May 26,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

Speaker's gallery, the Ambassador of Germany to Canada, His Excellency, Dr. Hans

Guenter Sulimma, he is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Helge Sulimma and the

Honourary Consul for Germany in St. John's, Mr. Guenter Sann.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I table for hon. members the report of the

committee of the Department of Health that recently conducted an audit review of

the third party billing process relating to uninsured services performed by

salaried physicians of the Grenfell Regional Health Services Board. They have

made several recommendations of a procedural nature, which will be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I have also been advised by the Director of

Public Prosecutions that the police have completed their investigation and have

concluded that there is no basis for any charge to be laid. The R.C.M.P. have

found no evidence of criminal activity on the part of any person in the

processing of these third party cheques and no further investigation will be

conducted in this matter.

After three investigations, Mr. Speaker, one by the police,

one by our audit committee and one by the three doctors - which I tabled

yesterday - the matter has now been laid to rest, and the Grenfell Regional

Health Care Board, its administration and staff, can get on with their work and

continue with our total confidence and support to provide first-class health

care to the people of Northern Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the minister might not say it, there is reference in

this report that the by-law regarding third party billing, there is no evidence

to indicate that the doctors knew anything about it. Now mail addressed to

doctors as acknowledged in this report that Grenfell felt might contain a cheque

was opened, the cheque was cashed without being endorsed by the doctor.

Now this investigation may not conclude that there were

grounds or intent or charges to be laid; it still does not dispute the fact of

opening mail, cashing cheques without doctors permission, is a gross, unethical

procedure and inappropriate administrative conduct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to commend the

Minister of Health for making available this report. I haven't read it yet but I

did see the minister yesterday on t.v. talk about allegations of criminal

activity being investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions and being

looked into. Considering that the brother of the Minister of Justice is the

administrator I think it would be appropriate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: - in these circumstances to have an outside

the Province review of this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have several

questions for the Premier about the disappointing announcement Corner Brook Pulp

and Paper made this morning.

First, has the Premier or any representative of the

provincial government discussed with the company or their banks, the banks which

seem to be calling the shots, the decision to shut number 4 paper machine and

reduce the workforce by several hundred? How long does the Premier expect number

4 machine to be shut? Does he think this will be just a temporary measure or a

permanent measure? The company's news release indicates that the mill workforce

will be reduced by 160 and that 355 woods jobs will be, quote: Adversely

affected. Does the Premier know whether all those woods jobs will be lost this

summer or whether there will still be some work for some of those loggers? Does

the Premier think that shutting number 4 paper machine is really going to help

the company solve its financial problems, and if so, how? What kind of future

does the Premier foresee for the Corner Brook mill?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: I realize I've asked a lot of questions, and I

certainly expect the Premier to take his time in answering them. They are

important questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I recall a couple of them and

I will try my best to answer them. Have I discussed.... I don't remember whether

it was Thursday or Friday of last week - maybe it might even have been Monday of

this week - I received a call from Mr. Bunz of Kruger to advise me that they

were considering this. I said: Is this necessary? On what basis are you doing

this? He said: We feel that this may have to be done. They hadn't decided it up

to that point in time, and they would let me know if, as and when it was going

to be done.

I met briefly yesterday with Mr. Joseph Kruger who was here

in St. John's, and he came to see me. He assured me that in their judgement they

had no alternative but to follow this course of action. He couldn't tell me how

long number 4 paper machine might be out of action. He did tell me - and this is

the assurance that I asked for - that the company was committed to the long term

successful operation of the mill in Corner Brook and all of their actions taken

would be directed toward achieving that objective. That being so, I can't tell

them how to run the company. They have the responsibility for raising the

finances necessary to run the company and for running it successfully but I did

get a firm understanding from Mr. Kruger that their objective was to place the

company in a financial position that would assure its long term viability and

assure its return to full production at the earliest possible opportunity. So I

think that that answers most of the questions.

Oh, there was another question about woods jobs. I don't know

- the woods jobs, as hon. members may have noted in the media release, were set

aside. There were 160 proposed to be laid off in the mill directly and there was

a suggestion that another 250 employees and possibly another 114 or 115

employees of contractors, woods contractors, could be adversely affected. Now,

Mr. Kruger couldn't give me the detail as to the extent of the adverse affect

when I was speaking with him yesterday but I am grateful for his assurance, Mr.

Speaker, that the actions of the company are directed towards achieving long

term financial stability for the mill and its future operation.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to ask the Premier whether the company or their

banks asked for any assistance from the provincial government to avoid shutting

number four machine and eliminating several hundred jobs? I realize the

provincial government recently pledged $15 million over two years for land and

timber rights and I appreciate the fact that this will assist the company with

their current financial difficulty but I'd like to ask whether the company or

the banks asked for any other kind of assistance and if so what the governments

response was?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if I were to answer the

question and say no, the company didn't request any assistance to avoid this

lay-off and the banks didn't request government intervention to avoid this

lay-off but several months ago when the issue of their financial problems first

came up and they advised the government of it, they asked what assistance might

be available from the federal and provincial governments both. I met and had

discussions in Ottawa with representatives of the company and with federal

government representatives. I met in Toronto on another occasion and had

meetings with representatives of the company and the companies bankers but that

was at least three months or more ago and had nothing to do directly with the

layoff of number four; but there were those discussions some time ago and both

governments - both the Federal and Provincial Government - made it clear to the

company that there was nothing that governments could do in terms of intervening

in the normal competitive processes at this stage to assist one company or the

other.

From the point of view of the Government of Newfoundland, if

we intervene to assist Kruger, we would be expected tomorrow to intervene to

provide a similar level of assistance to Abitibi in order to help it overcome

that if they did it for Kruger they would have to do it for all the pulp mills

in the nation that had difficulty, so that it was not possible for government to

intervene in what is essentially a market-driven circumstance. This financial

circumstance of the newsprint industry in the country at the moment is driven,

really, by market problems, and they are on the way to being overcome. It

appears they are gradually coming out of it.

Kruger has a particular financial difficulty that perhaps

some others don't have, primarily because of the massive renovation that they

did in rebuilding the mill, and here, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge

publicly the superb job that the Kruger organization did in rebuilding the

Corner Brook mill. I give the Kruger organization full credit for the effort

they have made, because they have restored the viability of that mill and they

are deserving of full credit.

The government indicated clearly that we couldn't intervene,

but they explored other possibilities, and the government made an arrangement to

buy certain freehold lands, not timber rights as such, because we have to make

sure that the company has an adequate supply of timber to run its mill, but some

of the timber limits are being made available as well, and government proposes

to do work, for example, on the Bonavista Peninsula, so that significant

reforestation might be able to be done from NCARP, and other fisheries

compensation might enable us to achieve significant reforestation there.

So it was in the overall public interest, we felt, to recover

all of the remaining freehold Reid lands that had been transferred to the

company by the Reids in 1923 and, at the same time, get access to certain other

timberlands for reforestation purposes. So it, in a sense, was fortuitous for

the company that the government was anxious to do this, and fortuitous for the

government that the company was in a position where they would want to do it. So

we are sort of on a willing buyer/willing seller basis with respect to the

lands, but it is beneficial to the company to the extent that it provides a cash

flow, and is beneficial to the government in that it gives us back all of those

lands, hundreds of thousands of acres of freehold land, as well as certain

timber rights. That is as far as we are able to go with governmental assistance.

Now, the simple answer is, no, there has been no specific request with respect

to No. 4 machine, but that is probably because of the fairly firm position we

took some months ago.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some questions for the President of Treasury Board.

Yesterday, I listened with interest as the minister gave a detailed

point-by-point account to the press, some of the press at least, of everything

that had occurred during his Tuesday night negotiating session with the

Newfoundland Teachers' Association. I think it was at that time that you accused

Mr. Sutherland of breaking off the talks and that became a bit of a controversy

over the last twenty-four hour. I also noted that he sounded like he was very

anxious to reveal everything that had gone on. It was gushing out of him,

point-by-point-by-point.

Now, in that process, I suggest to the President of Treasury

Board that what he in fact did was to break every rule possible that you would

find in the book about collective bargaining. You do not do that, so I would

like to ask him why did he do it? Was it because he was surprised to find out

that the NLTA was in fact prepared to come to that meeting Tuesday night to

compromise and to get an agreement which the government didn't want? Is that the

reason? Could he tell the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather complex

question. At the meeting on Tuesday night we spent a couple of hours talking and

I was very, very, encouraged. There was give and take and I thought we were

getting reasonably close to something. The NLTA put a position on the table that

had one aspect that was very distasteful to me. I communicated that to them, but

I said, `Now, that is my immediate reaction. I would like to take some time to

think about it and get back to you tomorrow,' and had the meeting ended there,

of course, none of the other would have happened.

However, the NLTA requested about half-an-hour to reconsider.

At the end of the twenty minutes, the half-hour, Mr. Sutherland came into the

room where I was with my officials. He indicated that they had decided now to

take a new tack, that this approach to the bargaining was no longer fruitful,

and they were going to meet their executive in the morning, call a press

conference, and were going to go public, and that this thing would now be

thrashed out in the public arena. He then left, and that is, to my mind,

breaking off negotiations.

At that point in time I was asked a question about it, later

on, by a press person and I simply outlined the happenings. So, negotiations

were broken off. I was encouraged later on in the day to hear that no, in actual

fact, they were willing now to talk some more. I guess because it was already a

public issue and their objective had been accomplished. There have been meetings

since.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I also heard the

minister say over the last twenty-four hours that all outstanding issues

essentially had been resolved in principle even though the details hadn't yet

been worked out. You've got the 2 per cent clause - apparently there is an

agreement available for that. You've got the three year protection clause

settled, essentially, which will save you, I guess, $10 million or $11 million.

Also you have already saved now as a result of the strike more than $10 million

that you wanted to get from the teachers' compensation. The question I ask the

minister today is: Why isn't this strike over?

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

MR. BAKER: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of

the Opposition also ask the NLTA that same question. Simply because my

understanding is that it is a very simple matter at this point in time. Our

position is that the money saved during a strike is not money that we want to

now put back. We can't have the NLTA being the only group that is not subjected

to whatever decrease in total compensation we may need come October.

AN HON. MEMBER: As a result of strikes.

MR. BAKER: As a result of the strikes. We are not

prepared to do that, but that is really the only issue. At least, Mr. Speaker,

that is what I thought until I had delivered at my office this morning a

complete set of new circumstances by the NLTA that I now have to consider.

Things that were never previously discussed. In the last few hours it has become

a more complex situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a supplementary.

This really is astonishing, the way it has been described by the minister here.

Here we have a settlement on all the issues that have caused the strike in the

first place, at least so we were told. You already have in your pocket the $10.5

million you wanted in compensation savings from the strike. All the teachers

have asked as I understand it is that any savings over the - and this is in a

letter that Mr. Sutherland wrote to all MHAs today - any savings over the $10.5

million be used to reduce the unfunded liability of the teachers pension plan,

which is in fact a responsibility of the government, which he knows.

If you can't get an agreement out of that you have to say you

either don't want one or you don't know how to get one. I would like to ask the

minister: Are you in fact looking for more now from the teachers than what you

wanted in the beginning? Do you in fact want compensation savings on top of the

money that you've already saved from the strike? Is that what you are saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I got the same letter that the

hon. gentleman got, and I guess all hon. members of the House got the same

letter. In that letter there is a settlement and I'm ready to sit down with Mr.

Sutherland at a minute's notice any time this afternoon or tonight and to do a

settlement on the basis of most of the information that is in that letter. My

understanding is it is a simple situation now, that we can in fact reach some

kind of an agreement. I'm very encouraged. I'm willing to reach an agreement

right now on the basis of that letter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't say that I'm totally

surprised by the way with the minister's response. I can't say that. Because I'm

hopeful too that there will be an agreement. I think that the government either

has delayed things or whatever. I think the suspicion is that there is an

agreement there and that is what I said in my questioning.

Here is the bottom line, and I say this in conclusion. If

this strike ended today government will have saved every single penny that it

needed and that it wanted to save from the teachers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Yes it would. We just agreed a minute ago the

compensation savings are there, and the savings from the 2 per cent clause. You

have to ask the question: Why is the strike continuing? How can you justify it,

I say to the President of Treasury Board, the minister responsible for

negotiation on behalf of the government. Is he saying to parents who want their

kids back in school today - they want their kids back in the classrooms today -

that these schools, these classrooms, will have to stay closed until you've

extracted some kind of a penalty from teachers for exercising their legal right

to go out on strike. Is that what he's up to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is what I've

always said that we want a quick end to the strike. We feel the strike in the

first place was totally and absolutely unnecessary. The day before the strike

was announced we met for five hours, I felt we were within another few hours of

a settlement. The response of the NLTA, the next day, was to go out and call a

strike and, Mr. Speaker, there have been occasions in the past when I felt that

an agreement is possible. In reading Mr. Sutherland's letter, there have been

some very significant changes in their position from the memorandum that I had

presented to me this morning. I am now again very encouraged that an agreement

is within our reach. If in fact, Mr. Speaker, we can believe some of the things

- the letter was delivered this morning to everybody and the first time I saw it

was this morning when the hon. gentleman saw it. Mr. Speaker, the changes in

here, the new positions in here should be able to form the basis of an

agreement. We are now very close to an agreement if in fact what's in this

letter is accurate.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that all parents will

be most delighted to hear those comments of the minister because we do have a

responsibility to assure that the educational system in the Province continues.

I have a question for the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education some

days ago caused parents some great concern by his comments that most of the

school curriculum have been completed by May 16 and that the strike would not

have any serious detrimental effects on the education of primary, elementary and

junior high school students. Now the parents know that the ministers comments

are incorrect. Particularly, in view of the fact that he's argued for a longer

school year not a shorter one. I would ask the minister, what is he doing to

assure parents of the long term and short term goals of the curricula will not

be compromised by the current labour dispute?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, nobody wants this strike, no way

in the world government wants it. The Department of Education and myself would

certainly prefer to see teachers teaching, students studying. We would prefer

the system going on as it is but in a democracy where people have a right to

strike they exercise that right and you have to deal with it.

I have said and I stand by my statement that in most of the

schools in this Province, the high school curriculum has been covered. Now

normally at this time of the year students would be reviewing and would be

preparing for their final examinations, that still stands. Ideally again, I

would like for teachers to be in the schools so they could assist the students

in that review. They are not there so in the view of the fact that they are not

there I've asked students to do the next best thing, under the unfavourable

circumstances, do the best that they possibly can and review, review, review,

study, study, study.

We will endeavour, we will attempt to put on the

examinations, Mr. Speaker - I don't know how much success we're going to have, I

can't perform miracles. We tried to get the mid-term exam results and we didn't

get them. When the teachers went on strike many of them actually took the

records out of the schools, either on the disc or whatever, Mr. Speaker, we

can't get access to that. Now we're trying to put on the public exams because

we're concerned about the students of this Province. We don't want their careers

to be jeopardized because there is a dispute between government and some of it`s

employees, Mr. Speaker. We're doing the best that we possibly can but we have

certain limitations that we have to live by.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the - there's

some merit in the minister's statement about the middle of May for senior high

school students, however that is not true for the curriculum in primary,

elementary and junior high schools. The minister knows that the school year

cannot be completed at any grade level without the active participation of

teachers in the evaluation process. The minister has tried various schemes to

intimidate teachers to submit their marks prior to the commencement of the

strike. The minister has been batting zero on the issue. What new strategies can

the minister share with the House to assure that all students, at all grade

levels, receive valid, consistent and reliable evaluations at the end of the

school year and that their placement for next year will be commensurate with

their individual academic progress?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we're treating the graduating

student and the others differently and I admit that. You see some day the strike

will end and when it does most of the students who are not graduating will be

back into the system and it will be quite easy then to deal with the situation.

I will just read from a document, Mr. Speaker, which might help me on this: It

is my opinion, based on advice from my officials that through a combination of

good judgement by teachers and hard work by students, most of the losses to

students resulting from a three-week teacher strike can be recouped. That, Mr.

Speaker, is from a Ministerial Statement delivered in this House by the hon.

Lynn Verge, Minister of Education on May 3, 1983.

I don't think anything has changed in the last ten years.

When the teachers get back to work, Mr. Speaker, they can easily pick up the

time which is lost; however, they will not be able to do that with the

graduating students, but they will be able to do that with the primary students

and all the other students who will go back into the system, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Now the report he released yesterday on the fact-finding

committee by the three doctors to review the relationship between the Grenfell

Regional Health Services and his medical staff, confirms the accuracy of

virtually every grievance exposed by doctors and concerned citizens over the

past two years.

Now I believe the minister was very concerned about the

administration there when I presented him with documents itemizing those

complaints and charges of several doctors. Their allegations are verified in

this report. Now I ask the minister this: Having ordered this review, what

action will the minister take to correct the serious problems there at the

Grenfell Regional Health Services?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am not taking any advice from

the member of the Opposition any more. This man over there, has alleged criminal

activity in Grenfell, he has acted very irresponsibly in this whole issue, not

only in this issue but other issues and, Mr. Speaker, I am not taking any more

nonsense from the member opposite. When he cries `wolf' anymore, I am not

listening to him. The House is not on fire.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary - Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I took very responsible action and wrote the minister and he

sat on it for one month before I made any further statements.

Now the minister cannot wash his hands of this report. He

knows the volunteer board does not have the time or the knowledge of hospital

administration to set this mess right. Besides, they are under the autocratic

thumb of the chief executive officer like everyone else is. Now, even in the

report's tactful language, the relationship is obvious. On page 16, it says:

Physicians exhibited an unusual mixture of antipathy, hostility, dislike and

fear. If ever a case can be made for the minister's intervention, it is made in

this report.

Now, will you follow through and finish some of the work that

you started by ordering the report, and I would like to mention in the report it

states: Dr. Roberts, inherited a mantle of autocracy and a tradition of full

control vested in the hands of the chief executive office. Now he runs the shop

at Grenfell, the board is his board, it does his bidding and that's what the

report is telling you.

Now the report described that man as autocratic, reluctant to

delegate authority, and to whom many physicians had an unusual reaction of

hostility, dislike and fear. I ask the minister now, will you follow through and

finish the work that you started when you ordered this task force committee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have to take any

lessons from the hon. member, however, I will say this: He is now insulting the

volunteer board of the Grenfell Regional Health Services. He just said that they

were incompetent to do anything. I have great confidence in the board of the

Grenfell Regional Health Services, in Bruce Patey the Chairman, and all the

other members and they were not appointed by the executive officer, they were

appointed by this government and some of them are in place from the previous

government, so we have confidence in the way that board operates and now with

that report here, they will implement whatever is necessary to be implemented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said the board doesn't have the knowledge of hospital

administration or doesn't have the time because they are volunteer people.

That's what I said.

Now, I will say to the minister, as I read this report, I

fully expected a recommendation to replace the chief executive officer. The

committee obviously considered it, because they wrote: It is outside the

jurisdiction of the fact-finding committee to recommend termination or

continuance of the services of any senior executives within the organization.

These will have to be decided by the board following adequate performance

evaluations.

There hasn't been one evaluation done since 1981, when the

service went into effect, on a $44 million budget; he has the complete free

hand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question, please.

MR. SULLIVAN: Since this report is a performance

evaluation, I ask the minister, having read it, and having been briefed

privately by the task force of three doctors, has the minister concluded that

Grenfell should start now and find a new chief executive officer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago he was abusing the board, and

now he is abusing the chief executive officer. Who next will he abuse?

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Education.

Yesterday, students at Memorial University were told tuition

fees for the next semester will go up 7.5 per cent. That is on top of a 17.6 per

cent increase last year, and a 10.5 per cent increase the year before. In fact,

since this government got elected in 1989, tuition has increased from $582 a

semester to $1,075 - an increase of some 85 per cent. Does the minister support

these massive tuition hikes that is putting post-secondary education out of the

hands and beyond the reach of thousands of Newfoundland young people?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the university has been very

mature, very reasonable, and they recognize that this Province does have some

very heavy fiscal responsibilities, most of which were passed on to this

administration. We have been going on five years now trying to clean up the mess

that we inherited.

The university has had to take some very tough measures. They

have laid off in excess of 5 per cent of their staff; they have renewed

contracts; they have cut left, right and center. They tried to keep the increase

in tuition down as much as they could this year. Reluctantly, they had to

increase it by 7.5 per cent, which still makes them the lowest tuitions in all

of Atlantic Canada, and some of the lowest in all of the country.

The good thing about all of this, though, is that our Federal

Government and the Provincial Government have had the good sense to put in place

a student provincial and federal loan system which makes enough money available

to the people so that now they can afford education - the first time that the

Canadian student loans have been touched since 1983; it is unbelievable. Since

1983, when students have been struggling with student loans, finally, we have

had the foresight to put in place a provincial student loan so that now no

Newfoundlander or Labradorian will be denied an education for the sake of money.

It is a great statement to be able to make.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the President of

the University, Dr. May, admitted that the increases would put university

education beyond the reach of some Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; that is the

point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the time to take this

government to task is now. They claim, in their Strategic Economic Plan, that

the economic future depends on more and more young people having access to

post-secondary education.

Let me ask the Premier this: When will his deeds and his

government deeds match his words? When will you take action to make

post-secondary education more accessible than ever for students in this

Province, and young people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't have to do anything on a personal

basis. The minister is dealing with it very effectively and, as the minister

just explained, students in this Province have access to a university that

provides them with a tuition level that is the lowest in Atlantic Canada -

MR. DECKER: And among the lowest in the country.

PREMIER WELLS: - and among the lowest in the country.

Mr. Speaker, the changes we made recently to the student

loans increased the level of financial support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: And in case the hon. member has overlooked

something, there are tens of thousands of people in this Province who have to

find their way, in making a living for themselves, who don't have the

opportunity to have the government fund them through university.

This government, as did the former government, pays 85 per

cent of the direct operating costs of the university directly by way of

transfers. That leaves only 15 per cent to be funded from other sources by the

university, including tuition and the rest. So, all that the students who have

the good fortune to go to university have to do is fund that 15 per cent, or the

portion of it that the university can't otherwise fund, plus look after

themselves, and to help them achieve that, the government, on top of that, has

in the past provided grants and now provides increased loans.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this government has to be sensitive to the

interests and concerns of those tens of thousands who don't have the opportunity

to go to university, and stop burdening them with an additional tax burden to

pay for even more money, as the hon. member would have it, for students to go to

university. This government has a greater sensitivity to the needs, concerns,

and interests of all of the people of the Province, not just one select group to

another, as the Opposition chooses from time to time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't want to raise a point

of privilege during Question Period, but may I do so now, growing out of remarks

made by my friend, the Member for St. John's East, in his response to the

statement made by the Minister of Health. My friend, I think, was trying to

catch Your Honour's eye to raise a question during Question Period but didn't

succeed, and I could have dealt with it there.

I think the hon. gentleman will acknowledge his remarks cast

an insinuation, I accept, unwittingly, on my role as the Minister of Justice

with respect to the investigation. I want to be very clear on this. It

suggested, as I heard it, a possible impropriety.

Mr. Speaker, on March 16, the Member for Ferryland asked me a

question, which was quite straightforward, as to whether a police investigation

was under way regarding Grenfell and by whom it was being conducted, if it is.

I'm reading from page 443 of Hansard. My answer made it very clear that my

knowledge was second-hand, and as I said, "...for obvious reasons, given that my

brother is Executive Director of the Grenfell Association..." It appears he has

to pay a price for being my brother. Mr. Speaker, I went on to say that my

friend, the Minister of Health, had referred the papers in this matter -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen opposite

would be quiet, I would finish my point. I don't appreciate their interrupting

me and I would just as soon they didn't. I'm raising a very serious matter.

I made the point in that answer to the Member for Ferryland

that the papers had been referred by the Minister of Health "...directly to the

Director of Public Prosecutions...", as is entirely appropriate. My friend, the

Minister of Health, is well aware that my brother is the Executive Director of

the IGA, and has been for fifteen years now, long before I came to this present

job, and he may well be there long after I'm gone.

The other point I want to make is that my friend, the Member

for St. John's East said the matter had been investigated by the Director of

Public Prosecutions. I think he will acknowledge - I hope he will acknowledge -

he misspoke himself. Because the DPP does not conduct any investigations.

Investigations in this Province are made by the police who decide, and decide

alone, whether criminal charges would be laid. I would refer hon. members to the

statement my friend, the Minister of Health, just made in the House, to which my

friend, the Member for St. John's East was referring. The minister said: "...I

have also been advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the police

have completed their investigation and have concluded that there is no basis for

any charges to be laid. The RCMP have found no evidence of criminal activity on

the part of any person in the processing of these third party cheques and no

further investigation will be conducted in this matter."

Mr. Speaker, the record is clear. What I would ask my hon.

friend for St. John's East is if he would be good enough to rise in his place

now and acknowledge that he meant to cast no insinuation, and that the matter,

as far as he is aware, on the public record, has been conducted with the

propriety it deserves. Mr. Speaker, I take the matter very seriously.

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

MR. HARRIS: I don't see how it is a matter of personal

privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I would certainly welcome the opportunity to address

the point that I wished to raise in Question Period.

I cast no aspersions on the Minister of Justice at all. I'm

not looking for anything other than to suggest that since it is the Minister of

Justice whose brother was the Director of the organization subject of complaints

of activities such as cashing and diverting cheques addressed to other people,

opening mail and things like that, that any decision about whether or not

criminal charges ought to be laid should be made by someone other than someone

in the department who answers to the minister.

As to who lays charges and who doesn't lay charges, the RNC

answer to the minister. The Director of Public Prosecutions answers to the

minister. When a couple of years ago we had some questions as to whether or not

charges should be laid against the police or former chiefs of police the

government sought outside advice from another province to decide whether such

charges should be laid. I wouldn't want any aspersions to be cast on either the

Director of Public Prosecutions or anybody else, and I don't wish to cast any

aspersions on anybody. I will say that I understand, for example, that the

Director of Public Prosecutions is one of those being considered for an

appointment to the provincial bench. I would not want it to be said that if he

were to receive such an appointment that it had anything to do with anything

other than his qualifications.

I am saying this without casting any aspersions on anybody,

including the minister; but I suggest that where this matter does involve an

individual who is the brother of the Minister of Justice, that in fairness to

all concerned, a decision, a review or

a recommendation from somebody outside the department is

appropriate in these circumstances. With respect to who lays charges and who

doesn't, we all know that historically the police often seek the advice of the

Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether or not charges ought to be laid.

I think the minister's point of privilege is not a point of

privilege at all, but I did welcome the opportunity to make the point that I

wished to make.

MR. SPEAKER: Further to the point of privilege, I will

look at the record of Hansard and see what was said here today, as well as on

March 16, which I think was a reference, then I will rule accordingly.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a point

of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: The point of order is not with reference to

a question, but with reference to a statement that the Premier made last Friday

in the House. He gave a commitment to this House that on the next day it sits,

or if the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is here shortly, he would

inform the House as to the answer, but as of today, he hasn't provided me with

anything.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, the

hon. gentleman is either deliberately abusing the rules of the House, or more

likely doing it ignorantly. My friend, the Minister is about to stand when we

come to the appropriate place on the Order Paper. If my hon. friend, the Member

for Ferryland would exhibit one quarter of the intelligence which I know he has,

we would all be a lot better off.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I recognize the

hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations under Answers to Questions.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Neither, in fact, we won the election,

`Len'.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. minister.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand, to provide three answers arising from Hansard of

Friday, May 20. Due to the point of order, I should probably hold one until

tomorrow and do some further research, but I won't be childish, I will give the

answer anyway, which I was prepared to do.

The first is on page 1662, a question from the hon. the

Member for Kilbride with respect to electrical inspections and some of the

regulations causing businesses to close down. I am tabling today a copy of the

regulations so that the hon. member can have a look at them and be assured that

that is not the impact and the effect of these regulations at all. I think when

he reviews the regulations he will see that.

With respect to page 1663, there are some questions from the

hon. the Member for St. John's East with respect to the policy of government

about double-dipping and the status of appointment for Mr. Seabright at the

Compensation Appeals Tribunal. The Premier undertook to provide the dates

relevant in each case and I provide those as follows: Mr. Seabright was first

appointed on March 16, 1989 for a two-year term, and was reappointed on December

31, 1991 for a two-year term, which was to expire on December 31, 1993.

The policy with respect to double-dipping was discussed at

Cabinet in February 1993 and circulated to all of the departments in September

following the recent election last spring. On December 31, 1993, Mr. Seabright's

appointment was extended for a further period due to the fact that the whole

issue of the tribunal was under review, and the results of that review will be

made public within a week or so.

In fact, Mr. Seabright was in place long before the policy

and we took the same position as we have regularly done. As I explained in the

House, before we did not terminate people who are in place upon the coming into

effect of the new policy, but we did not make new reappointments, and the policy

does apply and continues to apply.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, page 1663 of the same Hansard, a

question from the hon. the Member for Ferryland, who is rather impatient about

the answer, talking about a letter with respect to long-term attachment. I refer

to the letter and the date, Mr. Speaker. The letter does exist and is dated

27-4-'94 to Catherine Gogan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Employment

and Labour Relations, from Mr. Bob O'Neil, Director of Community Recovery with

Human Resources Development Canada. I won't table the letter because it is

between those two people. I am sure, if the hon. member wants the letter, he can

get a copy from Mr. O'Neil. I am sure he will provide it to him. That states

clearly, and I read this for the record, Mr. Speaker, it states clearly that it

should be noted that in the case of core fishers, which would be determined by

the industry renewal boards and other process - they are not yet designated -

they will be automatically eligible for five years under the TAGS program,

spelled out quite clearly in the letter.

The other issue was with respect to training with people who

opted for license retirement continued for the full NCARP period, with full

NCARP entitlement, and since May 16 the training has continued on with the

benefits now paid under the TAGS program, but they don't receive the same

compensation as they did under NCARP, because that program is completed. Their

training is continued, the training allowances are continued, but the

compensation under NCARP has ceased because the NCARP program has ceased.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised a question. He asked me about the

closure of a palliative care bed in Grand Falls hospital. I have since

ascertained, what has happened is that the palliative care bed will be moved to

another part of the hospital; again, Mr. Speaker, an example of the crying of

wolf that goes on from the opposite side.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition of 820 names - 820

concerned residents of the town of Bonavista. It reads:

`To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Bonavista.

WHEREAS the residents of Bonavista must urgently request our

Municipal and Provincial Governments to work together to find a solution to the

problems caused by the sewerage treatment plant and outfall into O'Dea's Pond,

and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, the area which those people are speaking about

is an area in Bonavista where there is a pond known as O'Dea's Pond.

Approximately twenty years ago, there was a sewerage treatment plant

constructed, and the outfall from that particular plant went into this pond. The

ideal situation was supposed to have worked, that when the tides would rise the

water would come in and flush out this particular pond, take all the sewerage

out, and it would clean itself out at least on two occasions every day. That

hasn't worked, and as the outfall from the sewerage treatment plant continues to

go into this stagnant pond now, we have a situation which is very quickly

becoming a health hazard.

Mr. Speaker, I happened to view the whole area the other day

when this petition was presented. I went down, and the gentleman took me out to

the pond, poked a stick about fifteen feet long down into the pond and pulled it

up with nothing but raw sewerage - the same thing as poking a stick down into a

septic tank.

I have already had correspondence with the Minister of

Environment and Lands in expressing my concern and the concern of the people in

Bonavista about this particular problem, and I know there have been a couple of

visits made, but the time is fast approaching when we have to have action, not

just visits.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of this entire area are unable to

open their windows in the summertime because of the smell from the septic pond.

Rats are sighted in the area, and it has become a breeding place for flies.

The whole area, when we have a heavy rainfall, causes the

pond to rise and the surrounding area is flooded. It is very obvious what is

happening there. All you have to look at is the black grass and the area where

the pond rises to see the whole area has now become contaminated.

Mr. Speaker, the fear of a lot of people there is that their

pets, which continually go out there to play, and their children, are going to

be subject to some kind of infection, or certainly a possible health hazard

there, that will create a severe problem if this is not attended to in the very

near future.

The pond is located right near the churches in the community.

There is a bakery there, and bordering the pond is the Bradley estate, known as

the Mockbeggar property, which is one of the historic attractions identified

here in this Province.

So I call upon the Minister of Environment and Lands to

attend to this request before it becomes a health hazard and we put the people's

lives in jeopardy who are living in the area of this pond known as O'Dea's Pond.

Thank you very much.

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

Extern.

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

It gives me pleasure today to rise in my place and support

the petition with 820 signatures, presented by the Member for Bonavista South.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the people in the area are very

concerned and with good reason. In a small area or town, coming up with 820

signatures, they must be very, very concerned.

Now, the Minister of Environment and Lands has received a

number of letters with respect to this issue recently. The minister has received

letters from the clergy, the various churches in the area, letters from

businesses in the area, letters from the Justice of the Peace for the area,

letters from the Lions Club, from the Concerned Citizens Committee, and the MHA,

himself, for the area, Mr. Speaker. The people are very concerned with what is

going on there, or what is not going on, more specifically.

The various letters were concerned with different issues -

the length of time that this problem has been going on, has been going on for a

number of years now, Mr. Speaker, and the situation is worsening over time. The

pond itself is stagnant. The sewage settling in the pond is building up and is

getting deeper and deeper all the time and there's no run-off to allow the pond

to cleanse itself. There are odour problems in the area, obnoxious smells. Some

of the people in the general area now have to actually keep their windows closed

in the summertime. In the time of year when we like to get our windows open and

get our houses refreshed with fresh air, type of thing, they have to keep their

windows closed because of the smell, Mr. Speaker. There's a sludge build-up, as

I say, it's pure sewage. It's from the treatment plant that's dumping into the

pond, and I think it has to be dealt with.

The area now, Mr. Speaker, is becoming rat-infested, from the

information that I have. It is developing a health hazard in the area, and my

concern would be with the children in the area who are out playing around.

Naturally, the children can be asked or told to stay away from any areas of

danger but they would have pets and dogs running around that would possibly get

infected with - it could be anything, Mr. Speaker, and could bring it back. If

the children were petting their animals, they could be infected with any type of

disease.

What is the impact of tourism in Bonavista with this type of

situation, smells of this nature? I'm sure it would have a negative impact.

Also, I believe we need some immediate action on this situation. From what I can

gather in the short term, there's a natural ditch which was leading to the ocean

and if that ditch could be - and it's grown over, Mr. Speaker. If it could be

opened up and probably a two-foot or a three-foot culvert could be put in from

the pond to the ocean, you could have the natural occurring of a flushing with

the rise and fall of the tide, Mr. Speaker.

In the long term, maybe something should be looked at with

respect to the treatment plant, itself, that if it was installed twenty years

ago, with modern technology the plant could be upgraded and the outfall coming

from the plant may not be as dense and cause the problems that it is creating

today, Mr. Speaker. With that, I thank you.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the O'Dea's Pond

problem and have been, I guess, for the past couple of weeks or so. The hon. the

Minister of Environment and Lands spoke to me about it some time ago and we are

at present looking at the problem. We have sent some people out there and

they've made a report to us. But I'd just like to take it a little step further

for the hon. the Member for Bonavista and my hon. friend, the Member for St.

John's East Extern. It's great to be able to stand up in the House and present a

petition, which, by the way, I know - I commend the hon. member for getting the

names on the petition. I had a letter from the pastor of the Pentecostal Church

today and he totally agreed with what you suggested to him and he wrote me a

letter outlining what you suggested. He thought you were doing a great job so I

commend you. I say quite honestly to you, you talk about upgrading outflows and

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to correct the

statements just made by the hon. minister. I can assure you that I had nothing

whatsoever to do with putting those names on the petition. Those names were put

there, in all sincerity, by people facing a very serious problem. The

Pentecostal preacher that he referred to, Mr. Speaker, approached me on the

subject and I don't think I want to get into that but I had nothing to do with

the Pentecostal preacher writing the minister and expressing his views. Mr.

Speaker, the minister is misleading the House when he puts forward those

statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There's no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I guess, Mr. Speaker, that's what you get for

giving the member a compliment for doing his job in his district. But anyway,

I'll pick up -

AN HON. MEMBER: No gratitude.

MR. REID: No gratitude at all. Let me make a couple of

quick comments before my time runs out. Number one, it (inaudible) number one

priority on the list of the infrastructure money - right?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Bonavista Council (inaudible) it

would not appear top priority (inaudible).

MR. REID: No, I am assuming it wasn't. I don't think it

was, I don't think it was top priority, and the member agrees. It is not the top

priority of the Council of Bonavista, but the hon. members will stand up and

talk about replacing a sewerage treatment plant which will cost us in excess of

$1.5 to $2 million; he is talking about opening up a ditch into a freshwater

pond to let the raw sewerage run out into the ocean, which Environment has

trouble with. The hon. member told us to do everything in the world, except he

didn't give us a price on it.

Now, all I say to hon. members - and I am being honest; I am

not being critical of either one of the members. All I ask hon. members is this:

Where do we find the money to correct the problem? If the Town of Bonavista

wants to come in to this government and say, We will borrow the money - if it is

that serious - we will borrow the money and we will correct it ourselves, I am

sure that this government will give them permission to go out and borrow the

money, but I ask the hon. the Member for Bonavista, where do I find the money to

correct the hundreds of problems around this Province that exist basically in

the same vein as the problem that exist in Bonavista?

I will continue, I can assure the member, to investigate it.

I told the engineering staff of my department to get down there as soon as

possible, to talk to the consulting engineers, get a price on it, do an estimate

on it, talk to the Department of Environment and Lands and make sure that they

are aware of what we plan to do, and I will try my utmost to help the people of

Bonavista correct that problem - my utmost, but I am afraid that my utmost might

not be enough in this particular case if we are talking millions of dollars in

order to correct it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition of several residents of the

Avalon Peninsula, mostly residents of St. John's, some of Conception Bay South,

others of Mount Pearl and still others of Trepassey.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is about Hydro. It's a plea to the

Legislature to `demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize

and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and ensure that Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.'

Mr. Speaker, these residents of the Avalon Peninsula, the

same as the vast majority of citizens of the Province, the same as 68 per cent

of all the citizens of the Province, oppose government's stated plan of

privatizing Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, people are against privatizing Hydro for very

basic reasons: One, they want a profitable, well-run corporation to continue

operating as it is, keeping the profit within the Province to be available to

boost the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador; keeping electricity prices at

the lowest level possible, avoiding the massive increases that will be

inevitable upon privatization, and retaining the means for the government to

develop Labrador water resources in the most beneficial way for the government

and the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the government, in their propaganda, have tried

to tell people that Hydro's mandate has been fulfilled because of the

development of water resources on the Island. That is absolutely false. Hydro

still has the mandate of developing the Lower Churchill and of protecting our

interests in the Upper Churchill, and, as well, there are other undeveloped

water resources in Labrador.

Hydro has the job of keeping electricity prices at the lowest

possible level, and with privatization, there is no choice but for the Public

Utilities Board to significantly increase electricity rates, because by law the

PUB is obligated to give private investors a reasonable rate of return at the

going rate in industry in the private sector, and that going rate now is about

13.5 per cent, which is twice what's provided the government for a

publicly-owned Hydro. As well, the plan on privatization is to lower the

debt-equity ratio from 80 to 18 which it is now, to a more usual ratio, and the

conversion of debt to equity is again going to significantly add to the rate

base on which the rates are determined.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro has been paying down the debt incurred to

develop Bay d'Espoir and Cat Arm and the other Island projects and it was only

two years ago that Hydro paid off all the bonds floated to finance Bay d'Espoir.

The projected demand for electricity is such that it is not likely that Hydro

will have to borrow at as great a rate as it will retire outstanding bonds, so

the government can look forward, on retaining Hydro as a Crown corporation, to

increased levels of revenue.

The government now gets from Hydro the $10 million a year

loan guarantee fee. Now, if the government is strapped for cash, all the

government has to do is direct Hydro to pay $20 million or $30 million a year as

a loan guarantee fee or a dividend. If the government's only objective in

selling Hydro is to get some cash for the Province to help us over the short

term, then the government can have it both ways. The government can retain

ownership of Hydro and the benefit of that asset and that expertise and that

ability to develop the Lower Churchill, and, at the same time, get from Hydro

more revenue. It can get the $10 million it is receiving now plus $14 million

which Hydro is earning per year, approximately, that is going to build up our

equity, $25 million, without touching the rates; or it can instruct Hydro to

provide more to the provincial coffers which will translate into a rate increase

for consumers. But, under privatization there will be a worse rate increase for

consumers.

So, if the Premier's only objective is what he is saying,

which most of us don't believe for a minute, all the Premier has to do is direct

Hydro to pay more money to the Provincial Government. A variation would be for

the government to impose a sales tax on electricity. If the only reason to sell

Hydro is to get a bit of cash for the Provincial Government to help the

government over the next couple of years,there is no need to sell Hydro - simply

direct Hydro to pay more than $10 million a year as a loan guarantee fee; order

Hydro to pay $15 million or $25 million or $30 million.

The Premier and the government claim that by selling Hydro

they will realize net proceeds of about $300 million a year and thereafter will

be paying down debt of $300 million less and save $25 million a year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let's put the House out of its

misery listening to this. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 21, that the Orders

of the Day now be read. We have had our two petitions.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we deal, please, first

with Motions 6, 7 and 8, and then we will go on into the debate on Committee of

Supply.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," carried. (Bill 25)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology to introduce a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Grand Concourse

Authority," carried. (Bill No. 23)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

"An Act Respecting Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited,"

carried. (Bill No 24)

On motion, Bill Nos. 25, 23 and 24 read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, could we put the House, please,

into Committee and deal with the estimates of CFS. My friend, the Minister of

Finance, will be back imminently. Is he out front addressing - is there a large

group out there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Is it a large group outside, my friend is

addressing?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: More than 4,000, I'd say.

MR. ROBERTS: If we were to sell tickets we could probably

balance the Budget.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (L.Snow): The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not sure if the President of the Council, the President

of Treasury Board, is going to be back. Are you expecting him?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that he

will be. I understand he is simply gone out to join in the festivities outside.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't be back, then.

MR. ROBERTS: That remains to be seen, but my

understanding is that he will be here. In the meantime, my friend, the Minister

of Education, and myself, I guess, are in the barrel.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Baker going to speak out

there today?

MR. SIMMS: I have no idea; I don't know.

It makes it a little awkward, Mr. Chairman, because some of

the questions I had related to specific things under Executive Council that I am

not sure anybody else would be very familiar with.

MR. ROBERTS: Try us; we will get the answers.

MR. SIMMS: Let me just flick through my notes. Maybe I

can come to an area where the Minister of Justice might be able to help us.

I think I will ask him some questions about the lottery

operation -Newfoundland lottery. That is the President of Treasury Board's.

Would there be any -

MR. ROBERTS: The Atlantic Lottery Corporation reports to

the Minister of Finance, in fact - I believe it is the Minister of Finance. In

any event, it reports to my friend, the Member for Gander, whatever hat, but the

regulation of lotteries, and all of those good things, falls within my purview

as Justice Minister - including bingo; I get to do bingo.

MR. SIMMS: Let me take a stab at this, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe the Minister of Justice might want to respond. He might want to ignore it;

I am not sure. Actually, it is a letter I received today. It seems to me, it

comes from somebody outside of Newfoundland, but it is related to lottery, and

some of the things that are going on in the lottery area, and wondering how long

it's going to be before people start asking some questions about the

administration of the lottery operation - all of that kind of thing. So maybe

what I will do is just read through the letter, and by that time maybe the

Minister of Finance may be back and I can get on to some of the other things.

MR. ROBERTS: We'll send a search party.

MR. SIMMS: It is rather interesting, and I wouldn't mind

putting it on the record anyway. It is addressed: `To whom it may Concern. I

certainly hope that the following information concerns someone enough to do

something, and at the very least, to ask some questions' - that I am doing.

I wouldn't normally respond to an unsigned letter, but it has

some really interesting suggestions.

MR. ROBERTS: Apparently, it is (inaudible) unsigned, as

well.

MR. SIMMS: No, it is addressed to me.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I thought you said: To whom it may

Concern.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, the letter is, yes, but the envelope was

addressed to me. It says: `During the last few months I have been very angry

about all the cost-cutting that is going on in the Maritimes, especially when it

affects the critical areas like medical services and the education of my

children and my family. The closing of hospitals, roll-backs on wages,

compulsory days off for public servants, etc., are a few of the things that are

most bothersome, especially when they seem to be done across the board, with no

real thought being put into it. In particular, one particular area that disturbs

me is the lottery business.

During the past several years I have been listening to a

friend of mine, who is in a position to know, telling of situations that now,

more than ever, actually make me sick to my stomach. Friendships aside, someone

has to speak up about this government agency that is rolling in dough and

spending it like money grows on trees - this is the lottery operation for

Atlantic Canada. What goes on in this company makes the Hydro pizza expenses

look like petty cash expenses. The last straw for me was the recent closing of

the hospitals in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, that will save $2.5 million and

$7.5 million, and the major wage cutbacks in P.E.I. I don't blame these workers

for going on strike, and hopefully some of the following information will help

them with their cause.'

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave to give the statement now?

MR. SIMMS: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Going to announce a settlement, by leave.

MR. SIMMS: Does the President of Treasury Board want

leave to announce a settlement in the strike or something?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, my colleague is just pulling my leg.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. He has it there in the folder.

MR. SIMMS: Just pulling my leg.

MR. ROBERTS: Carry on with the question.

MR. SIMMS: Maybe I will try to summarize for the minister

what I am doing here.

This is a letter I received, a two-page letter, that talks

about some of the extravagant things that are occurring with respect to the

operation of the Atlantic Lottery, which should concern all four Atlantic

Provinces and governments, and premiers, etc.

The gist of the letter is - this person, apparently, must be

from outside the Province. It's just a Canada postmark, it's addressed to me.

The letter is; `To whom it may Concern' and it's not signed but there are a

number of things in there that are rather interesting - interesting enough, I

think, for me to raise it and I'm going to put it on the record anyway. Maybe

the minister might want to respond. It's in the context that this person is

concerned because of all the cutbacks and things that are happening to public

servants, hospitals and education. All the cutbacks that are occurring, yet,

you've got this lavish Atlantic Lottery operation -somebody should take control

of the management, that's the gist of it.

Anyway, here's what they say: `Did you know that lottery

employees have received pay increases of at least 4 per cent every year over the

last three years? My friend got 7 per cent last year.' This is a person who said

he/she had somebody who obviously works with the lottery. `Those pay increases

alone, and if you look at their annual reports, would have probably kept

hospitals open in New Brunswick. They made some hospital cuts in New Brunswick

to save $2.5 million. Never mind that, their sales people' - this is the

Atlantic Lottery sales people - `get $1,000 bonuses every year and the same

thing this year.' So they're arguing that this seems to be a little bit

extravagant when you consider what else is going on around us, right? `They have

added fifteen to twenty people every year' - I don't know if it's true or not -

`and the only sales increases seem to be coming from that video business which

only requires machines, not people.

The big shots are travelling' - this is a good part. The

minister will like this part - `the big shots are travelling all over the place

and the expenses are horrendous. The President has been to Las Vegas, Hong Kong

and Paris all in one year, and apparently the government ministers on the board'

- I wasn't aware there were government ministers on the board, there aren't, are

there? Obviously, it must be the government appointees, perhaps, on the board;

deputy ministers are on the board - `the plum job for any minister,' he\she

says, `go on these trips, too. They take their wives and have a grand old time.

The ministers' - I would assume they mean deputy ministers or whoever - `don't

even know what's going on. It's a perk, supposedly.

I heard of a trip to Vancouver first class all the way and

the meeting lasted one hour. Can you imagine? They spend over $1 million just on

hotels, meals and air fare. Meetings, meetings, meetings, they have hundreds of

meetings, a lot of them over their lunch hours, and they always order in - like

for five to twenty people and at times they actually have them catered,

sometimes as much as twenty dollars a person. Most companies drive to Halifax

for meetings - not the lottery. They charter airplanes on a regular basis just

to go for the day. It must be nice.

Then, they have these company meetings where they take all

their employees to places like the Capital Theatre for a whole day, and other

than a few speeches, they have a good time playing games, etc. They even make a

video of the whole thing which costs them $20,000-$25,000 and they do this twice

a year. They also have a big management meeting every year, thirty or forty

people, they eat lobsters, steak and play more games for three or four days a

year -for three or four days at some Tim Horton's place.'

Now, here's a real good one. They say, `They spend up to $15

million in advertising and promotion and apparently they can't even advertise in

Newfoundland, but the sales keep going up there. So why do it at all?' Why waste

the money on advertising, I guess, is what they're saying. `Well, if they don't

spend it they'll lose it, supposedly. Why not give it to the hospital budgets?

The sales people have big meetings twice a year in all the

provinces and they bring in the whole families, play golf, big Christmas

parties. Supposedly, the meetings are just a cover-up for the fun.

Now I hear they are putting two new huge lottery games on the

market. One has something to do with sports betting and the other is a huge

jackpot game which is starting at the end of May called, "Super Jackpot", and

they are scared to death of the backlash this is going to cause, because

apparently some of the Premiers do not even know about it. Almost every

vice-president in the lottery has their own special executive secretary making

$30,000 a year. The annual report shows operating costs are up million of

dollars and yet everyone else has to take cuts and rollbacks. To top it all off

I hear there is a mail order lottery business in PEI and Nova Scotia, a mail

order lottery business in PEI and Nova Scotia that is selling millions of

tickets outside the country, and the winnings are obviously not coming to people

in the Maritimes. If the faithful lottery buyers ever found out about this I bet

they would never even play.

I could go on forever about the ridiculous things I have

heard, and if the above isn't enough to get someone to start asking some

questions then what can I say? The fact is this is a government body and they

need to be as responsible as the rest. Someone has to be held responsible for

the mismanagement of taxpayer's dollars. I calculated that if they were to

reduce their expenses by one half of 1 per cent the money to keep the hospitals

open in New Brunswick could be found. The pay raises they have all had in the

past three years would probably allow the hospitals in Nova Scotia to stay open,

so while these people are joyriding around Hong Kong and Paris someone is going

to die because of not getting the proper medical attention. I ask you, is this

fair or right? Name withheld for obvious reasons.

DR. KITCHEN: You wrote that yourself, did you?

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Health must have been asleep.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Put on your dunce cap and go back to

sleep.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is interesting that the person who sent that letter did

not sign his or her name. I find it really strange that the name was not signed.

There are a lot of issues raised in here and each taken individually does not

mean a whole lot.

My experience with the Atlantic Lotto Corporation is, and I

tell hon. members, it is headquartered in Moncton and it would not surprise me

at all if they were top-heavy. It would not surprise me at all if there were

avenues that they could use to cut their expenses. That would not surprise me. I

had occasion, as I felt I should when I became minister responsible, to go to

one of their meetings. I have attended one of those luxurious meetings that the

member describes just to see what the corporation was all about. I did not

experience all the luxurious meals. As a matter of fact I do not believe I was

provided with a meal during the day. I did not experience the luxuries that the

hon. gentleman referred to, but I did experience sort of a different atmosphere.

It is a different world.

People who are involved with the lottery corporations across

Canada are kind of a different breed of people. They believe they are in a

business that must be promoted and must be expanded. Their whole thoughts are

towards new games, ways of increasing revenues from games, and all this kind of

thing, something that I am totally unfamiliar with and do not necessarily

subscribe to. I thought it was a strange experience, but I did receive a little

bit of understanding of how the system operates.

In terms of the claim of ministers, obviously the Leader of

the Opposition has it right, there are no ministers on the board. There are some

deputy ministers. From this Province we have two and there are meetings that

have to be attended, however I am sure they have never experienced the luxuries

to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. They go to meetings. They are

working meetings, and they come back as quickly as possible, and they have not

been subjected to all these days and days and days of luxurious dining and

relaxing and a half-an-hour meeting and three or four days of sight-seeing and

all this kind of thing. They have not experienced this so if the people in

Moncton are doing it or if the people in Nova Scotia are doing it, I can assure

hon. members that the people from this Province are not doing it.

We even went so far, and it is noted in the letter to cut

back and eliminate advertising because we felt that the lifestyle ads that were

being used by Atlantic Lotto Corporation were not appropriate so we cut them

off. We felt that it was encouraging problem gambling, and it was encouraging

people to become hooked on gambling and we are totally against that, so we have

cut that off and we felt justified, Mr. Speaker, in doing so, so the comments in

there are probably aimed at lotto headquarters. I suspect they are grossly

exaggerated but at the same time I would suspect that there are efficiencies

that Atlantic Lotto Corporation could bring in and I of course will be talking

to our representatives on the board about that and especially about salary

increases in a period when everybody else has been frozen. That bothers me

because people in all Atlantic Provinces have had their wages frozen and ALC

should be no different so I will look into that and when I get an answer I will

report back to the hon. gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to have a few

words. Too bad the President of Treasury Board is leaving but I understand he

has to go out and meet the press, and I only hope that he is going out now to

inform the teachers and the people of the Province that he has a settlement,

because if you listen to the President of Treasury Board in Question Period

today, you would certainly think that the only thing left, was the announcement

of the settlement.

Now I don't know who is playing the games in this situation,

Mr. Chairman, but obviously somebody is, and basically they are playing games

with the lives of the children, the students of the Province which I think is

rather unfortunate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Terrible.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is terrible, I say to the Member for

Fogo, it is terrible but if you listen to the President of Treasury Board today,

when the Leader of the Opposition referred to the letter that all members had

this morning from the President of the NLTA, Mr. Sutherland, you would think

that the only thing left was the announcement, and as I sat here and listened to

the President of Treasury Board respond to the questions from the Leader of the

Opposition, that I figured, that either the announcement will come later today

at the stadium or tonight whenever they have the reception for the teachers, but

I figured that the latest it will come as a result of that exchange, will be

Monday. I figure, we will either have a Ministerial Statement tomorrow or on

Monday announcing a settlement of the dispute between the NLTA and the

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I say to the Member for Fogo, you

said `they', if they want one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They want one; it is always, they want

one, I say to the Member for Fogo. So, I think for what I read into this, Mr.

Chairman, that it seems to me that we are very, very close. Yes, I think we are

very, very, very close. I would say I think we are closer to a settlement than

the 4,000 people outside the steps are aware of, I say to the Member for Fogo.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, when the two members stop debating

over the numbers, all I can say is I don't know how many is out there but it is

the biggest crowd that I have seen outside this building since I have been here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I didn't see that, I say to the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; but there is a big crowd out there

and it certainly shows the concern of teachers and the support of teachers to

their executive, and the negotiating teams, and I only hope that if they are

very close to a settlement now that this show of strength by teachers from all

over this Province, from the Northern Peninsula and the West Coast, Central

Newfoundland and all along the South Coast and the Avalon, that at least, that

will result in straightening out what few discrepancies there are left in the

talks, and that we will indeed have a settlement. But I am sure that if you

could have had those 3,000 or 4,000 teachers in this House of Assembly today and

listened to the Question Period I'm sure they would have been just as surprised

as I was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes they would have been. They would

have been just as surprised as I was to hear the exchange and what the President

of Treasury Board said. Because as I said earlier, the only thing that was

missing from the exchange today was for the President of Treasury Board to

announce that there is a settlement. That is the only thing that was missing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I say to the Member for Fogo, it

always comes down to only one question but most times it is a very big questions

that stops the settlement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to him, it is a big question. It

mightn't be a big question in his mind but it certainly is a big question in the

minds of the executive negotiating team of the NLTA and the teachers of the

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would encourage the Member for Fogo to

get up now after I finish and have a few words on the situation, or on anything

else. We are on estimates and it is a wide-ranging debate. If the Member for

Fogo now has a point of view that he would like to express then get in his place

and express them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is all I'm just saying. Get up in

your place and express them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the Member

for Fogo is under undue pressure from the teachers of his District. That might

be. I can understand that. There are a lot of members over there who are ready

to crack because of the pressures that teachers have put on them. Ready to

crack, I say. A lot of members opposite who are ready to crack. Out in their

districts singing one line to the teachers but in the caucus room out here

singing a different line. Oh yes, Premier, we are with you. Out back, not so

much with the Premier, I say to members opposite.

We've even got the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations under such attack from the teachers that he shaved off his moustache

trying to disguise himself. I said to the minister earlier today: You will have

to shave more than your moustache so that teachers won't recognize you. Because

once you betray someone, I said to him, they never forget your face, regardless

of what you do with it.

That is what has happened to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations. That is what has happened to the Minister of Environment and

Lands. Two former presidents of the Association.

MR. TOBIN: I heard him this morning on CBC.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and now this morning he started to

betray the Premier. He said: The Premier made the statements on Hydro, let him

take it on the chin himself. He said: Don't associate me with the remarks of the

Premier and what he said on Hydro. He said: Regardless of my own political

ambitions the Premier has to stand on his own on this one. That is what is

happening over there.

MR. HARRIS: Sounds like a sinking ship to me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sounds like a very leaky basket, I say

to the Member for St. John's East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would say, no, I don't - I say - there

is no wishing about that, I say to the Member for Eagle River. It is written all

over your faces every day opposite. From the present dispute with the NLTA - the

teachers have put the pressure on you. It is showing in your faces. You've got

dissension in your ranks. You've got members opposite now commenting publicly on

the devastation and the implications of the elimination of the 2 per cent

savings clause. The Member for Port au Port on television the night before last

and yesterday morning on CBC radio. There are others. There are others who are

in cahoots with the Member for Port au Port.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes. That is putting the pressure on

in the caucus now, and putting pressure on the ministers. That is what is

happening over there. It is written all over your faces. When you watched the

behaviour of members opposite yesterday when the Premier was under a vicious

attack on privatization of Hydro you could see - they sat there, and you know

something? Most of them actually enjoyed it. Most of them actually enjoyed the

Premier being so viciously attacked.

AN HON. MEMBER: In your dreams.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, they actually enjoyed it. There was

no support for the Premier. Of course we heard - what? We saw the minister this

morning. I believe the Member for St. George's made a similar comment, that: The

Premier will have to - what does he say? - be responsible for his own remarks.

He will have to explain it.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he will have to explain it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Grimes said the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say that?

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Grimes said the same thing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, it is a sure sign....

There is one thing I must commend. I must commend the executive negotiating team

of the NLTA and the membership. If they could sit with us here, yes, day by day,

and realize how effective they've been on putting pressure on members opposite.

They have made life unbearable for them over there, I say to them. I think it

has played a very big

part in the behaviour today and the comments of the

President of Treasury Board. Because I tell you, that was a different President

of Treasury Board today than it was just a few short days ago. A very different

President of Treasury Board. There is something happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say this to the Member for Fogo. The

issue would have been settled if the Premier stayed out of the Province and not

come back last week.

MR. TULK: You think so?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. This issue would have been settled.

If the President of Treasury Board had been given the flexibility and the

manoeuvrability to settle this dispute it would have been over now. But once His

Nibs came back in the Province late last week, whenever it was, the whole mood

of this Assembly Chamber changed. The President of Treasury Board was reined in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Decker went to the Premier.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, the best thing could have happened

to resolve this was to send the Minister of Education wherever the Premier was

out of the Province. Send him out of the Province. Keep the two of them out of

the Province and the children would have been back in the classrooms of the

schools today. If the President of Treasury Board had that leverage.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I do believe it. There is one

reason why this isn't settled and that is the person who sits in the Premier's

chair. He made that perfectly clear a year ago what he was going to do. A year

later he is still at it, still vindictive, still attacking the teachers. Not

caring at all about the consequences on the students of the Province, not one

bit, couldn't care less. Playing his own vindictive game.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What are you going to do with him, I say

to the Member for Fogo? I wish I had my choice. I can't do much about it, I'm

not in that caucus, I say to the Member for Fogo. If I was in the caucus -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely amazing.

I thought I was recognized but obviously there were three others as well. I look

forward to them after, I say.

Let me say this. If I was taking the roasting on an hourly

basis that the Members for Fogo, Fortune - Hermitage and Eagle River, and all

through the ranks over there are taking on the teacher dispute and Hydro I would

very subtly suggest to the Premier, I would subtly suggest to him, that: It is

time for you to move on. If your interest is in law perhaps you should move on.

MR. SIMMS: Or Hydro.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Or if you really want to be the new

president of the new Hydro perhaps you should move on, I say to members.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Supreme Court judge.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Supreme Court judge. Yes, if he wants to

be a judge of the appeal court he should move on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill, I think you are bluffing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I'm not bluffing, I say - I would

tell him how I feel. I will tell you something. If members opposite were honest

there would be a fair number over there would say the same thing. They can't

wait to see the taps of his shoes when he walks away from them, I say to them.

Because they know he is a liability. The Premier is a liability. He is not only

a liability - he is a liability to the Province. He is the biggest liability to

the future of this Province.

When he stood in his place again today talking about Kruger,

I mean I only pray for the day when this Premier will stand in his place and say

that he is going to help some industry, some community or some group in this

Province. If I can only hear the Premier stand in his place and say he is going

to help someone. Five years of helping no one, of helping no community, of

helping no group.

You could almost support it, but each year the financial

position of this Province has deteriorated; it has gotten worse. Each year, I

say to the President of Treasury Board, under his direction the last two or

three years, the financial position of this Province has worsened, so the fiscal

direction, the fiscal policy of this government, hasn't worked, but still they

continue on. You know why it hasn't worked?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Because they are following the direction

of one person. No one else has any input. No one else can make suggestions. No

one else can establish policy.

MR. SIMMS: One-man show; dictate.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's right; it's dictate, dictate,

dictate, dictate.

MR. SIMMS: What about that story? You're not going to

tell that story - dick-taters?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the story where they said, what was

it? If you sent Clyde Wells to P.E.I., was it?

MR. SIMMS: Don't ask me; I don't know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The story goes, if you sent Clyde Wells

to P.E.I., with all their potatoes, what would you have?

MR. TOBIN: No.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's good enough.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is that close?

MR. TOBIN: No. Clyde has a contract for seal penises

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, if you put them - anyway, you would

end up having dick-taters; that's all I know.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In the mix between whatever Clyde was

and the P.E.I. potatoes or something, you would end up with a dick-tater, I say

to the Member for Fogo. He probably can't catch that, but...

MR. TOBIN: He had a contract to sell seal penises in

P.E.I.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, seal penises! Seal penises in P.E.I.

MR. TOBIN: He is going to manufacture them into

dick-taters.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is right; with the potatoes they

would have a dick-tater. That's it. I knew I was close on the story.

That is what is happening over there, you see; they don't

listen. Now, the members listen, by the way. The members opposite listen, but

the Premier doesn't listen to them. He doesn't even listen to the President of

Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He doesn't even listen to the President

of Treasury Board, and the President of Treasury Board was out, and I said: If

the President of Treasury Board had the flexibility, if he was given the

leverage, the teachers would have been back in the classrooms Monday at the

latest. This past Monday they would have been back, I say to the President...

and he knows what I am saying is correct. If he could have kept the Premier

away, if they could have arranged another couple of stops on his itinerary

before he came back, we would have had a settlement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Back to China.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, if they sent him to Asia we would

have surely had one.

I want to just follow on a point before the President of

Treasury Board left. I wanted to talk about the negotiations, quite obviously,

but I wanted to follow up on the video lottery issue. I basically haven't had

too much of a problem with the video lottery games, I say to the President of

Treasury Board, but I guarantee you that over the last few weeks it has really

struck home to me, where I have had occasions to be in the presence of people

who have been playing the games. There is a big, big problem.

I know the money to government is probably, in one way, a

godsend, I say to the President of Treasury Board. Millions, of dollars, I guess

- I forget what it is - you realize from the lotteries, but I guarantee you that

there are more and more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have become

addicted and are becoming addicted to the playing of those video lottery games.

I watched it over the last few weeks on occasion, and most times it is people

who really can't afford to be putting that much money in them. I think we are

headed for a real serious problem in the Province. I think somehow we are - I

don't know how we address it as a Province and as a government and as a people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) people who lost their houses

over it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, they have, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: To ban it (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, to ban it, certainly, but then

there are those who will argue that if you ban it they will turn to some other

form of gambling, or risk, or whatever, but it has become a very serious

problem. For people to sit for hours, pumping hundreds of dollars into those

machines, first of all I wonder where they got the money. You never win on them,

over a length of time. You never win. We all know that. You lose.

There is going to come a time, I would say, that we are going

to have to look at some form of counselling, or something or other, in this area

for those people, the same as we have for other problems, kinds of counselling

and other stuff, but it is a very serious problem and I wanted to take this

opportunity just to mention it to the President of Treasury Board because I know

he enjoys divvying up the revenues that come in from those machines but I tell

you, we are going to - we now have a problem but it's going to get bigger with

the people that continuously play those games. I just want to express the

concern here for the minister and to read into the record my concern because

before too long, whether it's the government of this Province or whoever will be

the government of this Province in the next five to ten years and maybe shorter

then that -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I don't think there is either, I

say to the Member for Fogo. I don't think there's any doubt who that's going to

be. I don't think there's any doubt, I say to the Member for Fogo. It's going to

be so bad for him and his party that he won't even be over here, I say to him.

MR. TULK: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You won't even be over here, it's going

to be that bad for you and your party. You won't even be left here. You'll be

out like you were for another term.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to take this occasion to comment on a couple of

things that have arisen. First of all I'd like to indicate to the members of the

House that members opposite - there are what, sixteen or seventeen of them in

that party? I know most of them. I know a lot of them fairly well and some of

the newer ones I only know a little bit. I know that they're individuals who - I

wonder if the leader could stay for about two minutes? Okay - I know that there

are people who are individuals, who have opinions of their own, attitudes of

their own, who have ideas on issues and who are willing to express these ideas

and so on, on the issues. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that in my

experience in this hon. House during the last year, since the election, what

I've seen is that every single one of them, without exception, has expressed the

views of the Leader of the Opposition. There's been no contradiction of his

views, there have been no opposing opinions expressed by all of those

individuals opposite who are themselves strong individuals and have strongly

held opinions, not a single sound of discontent coming from the Opposition

benches.

Now, Mr. Chairman, one has to wonder about - in this regard

one has to wonder about the Leader of the Opposition. What's the size of his

hobnailed boots? He seems such a mild mannered person on the surface, seems such

a gentlemanly person, mild mannered person, a friend of mine for a long time and

I normally think of him as being a mild mannered, sensible individual. Yet, I

can't imagine the way he must operate in Caucus. The way the Member for Grand

Falls, the Leader of the Opposition, must operate in Caucus. He tramples, Mr.

Chairman, he must - he's got them frightened to death. Not a single one of them

will ever express a view that's contrary to his. What control? Mr. Chairman, if

there was ever a dictator in this Province, there he is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that the proof of

that statement is in the truth of what I've said leading up to the statement.

Now, Mr. Chairman, on this side you've seen individuals

express opinions that are opposite from the opinion of the leader, you've seen

that. It hasn't happened very often but it does happen. Yet, amongst hon.

members opposite it never happens. So, Mr. Chairman, if they want to talk about

dictators imagine what a dictator the Member for Grand Falls must be and what

dire threats and what horrible things he must do to these hon. members in the

Caucus meeting before he comes to the House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I would suggest that the Member for Fogo is

right as far as it goes but I'll tell you that there's some new members opposite

- then if that's the situation I would suggest to the members of the House that

there must be a plot by the people in the front benches to harass the new

members and make sure that they stay in line. Mr. Chairman, I'd love to sit in

on some of their Caucus meetings. I'd love to be a fly on the wall and listen to

what must go on and what harassment and pressure the Member must be under so,

Mr. Chairman, that's the one issue I would like to deal with. The second issue

is the video lotteries, the topic brought up by the Member for Grand Bank, and I

would like to thank him for his very sensible presentation and expression of

attitude about the video lottery terminals and the practise of gambling in the

Province; and I think his views are honestly expressed and they are extremely

accurate. It is not a situation that we would like to encourage; it arose

because there were illegal machines entering the Province and there were -

Mr. Chairman, I have to go back, because I just had a note

passed to me to remind me, from one of my own members, that I was not being

entirely accurate in talking about the Member for Grand Falls. I was advised

that in fact, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount did disagree with the Leader's

position on educational reform for one day, but then he was quickly trampled by

hobnailed boots and beaten into line, but, Mr. Chairman, for one day he did

stand up and express his views.

Video lottery terminals, Mr. Chairman, there were some

machines showing up and gambling was happening illegally because payoffs were

being made under the counter, and we were afraid that these things would spread

the way they spread in New Brunswick to the gas stations, the corner stores,

every outlet almost in the province, and we had a decision to make at that point

as to whether to ban the machines or to control them.

The decision was made on legal advice, and the advice we got

essentially was this: that because these machines were similar to other machines

for entertainment, there are video machines that you try to do something and so

on, and you put your quarters in and you get credits, you get free games and so

on, and because there was so much similarity between these video lottery

terminals, the kind that were coming into the Province, and ordinary games for

entertainment, it was very difficult to ban one without banning them all,

legally; and the other thing was, the difficulty of enforcement, the extreme

difficulty of enforcement in that you actually had to catch someone being paid

off under the counter and that was very difficult and would require large

numbers of enforcement officers and so on.

In other words we were told that from a legal perspective it

was extremely difficult to ban, and unless we of course ban everything including

pinball machines and all that kind of stuff, if we banned the whole lot we could

probably have success in it, but if we didn't and tried to differentiate between

electronic entertainment machines and electronic gambling machines, then we

would run up against extreme problems, so at that point in time we decided to

control them and we used age control establishments and brought in what we

thought was a sensible process of control, but I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that

I am not satisfied with that; I am very unhappy with some of the things that

have been happening.

I am happy to see the money coming in but very unhappy to see

some of the other things that are happening. I am very unhappy that for

instance, there have been establishments that have set up and almost the sole

means of support of these businesses happens to be five video lottery terminals.

That's unfortunate. If you start a lounge then your business should be a lounge

business and should operate on its own and there has been a tremendous

dependency created out there as we found out when we lowered in the Budget the

take for the establishments.

There are establishments out there that were relying almost

totally on this and people have made business decisions based on the fact that

they had revenue from these machines, and it is frightening that such a

dependency is built up, and I am afraid what we are getting is a lot of little,

tiny gambling casinos around, that lounges that are no longer lounges were

simply gambling casinos, and that was not the intent and, Mr. Chairman, we are

having a very serious look at the whole gambling regime in this Province. We are

in the process of having a very serious look at that and that should take place

very shortly within the next month or so.

We are having a serious look at the gambling situation and

the video lottery terminals and other forms of gambling in the Province, we are

having a review of it and that should be complete in a month or so, so there are

a lot of things that are happening that we are just simply not happy with. I am

not happy with it personally, and we will have that discussion in Cabinet in the

very near future; so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the member for his

comments on the video lottery terminals, he is absolutely right and there are

some side effects that we must deal with, and there are some effects that are

not as happy as the fact that we are getting revenues from it.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Finance that it is not a bit too

soon that he decided to take action on the situation in this Province, as my

colleague for Grand Bank mentioned earlier as to what is happening. I think the

Member for Fogo shouted that people are losing their homes. He is the minister

responsible for it, Mr. Speaker. What has he been doing the past two or three

months if he has known people are losing their homes? Where has he been? He

certainly has not been negotiating, Mr. Speaker. And he with the gall, Mr.

Speaker, to stand in this House and accuse someone of being a dictator.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is running away.

MR. TOBIN: He should, too. He should come back.

The story my colleague for Grand Bank told, and the Minister

of Finance was not here when he told it, about the Premier signing an agreement

to sell seal penises to Prince Edward Island. Someone asked him what they were

going to do with them and he said they were processing `dick-taters.' The

Minister of Finance missed that statement when my colleague for Grand Bank told

the story.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Why do you not stand up and have your say?

Where have you been since the Cabinet post became vacant?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: That is sure to get you in Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would do better than you are doing.

MR. TOBIN: Well, why is he not in there if he would do

better than me? The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs says he would

do better than me. Well, then resign and let the Premier put him in there. That

is the honourable thing to do.

They talk about betraying, Mr. Chairman. My colleague for

Grand Bank was up today and he talked about the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations betraying the teachers, about betrayal, how one day you were

one of them and the next day in government. Now, here is the Member for Fogo

over there talking about facts. He went on his hands and knees, made a thousand

phone calls, I would say, to Leo Barry to come and take over the Liberal Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Fogo was the leader going after

Leo Barry. He phoned him, he met him, he dined him, he begged him to come over

and join the Liberal Party. I ask the Member for Fogo who was involved with

bringing turrs into St. John's and having them cooked down in the East End? I

will not mention the house, Mr. Chairman. Who was the member who brought him in

a few months after? He begged him to come over. Talk about betrayal. Anyone who

would do that is the master of betrayal. He brought him over and then knifed

him. That is what he did. He is still in the back benches and Mr. Barry is now

Mr. Justice Barry.

MR. TULK: I think the world of him.*

MR. TOBIN: Yes, you think the world of him. He thinks the

world of you, too - and a few others. You talk about facts and betrayal, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. TULK: That is all fabrication.

MR. TOBIN: It is not fabrication, it is facts.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Who are you supporting for leader?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I tell the Member for Eagle

River that I am supporting the present leader who will be the next Premier of

this Province. That is who I am supporting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I make no bones about it. That is who will be

there. And I tell you something else, it may be sooner than you think if this

Premier keeps the Cabinet on the corruption road it is on.

I remember when there were 1000 teachers out there in 1982

when a certain Member of the House of Assembly then, who is now a minister,

said: they are the ones that brought down Smallwood and they are the ones that

will bring down you. Mr. Chairman, there are 4,000-plus out there today. Who are

they going to bring down, I would ask that minister? Who are they going to bring

down, together with others?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That is what is going on in this Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but it is 4:00 p.m. and

under the Standing Orders I have to announce the questions for the adjournment

debate.

The first question is: I am not satisfied with the answer to

my question to the Premier concerning the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper mill. That

is from the hon. Member for Humber East.

The second question is: I am not satisfied with the answer to

my question to the Minister of Health concerning the Grenfell Regional Health

service. That is from the hon. Member for Ferryland.

The third question is: I am not satisfied with the answer to

my question to the President of Treasury Board concerning negotiations between

government and the NLTA. That is from the hon. Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say my time

for this ten minutes is getting kind of short.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: By leave? Okay, I have a question I would ask

the Minister of Education, and all the ministers, and all members. When are you

going to follow in the footsteps of the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. TOBIN: I don't have leave, I'm speaking on regular

time. When are you going to follow in the footsteps of the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations when this morning he said: The Premier made the

statements, let the Premier answer the statements -

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't!

MR. TOBIN: - that he made.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say that?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he did say that. The other interesting

thing that I found in the minister's answer. He said: Regardless of my own

political ambitions I would have nothing to do with the fact that the Premier

went on television on May 24 and made the statements. Now let the Premier answer

them.

MR. WOODFORD: What did Bud Hulan say?

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't!

MR. TOBIN: The member - what? St. George's, is it? St.

George's?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Bud said: The Premier is well able to answer

that question himself. He said: Because I don't intend to answer it for him.

That is what the Member for St. George's said.

Mr. Chairman, the division is there, the seams are appearing

to everyone. When are other ministers going to follow the lead of the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations and desert the Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't think it would be

cat-o'-nine-tails. But the fact that the minister had to bring in his own

political ambitions, the fact that he mentioned that, I thought was uncalled

for. The fact that the minister said that he is deserting the Premier, let the

Premier answer his own questions, I thought it was rather appropriate.

You should not go on the radio as the minister of a

government and betray your leader, betray the premier. That happened this

morning. I don't know why he did it because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It did happen. Get the tapes and see if he -

and it happened, by the way, without his brother-in-law and campaign manager and

Member for St. John's South being back. I found it strange.

MS. VERGE: Where is the Member for St. John's South?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Who? Mr. Chairman, I didn't even miss him. I

thought he was in the House every day. That will tell you what effect he has in

this House and I didn't even miss him. That is what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I just mentioned two names. I can get into the

Member for Port au Port, Mr. Chairman, what he had to say. The Member for

Pleasantville said it best this morning when he said: When you have two-thirds

of the population of Newfoundland telling you not to do something, how arrogant

in the name of God must you be to proceed? Those are the words spoken by the

Member for Pleasantville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that? Mr. Chairman, the interviewer

said: You are sounding like Len Simms. He said: No, I am sounding like

two-thirds of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if some of the rest of you had

the same guts and gumption and desire to represent the wishes of your

constituents, rather than being on your knees like in benediction to the

Premier, then your constituents would be better off as well. That is what is

happening. The Premier is dangling that Cabinet post. You would sell your souls

- the back benchers over there, Mr. Chairman, to try to get it, and you, too,

Sir, are involved in that practice.

The fact of the matter is, the Member for Pleasantville - one

of your own colleagues -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. WHELAN: I wanted to take advantage of this

opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to express some concerns -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Harbour

Main. I would like to hear what he has to say.

MR. WHELAN: - on behalf of the constituents from my

district, and on behalf of myself as well.

I am in receipt of a letter received on May 24, requesting

that I read it in the House at the earliest opportunity - or, on May 25,

actually - they asked if I would read it in Question Period. Obviously, that is

not possible. In the meantime, the hon. Leader of the Opposition availed of the

opportunity on the same day that he received a copy of it, to get up and read

it, I suppose, on my behalf. I don't know whether I should thank him for that or

not, but I have grave doubts as to whether he had my interest in mind, so I will

just reserve my thanks - or the interest of my constituents, for that matter.

Now they were a bit concerned. They were anxious for me to

read this letter, so I think I am going to read it again, just for the record.

It was addressed to me, and it says: Would you please read this letter to the

House of Assembly during the Question Period on May 25, 1994.

The Conception Bay Centre Branch of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers Association asks the hon. Members of the House of Assembly to

place the education of our youth number one on their list of priorities.

While teachers are on strike, government is saving millions

of dollars, but at what price to the children of this Province? If this strike

continues, all levels from Kindergarten to Level III will be adversely affected.

Teachers understand the economic difficulties of government,

and in the past ten years we have done our part by accepting five years of wage

freezes and cuts to our pensions.

Have we learned from our past? Governments, ignoring the many

warnings of the people in the fishery, have allowed it to be destroyed. We look

back and ask why nobody listened to the people who were closest to the industry,

the fishermen; yet, government talks about restructuring the education system

without listening to the teachers. Again we ask: Have we learned anything?

The education system cannot be changed without directly

affecting the teacher and students in the classroom. Therefore, teachers and

government must work together.

We, the teachers of Conception Bay Centre, implore the hon.

Members of the House of Assembly to help us get back to what we do best - teach.

Give us back the trust we had in the collective bargaining process. Allow both

sides to maintain their dignity. Treat us like the professionals we are. Let us

maintain the rights we have earned over more than 100 years as a professional

organization. Allow negotiations, not confrontation, to prevail.

Mr. Chairman, as in most negotiations, issues and the status

of negotiations change from day to day, and these present negotiations are no

different. Some of the concerns they have addressed here, with regard to the 2

per cent clause, I believe, we may well be past that; however, there is one

thing that I would like to put forth before I sit down, and that is that we must

certainly keep our priorities straight.

Of course, the priorities that we must all have, and I

believe everybody in this Province, everybody in this hon. House, and for the

hon. Member for Grand Bank to suggest that the Premier thinks otherwise, that he

doesn't have the interest of the children at heart, or foremost in his mind, I

think is a little bit callous, and political posturing, and low tactics, in my

view.

I would think that during negotiations sometimes we tend to

lose sight of what our priorities are, and from time to time maybe we do need be

reminded of those, and that is what I would like to do today. I would certainly

urge both sides to negotiate as earnestly as they can.

It seems to me that the letter that we received today leaves

room to be optimistic. I certainly hope that the children are back in school as

quickly as possible. Again, I would just urge both sides to be as sincere as

possible, and to sort of get things moving, get the children back in school, and

I think everybody will be all the happier for it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I didn't know my colleague from St. Mary's - The Capes wanted

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River

seems to have a problem. It seems he's muzzled from standing in his place and

speaking, the Premier has laid the whip on him. He's to sit as far in the back

as he can get. He's allow to speak from his seat when he's not recognized but he

can't get to his feet and express his true feelings which is really unfortunate.

I wanted to respond to the Member for Harbour Main and say I

respect his reading of the letter on behalf of his constituents, which we all do

on occasion here, present petitions or read letters which our constituents want

us to do and which is what we're here for. We're here to present and represent

the views of our constituents.

The Leader of the Opposition was given a copy of the letter,

I say to the member. He knows that, it was delivered to his office and it's a

little bit unfortunate, I guess, what really happened. He didn't mean to take

away from the member. He really didn't but -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the member, it's not

political g