May 17,

1994 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 43

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

public galleries the Mayor of Grand Falls - Windsor, Mr. Walwin Blackmore. I

would also like to welcome twenty Improving Your Odds students from

Ferryland, accompanied by their teachers, Corey D'Entremont and Tina Blinston.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, earlier today it was my pleasure

to announce, along with the hon. Brian Tobin, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,

the first phase of the Canada/Newfoundland Municipal Infrastructure Agreement.

Some twenty-two projects were announced at a total cost of $25.6 million. It is

expected they will create 290 jobs.

Since the Canada/Newfoundland Infrastructure Works Agreement

was signed on February 9, more than 600 proposals have been submitted by

municipalities and the private sector. The twenty-two projects announced this

morning are the first in a series to be announced for start-up this spring.

Including the projects announced today, over $50 million is expected to be spent

this year, with a further $96 million to be allocated for spending throughout

the life of the agreement. Although we are saying $50 million this year, it is

quite possible that the total expenditure for 1994 will come closer to $80

million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: As it is known, the Canada/Newfoundland

Infrastructure Program represents a substantial capital works program. Although

funding under the program generally is on the basis of one-third federal,

one-third provincial, and one-third municipal, it is important here to point out

that the Provincial Government's share under the program is in excess of 48 per

cent as opposed to being one-third.

This afternoon, I am happy to announce that the Province, on

its own, will spend an additional $2,715,000 on municipal capital works projects

during the 1994-1995 year.

As indicated, this funding is supplementary to the

Canada/Newfoundland Municipal Infrastructure Agreement and will be spent on

water and sewer and road construction and paving projects.

These funds are being distributed fairly and equitably

throughout the Province and they will address the most pressing problems as they

relate to cost-shared municipal services.

All of the financing for these projects is through the

Newfoundland Municipal Finance Corporation. Road work is financed on a 60 per

cent province - 40 per cent municipal basis. The municipal contribution for

water and sewer is based on the cost per household or a percentage of fixed

revenue.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant announcement in view of

the fact that it is separate and apart from the Canada/Newfoundland

Infrastructure Works Agreement and I know it will be well received by as many as

twenty-nine communities sharing this program.

For the information of the House and the media, I will be

tabling a list of projects approved by government under the 1994/95 program.

They are listed alphabetically and the list contains information relating to the

cost and project description. I will note, Mr. Speaker, before I finish, that

the largest portion of this amount is going to the community of Steady Brook,

$819,000.

I am pleased also to announce today that, in due course,

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation (NLHC) will be proceeding with the

extension of Old Placentia Road in the City of Mount Pearl from Commonwealth

Avenue to Murley Drive. This project is valued in excess of $1 million. Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the

minister for giving me a copy of his statement prior to coming into the House.

Mr. Speaker, if I were a mayor or a councillor in this

Province today, I wouldn't want to be caught in all the press conferences that

were held this morning and will be held over the next couple of weeks, and

statements by the minister such as this. There is no question, the projects that

were announced were good projects, based on environmental and health problems in

the Province. I say to the minister and the federal minister as well, that

part

is excellent but let's look at the historical facts, Mr. Speaker, when it comes

to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, there was a capital program of some

$59.5 million out of which - the minister can confirm later - less than $40

million was spent. Now, to say we are going to spend $50 million this year,

cost-shared, one-third municipal, one-third federal and one-third provincial -

Mr. Speaker, just look at those figures and look around the Province and see

what's happening. This is supposed to be new monies - new monies from the

Province, new monies from the feds and so on. To me, Mr. Speaker, from where I

stand and looking at the announcements this morning and the announcement by the

minister this evening, that there's no new monies, two questions I ask: Where is

the new money from the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs over and

above what was spent last year? Secondly, a very important question and maybe

the Premier can answer it later: Where is the federal money coming from? Is it

coming from the ACOA program?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. I think it was a couple of months ago I asked the minister

if there were any municipalities in the Province which would be eligible, any

municipalities that is that were back on payments on debt on their capital

program, and he said that they would be eligible for any monies on the

infrastructure program. He told me at that time: no, any municipalities would

not be eligible. Just as recently as last week, Mr. Speaker, on May 11, I

received a letter from the minister and his officials telling me about a

community in my district that would not be eligible for monies under the capital

- no additional capital funding can be made available to these municipalities.

In an answer to a question by a councillor I take it at a

press conference this morning, the minister said that this would not be the

case, that there would be municipalities in the Province getting money under the

infrastructure program even though they were in arrears to his department. Could

the minister tell me today, tell me now, what municipalities on the list this

morning, if any, owe money in arrears to his department, and what municipalities

contained in his list this evening that he just tabled now, would be in arrears

to his department?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, early in March, a letter went out

to 114 communities from one end of this Province to the other, expressing

concern about arrears to the Newfoundland Municipal Financial Corporation as it

relates to capital debt, which of course is debt incurred for water and sewerage

and roads and paving and so on. That letter was followed up at the end of March

by a second letter; in April there was a third letter and just last week I

signed a fourth letter to the municipalities in the Province basically asking

them, almost begging, Mr. Speaker, for those communities who were in financial

difficulty as it relates to Municipal Financial Corporation, to come into my

department and make a proposal whereby these communities could overcome that

financial difficulty by spreading that payment or that debt over four years.

I am very pleased today to announce that on March 1, some $13

million was owed to the financial corporation by municipalities around this

Province, as of today, Mr. Speaker, there is an outstanding balance of

approximately $2 million that have not been either paid off or agreements

haven't been made. There are still thirty-two communities in this Province who

have refused to come to my department and make some sort of accommodation in

regards to their debt to NMFC; those communities, Mr. Speaker, will not only not

receive infrastructure money, they will receive absolutely no consideration from

my department or this government's department, and I can assure you from the

government in general. Not only under infrastructure but any types of funding.

My approach to it has been this, that if those communities

haven't got the foresight and responsibility to come to the Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, after me offering on four separate occasions

an open hand to these people, then I think we have no other choice as a

government, because there were eighty-odd that did comply, that those

twenty-five or thirty communities must be told that they have to get their house

in order the same way as we as the government of this Province have to get our

house in order. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister.

The minister still didn't answer my question. I asked him how many communities

on this morning's list and on this evening's list would be in that category.

Maybe when he gets up again he can answer that.

The minister has stated - he stated this morning - he never

said the percentages, but he did this evening in his statement, that 48 per

cent, that is what the provincial government's share would be under this

particular program. Could the minister tell me and confirm to the House - the

total figure for this year is $50 million - would this be 48 per cent of the $50

million for this year, or 48 per cent of the balance after the feds put in their

one-third?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is 48 per cent of the

balance after the federal amount comes off. I have to explain this to the House,

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me. I won't take very long.

I told the House some two months ago that the Government of

Newfoundland had decided rather than go on a one-third, one-third, one-third

basis with communities around this Province that we felt there would be a lot of

communities out there, especially in rural Newfoundland, that couldn't afford to

come up with their one-third. In fact, after a survey that was done by my

department - and the hon. member knows what I'm talking about here because I've

discussed it a number of times with him and he agreed at the time that I should

do it - after a survey was done there was something like thirty-two communities

in the Province that would be able to qualify for infrastructure money under a

one-third, one-third basis.

This government agreed, because of that fact, that this

wouldn't be fair to rural communities and a number of communities around the

Province. Basically we went back to the same system we use under the capital

works program, whereby a municipality for road work and paving would pay 40 per

cent of the cost of the project, the Province would pay 60 per cent. If you take

the one-third off the top from the federal government then it is basically

two-thirds divided by 60 per cent for the Province and 40 per cent for the

municipality.

There are other communities out there, as the member knows,

that have reached a level of taxation and are paying towards their debt on a

regular basis, $328.00 a household, which basically means, Mr. Speaker, that

when a community rises to the $328, after that point, we don't take any more

money from them, because we feel that we would be putting an unnecessary strain

on them. By rising to the $328, Mr. Speaker, then the Province has to pick up

for water and sewer the total cost of the project, the total cost under the

infrastructure less the one-third.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to get back to what the hon. member asked

me before, the answer to your earlier question is, no, there are no communities

on either the infrastructure list, or on this list, that owe back monies to

NMFC. I am sure, from the hon. member's comments to me earlier, and the comments

that were made in this House sometime ago, that the approach that we took with

regard to the infrastructure of the government paying the portion we are paying

was the right one.

Mr. Speaker, 48 per cent, I will address that question. In

1984 the previous government spent $28 million on capital works, and in 1985

they spent $32 million. It wasn't until 1990, just after this government got

elected, that we put $63 million into capital works programs, $63 million, the

highest amount by any government since 1949. I say this quite honestly, to you,

Mr. Speaker, and to this House, before this year is over we will possibly reach

that amount or maybe even more. So that is where our capital works money has

gone this year and, in comparison to previous years, we have done fairly well as

far as I am concerned, and as far as the people on this side of the House are

concerned.

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A final supplementary to the minister. I don't know if he is

treading water now or not, but I am going to tell you, Mr. Minister, you have a

lot of going to do to reach the 48 per cent of the $50 million. There is

approximately 24 into 48 per cent of the balance, and after the feds put their

money in there is approximately $16 million, unless there is a new math since I

left my office a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister answer this question? I have

asked it before in the House and didn't really get a straight answer. Where is

the federal money coming from? There seems to be an awful lot of ACOA

involvement. Everywhere you go there are ACOA officials. At the press conference

this morning you talked about the infrastructure program and ACOA was there and

involved. Where is the federal money coming from? Is it coming from the ACOA

program, because if it is, that's not new money. Would the minister confirm that

for the House?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the money is

coming from. All I know is that somebody - and I think it was Mr. Tobin - no, I

think it was the Prime Minister, to be honest about it; the Prime Minister came

out some time ago and said he was going to spend $3 billion in Canada and our

share of it was going to be approximately $150 million, which would mean that

the Federal Government in the next two years will have to contribute upwards of

$50 million to Newfoundland infrastructure.

I'm surprised the hon. member, who is a past mayor, a past

representative of the Federation of Municipalities, a long-time person involved

in municipal politics, would care where the money came from. As long as I, as

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, can deliver $150 million - $150

million, Mr. Speaker! If I can deliver $150 million to the municipalities so

that I can provide decent drinking water -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - so I can stop sewerage from running in drains

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - who cares where the $150 million came from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

of Treasury Board. I want to ask him if talks are continuing at any level with

the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association in an attempt to bring an

end to the teachers' strike here in this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, normal collective bargaining has

not yet begun. However, channels of communication are open. There was a meeting

last Thursday night which lasted four or five hours, at which some proposals

were discussed. The NLTA needed some time to consider what was discussed and got

back to me on Sunday night with a discussion paper in response, and, Mr.

Speaker, after getting some clarification yesterday, we are now pretty well in a

position to get back with our response to the discussion paper.

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

Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the government withdrew its

position on severance pay, which was one of the principle obstacles in reaching

an agreement with the union. By the end of this week you will have almost saved

the cost of the 2 per cent cost because of the teachers' strike. Since you will

get the money you will want over the next seven or eight days, will you then be

more flexible than you have been on the other issues, such as that 2 per cent

clause?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, last year with all of our public

sector workers we agreed to use an option that was a one-year quick fix

solution, an interim solution to give us time. That solution gave us that time

and that was referred to as the pension option. Now what we have to do has to be

in terms of long-range planning. The one-year quick fix solutions are no longer

acceptable. We no longer can do these. This is tied in with long-range planning

and what must be done over the next number of years to keep our financial house

in order. We have received a very serious warning in the last couple of weeks,

and we no longer have an A credit rating. We have been told that we must

continue on the same track and our resolve must be even stronger than ever. Mr.

Speaker, we are talking here about long-range planning and not playing some kind

of game or not trying to come up with some quick fix solution.

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

for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, most people would call it

contract stripping, not long-range planning. Public examinations begin in June -

June 10 to be exact. If teachers aren't back to work before then it will be

because the government is out to punish teachers rather than negotiate a fair

contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: The President of Treasury Board knows he

will have the money that he wants by the end of this week or early next week.

Will you now assure the students who are worried about their final marks that

the strike will end as soon as you extract the savings that you want from the

teachers' pay cheques?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what's happening now is exacting

a terrible price from the students of this Province, I'd like to remind hon.

members. Mr. Speaker, my answer still stands, that this is about long-term

planning, this is about being able to do what we must do as a government if we

are to survive in the financial world, that's what this is about. This is not

simply a game of trying to get a handful of money here and a handful of money

there. This approach is based on reason, common sense, fairness and equity for

every single person in this Province.

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

Kenmount.

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

Minister of Education.

There is a direct relationship between the restructuring

policies of his department and the government's fiscal policy. For example, the

2 per cent savings clause. What is the involvement of the minister in the

current collective bargaining process? Is he an active participant at the table

or is he a messenger for the President of Treasury Board?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should

understand how government works. There are fourteen departments plus the

Premier's office in this government and all of us are responsible for various

parts of the operation. The President of Treasury Board is doing an admirable

job in negotiations with the employees of government. I'm not involved in the

day to day negotiations however, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I will

proudly stand in my place and support whatever agreement this government reaches

with its employees.

Now the hon. member makes a connection between the fiscal

problems and the 2 per cent rule, by any stretch of the imagination I don't know

how the hon. member can make that connection. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, as a

result of the 2 per cent savings clause, there are fourteen or fifteen boards in

this Province which have more teachers then they are entitled to under the

normal student/teacher relationship. The other boards do not have any teachers

on holdback. As a result, one board in this Province has forty-six additional

teachers on holdback, Mr. Speaker. They literally have teachers coming out

through their ears.

There are schools in this Province, right in the city where

the hon. member taught himself, which are bursting at the seams, large classes

and they don't have enough teachers. This is not about fiscal realities, this is

about the right of the government to manage the educational system. If there

were no 2 per cent clause, it does not mean that there would be significantly

less teachers. We would still have to deal with the problems but we would have

the ability, Mr. Speaker, to assign these teachers where they're needed, not

where there just happens to be teachers on holdback. This has nothing to do with

fiscal realities. This has to do with the ability of government to administer

and government to manage the educational system.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his comments

made my point, there is a direct connection between restructuring of his

department and fiscal policy. I say to the minister that he has been asked by

this side of the House for some months to prepare and to table or to communicate

with the NLTA a comprehensive small schools policy. One of the real impediments

to getting a collective agreement now is the 2 per cent savings clause and

assurance that small schools are going to be protected and programs protected in

this Province.

I say to the minister, surely he has such a policy. Can't he

confirm that the government does have a comprehensive small schools policy

ready?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there has been a small schools

policy in this Province for years and years. The hon. member should know that.

What we are talking about working on is a small isolated schools policy which is

different. In Roddickton, where my family lives and where I live, there are two

small schools within 1,000 feet of each other and both of them take advantage of

extra teachers under the small schools policy. That, Mr. Speaker, is a total

waste of government money. They are being kept alive by the small schools policy

which is irrelevant. However, the school in Harbour Deep - as long as there is a

Harbour Deep it is highly unlikely there will be any more then thirty-five or

forty students in Great Harbour Deep. We have to have an isolated schools policy

to deal with the Harbour Deep's but not a small schools policy that keeps small

schools alive for no reason other then it happens to be there. So we're trying

to work on the small isolated schools, Mr. Speaker, and I think that's where the

hon. member is mixed up, where he's confusing an isolated school with a small

school.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the small schools policy is so

isolated that nobody knows about it. Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that

small schools policy is needed to protect the smaller schools in all parts of -

particularly in rural Newfoundland. We've had petitions presented, I think it

was yesterday, by his colleague across the way. I say to the minister, how many

more millions, at $450,000 an hour, five hours a day, that's $2.25 million every

day, how many more millions must the Newfoundland and Labrador teachers give up

at the bargaining table before his government presents to the NLTA, a policy on

small schools, thereby facilitates a resolution to the current collective

bargaining impediments we have in the Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mixing apples

and oranges. My friend, the President of Treasury Board just addressed the issue

of the strike which is saving the Province close to $2 million a day. It is a

totally different issue and I think the hon. the President of Treasury Board

addressed it quite well.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, concerning the infrastructure program. Can the minister tell us whether

or not the 48 per cent of provincial contribution to the municipal

infrastructure program applies with respect to the City of St. John's in

particular, with respect to the work in the Goulds which had to be done to bring

it up to the standard of the city, after the Goulds was imposed and standards to

amalgamation imposed upon the city and taxpayers of St. John's, the same 48 per

cent apply there?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, yes. One of the projects that I

really felt good about today and even separated out of the amount of money that

we had allotted for St. John's was the Goulds project; and the reason, I

explained it earlier this morning, and the hon. member from the Goulds area was

there, and I explained this morning that the reason I separated it was because

the Goulds area is an unique situation.

As most people in the St. John's area realize, the Goulds

situation is a bad one at the present time. We have certain times in the year

when there is an excess amount of water running into the ditches and drains; we

have raw sewerage running in the streets in the Goulds and I must say, to be

quite honest about it, I commend the City of St. John's for making it one of

their top priorities. $2 million went to the Goulds project this morning.

Now to answer the first question, Mr. Speaker, St. John's is

a little different. Any community in the Province who has the tax base like St.

John's, Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Falls, Labrador City, Goose Bay; there are a

number of communities that have a higher tax base and when I say tax base I mean

a number of businesses and industries in the town from whom they can collect

sizeable amounts of taxes, are not treated in the same way smaller communities

with less of a tax base are.

The City of St. John's for example, contributes to their debt

charges somewhere in the range of sixty or seventy dollars per year, which means

that they are a fairly well-to-do city. In the case of water and sewerage in the

City of St. John's, the City of St. John's - for the Goulds one in particular,

to make the answer simple as I possibly can - the City of St. John's would get

the one-third off the federal contribution, which would lower that to $1.4

million and that $1.4 million is left to the two then, the City of St. John's

will finance themselves over a period of ten or fifteen years or whatever the

case; but, to balance that, we also announced this morning some $5 million in

road construction and I guess in the next couple of weeks maybe, notice I am

saying maybe, a fair amount of money in road construction.

Now in road construction they are going to do quite well,

because under the 100 per cent formula

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - under the 100 per cent formula they would

have to pay-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister to draw his answer to a close.

MR. REID: The problem with it, Mr. Speaker, in giving an

answer, is that some hon. members on the other side understand that formula and

some others and I have continually, for the last year, tried to explain that

formula in this House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I didn't ask the minister to (inaudible).

MR. REID: - based on questions from the Opposition to -

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I didn't ask the minister for a justification, I asked him to

complete his answer.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They always take longer to answer when they are not answering

the question.

The question that I asked, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister

directly: is the City of St. John's being required to pay more than one-third of

the cost of the projects that are being undertaken in the Goulds in particular,

and under this infrastructure program are they being required to pay more than

one-third the cost, are they being able to access these funds on a one-third,

one-third, one-third basis in accordance with the federal government plan, or

are the taxpayers of St. John's, and I am not talking about the city, I am

talking about the taxpayers, who may not be well-to-do, Mr. Speaker, are they

being asked to share an unequal burden in this program more than the one-third

that was required under the federal government program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes and no,

and so are some twenty other communities in the Province being charged, I

suppose, the same as the City of St. John's.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question

of the Premier. About eleven days ago in Corner Brook the Premier was reported

as saying that the report by the three doctors on the task force on the Grenfell

Regional Health Service would not be released, will not be made public. I ask

the Premier if that is what he stated?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said.

What I said was: I do not know. I have not spoken to the Minister of Health as

to whether this will be made public or not. I had not spoken to him about it and

the Minister of Health had not reported to the Cabinet on it. I understand it

was just recently received.

What I did say was that reports on the operations of

hospitals are frequently internal reports, and internal reports are not made

public. This may, or may not be, that kind of report. I did not have personal

knowledge of it. It may or may not be made public, and it will depend on the

Minister of Health. He is the one who should answer that question. I cannot give

the member the answer now, but perhaps the Minister of Health can.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier

about the disgrace at the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal. The Premier may

be interested to know that in his most recent absence from the Province his

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has been vigorously defending the

exorbitant billing by patronage appointees, Gordon Seabright, Jeff Brace, and

Derrick Watton, and has said the government is keeping on Mr. Seabright until

the end of 1994. Does the Premier agree with his minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The minister is sitting in his chair. He

is still the minister. I agree with the minister.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier if he agrees that there is a

flagrant abuse when you look at Gordon Seabright's $2200 average billing per

decision, and compare that to Christine Fagan's $650 average billing per

decision, and Catherine Allan Westby's $790 average? Is there not an

unacceptable problem when you look at the bloating of Mr. Seabright's annual

billing from $57,000 in 1992 when the former Executive Director, Weldon Brake,

began warning the minister, up to $98,000 last year, $98,000 for part-time work?

I ask the Premier is not the solution immediate removal of Messrs Seabright,

Brace and Watton?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know what the minister said in

the House yesterday so I will leave it to the minister to answer the questions,

but in the discussions that I have had with the minister, and these discussions

have been ongoing for some time, we do need to review completely this whole

concept of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal. The mess was created by

the former government when they created this position. Now that does not excuse

financial abuse by anybody who is there now, and if there is financial abuse I

have no doubt that the minister will ferret out any financial abuse, and deal

with it. I do not do that on a detailed basis. I have great confidence that the

minister will do whatever is necessary to deal with it. The real problem is only

going to be solved when we correct the mess that the former government created.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

final supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier if the real problem is not excessive

billing, exorbitant billing, by the Premier's patronage appointees, and not the

system itself? Is not that problem obvious when you look at the average billing

per decision by the three big Liberal patronage appointees, compared to the

other appointees? Is the Premier going to leave Mr. Seabright in place for

another seven and a half months, as the minister indicated, so that he can boost

his billing beyond $98,000 a year? Is that what the Premier is going to do? Why

was it last week that he feigned surprise at the revelation of these gross

numbers and this excessive billing?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because of the very gross misrepresentation of the

information I tabled last week by hon. members opposite I have given an

undertaking in Question Period yesterday to give more detailed information for

all of the financial billings of the members of the Workers' Compensation

Appeals Tribunal since it was established in 1987.

Because again, Mr. Speaker, the numbers referenced by the

hon. Member for Humber East, because of the fact that they last year took

calendar year numbers, which are presented in the annual report, and divided

them by fiscal year numbers, which were what I tabled in the House, and came up

with what they think are these exaggerations, I am now having the staff put

together comparisons of fiscal years with fiscal years. I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, and tell the hon. members, that the comparisons to date I will have it

compiled, I expect, completely by tomorrow so that there is no misrepresentation

by members opposite.

In the initial instance, beginning in 1987, the average cost

per hearing by the people who were placed there by members opposite was $1,413

per hearing, and last year the average cost per hearing was $1,420 per hearing.

What this great exaggeration is I don't know. Interesting to note that in the

great cries about patronage and so on, it has already been explained of their

error with Mr. Watton in Corner Brook. He has taken great personal exception to

that. The hon. members opposite might like to be reminded that when they were in

position the vice-chair at that point in time was the president of the PC

association for the District of Grand Falls that represents the hon. Leader of

the Opposition. I don't know what all the crying is about. The numbers are the

same and we will see what happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on behalf of residents of

Witless Bay, Tors Cove and the St. John's area. It reads:

`We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador

who wish to avail themselves of their right thus to present a grievance common

to the House of Assembly in the certain assurance that the House will therefore

provide a remedy' - and I will get to the immediate prayer:

`WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and

call upon Parliament 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, and as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, this government has set out to privatize

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at an exorbitant cost to the ratepayers and the

taxpayers of this Province, and they are trying to hide the increases twofold.

They are trying to hide it from the ratepayers of the Province, partially, and

partially from the taxpayers of this Province.

The bill that we are debating today, on which they have

invoked a gag order, three separate closure motions on the one bill, Bill 2, is

trying to facilitate the process for the privatization of Hydro. They are

addressing five specific points in Bill 2 that is opening the door for the

privatization of Hydro. The Premier says repeatedly it is to deal with the

regulation and control of electricity in this Province, and for power

emergencies.

Now, our party has agreed with the need to regulate and to

deal with power for power emergencies in the Province; we haven't disputed the

fact. What we do disagree with are five points that are being addressed to

facilitate the passing of Bill 1; in other words, in giving to the Public

Utilities Board the powers to give a return on profits to shareholders. All we

need in that bill is an opportunity for a company to maintain creditworthiness

on the market and to recover costs, not a healthy return in profit of almost 14

per cent to the shareholders in the new company that will be 80-some per cent

from outside this Province. Shareholders on Bay Street and eastern townships are

the people who are going to be the real beneficiaries of this specific piece of

legislation.

The Premier has told the people of this Province, in a

`householder' that went out: Your electricity rate will increase $1.50 per

month. He fails to tell us that he is basing it upon 700 kilowatt hours of

consumption, when Newfoundland Power today has 173,000 customers, households

with electricity, of which 99,000 have electric heat and 74,000 do not have

electric heat but have electricity. The average consumption by those households

is over 1,300 kilowatt hours. It is almost double the figures the Premier uses,

and that is not looking at other hidden costs that he fails to show.

Industrial consumers are going to face a considerable

increase after 1999. Yes, and the Member for Eagle River might add, in Labrador

it is going to be over a 30 per cent increase in electricity. The Premier's own

admission is 20 per cent. The Premier admits to 20 per cent; you can be safe in

adding on another 50 per cent and you would be very close to target.

Also, they are proposing that essential employees be moved

from the Labour Relations Board on to the Public Utilities Board, another step

in Bill 2 that is going to facilitate the privatization of Hydro. Also, they are

giving the Public Utilities Board the power to determine if a shareholder can

own even 100 per cent of the new company - anything over 20 per cent. The Public

Utilities Board will now have the power to determine whether somebody in

Montreal or Toronto can own, lock, stock and barrel, the new privatized Hydro -

that is there is Bill 2. And the Premier went out and stated last fall: `When we

privatize Hydro,' - `a maximum of 15 per cent by any one individual or

corporation.'

When the bill was tabled here in the House in late February,

it had 20 per cent maximum. Now, Bill 2 has indicated the Public Utilities Board

is going to have the opportunity to raise it to 30, 40, 50, 80, or 90 per cent.

That is stated in the bill, and it gives the Minister of Finance exorbitant

powers, that he doesn't even have to come back to this House of Assembly in

giving away the rights to water here in this Province. It gives one individual

that sole power. That is wrong; it is improper. The people of this Province

understand it. It has been demonstrated clearly in public opinion polls -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and support the petition put

forward by my hon. colleague, the Member for Ferryland.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province are

attempting to speak out against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro through

a petition here in the House. Once again, they are asking the government to slow

down; once again, they are asking the government to take a second look.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province spoke out in a poll

a few weeks ago, some 80 per cent against the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro. The Premier promised on a CBC TV debate that if the majority of the

people of the Province were against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro,

they would not proceed. That was not the case, Mr. Speaker, when he came back to

the House a few days later. Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province are asking

to have an opportunity to speak on this very important piece of legislation.

The Government House Leader, himself, said it is one of the

most important pieces of legislation brought before the House of Assembly since

Confederation, and still, the people of the Province are not having an

opportunity to have their say.

The changes that are before this House now with regard to

educational reforms or health care reforms or whatever, Mr. Speaker, if they,

for some reason or other, don't suit us in a couple of years time, we can go

back to the drawing board and start over again. The thing with Newfoundland

Hydro is that once it's privatized it's a done deal. We will never have enough

money to buy it back, and therefore, when it's sold it is gone forever - and

forever is a long, long time.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro is not a burden on this Province. Hydro

doesn't cost this Province one cent. As a matter of fact, we were making money

from Hydro somewhere up to $10-$12 million a year on the 1 per cent tax that

this government brought in in 1989. The Premier is trying to correct the

mistakes of the Upper Churchill contract and I applaud him in one regard, he is

trying to do something about the mess that was created in the 1960s. Then why

shouldn't he use part of the deal that sees $800 million a year go off to Quebec

while Newfoundland receives an insulting $8 million from that deal that was

done?

Mr. Speaker, the government of the day has no mandate to

proceed with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, no mandate whatsoever.

When the Premier was asked during the election campaign last year about the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, he told the people of the Province that it

was a nasty rumour put out by the Leader of the Opposition, that it was untrue,

that they weren't planning on privatizing Newfoundland Hydro. During the

election campaign, Mr. Speaker, he said it was a nasty rumour, but a few months

after the people of this Province gave him the government, he proceeded with the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we ask ourselves concerning the shares that will

be put on the market - and the Premier stands up and is pleased to announce that

Newfoundlanders will have the first opportunity to purchase the shares in the

new Hydro. At first it sounds good, Mr. Speaker, but then you ask yourself: Who

are going to buy the shares in Newfoundland Hydro? Who are the people who are

going to line up to buy the shares? Are they the thousands of people in this

Province now, and especially in my district, who are on compensation through the

fishery close-down? Are they going to be lining up to buy shares, Mr. Speaker? I

say not. Are they the thousands of people in this Province who have been forced

on social assistance by the economic policies of this government? Are they going

to be lining up to buy shares, Mr. Speaker? I say not. Are they the thousands of

teachers who have been put on the streets by this government over the past few

weeks? Are they going to be up buying shares in Newfoundland Hydro? I say not,

Mr. Speaker.

People are concerned about tomorrow; they're concerned about

next year and the year after. The money that will come from the sale of

Newfoundland Hydro will help our current account for a year, possibly a

year-and-a-half, Mr. Speaker. It has been announced here in the House several

times that we could get a year or a year-and-a-half from the sale of the shares

of Newfoundland Hydro. What about the years after that, Mr. Speaker? I plan to

stay around a lot longer then two years; maybe some of the members on the other

side of the House are not planning on staying around for long after that, but I

intend to. So I worry about after two years, not just two years down the road.

Another concern that I have, a concern in my district, Mr.

Speaker, is the elimination of the rural deficit. Under the privatization act,

government will pay New Hydro some $15 million to reduce the impact on the

customers of Newfoundland Light and Power caused by shifting the amount of the

rural deficit paid by industrial users to domestic users. The $15 million rate

reduction fund will allow for the gradual increase in domestic rates. After a

few years, domestic customers will pay the total cost of the rural deficit. So I

ask: Are the electricity rates in rural Newfoundland going to double over the

next couple of years? Are they going to triple? Who can tell us? Nobody seems to

know the answer to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may say just a word with

respect to the petition which my friend, the Member for Ferryland brought in.

I'm not going to get into the tedious repetition of the arguments we have heard

before and presumably will continue to hear again, but I want to make one point

to him, and have it on the record.

He objected, as I heard him, to the provisions of the first

part of clause 3 of the Electrical Power Control Act: "It is declared to be the

policy of the province" - and then it goes on, 3(a)(i), (

b) and (

c) and so on

down. I understood he objected to 3(

a) and in particular 3(a)(iii). What I would

point out to him is, I just took the trouble to check the present Electrical

Power Control Act, which has been on the books certainly for about twenty years,

maybe a little shorter, maybe a little longer, but of that order, placed there,

as I recollect, by a PC administration, if that is of any relevance.

I say to him that the wording found in

section

3(a)(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Electrical Power Control Act is precisely the same as

the wording found in

section 3(a)(

b) and (

c) of the present Electrical Power

Control Act, with only one difference: we have dropped the reference to Hydro,

which is not necessary any longer once Hydro is privatized.

Other than that, the policy set out and declared in 3(

a) of

the Electrical Power Control Act is word for word the same, Mr. Speaker, as that

found in the Electrical Power Control Act that has been on the books of this

Province for ten, fifteen, twenty years and which will be replaced by this new

act which has now, of course, been moved forward a long way in the House of

Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have a petition to present?

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition signed by some 484 residents from the south

shore of Green Bay. It is a petition to the house of Assembly and it reads as

follows:

`We, the undersigned, do hereby express our dissatisfaction

with the government's proposed model for reforming our education system.

Specifically, we object to any means whereby our rights as citizens of the

Province and this country regarding denominational education may be jeopardized.

Furthermore, we are calling upon the government to allow a free vote in the

House of Assembly on any legislation to restructure the Province's education

system and request our politicians to vote against any legislation that is in

violation of our constitutional rights and would result in the demise of our

Pentecostal schools.'

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this petition is signed by 484

residents. I guess, most or all of them would be Pentecostal citizens of Green

Bay. They come from the communities of Pilley's Island, Triton, Robert's Arm,

Miles Cove, Port Anson and Brighton. All of the parents here would be involved

in the system that sees either feeder schools feed into R.W. Parson's Collegiate

in Robert's Arm, or actually have people going or bused to that particular

school.

This is not the first time I've presented a petition on

behalf of Pentecostal citizens of Green Bay, who are concerned that under the

government's current restructuring program, their right as guaranteed under the

Constitution of Canada would be taken away with regard to the governance of

schools. It has been the position of the Official Opposition for some time that

many needed reforms in education can be achieved without taking away

denominational rights enjoyed by various classes of people in this Province.

These are, as we all know, very difficult times in the

education system. We are going through a very difficult labour relations period

right now and I don't think the government has done much of late to improve that

situation. Indeed, there are arguments to be made that they've done their best

to make it worse. With certain budgetary restraints being imposed on the

education system, we are seeing a large number of teachers being laid off and

small schools being closed. This particular structural change, as well, will

have a very negative effect on the number of teachers in our system in that

reducing vastly the number of school boards and their associated personnel will

mean additional layoffs of dozens if not hundreds of teachers throughout this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that needed reforms can be brought

about to the educational system under the existing jurisdiction of the Minister

of Education and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not need to

get into a totally confrontational system where one church or the other, be it

Pentecostal or Roman Catholic, is in a position where they feel obliged to take

the government to court to protect their constitutional rights.

Over the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker, there has been some

talk in the media of some give and take between the government and churches and

I commend government for this, although I must say, I was somewhat taken aback

when there was a positive expression from the Pentecostal officials some days

ago, that did not seem to be shared by the Premier and his ministers. One would

hope that this particular situation, like the outstanding labour problem with

which we are dealing now, can be resolved at the bargaining table without

further confrontation, Mr. Speaker, without people resorting to extremes,

without people having to go to court.

One hopes that this government will see fit to respect

people's rights, people's constitutional rights, bring a proper attitude to the

table, and with regard to Pentecostal citizens of my district and the Province

generally, and others who have a vested interest in denominational education,

see their rights protected and dealt with properly and appropriately at the

bargaining table.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and support

the petition presented by my colleague and to say to the hon. House that the

prayer of the petition is that people are wanting to be heard. People are asking

for tolerance, they are asking for understanding, they are urging the government

to continue the dialogue, to seek the avenues that lead to consensus-building

and to try to find a compromise between the various opinions that are held by

different religious groups in the Province under restructuring of the

educational system.

Mr. Speaker, the consequences of our not finding a consensus,

an agreeable consensus acceptable, in other words, to all parties, is going to

be of great detriment to all the children of this Province. If we don't find an

agreement between the churches and the government, we are going to be looking at

years of political wrangling and years of legal wrangling and the only people

who are going to make any kind of progress in the meantime will be the lawyers.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the government, an agreement is possible. You only

have to listen to the tones of the church representatives, in the past few

weeks, led by the former Minister of Education, Dr. Phil Warren, who is doing

his best to try to bring together the various groups and to try to find a way in

which we can make progress, so that we can get on with the reforms.

Our party supports reforms in education; however, we have

said repeatedly that we do not support a non-consensual arrangement that will

take away the rights of people as they enjoy them under Term 17 of the Terms of

Confederation. So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the government and to the ministry,

that they should be looking with more positive commentary on the initiatives

that were put forward by Pastor Batstone on behalf of the Pentecostal

Assemblies, Newfoundland and Labrador, and also the comments made recently by

Mr. Fallon of the Roman Catholic Educational Committee and try to find a way to

be accommodating, to get the reforms we need, to make education in this Province

one of the leading institutions in Atlantic Canada and, for that matter, in the

whole of the country. Because we owe it to the children not to tie up these

reforms in years and years of dialogue that will lead to nothing more than a

confrontation that will be long-lasting and will keep on going for the next

generations.

Thank you very much.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Pursuant to Standing Order 21, I move that

Orders of the Day now be read.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House not

adjourn at five o'clock this evening.

Motion carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of certainty,

and in the expectation that hon. gentlemen opposite will be as good as their

word and will continue to filibuster, I move that the House not adjourn at 10:00

o'clock tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: It is further moved and seconded that the

House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour of the motion.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Since the Government House Leader used the

term, `good as our word', can I ask the Government House Leader, will he be good

as his word when he told us yesterday we will be debating, first of all, the

Social Estimates Committee Report, Concurrence Report, and then doing the

closure motion?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will most certainly stand by

the program of business that I outlined here in the House yesterday. My

recollection is quite different from the hon. gentleman's, so I have asked that

Hansard be typed.

MR. SIMMS: What did you say?

MR. ROBERTS: I said that we would deal with the

concurrence motions starting with the Social Services one. We shall start first

with the Social Services one, but the commitments I made will, of course -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) will be doing tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: We will get the Hansard - that is why we

have Hansard.

MR. SIMMS: You were trying to trick us yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman, if I may to the point of

order, is the one who stood up last night and with great glee announced that he

had tricked everybody. I am simply honouring the commitments I made here in the

House openly and on the record, and we will deal with them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a motion before the House that we not adjourn at

10:00 p.m.

Motion, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask you to call Order

3(

a) which is the concurrence motion on the Social Services Committee and, in so

doing, perhaps we could place on the record an arrangement -

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing as the

Government House Leader coming in here two or three times in the last week and

bringing in closure, cutting off all rules relative to democracy in this House

of Assembly; but for the Government House Leader to get up this evening and deny

the commitment that he made yesterday to all members of the House, which affects

your privilege - probably I should be rising on that - to withdraw that

commitment he made, and to stand and make three motions basically, the first

motion was to cut off presentation of petitions in this House. He stopped that,

Mr. Speaker, by motion this afternoon.

Next he got up and announced that the House not close at

5:00, which is not normal - the House always closes at 5:00. Then, he put

another motion that the House not close at 10:00. Mr. Speaker, what we are

seeing, I believe, is the Minister of Justice, under instructions from the

Premier of this Province, bringing to a standstill what this House is all about,

bringing democracy totally to a standstill.

Your Honour, I submit, that should not be allowed to

continue. Rules may be rules, but democracy must be allowed to work in an

institution that is built for that purpose, and the Government House Leader

should not be a bully. I submit to Your Honour, what is happening is that the

Premier wants to bring in closure to pass the Hydro sale in this Province and to

lock the doors of this Legislature as soon as he possibly can, particularly

while the teachers' strike is on the go, so that no one can ask any questions.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think he should be allowed to get away

with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the point of order, I will hear the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, I will be very

brief, Mr. Speaker. Democracy, as with any proper system of government - and

democracy is the one we have and that we all support - democracy depends upon

the rule of law, not the mob rule that my friend, the Member for Grand Bank - I

am sorry, for Burin - Placentia West advocates. I apologize to my friend, the

Member for Grand Bank, both for misrepresenting his name, but I also I keep

confusing him, and that is a disservice to my friend, the Member for Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, what I say is that the motions I have made are,

in my submission, perfectly in accordance with the rules of this House. My

friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West made no reference to any

precedent, rule, Standing Order or practice that has been abridged in any way.

I will say again, the commitments I made in the House last

night at the close of business at 10:30 p.m., or whenever the filibuster ground

to an inglorious halt, those commitments will be honoured.

The point of order has to be disposed of first.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order -

MR. SIMMS: You still didn't tell us what your commitment

was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have Standing Orders. It is not the Government House

Leader, it is the House which decides whether or not to vary from those, and it

is in the form of motions to the House; and if the House chooses to do so, as it

has under several of these, then, of course, although we are varying from

practice, it is quite acceptable and proper.

As to whether or not the Government House Leader made any

commitments last night, Hansard would reveal that, but whether or not they are

enforceable in the House is another question.

In any event, there is no point of order, and I believe I was

in the middle of putting the motion that we not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you would call

Order 3.(

a) and, in so doing, I would ask if we could place on the record an

agreement reached just recently between my friend, the Member for Grand Bank and

myself, I believe, in respect of our respective parties. I certainly speak for

our crowd, and I believe, he, for his. I didn't have an opportunity to speak to

my friend, the Member for St. John's East. He will be able, obviously, to speak.

Normally, Concurrence debates are in the - not normally -

they are in the whole House with the Speaker in the Chair, and the normal rule

would allow each person thirty minutes with no right to speak again. The

suggestion which we would put, and if there is unanimous consent, would govern

it, would be ten and ten, with a member allowed to speak more than once if he or

she can -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) for years.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I know we have been doing it for years,

but the rules are the rules. If we have no rules, we have the kind of chaos that

presided when my friend was in the Chair, my friend, the Member for Grand Falls,

probably the worst Speaker we have ever seen.

What I ask is if this agreement represents -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is if there is

consent from the House to implement this arrangement this year. If there is,

fine; if there isn't, we will carry on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will recognize one of the other hon. members afterwards, if

you wish.

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

It is kind of hard to know when you have been recognized

here, with the gibberish coming from the Member for Eagle River. I say to him,

it doesn't take long before you see an about turn. You can't get the doors of

the House locked soon enough, I say to the Member for Eagle River. That is what

today is all about in this House, locking the door so that people can't come

into the galleries and witness what this government is trying to do - that's

what you are doing, that's the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And you know that every day there are

going to be more and more come into the House - that's the problem, I say to the

Member for Eagle River. Stifle debate, cut off debate, close the House, that's

what this is about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier came back last night and

gave the marching orders to the Government House Leader, that's what happened -

get her shut down and get out of here; we are smarting too badly. We are hurting

too badly, with the labour situation and the privatization of Hydro, which you

have lost so badly on. That is what this is about, Mr. Speaker - shut her down

and get out.

It is not going to work, because one of those days that door

is going to come open in a manner that is not going to be too pleasant, I say to

the Government House Leader - if he doesn't change his tactics, I say to him and

to the Premier. If you don't change your tactics, that is what we are going to

see here in this Province, and you are inciting it. You are a dictator, and the

Premier is a dictator.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's what he is, then! That's what he is!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Back to the point, Mr. Speaker, we will

concur and agree with the arrangement we made, ten minutes with an intervening

speaker, you can speak again, as we have done the last three, four, five years.

It is nothing new, so we will agree with that. I don't know if the Member for

St. John's East will agree, who needs, I guess, to give his blessing to this. We

will agree to that, and we hope the Government House Leader keeps his word and

that once the Social Services Estimates Concurrence Debate is finished, we will

go to the closure motion which he undertook to do last night.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear the Member for St. John's East and then put the

motion, in form, to the House.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, regarding the suggestion, it is

very difficult to agree sometimes when someone gets up and can't resist taking

stabs at people across the House, casting aspersions on former Speakers and all

this kind of thing. It seems as if, sometimes, you are being asked to agree with

all of that when you are asked to agree to a simple procedure that has been

followed by this House year after year since I've been in here. I have no

difficulty with that, but I certainly have a lot of difficulty with the way the

Government House Leader introduces this kind of suggestion.

As far as the point, itself, goes: Will we agree to have a

ten and ten back and forth as we've done last year and the year before and the

year before that? yes, Mr. Speaker, we will agree.

MR. SPEAKER: I will put it in the form of a motion to the

House.

Is it the wish of the House that the Debate in Concurrence be

limited to ten minutes per member and not thirty?

All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded `nay'.

Motion unanimously carried.

Order 3(a): Concurrence Motion on Social Services Committee.

The Chairman of the Committee was the hon. the Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. I will recognize him first.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to stand and introduce the Concurrence

Motion on the Social Services Committee. As you know, the Social Services

Committee is comprised of members of all groups of this House. The lady, the

Member for Humber East, is the Vice-Chair of it and my friend, the Member for

St. John's East is a member, as well as my colleagues here, the Members for Port

au Port, Fortune - Hermitage and Terra Nova, and that is the Committee. So we

can say that everybody has a chance to have input into this Committee.

We passed the Estimates of five departments: Social Services,

Justice, Health, Education, Environment and Lands. When we start this

Concurrence Debate, and I understand we have three hours now, that we will be

for the next three hours discussing it, I would like to point out to the members

of the House that we've already had in excess of nineteen hours passing the

Estimates of those five departments. I don't intend to take a long time at this

but I would just like to make a couple of points about them.

The Department of Social Services: There is 13.6 per cent of

the total Budget spent on Social Services in this Province. Health: There is

24.5 per cent of the total expenditures of the Budget spent on Health, and 23.2

per cent of the total Budget spent on Education. So our total Budget expenditure

in dollars is in excess of $3.1 billion. On those three departments - Education,

Health, and Social Services - we spend 61 per cent of our total Budget; or in

other words, $1.9 billion out of the total government spending goes on those

three departments.

The nineteen hours that we spent in debating them, I feel,

were well-deserved hours, because we are spending in excess of 60 per cent of

our Budget on those departments for which this Committee examines the Estimates.

I feel that certainly the time was not wasted. The members asked good questions

and the ministers were able to justify the expenditures and gave good answers,

as far as I'm concerned. I know, my friends on the other side of the House will

have something to say, that they didn't get all the answers they want, but I

guess that is democracy. The Opposition never gets all the answers. We, in the

government, feel that the ministers did an admirable job defending the estimates

of their departments.

So, I think we have done a good job, so far, on the

estimates. When you take into consideration, as I said, that two-thirds of the

Budget, possibly, is discussed and passed by this Committee, without amendment,

it says that it was well examined. We had in excess of three hours. We usually

set three hours for each of those departments. We ran a little over on most of

them. On Environment and Lands, the members were so interested in questioning

the minister that we had six hours. All in all, we've had - the questions have

been asked. So when you talk about democracy being stifled here this afternoon,

I don't think that is the case.

We have had over nineteen hours discussing the estimates of

those departments right now and I've just started off on the Concurrence Debate,

so we have another three hours now. Maybe if the members felt that they didn't

have all the questions answered that they asked in committees now would be the

time. So I would like to thank the committee who helped me to get those

estimates through the House. We worked normally very well together without too

many problems, too much fighting and all that sort of thing, it went rather

smoothly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I'll conclude and let the members

get on with asking those burning questions that they have.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Vice-Chair of the committee I'd like to agree with the

remarks of the Chair, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and commend him on a

fine job of chairing the committee. The committee members, as the Chair

indicated, representing all parties in the House and a good cross

section of

members, cooperated well. There was harmony on the committee.

The only disappointment in the process this year that I

noticed was an almost total neglect by the news media. In former years

participants in Estimates Committee meetings complained that some of the news

media were not covering the committee but in my memory, always before, at least

The Evening Telegram faithfully covered Estimates Committee meetings.

This year however, in the case of the Social Services Estimate Committee with

one possible exception, I'm not even sure of that, the news media simply didn't

send reporters to the committee hearings and that's a shame because the

Estimates Committee meetings are the best chance that members have to engage in

detailed and lengthy discussion about departmental policies and programs as well

as spending details.

The Social Services Estimates Committee had wide ranging

discussions about public policy and about a whole range of very important

issues, current problems as well as challenges and opportunities that are

anticipated for the future. As the Chair indicated, the five departments that

fall within the purview of the Social Services Committee spend over 60 per cent

of the government budget, over $2 billion, and have responsibility for the

important government services of Health, Education, Social Services and Justice.

Curiously, Environment and Lands is included in the departments for which the

Social Services Committee is responsible. I suppose there is a social dimension

but Environment and Lands could just as logically or maybe more sensibly be

included with resource policy. The Department of Municipal Affairs and the

Housing Corporation, which in my mind, are more obviously social, are the

responsibility of a different committee.

In examination of the Social Services Estimates as well as

the Education Estimates, I question the ministers about an apparent lack of

integration and cooperation. Obviously, the issues for which the Departments of

Health, Education and Social Services are responsible are interrelated. If

Education and Social Services programs are effective then there'll be less of a

demand on the health system and vice-versa. There are close correlations but the

departments appear to be working in some degree of isolation. There doesn't seem

to be the kind of cohesion that there should be.

In examining Social Services it was startling to realize that

in the five years of the Wells' `real change' administration, the welfare roles

have grown enormously. In May of 1989 when the Wells administration came to

office and the current Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was

Minister of Social Services, the social assistance caseload - and when I say

caseload I'm using a technical term meaning the number of family units, and a

family unit may be one single individual or it may be a group of five, it may be

a married couple with three children - the caseload in May of 1989 was under

20,000. It was 19,600. The Minister of Social Services of the day said that 4100

of the caseload were considered to be healthy and able to work, able-bodied is

the jargon.

The percentage of the 1989 welfare caseload considered able

to work was 20 per cent and the spending on social assistance then was just over

$100 million. Now, in the spring of 1994, five short years later, we see a

social assistance caseload of 35,000. It was under 20,000 when the Wells

administration came into office and now it is over 35,000, an astronomical,

shocking, rise.

The current minister told the committee that of the 35,000

welfare cases, of the 35,000 family units in this Province who have been reduced

to living on social assistance, 11,000 are healthy and able to work. That is one

third, thirty-three and a third per cent. Spending on welfare five years ago was

$100 million and it is projected to be over $200 million this year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the projections for the year ahead are

quite unrealistic. They do not take into account the people who are going to

come off UI because of the federal cutbacks in UI, and neither do they take into

account the people who come off TAGS, DFO, or HRD compensation. The social

assistance projections for the year ahead were made up before TAGS was even

announced, and the projections really -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: TAGS I say to the minister. In the case of UI

I was just coming to that. While the minister claims that the UI changes were

factored into the estimate for the year ahead the calculations are really quite

unrealistic. The calculations assume that a large percentage of people who will

lose out on UI because of the cutbacks will not have to go on social assistance.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: The Minister of Treasury Board is saying that

the big effect is the year after. Well, we will see. This time last year I was

on my feet in the House saying that the estimate for social assistance spending

was unrealistically low, just as it had been for the two years previous, and I

predicted that we would be back here in the fall with the government looking for

a special warrant, and that happened. Last fall the government came and got a

special warrant for $20 million, and I think they got another special warrant

for a few million after that.

Five years ago we had under 20,000 on the welfare caseload

and right now it is 35,000, 35,000 before the negative fallout from the UI

changes and the fisheries package, 35,000 cases, 35,000 family units which must

translate into 80,000 individuals, children, women, men. Now, 11,000 of the

cases, presumably family heads, or adults on social assistance, are considered

by the minister to be able to work. Well, what effort is the department making,

what numbers are provided in the Budget for spending on employment opportunities

for these healthy people on social assistance, for these welfare recipients who

are able to work?

Well five years ago, spending on employment opportunities was

$18,700,000; $18.7 million. That was close to 18 per cent - 17 or 18 per cent -

of the spending on social assistance. What is projected for the new budget year

is a surprising reduction, down to under $15 million; in percentage terms,

probably 7 per cent of the welfare estimate.

Now there is no logic for this; there is no logic at all. Why

would the government be budgeting spending more, in percentage terms as well as

absolute terms, on straight social assistance and less on employment

opportunities when there are so many people on social assistance healthy, able

to work, wanting to work, and there is so much that needs to be done in the

Province. It just doesn't make any sense.

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to

address a couple of the items mentioned by the hon. Member for Humber East.

The Member for Humber East seems shocked, surprised,

astonished, over the fact that the caseload has increased so emphatically over

the past few years, I say to the hon. member, trying to give the impression,

somehow, that this is the only place in Canada that this is happening, somehow

trying to give the impression that we are isolated from the rest of Canada, that

we, in this Province, are unaffected by the economic malaise which has gripped

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, looking at it realistically, the effort by this

Province, the effort by this government, outstrips, outperforms, any other

government in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: It is only because of the fiscal policies of

this government that they aren't any worse. It is because of the policies of

this government that we find our caseload being where it is as opposed to being

triple or double what they are.

Mr. Speaker, there has been no time in our history when we

have been hit with such an economic calamity as we have today. Now I am not

proud of it, but to hear hon. members berate, to hear hon. members get over

there and in political rhetoric to suggest that there is something scandalous

about this, that it relates to the economic performance of the government, that

is the thing that I want to address.

Mr. Speaker, we ought not to be proud of the fact that our

caseload is right now at 35,000. We ought not to be proud of that.

MR. TOBIN: 35,000?

MR. LUSH: The caseload right now is in the area of

35,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much is able-bodied?

MR. LUSH: How much is able-bodied? About 11,000.

Mr. Speaker, that has been brought about by the economic

downturn, first of all, in the economy, generally in Canada. Canada is gripped

with one of the worst economic problems ever to hit the country. On top of that,

and that always affects us, we were hit with the cod moratorium. So, Mr.

Speaker, it is not difficult to understand why the caseload is where it is

today.

The hon. member talks about the effort of the governments of

the past, the government of which she was a part, in terms of employment

strategy, spending $18 million and today, with an increase in the caseload, that

we are spending $15 million. Somehow the hon. member tries to draw a conclusion,

because of the discrepancy in the amount that that government spent on

employment initiatives as opposed to what this government is spending, somehow

that that government was more effective. That was the generalization, that was

the conclusion the hon. member was trying to make.

Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows all that was happening

there was that we had people on a wheel. They were on a wheel; they were on

social assistance and then they were given a job and they worked their ten

weeks, then they went to UI, then they exhausted their UI, back to social

assistance, then, Mr. Speaker, they were on working again for ten weeks and so

it went. People weren't doing anything, we weren't creating any jobs and the

reason why, Mr. Speaker, the reason why there is -

MR. TOBIN: What are they on now?

MR. LUSH: What are they on now? They are now on a program

to train; they are now on a two-prong program. One for training and one for

work. Hopefully, through these two programs training, academic training, on the

job training, hopefully, that through the Strategic Economic Plan hopefully,

there are going to be some jobs out there.

Now I am not a pessimist like hon. members crying out all the

time: where are the jobs, where are the jobs? I mean, if that is the kind of

mentality that we were in, goodness, we wouldn't be doing anything! No, Mr.

Speaker, this government has a Strategic Economic Plan that believes that

private enterprise is the engine that is going to get the economy going, not the

government spending $18 million or $20 million, year after year, with people on

the wheel just going round and round. We believe that the way we are going to

break that cycle is to provide training, provide training, provide education and

meaningful work, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. LUSH: Yes, we are going to have some of the jobs that

were around in the past little while, but to train people. I see the hon. Member

for Kilbride shaking his head; he doesn't believe in training, does he? He

doesn't believe that we should be training our people, we should just send them

on this wheel all the time. Social assistance, make work programs, UI, social

assistance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: - going no where and getting nothing done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

To the point of order, if the Minister of Social Services

wishes to make some irresponsible comment about what I believe or what I do not

believe in, maybe, he should ask me the question first. If his government is

talking about the types of training opportunities that they are providing to the

people in this Province, we don't have to look very far. Let us look at the

recent decisions on student aid; let's look at why people on social services -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - let's look at why people on social

services are not eligible -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member is just taking an

opportunity to take

part in the debate and the rules say that we have ten

minutes back and forth across the House so the hon. member will have an

opportunity to speak in the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the lower amount of

money on employment is because the government doesn't believe in the philosophy,

the philosophical approach of the previous government. It believes that the

government is not the agency, is not the people for creating jobs, it believes

that this is done by private enterprise and we have moved away from these futile

make-work programs that did nothing to enhance the permanent employment of a

person, did nothing to enhance or improve on their skills and that's the

emphasis today and that simply, is the explanation.

The hon. member might differ, he might not agree but I am

explaining to the hon. member the reason for the difference, it's a

philosophical reason, it's a difference in a philosophical approach, and one

hopes that it is going to work. Whether it will, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea. I

am hoping that it will because I happen to believe that people trained are

better than untrained people. I believe it is better to train a person to make

them more qualified to enter the labour force, the marketplace than to send them

out there the way they are now, unskilled, and to compensate for that simply

just to give them these futile make-work programs.

Again I say to the hon. member, there were some good work

programs. That is why we are not scrapping them in their entirety. Because there

were some good make-work programs done in several rural areas throughout the

Province that without these programs they would not have been done. The

questions is, is that the right thing for the people doing them? Is this the

kind of thing that is going to make these people productive citizens in the

future? That is simply the reason for why there is less money there. It is a

philosophical approach. With emphasis on training, with emphasis on the fact

that the government is not the agency to create jobs, that this should be done

by private enterprise.

The member suggests that the projections for Social Services,

the amount of monies budgeted for this year, are maybe not enough to get us

through the year. I think she used some rather stronger terms saying that they

were probably way off the mark. That may be so, Mr. Speaker. When a budget is

done the people doing the budget factor in the global factors that they know

about at the time and make certain projections and that is what is done. These

things were done.

As for the UI changes, yes, they were factored in. TAGS

(inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and make a

few comments on some of the topics that were discussed in the Committee

deliberations. First of all I would like to talk a little bit about the

section

3.4.03 of the Education Estimates. That deals with Tuition and Allowances.

We've had a lot of discussion in this House in recent months

about the student aid program. We know that on Budget Day the students of this

Province representing the colleges in this area and the University came to the

Ministry seeking answers to questions that they had about the future of the

student aid program. At that time these students were sent over to the

Department of Education. They missed the whole Budget presentation. After that

the minister and his officials met with the student aid committee that the

minister at long last found out really existed. They've begun to work out some

details. However, in my most recent discussions with the representative of

student aid, the Council of Students Union at MUN, and representatives of the

colleges, tells me that there has been no real finalization of the student aid

program.

We want to point out to the minister today that it is this

time of the year when the great majority of the students of this Province start

submitting their applications for student aid. In fact the history of the

student aid program will show that the great majority of the student aid

applications get presented between the middle of May and the last of June, and

that decisions are necessary to be rendered by the first week in August so that

students will know what aid they are going to get and how they are going to

finance next year's college or next year's University program.

When we look at the estimates we see that they have been

dropped from $20 million down to $9 million. We have an $11 million drop. We

have to question the commitment that the government has to students who need

that help. Particularly those students who come from families that cannot really

support them they way that they would like. We have students today who are

calling into the student aid division asking: What is going to be the game plan

for the financing of my education in September? The people in student aid have

to tell them that they don't quite know yet.

That is not good enough. If we have a commitment to the

students of this Province it is necessary for us at this stage, the middle of

May, to be able to tell all of the students what the rules are going to be.

While the Ministry has put out the idea that there is going to be more money

available for loans, we have to say to the ministry that we have great concerns

about the way it is going to be done. There are some talks that the real

decision makers are going to be the banks. That is it going to be an example of

privatization again? We know that in Nova Scotia, for example, 700 students were

turned down when they went to the banks looking for loans through the student

loan application where, in Nova Scotia, the program is already privatized. We

have some concerns with that.

I say to the minister today that he should be trying to

finalize a program, make it so that it is ably communicated to all the students,

to their parents, so that every family in this Province who has a son or a

daughter who wants to go to college next year, they will know what the ground

rules are and what financing is available and through what means, and to whom

they should apply.

Mr. Speaker, as well I want to comment on

section 2.401 of

the Department of Education estimates. This deals with student support services.

This is money allocated for the development, the implementation and evaluation

of programs for special needs children.

Over the past several years we have heard people say over and

over again that one of the greatest impediments to education in this Province is

the fact that we have so many students who need special help, students who have

behavioural problems, students who have learning disabilities of various types,

but the government decreases the funding from $617,000 down to, I think it is

$589,000.

We have to have a greater commitment, not a lessening of the

commitment, particularly if we are saying in rural Newfoundland, where we are

going to be having the problem of the 2 per cent savings clause being

eliminated, what that means to special programs. So we are saying to the

government: Look at your commitment to special needs children. These are the

children who are most at risk in your school system. Do the right thing; don't

decrease the funding available to special needs children. Instead, would the

government look at making more programs available so that education in the

Province becomes available to everybody in an equal fashion.

Mr. Speaker, as well I want to comment on, in a positive way,

the funding for distance education. I forget the exact

section here, but there

is an allocation for distance education, 2.204. I say to the minister, this is

one of the very positive things in his program. I understand that there are

sixty-four centres which are now working with distance education. That is a very

positive thing. We encourage it. We know that there can be some improvements in

that program; the minister is aware of it. This is an initiative of the minister

and his government that is in the right direction. It is getting quality

education out to schools in the more rural parts of the Province, and more

isolated sections, and the minister is to be encouraged to continue that.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the minister as well that in terms of

distance education we have to look at trying to put our library resources by

computer available to all the schools in the Province. I did note, in my notes,

as a consequence of our meetings, the fact that the library boards are going to

be restructured in such a way that schools are going to be an integrated part of

the public library system. This is an excellent approach. I remember many, many

years ago saying to the Public Libraries Board that we should be integrating the

public libraries with the school libraries. Today with technology available, I

say to the minister that that's the route to go. That's a positive thing because

I remember when I made the comments and I was a member of the Public Libraries

Board in the City of Mount Pearl saying to the board: we have to put the

resources in the public library to supplement the school curriculum. They didn't

want to do it but this is changing. The minister is to be complimented for that

direction. I would like to look forward to the day when every public library in

this Province is on a technology network whereby every child in his/her own

community, regardless of how small it is, can have access to the kind of

resources that we would have available in the bigger communities. So, Mr.

Speaker, that's a positive direction. It's to be encouraged and I say to the

minister, as much as I disagree with his indecision on student aid and his

dropping of funding for special needs education, I encourage him for his

distance education policy and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - his initiatives on the distance education

and other initiatives, I'll speak on in my next commentary.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say just a few words in this debate

if I may, with reference to the order of business for the day and if members

would allow me to, I can make it relevant to the Social Services Concurrence

Debate if we wish.

I've checked the Hansard from last night at 10:30 p.m.,

whenever it was the House adjourned, and the fact of the record is the record

has no facts with respect to the business for today. I was not asked nor did I

say anything that Hansard recorded. All that Hansard records is that I gave

notice of a closure motion and that the House then adjourn.

Now, I have a recollection of being asked by one or more of

the members opposite, after the Speaker left the Chair, what would the

government be proposing today and of responding to that by saying concurrence

motions, plural, and then being asked in what order? I said, we'll take them in

the order that are on the Order Paper starting with social services.

Now hon. gentlemen opposite, one gathers, have a different

recollection and I accept that. I believe the hon. gentleman from Burin -

Placentia West, I believe him. He has a different recollection. Now only one of

us, at most, is correct and the problem is, there is no record. One of the

reasons why I put things on the record in the House is so all of us know where

we are and can deal accordingly.

Now, we had originally planned to invite the House to do all

three concurrence debates today but because there is no record and because we're

all reasonable people, my friend from Grand Bank and I have met - I was going to

say behind the Chair - but instead he came over and just tried out the Premier's

chair here, I would say to my friend from Grand Falls, which is one my friend

from Grand Falls has done - but the gentleman from Grand Bank and I have put our

heads together and my suggestion will be, if my colleagues so authorize me, that

we will do -

MR. SIMMS: Ed, I've been as close to that Chair as you

have.

MR. ROBERTS: I agree, the difference is I don't intend to

get any closer and the hon. gentleman won't get any closer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I could carry on.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're on the record now.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let there no doubt that this

member will not be a candidate again for the leadership of this party or any

other party. Let there be no doubt about it - I've been down that road a number

of times.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why it is that

when I get up, even in my modest, reasonable, humble way they're at me like

dogs. Like dogs with a fillet mignon, they just can't resist.

Now, let me come back - we were doing very well until my

friend from Grand Falls came back into the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, let me come

back to the point. We will ask the House today, assuming my colleagues on this

side concur, to deal with Concurrence Motion 3(a), on the social services

committee which we are now debating, Concurrence Motion 3(

b) which is the

resource committee. We will then call Order No. 4, which is the third reading of

the electrical power - the filibuster third reading by my friend from Grand

Falls - and when that's dealt with we'll deal with it.

In addition to that, so that members can arrange their

private arrangements as it were, what one of my colleagues once called spousal

affairs. We will suggest that the House adjourn at 6:00 p.m. for an hour so that

members can either go out to take their meal or come back and dine in the

palatial splendours of the Opposition Common Room or the Government Common Room,

as may be the case.

That is the arrangement my friend for Grand Bank and I have

worked out. If it is not suitable to all members we won't follow it. That is

what I suggest is the way to resolve this. Perhaps he and I in the future will

both be more precise. If I forget to say what we are doing in the morrow he will

ask, and if he doesn't ask, I shall say. That is my understanding, Mr. Speaker.

With that said I commend the Estimates to the House of the

departments of... not to the departments. In fact, estimates stand in the name

of the ministers. I commend to the House the modest requests made by my friends

and colleagues whose departmental estimates are gathered severally in the Social

Services Committee heading. Obviously the requests are modest. We wish we could

do more. We believe we are doing well with the money that we are asking the

House to provide us. Our one regret is that we can't do more, but given the

legacy given to us and given the economic realities, it is really the very best

that we can do. Thank you, Sir.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just to further this discussion.

I don't want there to be an impression left that the Opposition House Leader

agreed to hear debate on the two estimate committees. I don't think that is

quite the correct -

MR. ROBERTS: He certainly did. Now if he didn't, let the

hon. gentleman say it.

MR. SIMMS: I don't think that is quite the correct

interpretation. That might be his

interpretation.

MR. ROBERTS: Let the hon. gentleman -

MR. SIMMS: Just let me finish now. I say to the

Government House Leader, just relax. He spends a lot of time lecturing us. Maybe

he would be wise to listen for a change himself.

Mr. Speaker, I think what the Opposition House Leader said

was in response to what the Government House Leader said, which was: I will only

do two of the estimate committees and we will take an hour break. He said:

Perfect, great. Referring to the hour break for dinner. But it is your decision

how many estimate committees you put through the House.

Anyway, that is irrelevant. He can do what he wants. The

question I would like him to answer for the House if he can answer it - I can

understand why the government would want to push closure through and use closure

on the Electrical Power Control Act and so on and so forth. We all understand

that controversy and that issue. What I don't understand is why the Government

House Leader is trying to ram through and rush through the normal concurrence

debates on the Estimates committee. What is the rationale for rushing all of

that through? Why couldn't he do those on normal days, Thursday, Friday, or

whatever? It just escapes me. Unless there is some agenda that you want to get

out of the House as quickly as you possibly can, or something like that. I don't

know why you would be doing it. I think it is a fair question.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that if

I misunderstood what my friend for Grand Bank said I apologize to him. I

understood him to say that he had agreed to the proposal I put forward. His

Leader says he didn't, therefore I assume he didn't. I don't quarrel with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, of course.

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

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

very brief -

MR. SPEAKER: I assume we are on points of order now, are

we?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can say point of order, Mr. Speaker,

if you want. What in essence transpired is that the Government House Leader

called me down to sit next to him and he said he had reviewed the tapes. There

was no recording of what transpired last night.

MR. SIMMS: I just reviewed them as well.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I think there is no doubt -

MR. SIMMS: It happened after the adjournment.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - that the Government House Leader is

right about that. It did happen after the Speaker left the Chair when there was

an exchange across the House of what we were going to do today.

Then the Government House Leader went on to say that he

proposed to do two committees tonight, not three. I was of the understanding, by

the way, to the Government House Leader, that we were going to do the three

concurrence debates tonight. Maybe that was not a proper understanding, but I

certainly had that impression from the Government House Leader from earlier

today, that we were doing the three concurrence estimates debates tonight, and

then depending on what time was left the Government House Leader would call the

closure motion. Whatever time was left we would be finished by perhaps 1:00 a.m.

When the Government House Leader told me he was going to do

the two committees and I asked him which two, and he said: Whatever order they

are on the Order Paper, which I looked at and found that Resource was after the

Social Services Committee. He then proposed to have an hour for supper which I

thought was excellent, and am grateful for that. Because I think all members

like to get out of here for an hour. That was it. I said: Perfect. Not an

agreement that I agreed we would do two committees tonight. No, that wasn't -

the Government House Leader offered and said: I will do two committees tonight.

I said very good. I thought he was going to do three, I say to him, and I think

he knows that too.

It is not worth getting into a spat over. The Government

House Leader is going to do two and we are going to have an hour for supper and

I think that is what it is. The Leader of the Opposition's question as to why

the Government House Leader is doing what he is doing, I guess that is up to the

Government House Leader to decide or explain, but it is kind of strange. I felt,

from where I was, that doing two concurrence debates tonight was a lot better

than doing three, and having an hour for supper was a big improvement over not

having an hour. I said I can live with that.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank my hon.

friend. I think it probably would be fair and proper to say that the difference

between us is I had taken his silence as being assent. My recollection of our

conversation is the same as his; my

interpretation obviously is a little

different.

He is correct. It was our plan on this side to deal with all

three concurrence motions today. If I had been asked last night that is what I

would have said. That is why I am so strong in my own recollection that when

asked I said: We are going to do the concurrence motions, we will take them in

order. But there is nothing on the record. I've looked at the Hansard and there

it is.

So because I'm a reasonable person most of the time -

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible) very reasonable.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my friend and colleague, the Member

for Conception Bay South. "Very reasonable," she says, and she is a woman of

perception and talent as well as wit, beauty and learning.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the point made by my friend from

Grand Falls. The reason why we on this side are going to deal with two of the

concurrence debates, and had intended to deal with three, is quite simple. The

closure motion, once notice is given, once it comes into operation, requires a

vote to be taken at the earlier of two occasions, either one o'clock or when

nobody else wishes to speak. Now he knows that as well as I do; that is fine.

Many people think it has to go until one o'clock. It doesn't. It ends when there

is nobody else who wishes to speak who has not spoken.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman told us last night in

his intervention on the third reading of the bill that he intended to filibuster

by every means he could, and my colleagues and I said, we see no need simply to

sit and listen to the same dreary, tedious speeches all over again. That is why

we cut off these petitions. With a new petition we are quite happy to... Nobody

cut off my friend from Green Bay today when he got up with a petition from some

of his constituents on the -

AN HON. MEMBER: There were others.

MR. ROBERTS: There were others, no doubt, but hon.

gentlemen, then, should put them on first, rather than this nonsensical

repetition of the same speeches on the same tired petition about Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back. What we on this side have

decided, and will do it again, is that we are not going to sit here and simply

listen to the same speeches. If we have to be here until one o'clock, because of

the way the rule works, we are going to use the time productively to debate, in

this case, the Resource Committee estimates, and the Social Services Committee

estimates, and originally we had planned all three - nothing more than that.

We are not in any hurry to get out of the House. We have

oceans of work to do. The Budget Speech has yet to get under way. We have had a

speech from my friend, the Minister of Finance, a speech from the gentleman from

Mount Pearl on behalf of the Opposition. We have not gone beyond that in the

Budget Speech.

We have a lot of very substantial legislation to deal with,

some of which we will want to deal with before the House adjourns. We have spent

endless time on the Hydro bill and on the Electrical Power Control Act. Now, we

are not in any hurry. In fact, some of my colleagues are planning to be here for

the summer. I am not, but they are, so I say to my friend from Grand Falls,

there is no hidden agenda. He is believing his own paranoid propaganda.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you do only one?

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Grand Bank asks why we don't

do only one. That is like asking him why he doesn't make a sensible speech. Res

ipsa loquitur; the matter speaks for itself. If we have to be here late at

night, we have decided, we are going to use the time productively.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I am sorry. I apologize to my friend

from Grand Bank because -

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't have to be here (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We don't have to be here late at night. My

friend from Grand Falls thinks he will say what he will say, call the notice at

three o'clock and the vote will be taken at four, right?

MR. SIMMS: Taken at nine?

MR. ROBERTS: That's what I mean, at nine o'clock. I am

sorry; at nine o'clock. In other words, he simply hijacks the agenda of the

House. We are not prepared to let him and his paltry band of sixteen-and-a-half

carry on and hijack the business of the House. We have government business to do

as well. We want to debate the estimates of the Social Services Department, and

then the estimates of resources, so it is no more than that.

MR. SIMMS: You didn't debate the electrical power bill.

MR. ROBERTS: We debated the electrical power bill... We

said everything that need be said. The difference between us and my hon. friend

opposite is that we don't need to say something twelve times, or 126 times, to

get it across. We say it once. It will stand on its own or fall on its own.

My hon. friend opposite has never learned the truth of the

old adage that one can either say little and have people wonder if one is

stunned, or say a lot and have people know that one is stunned. That's the only

difference between us. Delay is not debate. Simply repeating the same tired,

tedious, tendentious arguments time and time again is not debate. An argument

doesn't become any sounder by being put 156 times by sixteen separate members.

If there are new points, let's make them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am getting somewhat away from Social

Services, but my friend, the Member for Grand Falls put a question which I took

seriously, as he meant it, and I tried to respond to it. There is no hidden

agenda, we have no desire to get out of here but, we do want to use time

productively and we intend to use it productively. With that said, Sir, I will

sit down and let the debate carry on from here.

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

Opposition Party Whip.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If that wasn't a lecture, what was? Listen, the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador are crying out time after time, and it is the

government who are not listening. Who are the `stunned' people you are talking

about? I would stand in this House and present a petition, 1,500 times if I have

to, if the people give it to me to present, whether it is on Hydro or whatever

it's on and that's a right we have to do, whether it is 15,000 times; and the

Minister of Social Services stands up and gives us a lecture on departmental

efficiency.

Last spring they presented a Budget of $157.9 million in

Social Services, and people cried out saying, `You are underestimating it, it is

wrong, you can't possibly do it on that,' and you think they were right? They

spent over $180 million - $23 million over on Social Services. He budgeted

$157.9 million, and he stood up in the House this year, just a couple of months

ago, and presented a budget on the Social Services Department for $183 million.

How are they possibly going to factor in on $183 million when the budget brought

down federally alone, is going to have a devastating impact? The minister is

assuming there are going to be fewer people, not counting those extra U.I.

changes, there are going to be far fewer numbers on social assistance than there

were this past year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) is going to be more.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, without this change in U.I., I am

stating, because the U.I. changes in this Province provided by the federal

Department of Human Resource Development and the Department of Labour estimates

that there are 16,350 people more in this Province who are going to be affected

by the increase in U.I. requirements, of which, 10 per cent will end up on

social assistance. They are estimating HRD department federally and the

Department of Labour -we discussed it in this House.

MR. EFFORD: And they are right?

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not saying they are right, but I

haven't seen any statistics put forth by this government. In fact, other

provinces scampered around; Nova Scotia, PEI, and New Brunswick judged the

impact it is going to have on their budgets.

MR. EFFORD: Stop shouting.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe if you listened a little more I

wouldn't shout as much. Other departments took the responsibility and studied

the impact; this department sat back and did nothing. We asked questions, they

did no analysis, no study until we introduced those questions - the Opposition

asked numerous questions. That is just the impact of the increase in the length

of U.I. Now, on top of that, there are another 13,700 people in this Province

who are going to have shorter U.I. claims because the period in which they can

draw is reduced to a maximum of thirty-two weeks in almost 100 per cent of the

cases.

We are estimating that 10 per cent will end up on social

assistance and that's the figure I am sure the minister could confirm. That is

usually the estimate that was used in past experience, and that means there will

be another 1,370 people on social assistance; we have longer social assistance -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished; don't be

interfering. If you listen you will hear. That's right, 1,370 people extra will

be on social assistance because there is a shortening of the U.I. claim near the

end. An extra 1,635 people will have to go on it earlier and probably stay on it

because they don't qualify to get the required number of weeks. There will be

longer social assistance cases due to the shortening of U.I. claim length and so

on; 2,575 people will go on social assistance, and there are 25,700 people in

the Province affected by that aspect of the U.I. changes.

Now, when you look at these figures, you will see, this

Province has borne 11.1 per cent of the cuts to the U.I. program when we have 2

per cent of the population. The minister has been told before that it is

unrealistic what they are doing in their budgeting. We said it all along last

year and they laughed and said it wasn't possible. We stated last fall the

Budget was out, then they had to get up and admit they overspent. Their

adjustments were even off by $16 million, after they made some allowance for the

desperate situation economically in this Province.

Now, the economic picture in this Province hasn't improved by

the recent projections under the TAGS program. It means that there is a

reduction in revenue coming into the Province, and if a member of the family

does not obtain work some of these people could be shifted onto the social

assistance line because they are getting lower benefits.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe, that's right. We have to go on

projections and that is more than the department has provided. Now, you were the

former minister. Maybe that's why you are not there now - you did such a

desperate job of controlling it, we had to turn to somebody else.

I don't want to waste all my time talking about Social

Services. The Minister of Health is back now and there are a lot of things I

would like to talk about that are happening under the Health department of this

Province.

DR. KITCHEN: Why didn't you come to the Estimates

hearings?

MR. SULLIVAN: I was there for one hour. I had two

previous appointments. I got notice the day before and I had previous

commitments because you did not circulate a

schedule telling us when it would go

ahead. I got to ask a few questions to which I got very hollow answers.

Maybe the minister will stand up and answer some questions I

will ask him now. He stands in the House and talks about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I was there and you were not. I was there

last year and we ran out of time.

The minister stands in this House and in public and talks

about the restructuring of boards in this Province, and he uses the Dobbin

Report as the basis to move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to please restrain themselves, please.

MR. SULLIVAN: I read the Dobbin Report on three

occasions. The Dobbin Report does not address the two main reasons for

restructuring hospital boards and community health boards in this Province.

Number one, improved service to people and cost efficiency, it doesn't talk

about these at all, and the minister uses that as a basis for restructuring.

There is only one area in this Province in which the

government undertook to do a cost analysis in reorganizing boards, and that is

in Labrador and Northern Newfoundland, and I compliment them for that aspect,

for doing analysis in that area. It is fairly detailed, except that they did

miss one point, which I asked the minister about before, they did not look at

the impact in scenario number two. In the second situation out of five, they did

not go into detail. The Nycum Report, I think, did an analysis. They did not

look at the effect that the Northern region of the Province will have on the

Western Memorial Hospital where there is an increase in beds, an increased

service. The Minister stands up and says, it will have a minimal effect.

Now, that is the type of analysis they have done. But the

rest of the report, granted, put forth five reasonable scenarios that need to be

discussed and looked at in a public forum.

DR. KITCHEN: Watch your blood pressure, my son.

MR. SULLIVAN: Everybody has blood pressure. Some have it

high and some have it low. Some get excited about it. Well, Dr. Hans Selye, at

the University of Montreal, stated that those people who are confronted with

stress on more occasions, and have been able to adjust the high blood pressure

are better survivors, and they can survive among people who don't get their

blood pressure up too often. So I say to the minister, maybe he should try to

get his blood pressure up a little more often and talk a little bit of sense.

According to that the Premier must be hitting 300 on the blood pressure scale by

now.

Another point - I would like to say to the minister that the

911 system, not the protocol now, but the 911 system, the structure itself, is

the most outdated, inefficient 911 system in use, I would say, in this country.

There is no computerized system - people are taking calls on pieces of paper and

making notes - no computerization, no control and identification of the site

from which a call originates, and how to identify that and respond in the

fastest possible time. There is no system in place of any significance. Not only

that, they are afraid - they don't want to designate qualified people in rural

areas who do not have ambulance service; they will not permit volunteer

fire-fighters, highly trained, some with EMA Level II, to go out to a scene,

some more highly qualified than the people who arrive on ambulances, they won't

permit them to go out and give emergency assistance in life-threatening

situations, and you wait an ambulance - and the person waited for forty minutes

for it to arrive when somebody could have been there in three minutes.

I think there is something wrong with the system. He said it

is policy. If that's what policy is doing it is time to change policy. If we

can't change policy, if we can't do something about it, it is time to change to

the minister.

Now, we have hospital beds in this Province closing - and I

don't disagree with efficiently spending health care dollars in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about

the estimates for the Department of Education. I believe I can honestly say that

this was the best time that I have attended any estimates to discuss - I was a

Minister of Health for a few years, and this is my second time going to

estimates for Education. I believe this is the best time that I've attended the

Estimates Committee.

I want to compliment the Chairman, the hon. the Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, who did such an outstanding job of chairing that meeting.

He was a credit to everyone on this side of the Hou