March 26,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 4

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Before we call for Ministerial Statements, I would like to

welcome to the public galleries, Patricia Hempstead, Executive Director of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, and Gerard Lewis,

President of Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to inform the House that five

of our outstanding teachers were recently presented with the prestigious Prime

Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence in Science, Technology and Mathematics.

The Awards, Mr. Speaker, recognize elementary and secondary

school teachers who have had a major, proven impact on student performance and

interest in science, technology and mathematics.

The winners are: Brenda Stamp, Gonzaga Regional High School;

Cyril O'Reilly, St. Edward's Elementary in Placentia; Ruth Mercer, Ascension

Collegiate; David Keefe, Menihek Integrated High School, Labrador City, and

Allan Neil, Bishops College, St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, these are very challenging times in education

and in our Province, and we often overlook the many positive things that are

taking place. On behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the

Department of Education, I congratulate the five winners of the Prime Minister's

Award for Teaching Excellence in Science, Technology and Mathematics. With the

continued contributions of these and other dedicated teachers, our students will

be equipped to face the challenges that lie ahead in the next century.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the members on this side, Mr. Speaker, I, too,

would like to join with the hon. minister in congratulating the winners. I would

also like to extend a thank-you to the hon. minister for the courtesy in

providing the statement within the past hour in preparation for the proceedings

this afternoon.

As the statement indicates, Mr. Speaker, teaching has become

a very trying profession, has never been easy, but certainly in recent years has

become a very trying profession. Teachers are not only simply classroom

teachers, but they are counsellors and they are psychologists in many ways. They

act - there is a legal phrase which is called in loco parentis, which means in

the place of parents. They act as parents and perhaps above all, a good teacher

is a true friend. So I join the hon. minister in congratulating these five

individuals for obviously, a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does the hon. member have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for making available the copy of

his statement prior to the day's session.

I want to join with him and the Member for St. John's East in

congratulating these five winners of the Prime Minister's Award. The areas of

Science, Technology, and Mathematics, of course, are very important to our

future and to the future of the economy of our Province and our Country and I

think it is worthy of mention in this House that these teachers have achieved

this award and provided, obviously, excellent teaching to the students of this

Province, and it bodes well for the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today

that a Province-wide campaign is underway to heighten awareness, understanding

and interest in local government.

The campaign is being organized by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Federation of Municipalities, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association

of Municipal Administrators and the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

A major focus will be on Local Government Awareness Week from

April 22-28 in communities throughout the whole of the Province.

It is hoped that the campaign will become an annual event

focusing on one key theme each year. The theme selected for the 1996 campaign is

Local Government - At Your Service.

April 22-28 is also Volunteer Week sponsored by the Volunteer

Centre, Community Services Council and the two events being combined this year.

This year's theme for Volunteer Week is Volunteers - The Heart of the Community.

A proclamation will be issued by the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to officially declare April 22-28 as Local Government

Awareness Week in our Province.

As well, communities are being encouraged to establish

Municipal Merit Awards as a means of giving recognition to individuals who have

made significant contributions to the growth, development and enhancement of our

communities.

In addition to raising the level of awareness, understanding

and interest in local government, the campaign is being undertaken to acquaint

the general public with the cost and value of services provided through their

municipal councils.

One of the specific initiatives being planned during this

Local Government Awareness Week is to ensure the week has high impact throughout

the Province as a Conference on Women in Local Governance and Economic

Development. This event will be sponsored by the Federation of Municipalities

and held in Gander during Local Government Awareness Week.

As well, the Association of Municipal Administrators of

Newfoundland and Labrador will hold its annual convention in April of this year,

also in Gander, and that event will serve as a kick-off for our Local Government

Awareness Week.

The plan is to make Local Government Awareness Week an annual

event. Municipal elections will be held in 1997 and next year's campaign will

encourage people to get out and vote, and also to offer themselves for election

to municipal office.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon all members of this hon. House to

support our municipalities as they celebrate Local Government Awareness Week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I would like

to thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the House sat this

afternoon.

The minister stated that a province-wide campaign is under

way to heighten awareness, understanding and interest in local government. We on

this side of the House support and believe this to be a good move. It is

important for people of the Province to understand the workings of town councils

and the time and effort that the town councils and people working on town

councils put in on their behalf.

The theme selected for the 1996 campaign is Local Government

- At Your Service. Municipal governments are the front line for the provincial

and federal governments and they are made up of mostly volunteers. They often

times take the flak for the provincial government and their down loading and

cuts to the municipal operating grants and the like.

April 22 - 28 is Volunteer Week. This year's theme:

Volunteers - the Heart of the Community. It was only yesterday that I said a few

words with respect to volunteers and the importance of the role they play in

this Province, and naturally in the country. Volunteers were mentioned in the

Throne Speech, and we believe on this side of the House that it is only right

and proper that people should be recognized for their community support.

The minister states that "The plan is to make Local

Government Awareness Week an annual event." I would say to the minister and to

this government that if they don't stop the cutbacks to the municipalities, if

they don't stop the down loading to municipalities -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, an annual local

government awareness month won't be encouragement enough to get people to run

for the municipal elections the next time around, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the

initiative of the Federation of Municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Unfortunately, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are all too aware of

municipal governments because they have been the ones who have had to turn off

the lights and take the flak for cutbacks from the provincial government. I do

hope that the awareness we will instill in peoples minds a greater interest in

volunteering and participating in local government and seeking to represent

people of their area. I commend the federation on having a conference on women

in local governments and economic development. That is a very forward step and

it ought to bring forth greater interest in the participation of women in local

government and government in general.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Premier regarding Marystown Shipyard.

Will the Premier confirm that Marystown Shipyard, in bidding

to construct two offshore supply vessels for Maersk Supply Services,

significantly underestimated the total labour hours required to construct the

vessels? In fact, will the Premier confirm that on construction on one of those

two vessels alone the Maersk Nascopie, Hull 53, the project required not just

30,000 person hours over-run, as suggested by the minister, but probably closer

in the vicinity of 300,000 more person hours than originally bid?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question that

was put to me by the media last night, they asked me were there further

increases in the person hours for work on one of these hulls for the Norwegian

contract, I said, yes. A number was thrown at me that there was a 30,000 person

hour increase above and beyond what was already projected. Yes, there are

significant labour over-runs in the magnitude of 200,000 or 200,000-plus person

hours that takes in management, procurement, quality control, work on the floor.

I said to the media, Mr. Speaker, that we had to factor in the currency exchange

when the purchases were made with Ulstein in Norway, there was no hedging or

insurance placed on the purchases. The Canadian dollar weakened, the Norwegian

kroner strengthened, it happened in a sixty day period and that caused a

significant over-run in these two vessels as well.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The currency

evaluation had nothing to do with an underestimation of the total hours

required. It is an unrelated topic altogether. Now I ask the minister, will he

now tell us that it is now in excess of 250,000 extra person hours, will he now

tell us how much the over-run costs are as the result of his newfound

calculations and information since yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned to the media that with

respect to these two vessels we had projected a $6 million margin of profit or a

surplus position on this particular project. We lost that on a currency

exchange. There was no insurance put in place.

The financial advisors to the yard advised that the currency

would be to the favour of the Canadian dollar, not against it. They did not

hedge and we lost money in that respect. We also lost money in respect to

production hours, supervision hours, engineering and lofting hours, quality

control, and it is in the 200,000-plus man hours. The total actual losses on the

project which will go to the bottom-line of the overheads of the shipyard are in

the magnitude of $4.3 million as of today.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked was how

much extra cost as a result of underestimating the bid by 250,000 approximately

person-hours, and the minister gave a response on a total overall package

including all factors. It was not the answer to my question.

I ask the Premier now: When did government first become aware

that the labour requirements to construct these vessels were significantly more

than the amount bid? I ask the Premier: Was his government not aware several

months ago, many months before the election, that the labour overruns were

phenomenal and that they knew as early as last fall that they were close to

100,000 per hours overrun?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has

given a very full and a very complete answer if the Leader of the Opposition

would care to hear it again. And I would remind him that I was not the Premier

last fall.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is responsible for the government's actions and

it is his responsibility to be briefed and up-to-date on when government was

notified. So I ask the Premier: Was the government of which he is now Premier

notified early last fall, and was the shipyard aware that there were going to be

phenomenal over hours?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the government put in place a

board of directors to handle all of these matters arm's length from government.

What we are given are the year end financial statements for each year that the

shipyard operates, as were previous governments. He will know that the history

of the shipyard is some thirty years, and never, in any year, has the shipyard

ever, ever made a profit. It has always been falling to successive governments

of all political stripes not to worry about what the surplus was for the

shipyard each year but to worry what the magnitude of debt would be each year.

We are told from time to time, and I am reported to from time

to time, as the minister, that they need an increase in the line of credit to

keep functioning at the yard. That has happened over the last thirty-year

history of the yard. It will continue to happen unless things change.

Mr. Speaker, he will know that in November of 1994 the Wells

Administration put in place a board of directors consisting of men and women who

run their own businesses in the real business world. They inherited some

terrible things. The drilling modules contracts cost us substantial amounts of

dollars. The two ships we bid with the Maersk Group out of Copenhagen, we are

seeing losses there as well. That was inherited by this new board of directors.

I met with some of them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to bring his answer to a conclusion.

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I met with some of them this

morning. They have prepared a position paper to be brought before the full

Cabinet. They have also prepared a master plan and a business plan for the next

number of years which shows significant reductions in the overheads. Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you that these men and women are doing a very good job as

volunteers in the Province to try to capture and get control of the runaway debt

of this yard.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the minister: If the overruns on one vessel alone were

close to 300 person-hours, at a $25-an-hour cost, that is a $7.5 million overrun

on hull number fifty-three, I say to the minister. That is the mathematics of it

there that he is avoiding to answer the question.

I recall the minister promised to take a hands-on approach to

managing the Marystown Shipyard after they failed to win the $120 million

mechanical outfitting contract back in 1993. So will he now tell us who was

responsible for submitting the supply vessel bid, specifically, and why there

were no effective checks and balances in the system to ensure that a

multi-million dollar bid such as this one was a responsible bid before it was

finally submitted?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is

engaging in selective recollection. I did not say at any time that I would take,

personally, a hands-on role at the Shipyard. Quite the contrary, we put in place

businessmen and businesswomen who operate in the real business world, who

understand bottom lines, who know how to make profits and who know how to deal

with losses. We put capable, responsible, non-political people in place in a

yard that has successively over the years been extremely politicized.

Now, that board came back with a number of recommendations.

The first thing they did was to remove a very significant level of senior and

mid-management. Twelve people were removed straight out of the yard. The second

thing they did was ask the unions - and I commend the unions, they were very

responsible through this whole piece to open up their collective agreements, to

look at overtimes, cross trading, shift premiums and trade flexibility, holiday

pay these kinds of things; they did that, Mr. Speaker, in a responsible way.

The third thing they did was close down the St. John's office

which had an overhead cost of $150,000; fourthly, they brought in the Nelson

Group from New Mexico. They asked them, as professional people who look at

distressed industrial yards around the world, to take a clean look at this and

offer up some suggestions on how we can turn this management plan around and

bring it to a break-even position at the earliest opportunity. So, a whole

succession of things were done, Mr. Speaker, in rapid order, in rapid fashion by

a board that has only been there for a year and two months, and I think, the

business plan that they will present to Cabinet shows a turnaround possibility.

But Cabinet then has to deal, Mr. Speaker, in the real world with the real

options.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I caution the minister that his answer is getting

long.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is a complex question, it

deserves a complex answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: I was giving the hon. member credit. I thought

he had a complex mind but if he is saying he doesn't, I will change my

conclusion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to -

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the point that I am trying to

make is that, in the thirty-year history of this yard since 1966, when Mr.

Smallwood first opened it to the present day, today, March 26, 1996. The yard

has never made a cent. In fact, the former government and the former Minister of

Development -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A tremendous speech. The minister sharpened his pencils a

couple of years ago and this is the type of pencil sharpening we are seeing.

I ask the Premier, will he confirm that the first of the two

supply vessels, the MAERSK and the NASKAUPI was not completed on

time. The company under contract was given a grace period until March 1, to

complete the work but the work was still not completed by that time.

Now, will the Premier confirm that there was a penalty of

$7,000 per day for every day beyond that grace period, and will he tell us, how

much in total that delay has cost the company and will he explain why the vessel

was not completed on time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, now there was a range, a raft of

questions there. I am sorry I didn't take notes but as I counted them there were

four or five questions and I would have to take it under advisement so that I

can get all of the correct information. But the hon. member is correct in that

there are penalty clauses. In fact, there are penalty clauses for every

industrial project, Mr. Speaker, whether it is done at the dockyard, the

shipyard, Bull Arm, that's a normal procedure and normal contractual language

that puts penalty clauses in on both sides.

I don't think anything was executed on the penalty clause but

the figure sounds about right, $7,000 a day, but that didn't impact because of

time deliveries that I am aware of.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to keep this as simple as possible and not

complicate matters.

Will the Premier confirm that there is a penalty of $7,000

per day beyond the grace period?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much simpler I

can state the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: I said, that in the course of industrial

projects whether it is shipbuilding, ship repair, offshore construction,

fabrication, it is standard language to have a penalty clause in place. In this

particular case, it is $7,000 a day, and I am going from recollection because it

is quite some time ago that I have looked at it. Has it been called upon or

executed upon? I don't think so but I would have to check the record for you.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I would ask the minister if he could provide to the

House - the vessel was not delivered on that date and I ask him if the penalties

were applied and if he could report back to this House on what the penalties

were because of delays and delivery time.

When the second vessel, the MAERSK NORSEMAN , Hull No.

54, I would ask him when that is due to be completed and, will it be completed

on time without penalty?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is due to be completed

within the next two-and-a-half months. The board tells me, and they are the ones

who function on a day-to-day basis that, yes, it will be on time, so far as I

know, it will be on time.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is normal practise, I say to the

minister, from past experience at Marystown Shipyard when a company purchases

foreign goods it also purchases futures to guard against devaluations of

currency in the Canadian dollar compared in this case to the Norwegian kroner.

Will the Premier confirm that Marystown Shipyard, or the

minister, agreed to purchase the Ulstein package, that includes the engine, the

engineering design, the hull or the engineering design, propellers, electrical

equipment, et cetera from vessels in Norwegian kroners, and will he confirm that

the company did not follow normal practice to guard against currency

devaluations, something they had been used to doing before, and cost the

taxpayers of this Province $3.2 million; will he confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the hon. Leader

of the Opposition was asleep for the first part of my answer. I said that part

of the overruns in costs are clearly attributable to foreign currency exchange.

It is true that the shipyard, a major project, as a matter of course, hedged

their bets when they were in the foreign international currency markets. In this

particular case, at that particular time it was a strong Canadian dollar, a weak

Norwegian kroner, and their financial advisors said there was no requirement to

hedge.

Within weeks of the new board coming in, in late November, in

1994, they purchased the futures and stopped the haemorrhaging of the currency

bleed of $3 million; and, yes, that was part of the overrun and the cost, and

therefore the debt to the yard.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Who was responsible for

circumventing the normal purchasing process of guarding against currency

devaluation? Wasn't it made at the highest levels of the shipyard, without going

through the proper management channels, as had happened in the past?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, again I don't know if the hon.

member did not hear me, of if he wasn't listening. Eleven senior and

mid-management have been removed from the shipyard as a consequence of

management decisions, as a consequence of bid preparations which were grossly

underestimated. We have removed a significant layer of management.

There are other recommendations coming forward in the near

future. I am awaiting those from the board. I will take them to Cabinet, and we

will see where it goes from there.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: When and why did Mr.

Max Ruelokke resign as President and Chief Executive Officer? Or does the

Premier have reason to believe his resignation had to do with the supply vessels

contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ruelokke was taken out of my

department on a temporary assignment as an Assistant Deputy Minister of Industry

and Trade. We required somebody in the shipyard on a minute's notice. He was an

engineer. He brought certain competence and experience to that job. We sent him

in there when the previous president resigned and went on his way. He was there

on a temporary assignment. It was always understood to be temporary. We set in

motion, when he asked us to come back into government, a plan to take him back

into government. He wanted to be close to his family. He lives in the capital

city. He spent nearly two years down there, far longer than we ever expected or

ever believed that would be the case. We sought a new president; put the new

president in place, Mr. Malcolm Weatherston I think his name is. He is currently

in place. Mr. Ruelokke has another interesting job with respect to the Bull Arm

site, which reverts to the Province in June of next year, and we need to market

that aggressively. We think his skills are useful in that area.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

On November 9, 1995, municipal operating grants were cut by

$4.1 million for 1995-'96, $7.5 million for 1996-'97. The actual reduction was

28 per cent, not 22 per cent as announced by government and yourself as

minister.

After the general election, this new Administration promised

a new approach to budgeting, released a pre-Budget consultation document, and

committed to let people decide what to cut and what not to cut. The question to

the minister: Are municipal operating grants on the table? Is government willing

to rescind cuts to municipal operating grants that were announced last November

that apply to the coming fiscal year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think every at least

experienced member of this House knows that we are in the process of beginning

our budgetary review in the next week or two. Hopefully when we have the Interim

Supply Bill passed in the next few days or weeks, or however long it takes us to

do it, I would assume that Treasury Board and the ministers from each department

will start getting together then with their financial people and start putting

together the Budget for 1996-'97. Until that process starts, I cannot stand in

this House and say anything about anything that will be in the process, other

than the fact that we are going to go through, I guess, like we did every other

year, with a fine tooth comb, every

section of every department and every

budget.

I will say to my hon. colleague and friend across the way

that he realizes the situation that we find ourselves in this year as it relates

to the Budget. I don't know as minister what will happen to my budget in the

next couple of weeks, and I'm certainly sure I will be glad at the end of the

day to stand in the House and announce I guess some time in April or May when

the Budget process is finished.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

the minister. Municipalities have already told governments pre-Budget road show

they cannot tolerate nor survive any deeper cuts to the municipal operating

grants. We all know that rural Newfoundland is hurting. Is government

considering even deeper cuts to the municipal operating grants this year, and

can the minister confirm that this is indeed one of the budget-cutting options

being kicked around in face of this year's deficit?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, that is a total

misinterpretation and misrepresentation of anything that is going on in my

department or me as the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. There is no talk at the present time; it hasn't been discussed around

the Cabinet table. Most members in the House, in the general public, and I'm

certainly sure the administrators and the Federation of Municipalities, realize

that we - and it was the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that was

the only department of government that took its cuts prior to January 1 of last

year, because we had promised municipalities in the Province that we wouldn't do

it in mid-year. We have already gone through the 1996-1997 budgetary process. I

will say to my hon. friend, I don't know at this particular point in time if we

need to go any further. I will know, I would imagine, in the next couple of

weeks, and at that particular time we will deal with that particular situation.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the

Premier, or the minister, would he confirm that Mr. Ruelokke's resignation was

requested in October but there were interventions? Will the Premier further

confirm that Mrs. Peggy Witte of Marystown Shipyard board of directors wrote the

Premier in December requesting Mr. Ruelokke's dismissal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, nobody came to me as minister

and said Mr. Ruelokke's resignation was requested. I would have to check with

board members to ask if in fact the question articulated by the Leader of the

Opposition is an accurate one, but it would be new to me. Mrs. Peggy Witte was

one of two people who we asked from outside the Province to bring to bear their

skills as a businesswoman to the board and to bring her knowledge of industry

and how heavy industry works.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: She wouldn't be a friend of yours, no, I say

to the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. She did resign. As I recall a board

member telling me, she didn't believe at the time that the pace of the Nelson

recommendations was moving quick enough. Look, these are volunteer men and

women. They don't sit because they are being paid exorbitant sums. We ask of

their time and energy. There is a very small stipend that is put in place. We

ask them to give us the best energy, talent and know-how to bring to bear on

decisions about the Yard, and they have done that. Mrs. Witte resigned, and with

Mr. Ruelokke's resignation of course he wouldn't be at the board either.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier if he will confirm that

his office received a letter from Mrs. Peggy Witte in December requesting the

resignation from the board of Mr. Ruelokke. Will he confirm when she resigned

from the board and the reasons for her resignation from the board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge

whatsoever of the suggestion that is being made by the Leader of the Opposition.

I can only undertake to look into the matter. I have absolutely no knowledge.

I've heard no suggestion whatsoever in the short time that I've been in this

post.

I would only wonder aloud, what is the point of the line of

questioning by the Leader of the Opposition. If there is an allegation that the

Leader of the Opposition wants to make, if he believes he has sufficient

information to make one, I would say to him in fairness - and I believe him to

be a fair man, I truly believe him to be a fair man - that he should make the

allegation. But right now the reputation of an individual who served as a senior

public servant has been bandied about across the floor, all kinds of suggestions

of impropriety, suggestions of incompetence, suggestions of demands for

resignation, allegations by the Leader of the Opposition. And I would say this

to the Leader of the Opposition -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Excuse me. I would say this to the Leader

of the Opposition, that I believe him to be a fair man. I tell him that I have

no knowledge of what he is suggesting and I would simply say to him that if he

has an allegation and evidence to present, present it, it will be looked into.

If he does not have an allegation to present, think of the consequences for this

man, his family and his reputation.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Social Services.

I wonder if the minister could explain why her government

continues to find new ways to punish those forced to live on social assistance?

In December, Mr. Speaker, the government reversed a court decision that found

her department was acting illegally when it clawed back overpayments caused by

government error in social assistance cheques. Now her department is taking

income tax rebates from recipients who have previously worked, causing great

hardship and further deterrents to social assistance recipients trying to better

themselves. Why does her government continue to make things worse for those who

are at the lowest income levels in the Province and are forced to live well

below the poverty line and are having a very difficult, difficult time trying to

make ends meet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the

member for his question and give a bit of background information on the policy

to which he refers. This is not a new policy for recuperating income tax

refunds. It is a policy that has been in place for a long period of time, albeit

it had not been enforced. Back in the fall, in government's efforts to deal with

the financial crisis, it had to recoup a significant amount of money, and each

department was asked to review very specifically how it could come up with this

money. Many issues were looked at, many programs, and it was the decision of the

government and the department that the most effective way of achieving these

savings would be to recuperate income tax rebates. This notice has been given to

all those who would receive income tax rebates in January. There was another

notice sent out early in February and there is another notice gone out at the

end of February. As I said in the beginning, this is not a new policy. It is one

that has been in place for a long time and, as the member is aware, social

assistance provides the basic income to people. It is not meant to provide money

when there are other sources of income such as income tax rebates.

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

Vidi, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The trouble is that the individuals are now trying to

recuperate from the minister's policy.

I have a supplementary for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Can he

say that he, in his budgetary actions, is looking to these people at the lowest

level of society to balance his books and to make the budget shortfalls pay for

themselves? I want to ask him: Why, in this particular case, are things being

made worse for these types of individuals? I spoke to a couple over lunchtime

today who are having to go to a food bank for the last three months.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member he is on a supplementary and should

get to his question.

MR. HARRIS: I want to ask the Premier whether he thinks

that these individuals ought to go to a food bank to get their full and fair

share, or is his government going to increase the social assistance rate for

social assistance recipients, which has not been done since 1989? Will he do

that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, in response to your

question, I think we would all like to have more money to give to the recipients

of social assistance in the Province. Most people definitely deserve all the

money that they can earn; however, when they have a source of income, it takes

away from their ability to collect social assistance. As I said, this policy is

not a new policy. We would love to be able to give the social assistance

recipients of this Province more money; unfortunately, we cannot.

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

Vidi, on a final supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister

contradicts herself by saying it is not a new policy. She said it was a policy

that was never enforced. So the enforcement obviously is new and is making

things worse for these individuals. Will she not admit it is high time that

social assistance recipients got an increase, not a decrease, from this

government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my hon.

colleague's question, I suspect that with his background he is aware that a

policy is a policy. We accept responsibility for not enforcing it more

diligently, but we had to look at all issues, and we had to look at all

programs. We made that decision and we stand by that decision, and for people

who are undergoing undue hardship, there is a policy in place to allow this to

be done in a reasonable way.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A question to the Premier. I say there is a cover-up and

severe problems that the government have known about for some time. Now, I ask

the Premier: Did he know that Marystown Shipyard was in serious financial

difficulty when in the heat of the election campaign, and when he participated

in the announcement that Marystown Shipyard would have first crack at building

chemical reactors? Did the Premier know then?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me say for the record,

clearly, so that the entire House knows, the Marystown Shipyard was in trouble

in 1966, the very first year it opened. The gentleman who occupied this

ministry, Neil Windsor, stood in his place here in 1981 and announced the

findings of a Royal Commission into the shipyard, it having lost $37 million, in

1971 dollars, factored up by 100 per cent. Seven-and-a-half years after that

Royal Commission it lodged another $33 million loss, in April 1990, another $34

million loss, and in the last three years another $40 million loss.

I do not know where the hon. member has been. Our concern is

for the workers at the shipyard to get the bottom-line back in order so we can

make substantial and competitive bids to create work down there.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the

Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the Speech of His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor I am pleased to present the report of the Select Committee

as follows:

To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, the hon. Frederick W.

Russell, may it please Your Honour, we, the Commons of Newfoundland and

Labrador, in legislative session assembled, beg to thank Your Honour for the

Gracious Speech which Your Honour has addressed to this House.

Signed: Mary Hodder, Tom Osborne and myself, Bob Mercer.

On motion, report received now.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The petition reads: To the hon. the House of Assembly of

Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. That

whereas Newfoundland Power has

asked the Public Utilities Board to approve an increase in electricity rates;

and

whereas Newfoundland Power since it has a monopoly in the delivery of an

essential commodity in this Province is not at risk of becoming non-competitive;

and

whereas Newfoundlanders suffering from the fish resource crisis, the general

economic down turn and deep government spending cuts, can ill afford increases

in essential commodities like electricity at this time; and

whereas not having

had a rate increase since 1992 is no justification for a rate increase in 1996;

wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to

request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador do whatever is required to

prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power rates. As in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, since this House reconvened back last Friday I

think we have seen several petitions brought before this House of Assembly

echoing people's concern about the intentions of Newfoundland Power going before

the Public Utilities Board to look for a 4.9 per cent rate increase to the

company which now generates something like $27.8 million in profit. Far too

often when we go around and we see the economic conditions, especially in rural

Newfoundland, that exist here today, I can assure you that not many people who I

know, and I think my district is no different from the districts that exist on

the other side, not many people can afford to go and dig in their pockets at

this time and come up with another 4.9 per cent increase in their utility bills

and still maintain the necessities of putting bread and butter on the table,

clothing and educating their families as well.

A prime example I suppose was when the Member for Signal Hill

- Quidi Vidi asked the Minister of Social Services a question today when she

stood in her place and talked about enforcing a policy. It would make your heart

ache to go out there today and hear the calls that I'm getting, and I'm sure the

Minister of Social Services is probably getting similar calls, or at least her

staff, listening to people who are saying: Yes, we got a rebate back in income

tax, or we are entitled to one, and we were going to spend it to buy a suit of

clothes for my son or a dress for my daughter who graduates next month. Now it

is going to be a situation where not only will they be forced with this

situation again, where the sons and daughters will not be able to participate in

a graduation that they have worked for, but now again they will have to dig into

their pockets and pay for a necessity to heat and provide power for cooking in

their own homes.

I think this should be unheard of in a society where caring

people become elected and come here, and they get up and represent their

constituents in the way that they were elected to perform. It isn't good enough

to say that the policy existed and we must carry it out. I think we should do

things to change the policy, and we should do things to react to the hurt that

is out there today.

Many, many people who I have talked to, I can assure you,

cannot dip into their pockets, or don't go into the woods to cut their firewood

for a source of exercise. They go there because they have no other choice, and

they go there so they can free up a few extra dollars in order to do the things

that are needed in order to maintain a home and to raise a family.

So I call on the government of the day to intercede on behalf

of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, and oppose very vigorously this

4.9 per cent increase that this utility is looking for. I think $27.8 million

should be an ample profit for anybody to make, especially when you consider that

particular utility has a monopoly on the services that they perform here in this

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the government of the

day will listen to those petitions as they are being brought forward and

presented.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Member for Bonavista South in

supporting the petition of those residents who are concerned about the power

increases being sought by Newfoundland Power. It is a circumstance that is

totally unacceptable to the vast majority of the people of this Province. It is

an unfair increase being sought for a company that is doing remarkably well when

compared to other corporations. Indeed, as a result of the operations of the

Public Utilities Board, this company, Newfoundland Power, is being guaranteed a

rate of return to its shareholders of a very substantial amount in the

neighbourhood of around 12 per cent return on its investment.

There are very few corporations that have that kind of

guarantee, but this is not even a guarantee to a widespread group of

shareholders. There is only one shareholder of Newfoundland Power - only one -

and that is Fortis, and Fortis has a guaranteed return. It has sometimes been

called the `cash cow' for Fortis. Fortis uses Newfoundland Power as a cash cow,

and with the money that they get, and the cash flow that they get, they are

involved in all sorts of aspects of enterprise.

They picked up a couple of Holiday Inns on a ridiculously low

bid that this government, or the previous government, put out last fall. They

are involved in the trust business. They are involved in property management.

They are involved in all sorts of businesses, and competing out there with other

sources of capital, and they have a guaranteed return on their investment in

Newfoundland Power.

I didn't notice Fortis Trust advertising recently they are

going to give you 10 per cent or 12 per cent on your money if you want to invest

it in GICs. It looks more like 5.5 per cent or 6 per cent, and the other 6 per

cent goes to pay the profits for Fortis Incorporated, and no doubt some expenses

associated with the operation of that business.

It is a very profitable corporation that does very, very

well, and they are not satisfied. Like many corporations - like Irvings, for

example - they are not satisfied to do very, very well. They want to do very,

very, very, very well. They are not satisfied with that. They will lay off

people, like they did yesterday, lay off five people, no recourse to the law, no

recourse to anything. Hire five more. We are not making enough money, like the

banks. We are doing great, but we are not doing great enough. So they want to go

back to the Public Utilities Board and have their enormous profits increased and

guaranteed at the expense of the poor people of this Province.

Some of the people who are on social assistance are being

required to pay more for their electric heat because they are not satisfied they

are being paid enough. Meanwhile, the Minister of Social Services is grabbing

money back from them, what little bit of money they can earn as an income tax

rebate now being grabbed from them, telling them: Don't bother to go to work

because you are not going to get ahead. You are not going to get ahead, because

Fortis is going to grab something back from you through Newfoundland Power. The

Minister of Social Services is going to grab something back from you. Stay down;

keep them under the foot, because the laws of this Province and the powers that

be in this Province are not acting in your best interest.

I support these petitions, and I hope this government takes

some action to prevent this increase from taking place.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is urgent enough that

I rise on a point of order to deal with a question the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition asked concerning Mr. Max Ruelokke. I would not want his reputation to

hang out there, or by inference have any aspersions cast on his reputation, and

I know the Leader of the Opposition did not mean to do that either, but he asked

whether the board had demanded his resignation. Since Question Period, I have

had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Ruelokke and he volunteered his

resignation, so I would like to clear that up for his reputation sake, and I

know the Leader of the Opposition would want to do that, too.

MR. SPEAKER: Actually, there was no point of order. The

hon. member took the opportunity, of course, to present information to the House

on an issue that rose during Question Period.

Is the hon. member on a petition?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley - I am

sorry, Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Almost, Mr. Speaker, but not quite. It is

bad enough, but in this case Waterford and Humber have parted ways.

I want to present a petition today on behalf of the parents

and the family and friends of the children who have been housed at Presentation

House. This petition has 1,556 signatures on it, and it makes a total of 2,088

residents of this area, the greater St. John's area, who signed a petition on

this particular matter. I presented a petition a few days ago with the other

number, the 532 signatures to it.

The petition is addressed to the House of Assembly and it

says: We, the undersigned, hereby wish to state our opposition to the proposed

closure of Presentation House, Newfoundland's only emergency shelter for

children under twelve years old.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the signatures here come from

St. John's, Mount Pearl, Long Pond, Foxtrap, and all the areas throughout the

northern part of the Avalon Peninsula.

The concern that people have is on the availability of an

emergency shelter for children. They are concerned that placing these children

directly into a foster home in an emergency situation is not going to meet the

needs of the child, and they are concerned that in these particular cases, when

these children are taken out by their families on holiday weekends, over

Christmas, Easter, or any other time, for that matter, that these children may

not be treated in the manner in which they deserve as young children.

Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to review some of the

comments made by the Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster

Families Association. The Foster Families Association certainly do not paint a

happy picture of the relationship between themselves and the Department of

Social Services. For example, to quote from the document I have here, it says:

`Foster families are often neglected. Conversation with foster families will

reveal a sense of despair, inadequacy, powerlessness, frustration and

insecurity.'

Mr. Speaker, what this document is saying is that foster

families do not receive the kind of support, they do not receive the kind of

encouragement, they do not receive the kind of dialogue and consultation that

they should have with the Department of Social Services. Now, we are going to

take children from very stressful situations and place them in foster homes

without the adequate dialogue. For example, and I quote again from this report:

`The Department of Social Services advocates for a team approach to fostering,

that is the foster child, the birth parents, the foster parents, the social

worker, and any other professional involved with the child.'

`This happens very rarely,' this document says. `Foster

families should be seen as an integral part of the treatment of the family and

the child. Foster parents should be more involved in case planning and be

accorded respect as valued members of the team. Foster families should be viewed

as professionals rather than volunteers.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, what this report says is that, there isn't

a great relationship, and before the minister closes Presentation House, I ask

her to consider whether or not placing these children in foster homes, as in

cases of emergencies, is really the best step, and if we do not need a temporary

emergency shelter for children to allow the dialogue to take place, to allow the

consultation to take place, to allow families to be involved in rationalizing

what is undoubtedly a very tense situation for the family, all family members.

So I say to the minister, before we close Presentation House,

let us make sure that we have thought the system through, that we are making the

very best decision and we are making it in the best interest of the children.

Nobody will question the need to de-institutionalize childcare, but in doing so,

let us make sure that the alternatives have the best interest of children in

mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to support the petition which has been presented to

this House by my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley. It is obviously a

very important issue, and an important issue for the many hundreds of

individuals, the parents and friends of Presentation House who have seen fit to

sign this petition and to ask this government to reconsider its decision with

respect to the anticipated closure of this facility.

What we should keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that this

particular facility is an emergency shelter - an emergency shelter for children

who find themselves in crisis situations, and we are dealing with a particular

age group, from infancy to age twelve. Since its inception, Mr. Speaker, 1,681

children have come through the doors of Presentation House. I mean, that is a

significant number of children and their families, because it is a

family-oriented facility and institution. This institution seeks to gain the

support of family members which makes it very distinct and unique as opposed to

the traditional foster care services which are offered in this Province. It is a

family-oriented institution which requires the support, help and assistance at

all times of immediate family members; 1,681 children have been helped by the

Presentation Sisters and other staff members at Presentation House.

As indicated, Mr. Speaker, parents are encouraged and are

invited to participate in the rehabilitation process of the children in

Presentation House. Parents deal with issues of family violence, sexual abuse,

physical abuse and again, when we assess the situation, I mean, when is it a

child needs a family more? It is obviously in situations of such crisis in their

lives as indicated, abuse and violence of all types. Victim impact statements

are provided to the counsellors, to the parents, to those individuals who wish

to help the children, and these victim impact statements are critical in helping

these children who require again, need, at this particular time.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and in support of this petition,

the hon. the Premier was quoted as saying: Put the interests of our children

first. Well, clearly, if the interests of children are to be placed first,

particular needs of children, even if it is something which may appear to be

such as a very narrow or local issue, Mr. Speaker, as Presentation House - but

it is not. It is a very important issue and if we are going to put the needs of

children first, Mr. Speaker, it is attention to perhaps what many members in

this House would consider to be a very local or narrow or non-global issue. We

are talking one building, one facility but clearly, Mr. Speaker, if we are

putting the needs of children first, as the Premier has been quoted as saying in

the past, it is this kind of example which is important and requires the

attention of government through the offices of Madam Minister to ensure that the

needs of our children are placed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

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

In response to the petition, I would like to concur with some

of the comments that have been made by the previous speakers in that

Presentation House has certainly played a very valuable role in the emergency

treatment of children in the past. As you are aware, the role and function of

Presentation House has shifted more from one of an emergency shelter to one that

is currently providing more long-standing services to children. As we mentioned

in Question Period yesterday, in fact, it is in the process of completing a

pilot project on helping re-orient children back into their natural homes.

The decision to close Presentation House was made last fall.

We are very much aware of its contribution. We are still meeting with parties

and concerned people about that decision. I would like to say that we are not

totally fixed on the date of closure. We have made it very clear that our

concerns are focused on the best welfare and care of the children involved, and

we are committed to allowing those children to re-orient into their natural

homes, which is planned.

The main concern we have is on the type of service that is

being offered and, as the hon. gentleman knows from his participation in

previous committees, the role of Presentation House has changed. The mandate has

changed, and we are more in need of homes for teenage children who are

encountering difficulties in their natural homes than we are for providing

services for children under the age of twelve years.

Again, I would like to finish by saying we are very aware of

the benefits of Presentation House. We commend the Sisters and the staff for the

work that they have done over the years and we are, as I mentioned, speaking to

the people who have the vested interest in the community and in Presentation

House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise to present a petition. The

petition reads as follows, with the correct wording:

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

session convened, petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not read all the `whereases' but I

will read a couple of those.

WHEREAS differential rate increases, while penalizing the

poor for not using electric heat, will do nothing to provide them with the money

they need to pay for electric heat, so as to increase the company's

competitiveness but will force many to dip into their food budgets to pay for

the electricity they need for lights; and

WHEREAS not having had a rate increase since 1992 is no

justification for a rate increase in 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I will just read a couple of those because the

more I listen on this particular issue the more ridiculous it gets every day. As

a matter of fact, there is a convenience store that I stop into on the way home

from Confederation Building. I dropped in there last Friday and there was a

petition on the counter with a couple of hundred names on it and, as of

yesterday, when I dropped into that same convenience store, Mr. Speaker, there

were over 1,000 names on that same petition. This is definitely an issue that is

rising in this Province and people are finally saying - when you speak to

somebody about the issue they say: Enough is enough. And the more ridiculous it

sounds, as we speak about it.

What we have here are two corporate giants - mainly the

Newfoundland Power industry and the oil companies - who have a battle ongoing

here and the monopoly in this Province, Newfoundland Power, is using that to

manipulate the consumer, Mr. Speaker. What they are doing is that - and not only

this company with the $27.8 million profit last year. We are not talking about a

company that is failing or about to go bankrupt. We are talking about a company

that has a monopoly in the Province. We are talking about a company that makes

millions of dollars and we are talking about a contest they are having with the

oil companies for competitiveness, you could say, Mr. Speaker. And this company

is going to decide to boost their profits - not to even maintain their profits

but to boost their profits on the backs of the people who can least afford it in

this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Today, some questions were asked of the Minister of Social

Services and, of course, those are the type of people who will pay this, Mr.

Speaker, like all of us do, like all of us depend on electricity from this

company that holds a monopoly in this Province. Those people who have been

calling my office - and I know there are members in this House in the last weeks

and months - complaining if someone on social services gets a few weeks work or

a months work, that any refund they receive in income tax now will be drawn back

from them.

Like my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi

said earlier, these are the people who can least afford it, and we have our foot

on them; we are keeping them down. Now, on top of everything else we hear about

these rates and so on, now the Provincial Government decide they are going to

take back the few dollars they get as a little bonus throughout the year in

income taxes. It might be $50. I talked to one man who had $110 income tax

returned, but that was going to be dragged back from him, like it was going to

make him rich, like it was going to provide too much from his family.

These are the types of people, when you see something like

this come forward to the PUB - and, yes, we all know in this House that there is

a process we have to go through, that is what the Public Utilities Board is

there for. But people in this Province are speaking loud and clear in saying to

all members of this House, on both sides - and they should realize that people

are saying no to this. While the process, yes, must go ahead, we also, as

members in this House, who represent people in our districts, should be able to

stand in this House and support people when they put forward petitions such as

these.

Mr. Speaker, often we are criticized for petitions that come

to the House. Well, these petitions, although I did not read out all of the

`Whereases', are all over this Province. As a matter of fact, I had calls and

requests this morning for petitions from my own district. And I am sure on both

sides of the House the members are now getting calls and requests for petitions

in their particular area.

What we have to remember first and foremost is that

Newfoundland Power has a monopoly in this Province, and we also have a company

that is making a fair profit - a better than fair profit. As was mentioned

earlier, we are not talking about it being a great profit; now they want a

greater profit. So we are not talking about somebody who is buckling and about

to go under and needs a boost to stay surviving in this Province. We are talking

about a company which makes a fair profit, a great profit, and now wants to

boost those profits on the backs of the people who can least afford it.

I think it is incumbent on every member of this House,

including government ministers, and the Premier, and so on... Although the

process has to go through the Public Utilities Board, I can tell you this: There

was also a process with electoral boundaries in this Province when the

government did not mind interceding, and the ex-House Leader here made his own

presentation to that particular board. So I cannot see why anybody on the

government side, from the minister to the Premier, right on back to anybody in

this House, cannot make a presentation to speak on behalf of the people of this

Province to say that we will not accept that rate increase.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition presented by the Member for

Baie Verte, and to say a few words about the projected increase.

First and foremost, I presented petitions, and a petition

yesterday on this issue, and some people across the House shouted back that if

there are people who are in a position in which their light bills are overdue,

or if they cannot pay, if those people are on social assistance they should go

to the Newfoundland Power Share the Light program.

Mr. Speaker, what those people who said that yesterday fail

to realize is that the Share the Light program does not include, does not

provided for people who are on social assistance. It is not extended by

Newfoundland Power to people who are on social assistance. It is extended to the

working poor.

The other thing that we should realize in this House, as

members, is that the amount of money that Newfoundland Power put into the

Share the Light program last year amounted to a measly, paltry fee of

$15,000. And they have the audacity and the gall, in the times that we live in,

to come before the Public Utilities Board and request a 4.9 per cent increase

when they made, last year, $27.8 million after expenses, after they paid the

shareholders of this Province.

In questions asked of the Minister of Mines and Energy, all

he said in response to questions that I asked in this House was: We have

appointed a consumer advocate, and our job is done. He also said that we, in

this House, should not prejudge in any way, shape or form, what the Public

Utilities Board would do.

Clearly, any thinking member in this House who takes the time

to look at the last twenty years of the Public Utilities Board, who takes the

time to look at the last twenty years in terms of when Newfoundland Power asked

for an increase, to see how many times Newfoundland Power was turned down, they

will find that it was zero. There have been times, Mr. Speaker - and I admit,

that Newfoundland Power did not get the increase that it requested, but

nonetheless, the fact remains that Newfoundland Light and Power, each and every

time it went to the Public Utilities Board over the last twenty years, received

some increase in its basic electricity rates when they requested it.

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon each and every member in

this House of Assembly to react and respond to this increase at this time. The

Public Utilities Board is governed by a statute of this House. It is governed by

legislation enacted by this House. It may be old legislation dating back to

1950. The rules and regulations governing the operation and governance of the

Utilities Board dates back to that time as well. But if the political will

exists here, then we have an opportunity to ensure that a zero per cent increase

takes place - not a 3 per cent increase, not a 2 per cent increase, not a 1 per

cent increase, but a zero per cent increase, which is what the people of this

Province are demanding, and it is what the people of this Province must have.

If we see it as a process that we have put in place in terms

of the Public Utilities Board which is a judicial board of sorts - it is a

quasi-judicial board, I believe we would call it - and we want to let that

process take its own pace and its own form, sobeit. But there is nothing

stopping each and every member of this House from making a presentation and

intervening before the Public Utilities Board. There is nothing to stop the

Minister of Mines and Energy from making a presentation. There is nothing to

stop the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Minister of Social

Services, or the Member for Twillingate & Fogo from making a presentation at the

Public Utilities Board, requesting on the one hand and demanding on the other,

that a zero per cent increase take place at this time.

Over the last four years, Newfoundland Light and Power has

spent an exorbitant sum of money in advertising. What was their advertising

aimed at? They have asked people like you and me to conserve energy. They have

advised us, as energy users, to seal our windows, to seal our doors, to stop

heat loss, to stop energy escaping from our homes, thus creating a lower demand

for energy and energy use in this Province. And, Mr. Speaker, they have

succeeded. But now what we see, at the same time, is that while they have

advised consumers and they have advised ratepayers to reduce electrical demands,

to reduce the amount of heat they use in their homes, they are now saying that

because there are lower demands, they want an increase. Mr. Speaker, it has to

be stopped, it can be stopped here, and we, as members of the House, must stop

it.

Thank you very much.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. Penney): Order, please!

Bill No. 2, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums

Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial

Year Ending March 31, 1997 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public

Service".

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am happy to rise today to speak in the debate on Interim

Supply. Before I get into my comments, however, I would want to extend to hon.

members, congratulations on their being elected. I know that I am little bit

late in doing that. It is only my second time in getting up to speak in this

particular debate although it has been several days. Some of the members on both

sides are new to the House. I want to offer congratulations to all of them and,

Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to extend congratulations to the hon. the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, a person with whom I have worked

in the City of Mount Pearl for some time. She and I served as the Mayor and

Deputy Mayor for seven-and-a-half years, and I am sure it would be incumbent

upon me to single her out and to offer her sincere congratulations and to wish

her well in her tenure. I can assure all hon. members that she and I make up

what is called the Mount Pearl Team, and I really offer her sincere

congratulations, as I do to all hon. members who have been re-elected.

Mr. Chairman, on the Interim Supply debate today, I want to

focus on children. As most members would know, I have had a substantive career

in education and I certainly know some of the issues involving children. I have

lived with them, seen them both as a teacher, an administrator, as a neighbour,

in some cases, and also as a community worker.

Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat concerned, in this time of

cutbacks, that we not be tempted to cut back on services to children. Mr.

Chairman, many of our children have no voice, and we have to be their voices.

One of the things that has come clear to us on the Select

Committee on Children's Interest is the fact, sadly we have to say, that many of

the government agencies and departments are not children-focused. In fact, many

of the systems that we expect to be child-focused are not always child-focused -

very often, they are system-focused. And when you look at children who are very

young - basically, the Department of Health has a mandate for children in their

infancies, and there is some recognition given to the fact that there is a need

to monitor the health of children from birth until maybe a year-and-a-half or

so.

But then, there are no mandated measures that intervene in

the health of children until that child enters Kindergarten. So, Mr. Chairman, I

am afraid, in our time of cutbacks and restraints, that we might be tempted to

take away the few services that we offer to children now.

Mr. Chairman, I know that we can have tremendous improvements

in co-ordination of services to children. It is a fact that some of the services

offered by the Department of Health, the Department of Social Services,

Department of Justice, Department of Education, could be better delivered if

they were better co-ordinated and if they were better integrated; and in our

study on the Children's Interest Committee, we have found a willingness in the

departments at the official level for this integration and co-ordination to take

place.

However, there is great confusion at the moment as to which

agency or which department of government is responsible to respond to children's

needs and children's issues. In fact, in some cases, we know that there is a

great deal of turfism that takes place. Because everybody agrees there should be

co-ordination excepting when someone says: Well, that might mean that we are

going to have to move you to a new agency or, in fact, we may have to

discontinue an agency or co-ordinate it better. Everybody wants to have the

co-ordination occur but it should never, ever affect their particular job or

their particular backyard, you might say. And in this time of cutback, I am

afraid that children are the people who are most at risk. Children have no

political power. They do not get elected. They seem to be voiceless, they do not

pay taxes, in other words, and they do not vote. So, Mr. Speaker, while we want

to commend the government for some of its initiatives, in this time of the

Interim Budget and in preparation for the Budget for the year, we want to say to

the government: Keep the children in mind.

On Page 367 of the Royal Commission on Education, titled

Our Children, Our Future , there is a quote. It says, `Investments in early

childhood programs will result in substantial savings in later years because

prevention is always less costly than repairing the damage once it is done.' I

say to all hon. members, let us focus on early childhood education. Let us focus

on what it means to have a healthy child, growing up in a healthy family where

there are interventions, and there is support.

The latest research is showing that if we do not intervene on

behalf of children before they are thirty-six months old, then interventions

after that with the aim to affecting behaviour become progressively less

successful. In the submissions that we heard in the Children's Interest

Committee from Dr. Julia O'Sullivan at the University, an internationally-known

researcher, shows that if we take a child, and that child has behavioural - or

difficulties, we have a window of opportunity to intervene, and it is only

between eighteen months and thirty-six months.

Well, this Province has no programs that mandate intervention

in that age group, so we are missing an opportunity to do early intervention. I

want to say to all hon. members that when we are cutting back, when we are

shaving off the budgets the amounts, when we are sharpening our pencils, do not

do it at the expense of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, because we do

so little now. As a matter of fact, I could mention some of the things that we

do not do as a Province. We happen to have a fair number of things that we fail

to do.

In this particular Province, for example, today, I say to the

hon. the Minister of Social Services, that the Day Care and Homemaker's Services

Act dates back to 1975, and it is loose and open to a variety of

interpretations. We need in this Province a new child care act. It has been

expected, it has been talked about, but it has never been delivered. Maybe she

would take it upon herself to look at delivering a new child care act for this

Province.

We know that this is the only Province where there is no

licensed day care for children under two years of age. It is the only Province

where that happens. If any member of this House today went out to seek a permit,

a license, to operate a child care facility for children under two years of age,

you cannot have one. You cannot get a permit to have a day care for children

under two years of age. You cannot do it. There is no legislation that permits

it. We are the only Province in Canada that does not have a licensing procedure

for day care facilities to accommodate children under two years. Two years and

up, yes, but infants to two years have to be put out with neighbours, friends,

that kind of program, but not a licensed day care.

Mr. Chairman, we are the only Province where there is no

licensing of family home day care. Again, I say, these things are not going to

cost a lot. These are not big budget items. They are matters where the minister

can simply correct this problem and bring us in sync with the Canadian thought

processes. It is not going to be a big item, just the cost of doing the

research, printing up the legislation, and having someone monitor it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could just conclude, I

want to say to the Minister of Social Services that we can do a lot for children

in this Province. It is not going to cost us a lot to change some of the

legislation. We need to have a genuine focus on children. We have not seen it in

- well, I guess, since this Legislature has been here. I am not talking about

Liberal or PC. I am saying that we need a lot of work done that can be done at

minimal cost, but can have tremendous impact on children, particularly when it

comes to early childhood intervention.

Mr. Chairman, later in the debate, I will get a chance to

talk about family resource centres and these kinds of matters, because I happen

to believe that these are crucial things that affect children. I do have a

genuine concern that we, as a Province, might be tempted to discontinue or to

even reduce the level of commitment we have towards children when we start to do

budget cutbacks. I can assure you that children - I am talking particularly now

about children between infancy and five years of age. Because, up until they are

five years old, the Department of Education does not know that they exist and

they have no rights. They are not even people, as far as the Department of

Education is concerned, until they get to be five years old. So I am saying to

the Minister of Social Services that there is need for us to examine our

commitment genuinely, all of us as members of this House, so we can do more for

children, not necessarily spend more money, but we can spend what we have a lot

more wisely, and we can improve the delivery of programs to all the children,

particularly to children who are under five years old.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman and hon. members, I feel

privileged to rise in this House today as the member for the new District of

Grand Falls - Buchans, which comprises all of the former town of Grand Falls,

part of the former town of Windsor, Badger, Buchans Junction, Millertown and

Buchans.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by extending

congratulations to all members who have been re-elected and new members elected

for the first time, rookies, just like myself.

Mr. Chairman, as you may recall, I ran unsuccessfully in the

June 27 by-election for the former district of Grand Falls. At that time, I

thought all hopes were dashed of my ever standing in this House today. There are

benefits to losing, Mr. Chairman, in fact, it can be one of life's most

rewarding experiences. Losing can do one of two things: it can make you admit

defeat or it can make you more determined to win. I chose the latter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, little did I think I would get

a second opportunity to run for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador

in just a matter of seven months. With the optimistic vision of Premier Tobin

for this Province, a new page of history was written for our district. On

February 22, as the polling results came in, it looked something like this -

Buchans: won all polls; Buchans Junction: won all polls; Millertown: won all

polls; Badger: won all polls; part of the former town of Windsor: won all polls.

Then, the unexpected occurred: Grand Falls, with the exception of two polls,

went Liberal for the first time since Confederation!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I am humbled by this experience

and grateful to the voters of Grand Falls - Buchans for their resounding vote of

confidence in me and the endorsement of Premier Tobin's leadership.

Grand Falls - Windsor is nestled on the beautiful Exploits

River, soon to be one of the best salmon rivers in North America, and I will

elaborate on this a little bit later on.

Our main industry is the pulp and paper industry,

Abitibi-Price. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the pulp and paper industry has taken

a severe beating since 1989, but is only now coming back to where it should have

been. The year 1995 was a very successful year for Abitibi-Price. In fact, the

Grand Falls mill had the best cost per ton in the Abitibi division. Grand Falls

mill had set a target efficiency of 88 per cent, and do you know that at the end

of January, this year, it reached a target of 87.5 per cent efficiency, just an

incredible achievement for the employees of the Grand Falls mill.

Abitibi-Price is committed to the Grand Falls mill. Their

capital works program for 1996 is close to $34.6 million, which includes

approximately $21 million for the Star Lake hydro project, and the balance to be

spent in the mill itself. This activity will create many needed jobs throughout

the district.

Mr. Chairman, with the amalgamation of Grand Falls - Windsor

in 1990 - and I believe that we have become the model for amalgamation

throughout the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Most definitely.

A new community of approximately 16,000 residents has emerged

from that amalgamation, making us the largest town in Central Newfoundland. In

fact, when you look at our geographic location, we are placed directly in the

center of the Province, halfway between Port aux Basques and St. John's, and

that location has worked in our favour. Many distribution companies have set up

offices and locations in Grand Falls - Windsor, as they find it very convenient

and accessible for distribution of goods and services.

Mr. Chairman, the many residents of Central Newfoundland who

use Grand Falls - Windsor as a service centre, and there is a radius, actually,

of about 75,000 people who come into Grand Falls - Windsor and use our services

- we want an assurance that the present level of government services will

continue to be maintained in the district, as our overall economy depends

heavily on this commitment.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier that the Exploits River is

soon to become one of the best salmon rivers in North America. We have in place

right now a tripartite agreement between federal, provincial and municipal

governments for infrastructure funding to provide sewerage treatment for Grand

Falls - Windsor; however, we have a little bit of a problem. Our latest tender

call has been over budget by approximately $500,000, and we are requesting, as a

community and a district, that our government review our request so that we may

be given favourable consideration for approval.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, can you imagine the untapped tourist potential

with our Exploits River once it is cleaned up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS THISTLE: You can, can't you?

You have all heard in this House about Exploits Environment

Resources Management Association, or more commonly known as ERMA. ERMA is a

group of volunteers who have been involved in the revitalization of the Exploits

River for the past ten years. They have been responsible for the installation

and the maintenance of the Fishway at Bishop's Falls, Grand Falls, and Red

Indian Lake. Their primary function is to enhance the Exploits River by

improving salmon stocks and providing a pristine environment for everyone to

enjoy.

Mr. Chairman, a number of other river management groups

throughout the Province have followed ERMA's model. In fact, ERMA has been

recognized with awards from all levels of government, and fishing organizations

all over the world.

Mr. Chairman, just last week, our town council handed over

$50,000 - not from our funds, mind you - not from our council funds, but from a

former resident of Grand Falls - Windsor who had come back to Grand Falls now

and then every two or three years and realized there was no place in Grand Falls

- Windsor to spend overnight with a travel trailer. So that person donated

$50,000. We saw fit to hand it over to ERMA because they being such good

stewards of money and volunteers we knew that they could put that money to work

and build on it. It looks like we will have a trailer park within a year or two

if they can access some other types of funding.

Mr. Speaker, another self-help group of volunteers who have

displayed incredible initiative in our community is the Codroy Brook Enhancement

Association, which was originally founded by the Exploits Valley Disability

Association. They have undertaken to build a 4.5 kilometre waterway through the

town of Grand Falls - Windsor from Codroy Pond to the Exploits River, just

another add-on to our tourist potential there. This trail will be fully

accessible so residents and visitors can fully enjoy its beauty.

These are examples of how volunteers can promote tourism,

build our economy, cultivate civic pride. Just an invaluable demonstration of

commitment by volunteers. No wonder Grand Falls - Windsor has been chosen by

Chatelaine magazine as one of the ten best towns to live in in Canada. I'm

really proud of that town.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, as we move westward to the

community of Badger we enter the gateway to a sportsman's paradise for hunting

and fishing. In fact, some of the best salmon fishing -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans by

leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you for your kindness. I'm not too

familiar with the rules of this House yet. Thank you.

In fact, some of the best salmon fishing on the Exploits

River can actually be done behind Badger stadium in the Exploits River. Badger

has become an important stop-off point for truckers heading east and west for

servicing their tractor trailers. The restaurants on the highway are well known

for their excellent food.

Mr. Chairman, the community of Badger still derives most of

its livelihood from the woods operation, whether it be logging or supplying

outfitters and sportsmen. The main concerns of the residents is supplying and

paying for municipal services, maintaining recreation facilities, and trying to

keep their school system in place where employment is scarce and seasonal at

best. The same concerns are echoed throughout the communities of Buchans

Junction and Millertown where the main employer is still the Abitibi woods

operation, on a reduced scale, and local saw mills.

Then we move into the town of Buchans, once a bustling

community, and home of the Buchans Miners hockey team which won the first Herder

Memorial trophy in 1950. Buchans is the town that refused to die. Although the

main employer, ASARCO mines, closed in 1984, the people pulled together and

started to bring new life back to the community. We now have two hi-tech

industries started up there and doing quite well. There is also another

interesting proposal coming to the surface now by Sea Springs Newfoundland.

Actually, it is a fish hatchery. They are looking at using the abandoned sand

pits from the ASARCO mines. It looks like a very promising venture, and they

already have a commitment from a Norwegian investor of $1 million. That is a

project I will be following closely and supporting in the future.

In conclusion I would like to tell you that never before has

it been so important for us to look at not only our district, our Province, but

our country. Quebecers need to know and understand that we want them to choose

Canada. Just yesterday Standard and Poor's credit rating agency endorsed the

interest rates hinging on the Quebec unity issue.

In conclusion, Newfoundland and Labradorians have always

faced tough challenges. That is why we survived these almost 500 years. Our

government is also facing tough challenges that we can overcome if we work

together as a people with a common goal. You know, the concerns that are out

around the Province are different in every community. Sometimes it is a small

concern, like the James Hornell Boys and Girls Club in Buchans or maybe it is

the stadium in Badger but they are concerns of all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Chairman, I am honoured to represent the people of Grand

Falls - Buchans and proud to be a part of this hon. House. I stand committed to

work for my district, our Province and our country. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, it gives me

pleasure to rise in this House this afternoon to touch on a few issues that

relate to my district.

I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Grand Falls -

Buchans talk about her success in the recent election. I am also very proud to

stand in this House and tell this House for the first time in many, many, many

years the community of Foxtrap, which is in my district, which always voted

Liberal voted Conservative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: And I am very proud to stand here and

represent these people along with everybody else in the great district of

Conception Bay South. Anyway, I don't mind that, you get used to that.

As well today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite all

members in this House, on both sides present - in 1996 our town is going to host

the 1996 Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games, thanks to a couple of people

opposite who were certainly of a great help, one being the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs and one being the former Minister of Culture and

Recreation. I will thank those two gentlemen for their help over the past years.

I am not afraid to give credit where credit is due, I might add. Anyway they

were very helpful to me at the time. I would like to invite you all to our town.

We have had twenty-one people working for the past three years and we hope to

have some 1,200 to 1,500 athletes in our community this summer. We will also be

using some 1,200 to 1,500 volunteers. That is why I was glad to hear one thing

from the Throne Speech as it related to a medal which we can use to help out a

lot of our volunteers in this Province, people who give freely of their time and

efforts to make events such as ours in Conception Bay South, the success that it

will be. The committee is very, very much on target and we will be ready when

August rolls around to proceed with those games.

As well I was very interested the other day to hear the new

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation talk about the involvement of

tourism and recreation throughout this Province and how it must join together so

that we can have the benefit of this for our Province. Again, I am very proud or

I was very proud to be associated with a group some years ago who were able to

bring twenty-eight countries into this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It

was a tremendous event and it was done because tourism was interested in the

recreational needs of this Province. So I look forward to hearing the minister's

views as we go forward in the next few years, as to whether these events will

continue.

I am also very interested in - over the next month or two

months - obtaining a copy of a report that is now, I understand, being submitted

to Cabinet as it relates to Conception Bay South or the town part of my district

of Conception Bay South which is now being done by the Auditor General. I

believe the report is completed and is now, I am assuming, going forward to

Cabinet. I look forward to reading that report. I look forward to seeing where

this report is going to lead us. I look forward to seeing what the final outcome

can be so that the problems that we have had in that particular community can be

put to rest, finally. I will have a lot more to say about that in this hon.

House as time progresses over the next few years.

I had hoped the other day to follow the lead of the

Opposition House Leader who said that we should ask some questions, especially

as it relates to Interim Supply. I have to attend a meeting tonight with my hon.

friend from Harbour Main - Whitbourne concerning a school closure in Harbour

Main. I had hoped that the Minister of Education would have been here today to

tell me if whether the amount that is in the Interim Supply will be there and

whether the capital expenditure to make the improvements to the Holy Cross

School in Holyrood has now have been budgeted and if we as well can get going

and get the necessary repairs made to that building, if the school indeed has to

close in Harbour Main. I don't know if he gave the information to my friend

earlier today or not, but if he did, I am sure it will be a topic of this very

heated discussion tonight at our meeting in Harbour Main. So again, Mr.

Chairman, those are some of the issues that I will pursue as we go forward over

the next few months in this hon. House, it is indeed a pleasure for me to serve

here as well and thank you very much for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you for the applause because, after I am finished

there may be nil.

Mr. Chairman, I feel honoured today to stand in the House of

Assembly to represent Torngat Mountains. I have been approached by every

political party from the age of nineteen to run both federally and provincially,

and after looking at the state of affairs in Torngat Mountains and what has

happened over the last few years, I felt I had no choice, because I felt the

next four years would be the most important in the lives of the people of

Torngat Mountains.

Mr. Chairman, I make no bones about it, people have told me

that I have the hardest district to represent. The cost of living is the highest

in the Province and my district is faced with welfare. Mr. Chairman, when the

ordinary person walks in and buys a three-litre bag of milk for his children,

please be advised that the people in Torngat Mountains have to pay $3.60 air

freight in order to get it to Coastal Labrador. When the ordinary person sits

down to a Sunday dinner of a two or three-pound chicken with vegetables, the

people in Torngat Mountains pay $8.00 air freight plus the cost of the goods.

Mr. Chairman, the people in my district were fishermen; that

is the job that they have done all their lives. Mr. Chairman, the fishery in

Torngat Mountains failed; there was no moratorium, there was no TAGS Program. A

year-and-a half later when the fishery failed in Newfoundland, out come the

moratorium, out come the TAGS Program. The people in Torngat Mountains, who were

fishermen the same as anyone on the Island, applied, and the answer came back:

We are sorry, you don't qualify.

Land: Mr. Chairman, in speaking with the Mayor in Nain, with

all the activities that are going on, there have been sixty-seven people who

have come looking for a piece of land to build a house. The community in Nain

doesn't have one penny for land development or water and sewer. Companies are

lining up wanting to come in there and start business with the mining activities

and the answer is: We have no land.

Mr. Chairman, education in my district: the government failed

to listen to the community and the people in Nain when they built the new school

four or five years ago. They built a school that could accommodate a maximum of

300 people. Today, Mr. Chairman, we have over 400 and finally, they have enough

desks in there so that the students do not have to sit on the floor, and with

the proposed activity in Nain, I shudder to think what will happen when people

will want to go out to the school in two or three years time.

The community in Rigolet, Mr. Chairman, 70 per cent, welfare.

The only high school in the Province to my knowledge that does not have a

gymnasium. 70 per cent of the people are on welfare and they are out there today

plugging away having bake sales, rummage sales trying to raise a few bucks so

they can build a gymnasium and enjoy what every other high school, all grade

schools enjoy in the rest of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I may be out of line, but there is one thing I

want to read to this House before I address the situation in Hopedale. From the

Grade V class: Congratulations on winning the election in the District of

Torngat Mountains. We are studying the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We know that you are busy but there is one issue that is really important to us.

We need a new school as quickly as possible. Our present school is old, is much

too small, our enrolment is growing. The building is falling apart at times.

Education is very important to us. We need a good building to learn in; we need

to learn in order to graduate and to get jobs. We would like to talk to you when

you come to Hopedale.

Thank you for reading this. Please let Premier Brian Tobin

and the government know about our school. Thank you and please reply.

Your friends in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, anyone who saw television

this past winter, there were no exaggerations when a film was shown that, when

the wind is over twenty kilometres an hour, the walls swayed back and forth. The

minister of lands and services for the government, the Member for Lake Melville,

was on the school board in 1988 when the school board had to put cables across

to keep the walls from swinging back and forth.

These children ask for one thing, not for computers or extra

courses; they are asking for a decent school that is safe, where they can go and

get an education.

The fumes in the school come from an oil spill that was

created three or four years ago, that was never, ever cleaned up; and now, with

the bedrock...

I had a business, or I ran the store next to the school - it

is bedrock - and anyone will know that the fuel is there sitting on top of the

rock, with nowhere to go, and every once in awhile it goes through the school.

That is the reason why they were taken out of school with headaches and upset

stomachs.

Mr. Chairman, in my district land claims have been ongoing

for over twenty years, with both the provincial and federal government failing

in their bid to make sure land claim settlement was brought about. I cannot help

but stand in this House today and compliment Chief Katie Riche and her people in

Davis Inlet on the effort of what they are trying to do to bring their lives

back together with very little help from both the provincial and federal

governments.

Mr. Chairman, Voisey's Bay - everywhere we go we hear people

talking about Voisey's Bay; we need to benefit from Voisey's Bay. The people in

Torngat Mountains are getting a few token jobs from the mining companies. Yet,

they are bringing in brush cutters, thirty-two at a time, from Springdale and

Botwood, while the people in my district are left out.

The environment - when four drums of fuel are dropped from a

chopper and splattered all over the countryside and the company doesn't report

it, when companies are up there blasting without blasting permits, and ponds are

polluted, the only benefit that the people in Torngat Mountains are getting

today is the pollution that is starting to ruin our countryside. And I have the

proof of everything I have said here today, and if anyone begs to differ the

difference, come with me to Torngat and I will show you.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I was travelling back on a plane last

year and there was a referendum. I had a three-hour flight, and it seemed like

an eternity when I didn't know, by the time I got back and heard the results, if

we had a united Canada or not, a united Canada with Quebec in it.

Mr. Chairman, some people might think I am a radical for

saying the things I did today, but these are facts, and let me best advise this

House here that if there is nothing done for my district, and if I fail to get

re-elected, there is one thing I will do more than any other member in this

House, and I know 65 per cent of all of the people in Labrador on a first-name

basis. Right now there hangs a dark cloud over Labrador - you people have seen

it in the papers, and you know what I am talking about - and if I fail to get

any money for my district, if I fail to be re-elected, there is one thing I will

do, every night when I go to bed, and when I get up in the morning, I will make

sure I do my job, so that when the time comes for the next government to be

formed, and the next MHA for Labrador, that we will still have this beautiful

thing that we call home, whether you are from Lewin's Cove, St. Anthony,

Makkovik, or Nain, but we will have a united - a united - Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to

comment on the words of my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, a very

touching and moving and persuasive few minutes, obviously an individual who is

deeply concerned about his roots, and the representation of his constituents. I

only hope that his colleagues on the opposite side of the House listen well to

what he has said. The message was loud and clear. Again, I was touched by the

comments that were made.

Earlier this afternoon we heard, Mr. Chairman, my colleague

who is just leaving the Chamber from Grand Falls - Buchans mention the fact that

most of the polls in her district were in fact Liberal polls. I also heard my

colleague to my immediate right, the hon. Member for Conception Bay South,

indicate that the town of Foxtrap voted Progressive Conservative for the first

time.

It reminds me a little bit of my situation in St. John's East

which we will all remember that after Confederation in the 1950s St. John's East

provincially, not federally, as a district in this Legislature, was represented

by a Progressive Conservative. Throughout the elections of the 1960s St. John's

East was represented by a Progressive Conservative. Throughout the 1970s in the

history of St. John's East in this provincial Legislature St. John's East was

represented by a Progressive Conservative. In the early 1980s St. John's East

was represented by the Progressive Conservatives.

In the mid-1980s there was a change. St. John's East was

represented by a member of the New Democratic Party. In the general election of

1989 St. John's East was represented once again by a member of the Progressive

Conservative party. In 1990 in a by-election in St. John's East a member of the

New Democratic Party was returned to represent the constituents. In 1993 the New

Democratic Party again represented the constituents of St. John's East.

It is clear that there was a concern. My friends on the

opposite side of the House, in reviewing the history of St. John's East, noticed

that there was only representation from either, and predominantly I might add,

the Progressive Conservative Party, or secondly the New Democratic Party. So

what takes place, what happens?

This is what happens. In redistribution let's in fact change

St. John's East geographically, let's change it physically, let's now call St.

John's East what used to be called St. John's Centre, a district that was

represented in the previous two elections by a member of the Liberal Party. So

in fact as a result of redistribution it was changed. St. John's East was

largely the old St. John's Centre. However, what happened on February 22, 1996,

the voters of St. John's East returned to this House a member of the Progressive

Conservative Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So it is interesting, when we review the

statistics of the polls and the history of the various districts, Mr. Chairman,

to see the traditions, the patterns, the changes that will take place within

each district. Obviously we as members for our particular districts take great

interest in assessing the outcome as we learn on election night.

It is unfortunate that the hon. Minister of Education is not

present. I wanted to respond to a few comments that were made by the hon.

minister yesterday in dealing with the issues of busing and school viability

issues. The hon. minister indicated to this House that there were no changes

with respect to viability, that the viability and the school viability concerns

were placed on hold.

That may be the case. However, the anticipated reforms in the

pending education act have raised significant concerns among parents'

organizations, school board members, school teachers, students in schools, and

the electorate at large, to the point that there is indeed a great uncertainty

with respect to what the future has in store for schools and school children in

this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I have before me a copy of correspondence

written by the Home and School Association of St. Joseph's Elementary School. In

fact my colleague for Conception Bay South referenced it just moments ago. What

we have here is in fact a confused group of people, not confused, obviously, in

their own right, but confused, Mr. Chairman, by the uncertainty of the status of

school reform in this Province.

I would just like to read briefly from the Speech from the

Throne. This is the Speech from the Throne, the address of which was given to

this hon. House approximately a week ago. I will read it: Education reform will

proceed. The next paragraph, Mr. Chairman: My Government is committed to

dialogue and discussion on implementing educational reform. We need a new

partnership involving educators, school boards, the churches, parents, et

cetera. This is why the electorate and all stakeholders in education in this

Province today are in this state of confusion. We have in one breath the fact

that reform will go ahead, and in the second breath the need for consultation

and discussion of all its stakeholders, and therein lies the problem.

It is a mixed message, Mr. Chairman, and it is not only the

parents from St. Joseph's Elementary School in Harbour Main who are concerned

and confused by what may well be in store, but also, Mr. Chairman, I have

received a copy - in fact a copy was faxed to me as education critic from the

Concerned Parents Committee of Jackson Walsh school system. There are two school

boards, namely the Western Avalon Roman Catholic School Board and the Avalon

North Integrated School Board involving two school complexes, one known as

Corpus Christi and the other as Jackson Walsh.

The board granted, not being forced or coerced at this time

because the new Education Act is not before us, but in view of the pending

legislation the board on its own accord has taken steps to attempt to

consolidate, to amalgamate the school system, the result of which, Mr. Chairman,

again we have an unsettled and concerned group of parents and individuals in

these communities. They want to make sure each stakeholder; each person in each

community wants to make sure that whatever these changes may be that they are in

the best interest of their children.

There are competing interests, Mr. Chairman, but again the

uncertainty in where we are in education in this Province today has led to the

fact that students, and teachers, and parents, and PTAs, and school board member

themselves, do not know where to turn. They are attempting ways to consolidate,

attempting ways to amalgamate, having parent and teacher meetings, unfortunately

having communities finding themselves having to compete with one another in

trying to retain that institution, of all institutions, its own school. The

whole situation that Newfoundlanders today find themselves in is in a state of

flux and uncertainty.

It is essential, and that is why I repeat, it is unfortunate

that the hon. Minister of Education is not present because it is essential, as I

see it, that these issues be addressed immediately, that these issues be

addressed in view of what may very well be significant and drastic education

reform which may take place. It has not happened yet, and I suppose it is

possible that it may not happen, but there will have to be by necessity certain

types of reform in order that the educational needs of children are met in this

Province.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, just to move slightly from the

second, primary, elementary and secondary levels of education, I want to very

briefly speak to post-secondary education and the concerns that have been

addressed by the report of the Auditor General in the report for the year ending

March 31, 1995. Where in this report, Mr. Chairman, the Auditor General has

found that the department - this is with respect to our post-secondary college

system - the report indicates that the department does not provide adequate

direction in the planning and coordination for the college system. It mentions

four areas; I'm just going to mention a couple.

In particular, the report states the department does not have

comprehensive strategic or operational plans to ensure the colleges' activities

reflect the goals of the department. It seems to me to be a very basic and

intrinsic weakness in the system when in this report it is stated that the

goals, aims and objectives of our post-secondary college system have not been

realized.

Secondly, the report continues to state, that there is

inadequate planning to determine what affect changes in major revenue sources

may have on the ability of the department in achieving its goals and objectives.

These are fundamental areas of concern, fundamental areas of weakness which have

been raised and addressed in the report of the Auditor General for the year

ending March 1995.

Clearly it is incumbent on my colleagues opposite to take a

very serious view and approach to the weaknesses which appear to be inherent in

the education system in this Province, not only the primary, elementary and

secondary level. The weaknesses which I mentioned are a result of the

uncertainty and instability of what lies ahead for us in the future.

Unfortunately there seems to be weaknesses in our post-secondary as well,

weaknesses in view of direction, weaknesses in the area of aims, objectives,

strategies. These are fundamental concerns, and it is only hoped, as a critic in

education, that these are concerns that will be addressed and will be reacted

upon favourably by my friends opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: I apologize to the hon. Member for Burgeo &

LaPoile. I will recognize you in a second.

Over the last couple of days I've heard members, not only the

new members - I'm not picking on new members because the new members normally

follow the rules fairly well - it is the older members sometimes who we have to

bring to task. I refer members to Beauchesne, 481(c). It is unparliamentary to

"refer to the presence or absence of specific Members" in the House of Assembly.

I would ask that hon. members refrain from referring to hon. members as being

absent from the House, It is customary in this House that we not refer to

members being absent.

As you all know, the proceedings of the House are recorded

and there is a verbatim report that is issued at the end of every day. If

members in their speeches want to direct questions to a ministry that can be

done. Naturally, all ministers read Hansard every night. I'm sure that they read

Hansard before they go to bed and they would follow the questions. I would just

advise members not to refer to members as being absent.

We are in a debate on Interim Supply, and the speeches are

ten minutes each. The problem with new members is that I hate to interrupt them

when they get to their ten minutes because it is normally their first speech, so

we have been a bit lenient in terms of interrupting members, particularly if

they are a new member. If they are giving a good speech we will probably

continue on for a few minutes after that.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise, and this is the first

opportunity I have had to address the Chamber upon my return since the fall and

the election. Really, I suppose, quite a series of events has unfolded before

all of us. Some of those who left the previous sitting of the House have not

returned, some that we will miss.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some we won't.

MR. RAMSAY: Some we won't.

Some of the members of the Opposition who added a lot of

colour to the area will be missed, and some of our own. I know that I enjoyed,

as members opposite sometimes did enjoy, and feel the pinch of the former

Government House Leader when he would make his remarks, the same as we would

also hear the often boisterous barbs of the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has only moved up above, that is all,

looking down on you.

MR. RAMSAY: He is probably listening.

I must say, it added a lot of colour. Parliamentarians, those

of us who have been here for any period of time, members come and go, but

parliamentarians, the distinction, lives on, and a lot of those who have come

through this Chamber have certainly taken good account of themselves in the way

they have handled themselves as parliamentarians is worthy of note, and their

not being with us any longer will certainly be a point that some of us will

surely note in the record.

The other thing, of course, we have a smaller Opposition.

Even though the House of Assembly has gotten smaller by four, the Opposition is

more focused now, and it is a more concentrated effort on the part of those who

have returned, but I am sure that they will do their job as Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, and try to be positive, as they seem to have taken a turn in that

direction. It is a direction the hon. Member for Bonavista South, I guess, is

it, South or North?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonavista South.

MR. RAMSAY: Bonavista South. In your campaign I

understand that you distanced yourself from the negativity that was surrounding

some of the campaign, and went so far as to use different colours in your

campaign literature and posters, stuff like that. That is all well and good.

AN HON. MEMBER: It worked.

MR. RAMSAY: It worked. As you said, it worked. And these

are things that those of us who make judgement calls, in each of our own

districts -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Not red; I think it was green or something.

It was something a little different.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: It is the New Reform Party, the...

Anyway, the things that we all know we have to do... It

certainly would show, I suppose, that those of us who know our districts well

will be returned as long as we are doing a good job, and the constituency work

that we all do pays off well when we keep getting returned time and time again.

This being my third term of office, three terms in seven

years really is quite an experience. If you look at it election wise, I have

gone through three nominations and three elections in that seven-year period, so

it has been a very interesting period of time, not something that I do not think

you would want to put your family through every other year, but your families

are the ones that bear the brunt of your time in politics, and the public in the

Province share your life with you. Your family agrees to share you, as a member

of this House, with the rest of the public.

Now, on to the relevance, you are pointing to the bill, and I

guess I will allow myself this one little time to be guided by the Opposition.

The bill that they are pointing to is Bill No. 2, of course, and it is something

that we have to take into account. We are here to vote on the heads of

expenditure, to provide money for the operation of the people of the Province,

for the public services they demand. Certainly, even though it is a huge amount

of money, $1 billion, it is an amount of money which is necessary and is part of

the program which has been brought forward by the government. The details of

expenditure that we will bring forward in the future respecting the budgetary

decisions that will be made are now part of a public consultation process.

Some would expect that the public consultation process,

according to the members of the Opposition, is just a bit of a show, and all

this sort of thing, but it is what the public wanted. The public chose the

process that we established as a part of the election campaign.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dog and pony show (inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Well, you can call it a dog and pony show but

I am sure that those people who attend these consultations, as far as being dogs

and ponies is concerned, might not like the analogies. They would probably

prefer that what they are saying is of course, being heard and it is, it is

being listened to, it is being catalogued, it is being made a part of the

overall process that the Opposition has espoused from time immemorial.

Oppositions always do - governments should consult, and we are and we will, and

of course, the decisions that we arrive at will probably be better for it.

At times in the past, the government chose to put forward

initiatives such as the EDGE legislation. The government consulted the people

throughout the Province. Also, the Opposition had their say in the issue, and

better legislation w