April 2, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 10

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform Members of the House that the Conche Girls Broomball

Team, participating at the National Broomball Competition Championship in

Kitchener, Ontario this past week and weekend, won the Competition Sportsmanship

Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: This was their first national competition and their first

exposure to full body contact broomball. Their accomplishment is attributed, of

course, to their school, the people of Conche and to their great teacher and

coach, Ida Gardiner.

I would to ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating the

Conche team. Also, I would like to mention the boys team who also won the

Sportsmanship Award from Stephenville, and pass on our congratulations to both

teams and welcome them back home tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a short while ago I advised this hon. House

that a constituent of my district, Brian Francis of Burin, had been nominated as

a finalist, as Junior Male Athlete of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this hon. House and

congratulate Brian on his naming as Junior Male Athletic of the Year at the 2000

Sports Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Awards that were presented over the

weekend.

Mr. Francis received forty-seven votes to win the award. He had a stellar

season in 2000 after playing with the Canada Games Team in the Burin Peninsula

Championship and the Challenge Cup League. After his team won the Burin

Peninsula championship Brian was named MVP and was also an all star in the

Challenge Cup League. He is currently attending St. Francis Xavier University on

a soccer scholarship and is a member of the university soccer team. I

congratulate Brian on his victory and his achievement. This is another great

example of the high caliber of athletes in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the school community of All Hallows Elementary

in North River. Their principal, Mr. Peter Laracy, staff, students and indeed

the whole community of parents for sponsoring the 2000-2001 Newfoundland and

Labrador finals of the Great Canadian Geography Challenge this past Saturday.

I would ask the Members of the House to recognize and congratulate Ms Darcie

Cohen of Prince of Wales Collegiate here in St. John's, who is the first place

finisher; Mr. Allan Caldwell of MacDonald Junior High here in St. John's as

the second place finisher; and Ms Danni Dickson of Musgravetown as the third

place finisher. Both Darcie and Allan will travel to Ottawa in May to compete in

the national finals hosted by Alex Trebek of Jeopardy! fame. The top finalist of

that competition will join the Canadian team competing in the International

Olympics to be held in July, 2001.

The challenge was organized by the Canadian Council for Geographic Education

with the help of hundreds of teachers and volunteers. Corporate sponsors include

Royal Canadian Geographical Society and the HSBC Bank of Canada. Some 250,000

students in 1,280 Canadian schools participate in this event. The challenge

begins in the classroom with school winners going to provincials. This year, in

Newfoundland and Labrador, there was a site at All Hollows in North River with

something like twenty some odd students but also in Labrador - I believe in

Churchill Falls, Labrador West and Goose Bay - there were also sites set up to

accommodate those students.

Peter Laracy, provincial coordinator, was overwhelmed by the student

participation and impressed with this knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: He said: "While literary development in math and

language are important, geographic literacy is essential in a world where

students can access that world at the click of a button." The contest is

designed to generate an interest in geography among school-age children and to

do so in a fun and interactive fashion.

I would ask that the members, and in particular the Premier, the Minister of

Education, the Minister of Youth Services, to acknowledge the achievement of

Darcie, Allan and Danni, and of the participation of all the students in this

worthwhile educational activity, and certainly the host schools for doing a

great job at it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to congratulate the students and teachers of Gonzaga High School

for their amazing production of The Music Man at the St. John's Arts

and Culture Centre from March 29 to March 31.

They have taken this difficult and demanding famous Broadway musical and have

given us a reproduction that can only be called remarkable. The audience was

truly impressed.

Many students from Gonzaga, along with student from St. Pius X, St.

Bonaventure's and MacDonald Drive Junior High, performed with a level of

professionalism and charm that can only be attributed to expert direction, long

months of preparation and a great deal of talent.

For this huge undertaking, congratulations are due to the director and vocal

coach, Jacinta Mackey-Graham; musical director, Korona Brophy; choreographer,

Mara Noftall; technical director for set design and construction, Ben Warren;

and producer Tom McGrath.

I wish time would permit me to list all those in the cast, crew and orchestra

for this production, because they really do deserve special commendations.

I congratulate them all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to give the Premier the opportunity today to answer this question:

What efforts are being made right now by government to negotiate an end to the

public service strike, by public servants in the Province, whose work obviously

is so important to everyone in this Chamber and every citizen of the Province,

so that there may be a successful conclusion to this strike so people can return

to their jobs and continue to provide the essential and public services that are

provided to the people of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a very important question, a very serious one. Whenever the public

services of our Province are brought to a halt it is a very important issue to

all of us, particularly in light of what we are expecting this evening with

respect to weather.

Mr. Speaker, everyone is on standby and as I understand, as we speak, there

are some preliminary discussions occurring, not at our level, but with

conciliators. That is as much as I can say at this point in time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Premier a second question, Mr.

Speaker. Will he confirm that although the negotiations which have been

occurring between government and the public service sector unions since October

2, is my understanding, for a period of six months, that government put its

first formal offer on the table late Saturday night directly before or just

shortly before the indication for a strike mandate, which would occur one minute

after 12:00 midnight on Saturday? Can the Premier confirm that, please?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, that is not the fact in terms of a chronology of what happened. Formally,

government placed the offer of 3-3-3 on the table on March 23. That offer sat

with the union for a full week until five minutes to 12:00 midnight. The

following Friday, when we got the first counter-offer from the union, at which

point it included not only a counter-offer but a number of other outstanding

issues added on to the money package, including pensions, reclassification, and

a number of other outstanding items. It was a full week, Mr. Speaker, before we

got the first counter-proposal to the formal offer we put on the table, as was

requested of us by the negotiators.

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

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

This is an important question because there is a perception publicly -

obviously, we are just coming to the situation in terms of being informed of

what has taken place or what has not taken place. This is critical because it

has been referenced this morning publicly that the government never put an offer

on the table formally, a written offer on the table formally, until Saturday

night at about 10:30 or 11:00. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on that?

I am not standing here making an accusation, I want to be clear, because I see

some members shaking their heads. It is an opportunity in this gallery to

publicly set the record straight.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward and take advantage of the opportunity to set the record

straight, as I have been trying to do over the last number of days, particularly

with respect to outstanding issues. The first formal offer that government put

forward on behalf of the people of the Province was on Friday, March 23, when it

formally tabled its 3-3-3 per cent offer. That offer was certainly out verbally

but, as was pointed out correctly, according to our labour relations people, it

had not been formally tabled. The first opportunity we had to formally table

that was when we got back to the table after the strike vote was conducted on

Friday, March 23.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What the minister is saying, then, is that from October 2

up until March 23, there was no formal offer being put on the table and what was

actually occurring was, through the media, a public negotiation and not a formal

negotiation.

I would like to ask the Premier this question - and you would know it; you

have been a former union leader, as has the President of Treasury Board and

Minister of Finance - what sort of strategy was involved in putting an offer

down seven days before a strike deadline, so that people could negotiate

formally? What was the strategy by government in not putting that offer before

the negotiating table formally - because it is important that the distinction be

made, formally - on the table so it could be dealt with? What was the strategy

involved in that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition raises a concern that we also shared with

respect to not getting a counter-offer for a full week after we had placed our

formal first offer on the table. In fact, any number of times through our chief

negotiators, not directly - because, as everybody knows, we were dealing through

conciliation - we, on a number of occasions, went to NAPE and CUPE and said that

we needed to have the remnants, the package, of what it would take to create a

deal. It was not until the following week that we got that possibility to build

from deal.

Both myself and the Premier have had union experience, admittedly. We all

know that deals are generally made in the last week of negotiations and

sometimes, as the saying goes, in the eleventh hour; but we, too, were extremely

concerned. I mentioned it publicly, I mentioned it through the conciliators and

through our own negotiators, that we needed to see what the union counter-offer

was after we put our 3-3-3. Admittedly again, everyone was aware that we had

approximately 3 per cent on the table for the first three years, everybody knew

that, but technically and formally it was not tabled until March 23, when they

returned back from conducting a strike vote in the Province; in fact, one in

which they referred to throughout their strike vote but acknowledged as well

that it had not been formally tabled. From our best advice, we had to formally

table that offer before we could expect a counter-offer.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Given your background, Premier, and your Minister of

Finance's background, surely you did not need advice from your own public

servants that you would need to table formally an offer on the table a week

before the strike deadline.

I ask the question again: What was the strategy? Why didn't you table the

offer a month before, so that negotiations could have occurred in a more timely

fashion, with a lot more time being given to everybody to negotiate it? It seems

to me the strategy was that the gun was to everybody's head with a week

deadline. The question I ask again is: Why didn't you, as Premier, as a former

union leader who has negotiated contracts with government, as was the Minister

of Finance - surely you did not need the voice of the public service to say you

need to put something formally down, that a press release emanating from

government would not be considered a formal offer. What was the strategy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, you have to be at the table to exchange the

offer at the table. We put in writing - the member probably knows, but it was

very clear - to both the union leadership of NAPE and CUPE what our offer was.

They knew our offer; they knew it formally. Technically, which is an important

part, it was not tabled at the bargaining table because they were conducting a

strike vote. The first opportunity after the strike vote was conducted, they had

the information. As the chief negotiator for government, I wrote both parties

and informed them what the offer was. When we came to the table on March 23, we

formally and technically tabled the offer that we had made, in writing and

verbally, prior to that particular date, March 23.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is an important line of questioning in

terms of strategy.

All that was known publicly - and this is the best that I can determine in

speaking with everybody, including officials from Treasury Board and including

officials who are negotiating on behalf of the union - that all they were aware

of before a week ago was that it was 3-3-3. Nobody knew if that included

indexation or not indexation, nobody knew if that included contributions to the

pension plan's unfunded liability or not, nobody knew if sick leave was on the

table or not, nobody would know any of that, Minister and Premier, unless a

formal written offer, detailing all the components in that offer, from A to Z,

was put on the table.

The question is: Why did government sit on its hands and on its seat until

they delivered that offer? Why did they wait until one week before? Surely you

must have known the contempt that would have been held in. Surely you must have

known that would have inflamed the situation. The question is, Premier: Why did

you wait to become the problem maker and not the problem solver?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was waiting for the politics part of this, because this is a very serious

issue.

Mr. Speaker, the offer was made very clear. If the member had not heard, like

other members in the House, it was made very clear that we had made 3-3-3. Now,

if the union chose to put that on salary, they could put it on salary, if they

chose to put it on benefits, they could put it on benefits, if they chose to put

it on indexing, they could put it on indexing, if they chose to put it on

reclassification, they could put it there, but they knew the ballpark figure.

Just like, Mr. Speaker, when we raised the offer from 9 per cent to 13 per cent,

we said: You have 13 per cent, you can put it in your back pocket if you want or

you can put it on pension indexing, put it on reclassification, you can put it

on whatever you want, but that is the offer. That was the full offer. They came

in, identified their issues, and it was done as a package offer, Mr. Speaker.

The money that we have identified, both our first offer and our second offer, we

have given the union the leeway to distribute that within the years allocated as

they see fit, 5-4-4.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, people are left wondering. On the day of the Budget,

the Minister stands up and says: 3-3-3. That is it, that is all we can afford.

You know, it begs the question: Had your formal offer been delivered a

month-and-a-half ago, would people be on the street today? That is the question

that must be asked.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You had to be at the table to get a formal offer.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, from what I understand, no one knew what the issues

surrounding it were. There was no formal offer from government, none whatsoever.

I ask the Premier this question: On Saturday night, the last-minute take it

or leave it offer - in your view, I understand that you delivered the offer in

person: How was it received and what was your reaction to the response that you

got?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just maybe a little bit of the history again, because it is critically

important. Everyone who has done any bargaining for any of the public sector

unions in Newfoundland and Labrador knows the system very well, and they know

very well the best negotiators in Newfoundland and Labrador are in the public

service unions in Newfoundland and Labrador because they have the most

experience. They know the routine. They had no expectations, none whatsoever,

that the government itself would say anything other than 3-3-3, unless and until

they, themselves, defined the full cost of all other items in the package that

were going to cost the Treasury of the people of the Province extra money.

Because how much money any government, at any time - and there have been people

from the Conservative administration, some of them sitting over there today who

did bargaining on behalf of the people of the Province, who fully understand

that you cannot determine, with any certainty, how much money you can offer your

valued employees for their salary increase unless, and until, you also know each

of the other items in the contract that they are asking for that also cost

money, because it all comes out of the provincial Treasury.

They had items on the table with respect to maternity leave improvements.

They had items on the table with respect to group insurance improvements. They

had items on the table with respect to - for the first time in history -

beginning an indexing plan for pensioners, all of which cost money. They fully

understood that there could not be - not that there would not be, but that there

could not be - another offer on the salary, the money that they would actually

get to take home on their cheques until it was identified for everybody, what

the cost of the full package was.

We sat there, Mr. Speaker, with a deadline that was imposed, not by the

government because - by the way, the deadline of March 31, which was just a

couple of days ago, is a completely unnecessary deadline. Everybody in this

Assembly acknowledges and knows that. There was nothing magic about March 31.

There is nothing magic about today. There is nothing magic about tomorrow. What

is magic is trying to get the arrangement that we can live with, on behalf of

the people of the Province, and that the workers deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Because they do deserve an increase. They are getting a

substantial increase. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, no matter how you cut it

they are going to get as much of an increase in this one year as they have

gotten in the last twelve years put together. Nobody can say anything other than

that because it happens to be the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: It happens to be the truth. So it is kind of hard to deny

the truth.

For the first time in history - they have been trying to do this for over

thirty years - they have an employer, a government on their behalf, willing to

look at the issue of having indexing in the pension plan. It is something that

every other jurisdiction in Canada has, except Newfoundland and Labrador; but it

is not free. You can't just pluck it out of the air. Somebody has to pay for

it. They know that.

The group insurance improvements that they want are in this contract.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: The maternity leave improvements that they want are in

the contract. They know that. This is, even as it stands today, the best

contract that any public service union would have signed in its entirety in the

history of collective bargaining in Newfoundland and Labrador, as it stands

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I assume by the Premier's comments, when he

says that the best labour negotiators in the Province are those of public sector

unions - I can only assume that he, as a former unionist and head of a union,

and negotiator, that he must include himself in that process. Surely he knows.

He has been told, for the past six months, that an April 1 deadline was imposed.

The public sector unions involved - the Premier can confirm this or not - wrote,

according to the legislation, that gave their weeks' notice to government. It

just so happened that when they gave their weeks' notice that government said

they were serious and that is when a first formal offer was laid on the table.

That is one question I would like the Premier to answer.

The next question I would like the Premier to answer: When he gave the offer,

did he request - in view of the fact that he just said that April 1 is an

artificial deadline or whatever term he used - of the public sector unions that

they not plan, or not go ahead with their planned activities for one minute

after 12:00 midnight? Was that the request made by the Premier of the Province?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would say, we were equally as concerned when we had not received a

counter-offer from NAPE and CUPE until one week past the first tabling of our

3-3-3 offer, because you need to know the makings of a deal before you can

consider anything else. Those negotiators knew that and we knew that.

I think it is also important to note that when we made our counter-offer of

5-4-4 we were clearly given the impression that this was the basis of a deal.

That is why we were in there, to talk about a deal and they were going to go

back to their membership.

I also think that in terms of the full package, and I say it again, as it

stands today there is 13 per cent that can be added right to the salary, if this

is what they choose to do with this amount of money. We stand by the offer and

we do believe that it is a significant, substantial offer, and one that we hope

the unions can come to work within that amount.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear, by the minister's and Premier's own statement, that the

first time the public sector unions were given a formal written offer was a week

before the strike deadline. They have failed to answer the question on: Why wasn't

that done earlier? The issue remains and it begs this question: Had that been

done four or five weeks earlier would people be on the street today?

Now, in terms of the offer, the minister indicated that she was given

assurances that this was the basis for a tentative deal. This is obviously -

AN HON. MEMBER : (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, that is what you just said. That indications were

given to you that this could form the basis for a tentative deal. Those are your

words, not mine. I would like the minister to elaborate, if she could, on what

assurances were given that this would be the basis for a tentative deal?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important, because there is a play on words happening here. I

am not sure where the member is actually going with this but I think it is

important - while we technically tabled our offer on the first day after the

strike vote, the first opportunity that we had after the strike vote, both union

leadership was given a copy of the letter that I wrote concerning our formal

offer. There was no waiting, Mr. Speaker. They knew what our offer was, around

the 3 per cent. I know he is trying to make some sort of a political point about

how it never happened. That is false. They were well aware of the offer. It was

given to them in writing, and I can table the letters for the member if he has

any difficulty accepting that.

The issue was: Formally, when we got back together, we laid the offer on the

table; but everyone in the Province - perhaps except the member opposite - did

not know what the offer was. We have been quite clear. The offer was 3-3-3, and

then we would come back to the table - because they knew what the offer was for

so long, we were so concerned that we were getting past the point of no return,

so to speak, once we never had a counter-offer for one week later.

With respect to the time frame, yesterday was a day with twenty-three hours.

We did ask, and we did make the point at the meeting that night that it was not

necessary to go on strike at one minute after 12:00 midnight or one minute after

1:00, as it turned out to be. They had the full twenty-four hour period to

exercise their right to strike without losing that for another thirty days. They

knew that. We knew it. We had checked it with the Department of Labour and

confirmed it.

So yes, Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing what was perhaps a remnants of a

deal we asked them if they would delay the strike, if they would consider not

putting up their picket lines so that we could continue into the night, which we

did. We were still going on until 4:30 in the morning anyway, but it was a

request that was made and we made it on the basis that it was not necessary to

strike at one minute after the hour because they had the full twenty-three hours

of that day to go on the picket line.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What is clear, Mr. Speaker, is the contempt that government

holds for the collective bargaining process. What is also clear is that in six

months of negotiations it comes down to one week with the gun to people's

heads to take it or leave it! That is what is clear to the people of the

Province. That is what is clear, I say to the Premier. Let me ask you this

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, when you become a

minister you will (inaudible) stand up and ask a question and respond to it. Now

if you would like to do that now, I can ask you one as well. Would you like

that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this question: In terms of

right now, today, are government and public sector unions, through their

negotiating or conciliation process or the Department of Labour, still trying to

find some common ground on which to bring a resolution to this issue that would

be in the best interest of the people of the Province?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are looking to find common ground

and I think we have made our position very clear. Whenever you move from a

position of 9 per cent to 13 per cent - the members know. They were briefed this

morning. They know how much this costs. They know how much it costs the

taxpayers of the Province. They know that we have moved significantly in terms

of our offer. In fact, what we do today is not in any other way, other than out

of concern for what is happening in the Province. We would ask the union to put

forward the vote to its membership, to allow the membership to see what is on

the table so that they can vote on the package. This is very serious. We have an

offer which this year - whatever way you want to call it, 5 per cent of a new

offer plus the 1 per cent that is currently on scale this year. However you look

at it, is a 6 per cent wage offer this year; no other way to describe it. There

is 4 per cent next year and there is 4 per cent the year after. We would ask

that the union allow the membership to vote on that particular increase so that

they can make the decision themselves with respect to that offer. We believe it

is significant. The members opposite know - in fact, last week when we went

through our discussion on the Budget the big discussion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - the big issue for them was our deficit, and it is for

us. We want to do a fair deal. We want to be responsible. We want to maintain a

solid credit rating. We want to be able to justify that we have been fair,

respectful employers, but we have also kept whole the books of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the President of Treasury Board. Yesterday, the minister

put out a press release and, of course, she is doing her best and was doing her

best then to put a positive spin on the government's 5-4-4 offer over three

years for public sector employees. She refers to it as: better than any current

offer in the country right now. So we can put that in perspective on this side

of the House. Would the minister tell the House how salaries of our public

sector employees, who are in bargaining units, compare to the salaries of public

sector employees across the country, in particular, in Atlantic Canada and would

she table her comparative analysis?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was on the radio this morning saying that people in this Province, whether

you are in the private sector or the public sector of government, generally make

less than other places in this country. We have said it forever. We are not

pretending that they are. What we are saying is that Mike Harris is on record

saying he is offering his public sector employees 2 per cent. New Brunswick, on

record, with an agreement of 2 per cent a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If you want to talk about Alberta, I would only be too

happy to talk about Alberta if we could call an election on how we are going to

spend our excess; spend all of the billions and billions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the member because it is an

important question. What are people getting here? Let me tell you. The City of

Corner Brook, unionized employees:1.5 per cent, 1.5 per cent, and 1.5 per cent a

year up to 2004. The City of St. John's, Local 569, unionized employees: 2 per

cent, 3 per cent, 2 per cent a year. The question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Abitibi-Price: 2 per cent a year for 2000-2003. Labatts

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Labatts: 2 per cent, 2.02 per cent, 2.18 per cent; IOC: 1.01 per cent, 1.5

per cent and 1.7 per cent. That is the answer to the question. I know they do

not want to hear it but that is the answer to the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: So the minister does not have a comparative study of the

salaries that are paid across the country for comparable positions. Will the

minister tell the House how much salaries have increased on a percentage basis

for executive positions in the public service from 1989 to the current year, and

how they would compare with what has been offered to unionized employees?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you that last year when

we did our reclassification numbers with respect to nurses and LPNs, our salary

increased by 15 per cent instead of 7 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Knowing for many

months that the 3 per cent offer was there, in fact the 3 per cent offer is what

got a 97 per cent strike vote from NAPE, why did the Premier wait until the

eleventh hour on the eleventh day to make an offer? The only offer that

government made, knowing that the union could not respond by the 12:00 midnight

deadline and knowing that there would have to be a strike. Did the Premier try

to push NAPE into a strike, or do they want to have a reasonable settlement with

these people? Is this a grudge match by the Premier, or does he want a

settlement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the question again. As I

indicated earlier, some of the very best, if not the best, negotiators in

Newfoundland and Labrador represent the public sector unions, a whole range of

them. They fully understood and, as a matter of fact they concurred in the

process and they knew exactly what was happening down at the Fairmont Hotel.

They fully understood and concurred in the process that there would not be, and

they knew in advance of the discussions at all that there would be no

expectation of any change in the government's offer of 3-3-3 unless and until,

at their fourteen tables, they got through all of the language issues and

identified the total cost of all of the issues that they wanted resolved, such

as the maternity leave issue, such as the group insurance changes, and those

kinds of benefits, such as the pension issue which took them most of the full

week to come to grips with themselves and they still do not have the full

details of. There is a general framework.

They understand that, Mr. Speaker. There is nobody here looking for any kind

of a fight or any kind of a confrontation. Unfortunately, we have a work

stoppage which I believe everybody in this Legislature on all sides hopes that

we can find a way, as the minister indicated, to find the common ground, because

there is still some difference, so that the work stoppage can end as quickly as

it started and we can get back to trying to rebuild; because the message that we

are trying to send, as the government, in this round of bargaining, is that we

do understand that the public servants in Newfoundland and Labrador bore a great

part of the burden of restraint for the full ten-year period. We do understand

that and we acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker, and this is the contract in which we

are trying to recognize that and begin the rebuilding by, as I said before,

offering as much of an increase in this one year as they have seen in the

previous twelve years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: We do recognize the need to rebuild. We are not trying to

fight with anybody. We are trying to restore and rebuild our public servants

back to a level where they more rightfully and deservedly belong, than they are

today, and this contract can be a very first big step in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find the Premier's remarks as conciliatory and, if that is the case, that

it is possible that we may have a new era of cooperation and respect for the

public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Will the Premier tell his President of Treasury Board not to

make provocative comments like, take this offer to your members, but sit down

with the bargaining committee in a spirit of compromise. The people of this

Province do not want to see a major public sector strike in this Province of

19,000 workers for the sake of a 2 per cent difference. Is the Premier willing

to compromise, talk about a new era of cooperation and respect, and stop the

provocative statements like were just made by the President of Treasury Board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would hope that the hon. member, in the spirit of trying to make sure that

we resolve this rather than make it worse, would not use that kind of language

outside the Legislature and publicly.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance said

what she did about putting this issue to a vote only because we were both told,

and it was said in the public, and we can find the clippings from the press if

you want, that the leader of NAPE had indicated quite clearly that if there was

a significantly different offer than the 3-3-3, that he would take it back to

his membership for a vote.

What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is we believe that a 5-4-4, with the

maternity benefits, with the group insurance benefits, with an indexed pension

plan all being possible, with shared trusteeship of the pension plan, something

that the unions have been looking for, for years and years and years, and could

not even get anybody to discuss it with them, that with this package, this is

not significantly different but vastly different and improved than 3-3-3.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: All the chief negotiator for the government is saying is

that, if the president of the public service union, who has said that publicly,

is going to live up to his words, why wouldn't he - we are not trying to be

provocative; we are asking - why would he not live up to his words which were:

If there is a significantly different offer, he would put it to a vote.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: I am asking the hon. member: Is he suggesting that a move

from 3-3-3 to 5-4-4, with the other benefits that I described, is not a

significant move -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - that that is insignificant? Mr. Speaker, that is the

question. It is not intended to be provocative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that tomorrow I shall move that a

further estimate of expenditure related to a contingency reserve in the amount

of $10 million be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I seem to have missed the opportunity to table some papers. If I may revert,

with the concurrence of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we revert to tabling of reports? Is that agreed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

Section 28.(4) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling

six special warrants relating to the 2000-2001 fiscal year. Particularly, Mr.

Speaker, these relate to the $23 million associated with the reclassification

for licensed practical nurses, social workers, selected classes of allied health

and nursing; a special warrant of $8.8 million for additional funds for health

care facilities equipment; a special warrant of $15 million for health care

facilities equipment acquisitions and renovations; a special warrant of $3.7

million for the drug program for our senior citizens and income support program;

and a special warrant of $5.5 million to provide additional funds for the

detoxification treatment of the Innu children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Order 2, Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply Estimates.

On motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise today to make a few comments on the Estimates that are now before the

House. We have been discussing these now for some days and I do believe there is

still a lot of time left that we can discuss these Estimates.

I was rather surprised that the minister, in commenting on the collective

bargaining approaches as she did a few minutes ago, did not answer the question

when I asked her to compare the salaries that are paid to public servants in

Newfoundland and Labrador with the salaries paid to public servants in

comparable positions across Canada. Yesterday her press release which was, of

course, an example of spin doctors at work on Sunday - if it had been put out in

the morning, it would have made the April Fool deadline, but because it came out

after lunch, it did not make the April Fool deadline of 12:00 noon - in this

particular press release, she praises up the fact that they offered 5-4-4 over

three years. She said it was a significant offer which members of NAPE and CUPE

should examine with care. I asked her to comment on her statement where she

says, and I quote: The minister pointed out this offer is better than any

current offer in the country.

Well, if that is a better offer than any current offer in the country, why

are our young men and our young women leaving this Province in droves? Because

we know that 40,000 young men and young women have left Newfoundland and

Labrador in recent years to find jobs elsewhere. Why are some of our best and

our brightest leaving? It is because, if you compare what they can get paid in

Newfoundland in the public service with what they are being paid in Alberta or

Ontario or Nova Scotia, they would fall far behind if they stayed in this

Province.

So, the minister is putting out a press release and, if you compare it with

percentages that she is offering now, it may be technically correct, again, as

the Premier made a point of saying many times, words are important. While what

the minister says here is not technically incorrect, it certainly leaves an

incorrect impression, because her point is, she says, and I quote: The minister

pointed out that this offer is better than any current offer in the country.

Then she compares Corner Brook getting this wage or the City of Mount Pearl,

or the City of St. John's, but what she does not say is that if you are a

nurse in Newfoundland and Labrador, if you are a public servant working in a

hospital in Newfoundland and Labrador, if you are responsible for ploughing the

highways in Newfoundland and Labrador, or if you are working in any of the

divisions of government in Newfoundland and Labrador, you are likely getting

substantially less than you would in any other province or territory in the

country.

Mr. Chair, I ask the minister, in my questions, if she would do a little

sharing with us. We know that they have compared the salaries paid all across

the country. I have talked to the young people who are leaving this Province and

saying to me: Yes, if I have to go to Ontario, I can get this salary compared to

what I am getting here. Most of them are getting a 20 per cent to 25 per cent

increase in their salaries. Really, when you compare it, you are comparing the

5-4-4 as a base salary of what is paid in Newfoundland and Labrador, and then

you compare it to what they would be paid in other provinces. The minister did

not answer the question. I said: Would you please table in the House an

analysis.

Let's take, for example, if the minister gave us a comparison of thirty or

forty comparable positions. Take the position you have in Newfoundland in

Labrador - it does not matter who occupies it - and you compare it with what is

paid to that same position, the same experience, the same responsibilities, for

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba,

Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta, and the two Territories. We know that

in this particular case, Newfoundland's public servants are grossly underpaid.

Mr. Chair, we acknowledge that negotiations have taken up an awfully long

time. We were told today that the negotiations started on October 2, 2000. That

is a long time. The first time that the government made a formal written offer

was on, the minister said today in Question Period, March 23. That is four or

five months later. What had happened in the meantime? There has been a great

deal of public commentary. The minister had announced her 3-3-3, which simply

infuriated the members of the collective bargaining units, NAPE and CUPE. Then,

in the Budget Speech, the minister went and did it all over again; but, at no

time did the minister put that in writing, which she could have done, I would

assume, in January, or could have done in November. The minister who occupies

that chair now couldn't have done it until after she had assumed that office,

but the previous minister could have done it, but that did not happen. So, from

October 2 until March 23, nothing happened except public grandstanding by the

minister, being very provocative and saying: Here it is, 3-3-3. Take it or leave

it. It is my way or the highway.

That kind of bargaining gets the results that we have today.

PREMIER GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think again, because of the sensitive nature of what is occurring in the

Province today, that for a member of the Legislature to repeat that language -

because the words were never used. I know that. I did listen this morning to a

presentation made by a leader of the public service union who is heading up the

strike and doing what he has to do on behalf of his members, but the idea of my

way or the highway, and that kind of language, was never, ever used by anyone

representing the government, and certainly not by me. That is not our style and

approach. I believe that if he is really - because I do have great respect for

the hon. member - trying to be helpful in resolving this issue, I understand the

point that he is trying to make in terms of comparative salaries and so on, but

to use that kind of inflammatory language in here, as if it actually was spoken

by someone on behalf of the government, let the record show that it was not

said. It never occurred. That is not the way that we do business.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am delighted that the Premier stood in his place and said what he had said,

because I listened on several occasions now to commentaries which would lead me

to believe that these words, indeed, had been used. I am sure that the Premier,

in making his statement, will perhaps cause some of us to have some more

refection, because we certainly want to do what we can to make sure the public

servants are duly recognized for the work that they do, but in doing so we want

to say that the process by which we have arrived at where we are today leaves an

awful lot to be desired.

We know that collective bargaining is a difficult process. The Premier is an

experienced negotiator, he has been an employer and also he has been an

employee. He has extensive bargaining experience, as do some of the members on

this side of the House. It is never an easy process.

The point that we were making is that you have to compare apples with apples.

When you are comparing salaries in Newfoundland, as the minister, by inference,

was doing yesterday, with salaries in other parts of the country, then you have

to be very careful that you say what you mean and that you do not use words

unless they are very precise. In this particular case, to compare what is being

paid in Newfoundland with what is being paid in other parts of the country, we

just ask for the comparative data to be tabled.

I also ask today for a comparison of other data that we wanted to have tabled

as well. Basically, what I had said was that I asked the minister if she would

table how much the salaries have increased on a percentage basis for executive

positions in government compared with unionized positions in the public service.

I wanted to do that because my understand is, if I were to, just for a moment,

take a second and do some comparisons, if you were to take the Estimates and the

Salary Departmental Details for 2001-2002 and compare them to the same data for

the year 1989-1990, you come up with some glaring examples of where there is

great discrepancy.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to note a few of those. For example, in 1989, the

Secretary to Cabinet was paid less than $100,000. In fact, the salary in that

year - and I had that here just a moment ago - the salary for that particular

year was $98,355. In the current departmental salary estimates, the salary for

that position is $125,537. That means, over that eleven year period, the

Secretary to Cabinet has had an increase of $27,182. That is a 27.6 per cent

increase. What I am saying is that when the Secretary to Cabinet is paid a

salary increase that is -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: We are comparing salaries here, and if you have the

Secretary to Cabinet in the same time frame getting a $27,182 increase from 1989

to the current year, for a 27.6 per cent increase, then you have to wonder, why

is there not some consistency?

An even more glaring example is the incident of the Private Secretary to the

Lieutenant-Governor. We know there are circumstances in all of these decisions

of government, but let me compare. In 1989, the Secretary to the

Lieutenant-Governor was paid $51,136. That compares to $101,389 today, for an

increase of $50,253. That is a 98.2 per cent increase in the salary paid to the

Secretary to the Lieutenant-Government, comparing 1989 with the current year.

Mr. Chair, we could go on and compare, for example, the Secretary to Treasury

Board. That salary went up in the same years from $87,935 to $106,749 for a 21.3

per cent increase. My question today - and I know the time had been allocated

but it is only thirty minutes. The Leader of the Opposition today had some very

good questions. Of course, the responses were longer than normal because it is a

very important issue, and we were very tolerant of the minister today in letting

her have as much time as we could, and we did not raise any fuss about that. It

was a very serious Question Period today, and we are glad that the minister was

forthcoming with some answers. Not always did she give us all we wanted in terms

of answers, but she was more forthcoming than usually is the case in Question

Period. We thank the minister for that.

Mr. Chair, if you look at some of these positions, what I was trying to point

out in my questions today was how come, over the same time frame, the public

service was not treated like the executive branch of government? That certainly

was a comparison that we wanted to make and, of course, that was the theme of

what I wanted to point out today in Question Period.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you Mr. Chair.

I stand today, of course, to look at some of the Estimates for Executive

Council. When looking at the Estimates of the Executive Council, I certainly

reflect back upon my own district in looking at the needs of that. When I

compare the money spent in some of the areas of Executive Council and I look at

the needs of my particular district, I cannot help but bring to the foreground

the tremendous need that needs to be addressed, I guess not only in my district

but certainly in the many districts throughout this great Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the more serious difficulties would be the roads, I say to you, Mr.

Chair, in my particular district; and when I say roads, in particular a number

of them. At this particular time we have one

section of Marysvale, called the

commuters who use this road, are finding it extremely difficult to navigate. It

is an unpaved road that has been unpaved for so many years now, it is unreal.

Houses on this particular

section of road are owned by young families building a

life here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a hope with this Budget, as it

was presented - because they have been after this road for about seven or eight

years - that this year might be the year that this road can be taken care of.

That is only one road, Mr. Chair, in my particular district that needs to be

looked at.

Once we go beyond the roads, and there are some main roads, and I am sure

that the minister will be looking at the priorities, I certainly hope that he

can see that my particular district - in particular some of the roads in my

particular district - absolutely need to be taken care of at this particular

time. That part of the Budget certainly is an important one to my district and

one that will have to be looked at as we look at allocating funds for particular

needs, for particular situations.

In the district as well, we are having some difficulties with some of our

water systems, and I was very pleased to see that it is going to be addressed.

Whether it is local services or municipalities, whatever situation they are in,

they are going to be able to avail of some sort of funding, I believe up to 100

per cent funding, up to $100,000, to address the situation of poor water, poor

water supply, poor quality of water, in my communities. I look forward to them,

these municipalities, addressing this particular need through this particular

Budget.

That is encouraging, Mr. Chair, to see those sorts of incentives placed into

Cove, that the water system such as in Marysvale, that they can avail of the

necessary funding to bring the water system and the roads to a standard that is

applicable to this particular time, to the people, to the system itself.

The Estimates in other areas, as we go through the Estimates Committee,

certainly will be addressed; but I move from my district to the critic area of

which I am a part, namely the education. Looking at the Budget and the Estimates

for the various departments, it was certainly encouraging to see that this

government is trying to recapture a focus which has been neglected since the

early 1990s. This is a focus, if you want to call it a focus, an emphasis, a

focus on the education system of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was surprised that they called it a new focus; because, if you are looking

at a new focus, it means that you are changing something. I suppose I am

encouraged because in the mid-1990s the focus was there but it was a focus that

was not a positive focus in many ways, to move along educational reform in the

manner in which it was intended to be moved early in the 1990s. So, if this

Budget is indeed a new focus, and if the objective is to give quality education

to the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, to give them equal opportunity,

equal access, then this new focus is certainly a welcomed one.

I noticed that the Premier, in setting up the Cabinet, split the Department

of Education into the K-12 and, indeed, the Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education. I find this different because, I guess it was only last year that

myself and a colleague of mine spilt up the duties of the Department of

Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: No, I didn't split up with anyone, I say to the Member

for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. No, we never split up on that.

It is interesting that our direction on this side was to split off into two

critic roles and, lo and behold, it wasn't long after that when the department

split off into two different directions.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have been following us (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I wonder. Again, I know it is a stretch. I know the

Minister of Education is not here today, but I have been accused of stretching

things before so I am being very, very cautious as I speak to that. It is a

stretch, but we were there before and they followed us.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are beginning to sound like Harvey.

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, if I thought I was putting you to sleep over there, I

say to the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, I shouldn't say that. To the Member for Bellevue, I

will try to change my style, so I will have my own particular style. I should

move my hands, I suppose, and look alive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: Would that be different?

AN HON. MEMBER: Be more of a Loyola Sullivan. (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I am sorry, the speed of my colleague from Ferryland I

could not keep up with. I cannot keep up with his thoughts.

I say to you, Mr. Chair, that I would just like to return to an earlier

thought that, with the division of the Department of Education, there seems to

be a more intense focus on the K-12, literacy, libraries and early childhood

education. Again, I have to say that during the late 1980s and early 1990s it

was clearly established by the Williams Report that this should be the areas of

intense focus. The directions were already given in the late 1980s and early

1990s, but somewhere along the line, from that time until now in the year

2000-2001, this government has gotten off track with regard to educational

reform.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Maybe I am putting the members on this side asleep, I say

to you. I can't see the members down in front, so please advise if anyone is

yawning, would you? I can see you people yawning, but I cannot see my side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay, as long as my colleagues on this side are still with

me.

We just go back again to the new focus on education and youth. I suggest to

this House that that focus -

AN HON. MEMBER: Change to page 2, now.

MR. HEDDERSON: Page 2? No, I am gone back to page 1.

This new focus on education and youth is a new focus that was absolutely

necessary, because it was lost during the 1990s. The thing that was done during

the 1990s was restructuring: restructuring in closing schools, realigning,

reconfiguring; but, with regard to inside the schools, once again the focus was

lost, the intensity was lost.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Harvey is getting up if (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Harvey is not getting up.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: I thank you very much. I have my ace in the hole here. I

have my ace here. All I have to do is point, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

The Budget direction for the Department of Education in this fiscal year,

certainly it contained some positive points. I give credit where credit is due,

and perhaps it is credit they will be looking for to take care of these needs,

but it is important that we understand, as members of this House, that the

education of our youth, especially with regard to K-12, there is no doubt about

it, is a prime, prime concern.

I notice in the booklet here that there is a

section where it says: the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador have told us - I assume the government - to

focus on. I say to the House and I say to you, Mr. Chair, that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have been telling governments to focus on the

education of our youth from as long as I can remember, and certainly long before

my time. If we look at the cultural development in Newfoundland in the last

century, and even back into the previous century, I would say to you that

education always was front and foremost in the minds of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and all of us, as members here, can remember vividly

our parents telling us -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I hear strange sounds here in the back row. I don't know

where they are coming from. I might get Mr. Chair to check it out. We have some

strange sounds coming from the back row.

To get back to the importance of education, we do not need a booklet to tell

us that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador value our youth, value their

education. When we talk about valuing the youth, I would say to you, Mr. Chair,

I don't know if the horse is gone out of the barn, but a lot of our young

people have left this Province. The 1990s have been a terrible time for the

youth of this Province in trying to make the transition between secondary and

post-secondary, and in making the transition from post-secondary to the job

market. It has been a terrible, terrible time.

In the year 2001, here we are saying, we have to refocus now. We have to get

back to it. We are going to put the necessary finances in place to make up for,

I guess, the sins of the past. When I say the sins of the past, these students

in post-secondary - and again it is common, you know it - when you are talking

about debts of $40,000 or $50,000 and more, and you are talking about the

difficulties that they have in trying to address that awful amount that is

staying with them as they try to move from the post-secondary into the job

market.

When we go back to our famous little booklet here, it is a given - I don't

know why these things are said, because it is a given - that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador have told us to focus on building a high quality

education system. That is a fact, and it has been told not only this year. You

do not have to go around looking for people to tell you that. The message has

always been there and will always be there, to focus on educational achievement.

My heavens, if the children of this Province are involved in learning, if they

are involved in education, naturally we want them to achieve at their highest

potential. It is a given. It does not need to be said, but it looks good, that

we must focus on literacy. Once again, literacy has been focused on in people's

minds, but whether it transfers into actual action, again I say to you, that is

a different story.

We must focus on opportunities for students in rural schools. That has been

said time and time again, that the students in our rural areas find themselves,

whether it is through geography or otherwise, at a disadvantage. If they are

going to post-secondary, they find themselves at a disadvantage because they

have to, more than likely, move the furthest distance and they incur the most

expenses.

We must focus on the transition from school to work. Again, this is something

that has been bred into us as young people coming up and looking to go from

post-secondary into the job market.

The last one, we must focus on student debt. Unfortunately, there was a focus

on student debt in the 1990s by this government, because that is what the

problem is right now. So you focused on it in the rising tuition rates, in the

elimination of the grant system, in putting our students certainly at a

disadvantage. Having said that, what has happened now is that we have split the

departments; and it is important now because there is no greater investment we

can make than in our youth.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, yes. A well-educated population is essential to

economic prosperity and social well-being. Investment in education, skills, and

training yields large payoffs not only for individuals but for whole economies.

MR. SULLIVAN: Who said that?

MR. HEDDERSON: That is coming out from the government.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are they practicing that or just (inaudible)

MR. HEDDERSON: This is the question, I say to my colleague for Ferryland.

Words are important, as our Premier has constantly reminded us, right?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) high school. In grade ten we had the book,

words are important.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, in grade ten, we were often shown that book. I tell

you, words are important, and these words are important. Don't get me wrong. I

say to the House, I say to the minister, that words are important and these

statements are important, but it is nothing new.

This government has been presenting us with these statements since the

late 1980s and early 1990s on into now, the year 2000-2001. We do not mind

listening to them, if indeed by saying the words it means that some action is

going to take place. That is the key to it. We can talk all we like, we can say

all we like, but it is the actions as a result of those words that we are judged

on.

In this particular case, I am glad to see them there. Yes, we should be

building high quality education programs. We should be cutting down on the

student debt. We should be involving the system in early childhood education.

These are great platitudes or ideals or whatever you want to call them, but you

have to be able to back those words up with action; and the action is where I

find the problem. The action is slow in coming, if in coming at all.

We turn the page and it says - again tooting their own horn - our Province

has seen significant improvements in K-12 education, including the ratio of

teachers to students, graduation rates, teacher qualifications, per student

expenditures and educational attainment levels.

The pupil-teacher ratio, I hate to even bring it up. Every time I see this,

it just rattles me; because what you see in statistics on this piece of paper is

not the reality that you see in the schools of our Province. Many of the members

here have children or grandchildren who are in the system right now. We are

supposedly not too long through it ourselves so we know, as we go around, as we

visit these schools, as we talk to teachers, as we talk to parents, as we talk

to students, there is no reality in these statistics of what is happening in the

schools.

When you talk to a teacher who has twenty-nine or thirty in Grade 2, this is

not in an isolated area anywhere. When you talk about class sizes in high school

of thirty-plus. When you talk, as I talked, to a Kindergarten teacher with

twenty-plus in Kindergarten, you ask yourself: What are these statistics? How

come, if we do have a ratio in this case, and I hate to even quote it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, I hate to even quote it, we have one teacher for

every 13.3 students. Let's round it up to fourteen. You would think, if that

is the case, if I said that to anyone, they would say: Sure, what a wonderful

system we have!

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, there would be no classes with thirty students

(inaudible)

MR. HEDDERSON: No, absolutely not. What a wonderful system we would have.

I understand, too, that perhaps they have taken this ratio when they are

starting to build schools; because, if you look at the schools today - I am just

getting off on a tangent, I say to the -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) playing games with the figures.

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, they are, because the classrooms they were building

are built for thirteen to one.

MR. SULLIVAN: A smaller classroom?

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, absolutely. If you go into a school now and you look

at the classrooms -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: What is that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Is that all they are putting in there?

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, I do not know. We will have to see, but the schools

are being built for thirteen to one. Then you are going and putting thirty

students in there.

MR. SULLIVAN: What? No wonder they have air quality problems.

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, that is in the new schools. In the old schools it is

not too bad because you have bigger classrooms, more window space.

MR. SULLIVAN: Leakier windows so you get air circulation.

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, the wind blows through it so they do not have air

quality problems in a lot of them because of that.

Getting back to the pupil-teacher ratio, you would assume, when the minister

comes out with these types of figures, that she talking about the people who are

directly involved with the children of this Province across the desk, as we

said, in classes that would be about fourteen to one, and what a situation; but

that is not true. Because, in order to get this ratio, every person on the roll,

every person employed in the schools as an educator, is included in that; plus,

not only in the schools but even in the board offices. Everyone. I do not want

to go to the bargaining units or anything, but anyone in the bargaining unit of

the NLTA is indeed included in these statistics and therefore the reality is

that it is not thirteen to one. It is not even close. In some of the smaller

schools out around where you do not have the population, even then you will

probably get multi-grading. To back up, we have come a long way simply because

of a statistic that shows the lack of understanding in looking at the realities

of what is happening in the classroom.

I won't get to the expenditures and whatever, but let's go to the new

school facilities. The new school facilities, to look at it, I must say, there

is nothing that can make an community or an area more proud than to be given the

opportunity of a new school. I mean, it is absolutely phenomenal to take on that

sort of a task, the teachers, the students, the parents coming together in a new

facility, coming together to build a new school community. I say, looking down

through, I do not doubt it was absolutely necessary to have these schools. I am

not getting into that, but what I am getting into is that there has been a

change in constructing schools. There really has, and a change has taken place

that is worrisome to those who are getting the school. Because, if you are

getting a new school, sometimes you cannot speak up as much as you would like

to, because if you speak up you might put the project in some degree of

jeopardy, so there is an acceptance of new schools that ordinarily would not be

accepted, not even tolerated.

The planning that is going into these schools has been, for the most part, a

one-shot deal, and I say a one-shot deal because on paper now you have the specs

- so many of this, so many of that, so many classrooms - you look at how many

students are there, and someone does it from afar. They do not go in and say: My

heavens, what type of community is this? What type of people do we have here?

What type of traditions do we have here? Is this a school that is heavy into the

theater arts for example? Is this a school that is heavy into athletics? Has

this been the way - I say to the Member for Ferryland, schools up in your

district, I would say, basketball would play a big

part in most of them?

MR. SULLIVAN: You look at Trepassey, Mobile, traditionally (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Absolutely, and I remember a year or so ago (inaudible)

begging.

MR. SULLIVAN: And St. Kevin's is the top team in the Province now,

basically.

MR. HEDDERSON: Absolutely begging, pretty much begging to get facilities

that would support the traditional emphasis that those students and that school

community had on a particular area. We are getting - not only are we, but I

personally have seen schools newly constructed in the last year or so that have

missed the mark tremendously. I bring into question the school in Blaketown for

example. I know the school in Blaketown because it serves my constituents in the

Whitbourne, Markland area. It is a beautiful looking school. When you look at it

from the outside it is a beautiful looking school. When you go in and look

around it looks like a beautiful building, but then you start to look at the

number of students who are in there, you start to look at the programs that are

being offered, or not offered I should say, and you start to wonder how anyone

could design a school so blindly.

We have washroom facilities that do not cater to the number of students in

that building because there was a scramble to put on extra space to that

building. The classrooms were put on but the washroom facilities were not

altered to address the increase in the number of students who were coming in. It

is pretty bad. Recess time, dinner time and other times you have lineups in the

washrooms because there are simply not enough to go around.

The biggest error in that particular school has been - I guess years ago we

called it the gym. We want a gym and an auditorium so you often see the word

gymnatorium. Now the catch word is multipurpose room. Madam Chair, I say to you

that the catch word these days is multipurpose room. In other words everything;

everything from cafeteria to music. In some cases phys.ed. activities.

Everything goes in this particular part of the school.

In Blaketown you have the kitchen workers in preparing meals for 600 or 700

children while the music teacher is out, separated by a curtain, trying to teach

a music class. Now just imagine that! They built the music room next to the

cafeteria. That school has to be revisited. As well, that school has only been

in operation this particular year and yet, there are going to be an increase in

students this September or the following September, depending on when the board

closes out the Holy Trinity system. You are going to have another influx of

students into a building that was not built to accommodate them. It just was not

there to be accommodated.

It is most important, if we are bragging about the schools completed and the

schools being completed, that we have to be absolutely sure that what we are

building are schools for the future; that the classrooms are an adequate size;

that they have to be built for a particular area; that we cannot have these

schools as clones - I suppose, if you want to put it that way - throughout this

Province; that we need to make sure that the school fits the situation; that the

classrooms are there; that the washroom facilities are there; that the music

facilities are there. Then again, when we look at music I wonder when we

construct schools are we constructing it for a program of the future that,

perhaps, does not include the possibility of music? That is a question that, I

guess, only time will tell.

The other thing, as I look on this page - this is their little Budget. I am

getting through it. I am on the middle page now and I am trying to get through

it as best I can. There is a lot to say and there are a lot of things going

through your mind. Again, air quality testing - this is an interesting one now.

It shows up again - I say again because it showed up in 1998. Was it 1998? Air

quality testing, about ten million in 1998.

MR. H. HODDER: I asked questions by leave. I asked question after

question.

MR. HEDDERSON: My colleague from Waterford Valley was the one who asked

the questions on it.

So, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The interesting thing here, if you read it, is

that quality testing on 225 schools, some of which now are closed down - but it

begs the question, if we have 337 schools in operation today in the Province -

some of these schools are closed down out of the 225, so let us say 200 - there

are at least 100, 130 or 150 schools that have not had air quality testing or

any renovations or alterations to address the air quality in these schools. The

225 that led to approximately $10 million being spent for air quality

improvements in over 200 schools, most of these schools simply were cleaned up.

They went in and cleaned the schools, basically to improve the air quality. Some

of these schools have not had a good cleaning.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not done by professionals, are they?

MR. HEDDERSON: No, that is true enough. They are done by board personnel

who go in with a lot of Lestoil or whatever, put a nice smell to the building.

They try to get rid of all the mould but the problem comes back, and it comes

back, and it comes back. I suggest that if $10 million was spent in 1998 and

nothing since, I dread to think what the next round of testing is going to show

up. When we look at schools and say: What is the problem here? What is the

problem with air quality? We have to go back, Madam Chair, to the maintenance on

these particular buildings. We are down to a little over 300 schools. Come on!

Three hundred schools in this Province and yet, I say to you, there are children

in this Province who are in learning environments - if you want to call them

that, I would have to put them in brackets - where there are leaks, where there

are windows with the wind blowing through them, and where there are dangers

around a particular school. I do not have to go too far because I am looking at

my colleague from Windsor-Springdale, whose latest report is shocking. I believe

the school is the Green Bay South Academy. Just before Christmas there were a

lot of problems there and, I might add, there was some reconciliation in an

attempt to bring the school up to certain standards. It is a losing battle

because the problems keep coming back.

If you have buildings where you are not addressing regular maintenance, if

there is a leak in the building and you are letting it go for two years, you are

asking for serious, serious problems. It is most important that the emergencies

which develop in our schools are looked at immediately. If there is one thing

that I would like to see done - if there is a report that there is a roof off a

building, if there is a report that there is a leak, for heaven's sake, get

out, get to that school, get that leak repaired and let the children in our

Province be in schools where you do not have to worry about the rain coming down

all around them. The importance is that we take seriously the needs of the

children of this Province because if we do not take seriously the health and

safety concerns of our children, what are we doing? I can assure you there are

situations in our schools today where if it was a workplace and Occupational

Health and Safety could get in there, these buildings would be closed down until

such time as the renovations or alterations were carried out to make it a safe

environment. So we are building.

The K-12 system needs focus. There is no doubt about it. If it is a renewed

focus for whatever reasons, I welcome a focus on the K-12. When you look at the

K-12 there are so many things that I could talk about. One of the things - and

every year I get up and mention it because it is most important. That children

coming into this K-12 system need readiness skills in math, in language, in

other areas, in sociability, and you can go right down the line but the

readiness is not there for all. We have to find a way to extend our K-12 system

back into the pre-school ages. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that has

to happen. It has to be done and the sooner we do it the better all the way

around, without a doubt. We have to do it. That is on that level, from

Kindergarten to Grade 12, but we would like to see something substantial done

from birth until grade Kindergarten. Most important.

The primary curriculum - and I must say to you, Madam Chair, that I was

involved in the primary curriculum in the late 1980s, early 1990s, mid-1990s,

and the most impressive thing with regard to the primary grades, to me, was the

ability of primary teachers to bring those children out of the home into the

school system and engage them. They did not exactly take the part of parents,

but certainly to young children in the primary grades it is most important for

that relationship, for that bonding to be there, in order to engage the children

so that learning can take place.

The elementary, junior high, on into the high school, curriculum developments

there are as important as the primary grades, but let me tell you, the amount of

money that you spend on pre-school and the primary grades, the more that you can

put in there, the more dollars that are going to be saved down the road. The K-3

is most, most important.

Now, as we get to Grade 12 and into the post-secondary, I say to you, of late

there has been a debate about the ability of our students here in Newfoundland

and Labrador to enter into post-secondary and be successful. There are

professors at the university who are pointing fingers back at the teachers, at

the curriculum, at the Department of Education, indicating that our Grade 12

students have been babied, that the standards are gone, that they cannot add two

and two, that they cannot read, that they cannot write, and there is a big panic

because we do not have faith in our secondary teachers; but when a professor

speaks, it seems like it is gospel. I say to you that I stand behind the K-12

system. The curriculum is there. The resources is another story, but the

majority of our students coming out of Grade 12 are prepared but they run into

roadblocks in post-secondary, especially at the university. These roadblocks

need to be addressed and there has to be better liaison between the first year

at university and the final year in the secondary system.

I speak from some degree of experience. My daughter is in her first year of

university and let me tell you, what a struggle she has had in this first term;

a struggle to understand how the post-secondary system at university works. She

is now half-way through her second term and the lights have gone on. She is now

much better prepared. She had to live through it because her expectations were

not what they should have been. Maybe I am to blame for that in not preparing

her well enough, but I stand by our graduates from Grade 12. Not everyone can go

to university. Not everyone can go to a program at the public colleges or the

private colleges. Students have to be matched up with their programs, but when

you get into university and you go into a science course in the first year, and

students have come out, not necessarily out of a class of thirteen to one, but

maybe a class of twenty to one or twenty-five to one in high school and get into

a class of 200, or get into a class of 150 where the professor comes in and goes

up and does whatever needs to be done on the board, or overheads. Then you have

graduate students who are giving exams and correcting exams, the personal touch

is gone and it appears that maybe the only thing they are doing is being done on

a bell curve. So, it most important that students in Grade 12 be given an

understanding of what to expect in university or post-secondary, and that both

the post-secondary institutions and the Grade 12, the secondary, are talking,

that they are together on it. That is the most important; very important.

This is why there is a little bit of concern when the post-secondary moved

away from the K-12. I hope there is not going to be a gap there. I know both

ministers and I am certainly confident in both the ministers, that they will

continue to work closely together to make sure that the K-12 and the

post-secondary are in touch with one another, in communication with one another,

because that is most important. That is a crucial year. If we look at crucial

years, I will tell you, entry at Kindergarten, without a doubt, is number one;

but we have to look at the exit from the secondary as well because that is a key

area as well. If the students exiting from Grade 12 are given the right

guidance, if they are given the right, I suppose, instructions, if they are

given the right degree of support, they can be, and are I might add, very, very

successful in post-secondary.

We look at the post-secondary and there is a problem with the post-secondary

as well, and I am sure the ministers are aware. It is most important because

again, from my experience in graduating students from Grade 12 and into the

post-secondary, almost to the student they sign up for either the university,

for the public colleges, CONA for example, or for some of the private colleges.

They have a plan and they leave Grade 12 with a plan. The numbers that are going

into post-secondary are the highest in the country, and that makes you so proud,

that they are the highest in the country.

When you look beyond the entry, then comes the problem. In the past twenty

years we have gone successfully from a 58 per cent in the old Grade 11 classes -

and I suggest that should be higher because many of them would go back for

supplementaries and get their Grade 11 at the time. It has gone almost the

reverse, from a 58 per cent to an 85 per cent. According to these statistics, we

have a high graduation rate.

The post-secondary, on the other hand, has seen a dramatic rise because it

has gone from 27 per cent to 58 per cent. Again, what are we saying? These

students who are going into the post-secondary, a lot of them, higher on the

average than any other place in Canada, only 58 per cent of them are completing

their programs. That is a problem. We are getting them in there but something is

happening that they are not coming out. Now, people are blaming it on literacy,

that they cannot read or write, that they don't have the work skills, they don't

have the habits, whatever the case might be, and that is disturbing, because

there is more to it than that. We have to delve deeper, because our numbers of

youth are declining. We don't have the numbers we once had. We don't have

them. We don't have the job markets that were once here. Because, regardless,

thirty years ago if you came out and you didn't go into post-secondary, nine

chances out of ten you picked up an apprenticeship with somebody, you found your

niche, but the niches are getting harder and harder to find, and it must be.

We ask ourselves, when we look at 58 per cent completing them: Is it

academics that is limiting the graduation rate at post-secondary? Because when

we look down at the bottom of the page it talks about increased affordability.

So, there is a recognition on the part of the government and the people who put

the Budget together that we have to make sure, in small or great ways, that our

youth are given the opportunity, that finances do not prevent them from entering

into post-secondary; but I don't think it is the entry. It is not the entry

that we are concerned about, it is the graduation rate of 58 per cent.

Is it that the young people cannot finish their programs because they are

forced out to work? Is it that they see the need to quit and move on? These are

the questions, Madam Chair, that we have to be able to answer, as again our

numbers are getting down in youth. We have a bright future ahead of us in this

Province and we have to make sure that our youth are a part of it.

If that is what the focus of this Budget is, on assuring that, I say it is

about time. It is about time that we got moving forward to make sure that the

youth of our Province get at least two years of post-secondary. They have to get

at least two years of post-secondary. That is as much equivalent to Grade 11 or

Grade 12 as ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. They have to get at least two

years before they are even looked at with regard to further training or

whatever. It has to be done. We have to put the mechanisms in place to ensure

that is going to happen.

There are some initiatives coming up: The new Department of Youth Services

and Post-Secondary Education will establish a Youth Advisory Committee as a

forum for youth to communicate with the government.

I think the youth of this Province are speaking. This might give them a

formal means. I have no problems with a Youth Advisory Committee, if indeed

there is somebody listening, and not only listening but acting. This gets back

to the wonderful words that we can speak. I can get up and speak wonderful words

of praise or whatever, but it is most, most important that we act, that we just

don't talk about it. Talk is cheap, but action is what is absolutely needed.

The youth of this Province, I can tell you, I was at The Great Canadian

Geography Challenge down in North River on Saturday morning and I sat back and

watched twenty-one students from all parts of the Province. They came from

Flowers Cove and different areas. There was just too many of them, I am not

going down through them, but they were from every nook and cranny - Green Bay -

and the parents were there. Just imagine, traveling from Flowers Cove on Friday

to be in North River, Conception Bay, on Saturday morning to allow their child

to be part of a competition in geography. I tell you, I sat down, and the

minister knows what I am like on spelling, I don't have to talk about

spelling, and anyone who spells half decently -

MR. SULLIVAN: Can you spell a good (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I can spell a cord of wood on a couple of trips now, but

when it comes to actually spelling them...

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) a cord of wood on a couple of trips.

MR. HEDDERSON: A couple of trips, that is on a pickup.

To get back to it, the Member for Ferryland is putting me off here now. I had

a good thought in my head at that moment and now he has me in the woods spelling

out a cord of wood. I understand that my colleague down on the end there is the

man who can get up and talk about camp fires.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a real Boy Scout.

MR. HEDDERSON: He is a real Boy Scout down there, right?

MR. SULLIVAN: He went fishing and left his pole behind.

MR. HEDDERSON: Exactly. I don't want to go there with my colleague.

To get back to it, and the youth, we must talk about the youth of the

Province. Madam Chair, I was very, very proud to see these twenty-one young

people - and there were a couple up in Labrador. I think there was one student

up in Churchill Falls who had a co-ordinator up there just for that one student,

because of transportation problems. I think there was another one in Goose Bay

and, I believe, another one in Labrador West. There were five students in all, I

think, up in Labrador. There were about twenty-six or twenty-seven students, and

these ranged from Grade 7, I think, to Grade 10. Boy, was it impressive! They

sat down just like Jeopardy! and they were asked questions. It is bad enough

asking, but you had to copy down the answer, raise up the answer and say it.

I tell you, I checked the spellings and I was very, very impressed that these

twenty young students could spell words that I couldn't, that I couldn't

even dream of spelling. The knowledge that they had was again phenomenal:

talking about the different countries, the cultural things in those countries,

the physical characteristics in those countries, and they came up with answers

that were just unreal. I was very proud, because I know that in the classroom

they had competed against, more than likely, twenty-five, thirty, or thirty-five

people in the class and they had won with a written exam, they had gotten top

marks which allowed them to come on down to North River then and compete at the

provincial level. What an exciting trip these two young people are going to

have. They are going to Ottawa. It is a game show much like Jeopardy! Alex

Trebek is going to be there. They are the toast of the town for a couple of

nights. If they win or if they place in the top two or three, I believe, they

are going to be able to go on an international competition. What a tremendous -

to see those parents there backing up there children, traveling across this

Province, it was just unreal. I have to mention that because -

MR. SULLIVAN: Where you are it?

MR. HEDDERSON: I was at it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where did that go ahead to?

MR. HEDDERSON: Down in North River, in All Hollows down there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure?

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, yes, absolutely. I am very familiar with that school.

I have to say, as well, that I know we have gotten sponsorship from some of

the members here as well. The Member for Conception Bay South was a good

supporter of that challenge. Who else? I believe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, the Member for Bonavista was a good supporter of

that.

Again, we cannot underestimate the power of our youth. We see now that the

new minister of the new Department of Youth, Services and Post-Secondary

Education will put a Provincial Youth Advisory Committee as a forum for youth to

communicate with the government. This has to be an ongoing thing. Hopefully,

this is not going to be a one shot deal. I hope it goes deeper than just these

statements that come out-front here that we want to build a high quality - not

that I do not want this, I want this, but we have to flesh out from the youth

what are the issues out there that we need to address, especially in our school

system, to make sure that every child that goes to our schools is safe, secure

and able to realize their particular potential.

I say to the minister, who is not here today, that one of the areas I would

like - and I know the youth are going to bring it up because it is a very

serious one, and one that I am very nervous about, and that is the violence in

the schools. This is not bringing out that we should be fearful of sending our

children to school, but let me tell you, Madam Chair, that it is an issue that

has to be tackled head-on. I tell you, there are situations in this Province,

even as we speak, where there are children who are very nervous about going to

school. They are not sharing it with others, but they have been bullied and they

have been uncomfortable in the classes. Hopefully, someone in the school system,

some adult, picks it up. It is an issue that we cannot turn a blind eye to. This

is one of them that I hope -

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are going to withdraw leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: You are going to withdraw leave. Oh, I have got the people

on this side -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, okay. Whenever you feel, Sir, just let me know and I

will -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, you are doing a good job.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. You are after throwing me off again. I have to go

back over what I said in the last hour now. I have to go back over it.

Bullies - this is probably a case too, Madam Chair, where I felt a little

bullied by my colleague here because he turned around and he said: You have been

speaking for an hour

Not to make light of bullying, bullying can be of different degrees, but the

violence in the schools is something that we must be aware of and we must get

out front on the violence to make sure that we are heads-up on it. That is not

to say that the Youth Advisory Committee are not going to bring up a lot of

other things. In this age of technology, we can have contact with the youth of

our Province literally at the click of a button. The technology is there. We

must use that technology now to address the concerns of the youth. We have to

make our youth feel part of what is happening in this Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We certainly have to do it.

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I understand that the hon. member is speaking on leave. I do

not wish to interrupt his chain of thought, but perhaps if he could finish that

particular thought that he is training on now that would be an appropriate time

for another speaker to get up. I know the Minister of Education had been

listening intently to the hon. member's speech.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you withdrawing leave?

MR. HARRIS: What I am trying to say, politely, Madam Chair, is that leave

will not last very mush longer, so if he wants to finish that sentence, we would

be very happy.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Madam Chair, do I have to go back to the bullying? Now I

got it from the Member for Quidi Vidi.

AN HON. MEMBER: Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HEDDERSON: Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I am sorry about that.

It is just that I feel under so much pressure now to clue up, that I

(inaudible).

MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was on a point

of order. I believe he was. The point of order he raised, I would like to

comment on because I think people know that I feel strongly about it. When leave

is given, normally it is not given forever. The person is generally cluing up

their speech. I know that we have had indication from members who have carried

on.

For all members, who may not know, I should tell them that leave can be

withdrawn at any time. If leave is given to a member, a member can withdraw that

leave at any particular point in time.

MR. J. BYRNE: We know that.

MR. LUSH: The hon. member might know it, but I can tell him that there

are some members here who are not as well versed in the parliamentary procedure

as he might be. So, I want for people to know that leave can be withdrawn at any

time. I ask the hon. member to continue.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I feel under so much pressure here, Madam Chair. I

have so many things that I want to say. I do not get up very often, and when I

do get up, first of all, they are giving me leave to go ahead and then hauling

me back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead and back up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Go ahead and back up.

The only thing is I can get the Member for Waterford Valley back and we will

see if he can perhaps help me out.

Having said all that, and in light of the fact that I have spoken for a

period of time and feel that I have adequately covered the topics that I wanted

to cover with regard to the Budget, and I know there will be ample opportunities

in the future to continue on, I will clue up be saying that this Budget is a

start, not an end. Madam Chair, I am hopeful that the initiatives that obviously

have been put into education will blossom, that will carry forth the true nature

of our education system, which is to focus on our youth to make sure that our

youth are fully prepared to go on in life, as lifelong learners, taking in all

that this Province has to offer.

Again, I thank you for your patience and leave it at that, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I just ask for leave of the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: I promise hon. members that I will do it discreetly.

Madam Chair, in the motion that I moved a little earlier this afternoon, I

have talked to other members and asked that we be able to debate that or refer

it to the Committee of Supply today. I have the concurrence of members to do

that. The motion that I moved re the Contingency Resolve be moved to the

Committee of Supply for debate today.

MADAM CHAIR: The Government House Leader moving that a further estimate

of expenditure related to the Contingency Resolve in the amount of $10 million

be referred to the Committee of Supply today.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Against.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to welcome the opportunity to have some input into the great

debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Labrador West, isn't it, not Labrador City?

MR. COLLINS: Labrador West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Churchill.

MR. COLLINS: Churchill is in the minister's riding.

I welcome the opportunity to have some input and make a few comments on the

debate that is taking place here today.

I would like to start off, Madam Chairperson, by talking about things that

are important to Labrador West, particularly in the area of transportation. I

would like to say that I hope the minister during his visit to Labrador West,

just a short time age, certainly paid attention to the comments that were made

to him by the municipalities and other civic leaders as they went about

discussing the business that was taking place in connection with the symposium

on transportation .

Madam Chairperson, the highway, if you are leaving or coming into Labrador

West - first of all, if you are coming from the Quebec side you drive in through

the Quebec highway system. Once you cross the border, ending up past Fermont,

and you start taking the highway system that is part of our Province, you will

notice a significant difference in the condition of the roads. Most people say

they need to take Gravol if they are going to drive from Labrador City, Wabush

up to Fermont, Quebec, only a distant of about seventeen or eighteen miles. That

road is full of ruts, and it is very dangerous, not only in the wintertime but

in the summertime as well.

I am sure the Minister of Labrador Affairs, across there now, is well aware

of the condition of that road, Madam Chairperson, because he has driven it on

many occasions and he cannot deny that that highway system has been there for

many years with little work done on it in terms of upgrading or necessary

repairs.

I would also like to talk about the Labrador Highway, Madam Chair. In the

Budget in general, as it applies to Labrador, by and large is really what I

would call a regurgitation of monies that have been allocated over the past

number of years. Right now we are looking at phase two being completed on the

Trans-Labrador Highway. The symposium that was held in Labrador West a short

time ago talked about how we were going to get funding to complete phase three.

I seem to recall that the federal industry minister, former Premier of this

Province, stated about three years ago, when they received the $340 million from

Ottawa, that the interest that would be generated from that $340 million would

be kept separate and used to complete phase three, which he said the Province

would assume responsibility for doing.

Right now, Madam Chair, there is no money allocated to phase three. There is

not any money allocated to do the study that needs to be done before work can

commence. We are sort of in a tizzy wondering where the money is going to come

from to complete it. It only makes sense to me and to other people that I have

talked to, that if you divide a highway system up into three phases and you

complete phase one and phase two, then phase three should be automatic. It is

like starting the Trans-Canada Highway on the Island portion of the Province and

building the road from Port aux Basque to Grand Falls and from St. John's to

Clarenville and not bothering to commit the funds necessary to connect up the

two. I don't think that would go over very well, and I don't think it would

be very smart. Certainly, for that network to be complete in Labrador it has to

be a priority with this government, who said three years ago that they would

assume the responsibility for doing that.

I would also like to talk about the Gateways project, a project, Madam Chair,

that is crucial to tourism. In Labrador in general, Labrador West in particular,

tourism is becoming increasingly more popular. In the area right now, there is

not even a tourism centre where visitors to the area can come and see what is

available in the area, look at the local crafts. Right now, it is being farmed

out of the Arts and Culture Centre. There have been plans and projects submitted

to government that the people whom submitted them had all indications from the

people they talked to in government that this would indeed happen. That has been

in the works now for approximately three years and nothing has happened.

The other problem on the social end of things, Madam Chair, that we are and

will be experiencing in Labrador West is the need for a family crisis shelter. I

do not have to suggest to anybody in this House the importance of having a

family crisis shelter in their area. I think this government has gotten a good

deal over the past number of years because they have had a facility to use that

was rent free and provided by the Iron Ore Company of Canada. That arrangement,

I am sad to say, is going to come to an end this year because the building that

it was being operated in is being sold to someone in the private sector and,

hence, that arrangement will have to cease.

Again, there is a proposal in to government for the construction of a new

family crisis shelter, and I understand that government has met with the people

who are responsible for administering the shelter and who run the shelter, and

they are looking at a quad house under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that we

really have some concerns with. The engineering study to see what it would take

to put this building up to scratch and up to par has not been done and we are

hopeful that will take place in the near future; but, having said that, there is

still a lot of concern in the area by the people who are involved in these

organizations as to the adequacy of the building itself, should it even deem to

be appropriate, because of some of the physical problems in terms of security.

Again, we are seriously lacking in that area and I think for a government who

says that their focus is on women and children in this Province, then I would

suggest that more than band-aid attention be paid to this problem and that the

funds be made necessary to construct a facility that will meet the needs in the

area for the women and children who need to avail of this service and this

protection when they need it the most.

I would also like to talk about our health care system and how it falls short

in terms of what we are able to deliver. Most of the serious health care

problems in Labrador need - it is necessary to travel either to Corner Brook or

St. John's, with St. John's being the site that most people have to choose.

It is very expensive, as the Chair, I am sure, is well aware, the cost of

traveling to Labrador in terms of anything that you may have reason to travel

for. When a person is sick, and particularly if there are young people involved,

that necessitates one of the parents accompanying the young person, and that can

add up to be very expensive. Even though there is a program in place that helps

to alleviate some of the costs, it is a $500 deductible program with only 50 per

cent of some of the other related costs being covered. That, in our opinion,

needs to be revisited. That formula was put in place many years ago and the cost

to the people who have to use that program now is far greater than when the

program itself came into being.

I would also like to talk a little bit about the situation that is happening

in the Province today in terms of the strike in the private sector. When the

minister responded to some questioning today, she talked about the percentages.

If you are going to compare, then you have to compare apples with apples, not

apples with oranges. She talked about the percentages lower than those offered

by government to their employees that were offered and accepted in the private

sector at Abitibi-Price and at the Iron Ore Company of Canada. I do not think

you have to be a financial wizard to figure out that 2 per cent of a large

salary is a much greater benefit and increase than 5 per cent of a very low

salary. If we are going to compare, I think it is wise to compare apples to

apples.

The other thing that puzzles me about this strike, is that we have a

difference of 2 per cent that is keeping the parties apart. Two per cent from

where the parties started to where they have evolved, to me, does not seem to be

enough that would warrant a strike of this magnitude to be allowed to happen.

One of the things that we have to recognize as well in labour relations is

that it is very important that a healthy labour relations environment be

maintained in any workplace, whether it is the private sector or the public

sector, because that is very important to the well-being of the workplace and it

is certainly critical when you get into a stage of negotiations.

I think government has fostered and created -

CHAIR(Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. We have a member here who wants to talk.

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I would gladly sit down and let someone on that side stand

up and have their say. It is not very often it happens. If I can facilitate

that, I certainly welcome it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly hope I can start my comments on a more positive note rather than

the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up. We can't hear you.

MR. PARSONS: I am sure I have a very attentive audience over there. I

would like to preface my comments by saying that, even after being here two

years, I am not used to speaking to a group of people like this. My training

comes from a background, of course, of speaking to one person who usually is

paying attention to me when I speak. I am sure I cannot expect a courtesy from

that side in that regard.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, I think it is time we heard from members on the opposite

side. I think it is time to bring some rational thought to this matter of

debate, some common sense, and certainly some balance. Of course, one has to be

focused if you are going to make some comments. We have seen here today the

spellbinding performance of the hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, and we

have heard the comments of the Member for Labrador West. Again, there is a

phrase that lawyers sometimes use, and I am sure the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi would be aware. In law, it says, justice must not only be done,

it must be seen to be done. To put a different spin on that phrase, one should

not only talk, one should make some sense and have some rational comments when

they do speak.

Mr. Chair, this is about the Budget and I have spoken in this House before on

issues of concern particularly to my district, the Marine Atlantic issue in Port

aux Basques, the fish plant issue in Burgeo. I heard comments in this House

coming from the other side. The Member for Bonavista South, on occasion, has

mentioned the Town of Burgeo and the devastating situation and so on. We have a

new member in the House from The Straits & White Bay North. I have heard him

make mention of some of our devastated communities. I am going to save that

speech because that, in and of itself, is a full endeavor that I would like to

do justice to when I do address it.

We are here today debating the Budget. The Budget is more than a document

that is full of figures. Once implemented, this document here is going to affect

the lives of every person in this Province. We can't just single out whether

it is a certain male population or a female population or an adult population,

seniors or youth. It affects everybody, so we can't treat it lightly. We can

try to pick holes in it. We can be critical of everything that is in it, as we

wish.

The hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is great at picking holes in

things and saying what is not good about it and what is negative about it and

what we should do -

MR. HEDDERSON: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: I don't know where the member is coming from, because I

got up and acknowledged that we are moving forward in education and moving

forward in a manner that there may be some things that need to be addressed; but

if you are standing up and saying there is nothing wrong with education, I have

a big problem with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, again I will take the optimistic approach here

rather than the negative approach.

The document that we are debating here in this House, this Budget, is indeed

a very positive and optimistic document. In fact, there have been three very

positive and optimistic documents and developments that have occurred in this

Province in the last sixty days. I would like to refer to some of those, because

some of us would like to confuse the public as to what exactly is happening and

what is going on. As I say, one should remain focused, one should be informed so

you can come to a proper conclusion as to what a particular situation is.

With those three documents, or occurrences, that I refer to, I will spell

them out. They are quite simply with this new Administration that has been in

effect for the last thirty days or so. One only needs to look at what those

three are. First of all, you have witnessed several major departmental changes

that have taken place in the structure of government. I will come back to the

details on each of these. Secondly, we have had the Throne Speech that was in

this House on March 13. Thirdly, you have the Budget document itself.

Now, when it comes to changes in the administration, this Administration

showed right off the bat, right off the mark, that adaptability is crucial to

anybody if you are going to succeed. You cannot take a hard and fast approach

and never be prepared to change that approach if circumstances change. As

circumstances change you must, of course, adapt. That is one thing you witness

in this Administration, adaptability.

With regard to the departmental changes, one of them is the new Industry,

Trade and Rural Development Department, where, from experience, it has been

observed that you ought not or you don't function best when you have these two

departments separated. We now have placed the financial resources that are

available with the various development agencies in the same bailiwick as we put

the technological expertise and the advice, again looking for maximum benefits

and maximum production from these two facets, i.e. industry, trade and rural

development.

Secondly, we have seen the creation of the new Department of Youth Services

and Post-Secondary Education. Some people might wonder why you would put both

together, but it doesn't take a big stretch, of course, of the imagination to

see why. We can talk about the Voisey's Bays, we can talk about the Lower

Churchill, we can talk about the fishing industries of this Province, all of

which are indeed very important and very crucial to the existence of this

Province and the future of this Province, but the best resource we have, the

best resource we will ever have, is our youth. In order to maximize the benefits

that those youth can bring to this Province and the maximum benefits to the

future of this Province, we have to ensure that we do everything humanly

possible to give our youth every advantage. That is what you are witnessing when

you see this Youth and Post-Secondary Education Department being combined.

You also saw the separation of the Department of Environment and Labour. Some

may think it is insignificant, but if you notice what has been happening, not

only in Newfoundland but in this country and indeed in this world in the last

several years, the significance and importance of the environment has gradually

increased. How we manage our water resources, how we manage our waste

management, how we dispose of it, how we look after the air that we breath and

so on, how we manage our water filtration systems and chlorination, are all

crucial issues. This government, again showing its positive direction and focus,

has given it the impetus and importance that it deserves and hence it has its

own department with its own minister to see that what is a priority item is

dealt with in a priority fashion.

The Department of Labour: probably the timing could never be more important

in terms of having a Department of Labour where you have trained conciliators,

trained negotiators, who are, in these very trying times we are experiencing

today, trying to resolve the situation. It shows that it is a department that is

crucial to the employment, employer and employee relations in this Province and

deserves to be on its own.

Besides these departmental changes, the second occurrence that we have seen

in the last thirty days I referred to, was the Speech from the Throne. All of

this is going to tie in and culminate with my comments on the Budget, because it

shows a plan, a work plan, that this Administration ha and that it intends to

implement and carry out in the next two years. You cannot simply sit on your

duff, you cannot rest on your laurels, you have to be persons of vision, persons

of focus, and a government and administration of action. This is what you are

seeing in this Throne Speech of March 2001. Again, the focus is on youth and

women; on openness with our Freedom of Information review; our Ombudsman

creation; our Youth Advocate creation; solid plans with regards to the

environment and waste management; student investment opportunity and corporation

funds; a continued freeze on the College of the North Atlantic tuition; and a

reduction in tuition at Memorial University. We can talk about: it's a good

start, but it is more than a good start. This is putting down a very solid

foundation, in this Throne Speech, as to where this administration intends to

go. We (inaudible) a situation two years time when the people of this Province

have to wonder what it is you plan to do.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr