in the
winter?
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, the Burgeo road doesn't be closed any
more in the winter. Don't you know that? The Minister promised that. There were
two things he promised them up there.
MR. HEWLETT: No snow on the Burgeo road.
MR. MATTHEWS: The Burgeo road, he failed on that. He has
failed on that. That is another thing I have had calls from Burgeo about, the
Burgeo Road.
MR. HEWLETT: That is reason there are no plows on the
TCH.
MR. MATTHEWS: Less plows on the Burgeo road the last two
winters, since their Member became Minister responsible for Transportation, than
ever before.