June 1,

1994 HOUSE OF

ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 53

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, It is my privilege to bring to

the attention of this hon. House the fact that June 1 to June 10, 1994, has been

declared National Tourism Awareness Week across the country.

Tourism is a major national industry, playing a key role in

the vitality of the Canadian economy. It accounted for $26 billion last year,

and over 620,000 direct jobs. In Newfoundland, it equated to $470 million in

revenues and 12,000 direct jobs, and I should say, Mr. Speaker, that of all the

jurisdictions across the country last year, Newfoundland saw an increase, I

think, of 6.4 per cent over the year before, when many of the jurisdictions saw

a decrease. So I think we're on the right track. As these numbers indicate, the

tourism industry is also a major contributor to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador have scheduled a number of events across

the Province over the next week to create awareness for tourism and to update

the development of the Association and its new initiatives.

One of these initiatives is a new customer service training

program called SuperHost. SuperHost is a seminar that concentrates on

interpersonal communications and customer service skills and is targeted at all

employees both inside and outside the tourism sector, owners/operators in all

types of business, and the general public. Given that we will be celebrating a

major international event in 1997, this program is an important step in giving

people the appropriate training to improve skills in customer relations in this

Province. Seminars are scheduled throughout the Province starting in June and

will take us right through the summer.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members also, they were

given an invitation yesterday to join us over at the West Block later today

between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador will be hosting

a short wine and cheese just to present industry officials to government

officials and have a chance to dialogue, meet and chat with each other. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, who is attending a funeral at this time, I

rise to speak on his behalf and to say to the House that we join on this side in

doing anything we can do to assist in the promotion of the tourism industry in

this Province. We recognize it as a growing economic stimulant and we encourage

the ministry to do all that can be done to assure that this industry continues

to be a major contributor to the provincial economy. Members on this side will

be joining with members on the opposite side later in the afternoon to share

with Hospitality Newfoundland and other tourism industry officials the reception

that has been planned in the West Block. Mr. Speaker, we give all encouragement

to Hospitality Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: - and the initiatives are included in the

initiative called SuperHost. Thank you very much.

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to join with the minister and the Member for

Waterford -Kenmount to acknowledge the importance of tourism to the economy of

the Province. Any industry that generates close to $500 million is very

significant, indeed. I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that when

marketing the Province as a tourist destination, we should perhaps start

marketing our weather. Our weather in the summer time is very reasonable, cool

ocean breezes, and many of the tourists come from very warm climates, unbearably

warm, and we should offer them the great advantages of our summer weather here

in the Province as a good thing, as opposed to the negative stance that we

always put on it here, but I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: I offer that as a bit of advice to the

minister and join with him in acknowledging the importance of tourism.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier

some questions with regard to the proposed educational reforms that have been

talked about in the past number of months.

A couple of months ago, the government made some

modifications in its original paper, I think, that the minister tabled at one

time, and at that time, the way I saw it at least, from the reaction of the

churches, they saw the modifications that were proposed to be positive in the

sense some of the things in terms of the composition of the school boards, for

example, would be positive, but they didn't appear to be substantial enough to

get an agreement on the issue.

Now, at that time, as I recollect, there were indications

from both the Premier and the Minister of Education, that this was basically

government's bottom line on the issue and that they weren't prepared to move any

further. I would like to ask the Premier, is this still the situation or, is the

government still open to further negotiations, in other words, are you prepared

to modify your position to try to address the concerns of the church leaders and

those involved in this discussion on behalf of the denominations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of

meetings in the last four weeks, I would say - about the last four weeks, a

series of meetings with representatives of the Pentecostal denomination, with

representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, with representatives of the

Integrated group of denominations, and we went over and elaborated on a number

of the positions and the alterations that had been submitted publicly, earlier.

They wanted to discuss some of the detail, and with some elaboration, different

church groups still had views of their own that they wanted to present to the

government; and we did, and they asked us then to put our position, our

elaboration to them in writing.

We did that, and then there was a further meeting with

representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and representatives of the

Pentecostal Church. The Integrated denominations had indicated generally they

felt the government's approach was supportive. There were further meetings,

about ten days ago, if I recall correctly, and further meetings are scheduled as

soon as the two church groups are ready to meet with me again. His Grace,

Archbishop MacDonald has commitments all this week and was unable to meet. We

would have been meeting, as a matter of fact, this afternoon had he been able to

make it.

Discussions are being pursued with a good deal of

understanding and appreciation for the respective positions. I am still hopeful

that we will be able to develop a consensus out of it, and for that reason, I

would prefer not to engage in any detailed discussion of it until we have more

or less completed the discussions that are underway, because I don't want to

make matters more difficult. As soon as it is possible, I will report fully to

the House of Assembly. I would hope that I will be in a position to report

something before the House rises to adjourn for the spring session.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I shall try to approach my questions with a degree of

sensitivity. We all would like to see some kind of an agreement but some of the

issues I want to ask the Premier about are issues that were publicly discussed

before in the Chamber. I would like to ask him, but if he doesn't want to answer

that is fine, too, but they are specific issues.

One of the major problems, as I understand it, with the

modified proposal that government made a couple of months ago, was the issue of

guidelines for determining the viability of uni-denominational schools. You will

recall, I guess, government proposed at that time that the schools would become

multi-denominational but some of them could revert to uni-denominational if

enough parents - and I think the number was somewhere around 90 per cent -

petitioned to allow that to happen. Now, I would like to ask: Is government

still hung up on that particular position, or is it prepared to modify that

position in the hopes of getting some kind of an agreement? In fact, one of the

suggestions that has been made to me is, perhaps the more democratic way to do

it would be to do it the other way around so that the schools could retain their

present status but parents could petition for those schools to become

multi-denominational instead of the other way around.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I again point out that the

hon. member is really into details of the negotiations between government and

the church groups, and I would prefer not to exacerbate a difficult situation by

engaging in a debate as to whether one alternative is better than another.

The government has made its position very clear to the

churches on that, and the reasons behind its position. Now I don't want to

provoke a debate in this House, or in the public generally for that matter right

at this moment, until we have had an opportunity to explore the matters more

fully with the churches, and I will say no more on that issue at this point.

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

further supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I respect the position

and understand the sensitivity of the situation, but let me ask him this

question, since he just raised it himself in terms of public debate or public

discussion, I think it is fair to say that everyone in this Province, parents,

students, all of us as politicians, and the general public, have a bit of a

stake, an important stake, in seeing that all of these issues are being resolved

somehow and sometime between the church and the government, but one of the

issues that concerns people, I guess, are the viability guidelines that are

included in the original presentation. Whenever they are worked out, it could

mean that some of the schools in some communities might have to be closed. That

is one of the realities of the proposal.

Now up until now, as the Premier just indicated, really the

public, aside from the Royal Commission two or three years ago, hasn't been

involved in this exercise at all. I would like to ask him this question, and

this is one that I think he could answer, or at least consider: If an agreement

is worked out with the heads of the churches in the coming weeks, whenever it

might be, would the government be prepared to provide an opportunity for public

discussion on whatever kind of an agreement is reached before the government

proceeds with any final legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the government is

anxious to have a full public discussion on the issue. I do point out to hon.

members that this is a quite different circumstance. These circumstances affect

certain constitutional provisions, which are affected by it, and it is not just

merely a question of what the majority of the people of the Province want. We

have to bear in mind the rights of individual groups that may constitute less

than the majority of the people of the Province, so we have to be sensitive to

that, and we have to provide for a debate going forward in that context, and a

debate that would be understood in that context.

It would be government's thinking that we would want to

provide ample opportunity for public discussion of what was proposed, assuming a

consensus proposal was developed with the churches we would want to provide for

an ample opportunity for public discussion of that proposal prior to taking any

legislative sanctioning of it from the House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

The Burin Peninsula health care board has been ordered by the

Department of Health to cut $371,000 from its budget of $17 million. As a

proportion of its budget the cuts on the Burin Peninsula are nearly four times

as severe as the ones in the St. John's area, and we know the cuts there are bad

enough. The day before yesterday the Leader of the Opposition mentioned or

brought to the attention of this House similar severe cuts in the Central

Newfoundland region. I ask the minister: What is he up to? I ask him: Is he

managing health care in rural Newfoundland the same way CN used to manage the

railway, to ensure it becomes obsolete?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, it is not this party that sold

out our railway.

We are following the appropriate procedure, the same

procedure we've put in effect for all boards. We indicate to them what their

portion of the savings that we have to make will be and then they tell us that:

Yes, we can do this, or we would prefer to do it in a different way, or

whatever. That process is not fully completed as yet. I don't know why the hon.

member would feel that he should be involved in these negotiations at this

point. It is something like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition trying to get

involved in the labour negotiations. It is better to stay out of it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the people

needing health care in this Province are going to find most solace in the

statement by the minister that the reason for cutbacks in health care are going

to relate for the reason why railway service was eliminated in this Province.

That is not a responsible answer.

This government spent millions of dollars to build a forty

bed long-term care health care facility at St. Lawrence. Last year this facility

could only open thirty beds in the area and they are going to have to close

another eight or ten beds this year, even though there are thirteen long-term

care patients with no place to stay. That means there are going to be twenty or

more -

MR. SPEAKER: Question, please.

MR. SULLIVAN: - long term care patients with nowhere to

go. They can't go to Grand Bank. The facility there is full to the rafters.

Now I ask the minister: What solution does he have for the

victims of his budget cuts?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should stop

trying to run the health care system. We have a procedure in place. We have

boards in place on the Burin Peninsula and the board, if they have any concerns

about this matter, will address them through the Department of Health. They have

not contacted me on this point yet. I fail to see of any purpose in their

contacting the member of the Opposition, or is this just more of those things

that he conjures up every single day here to frighten the people of this

Province? All those I have investigated on his behalf so far have resulted in

nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland, a final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As long as people keep coming to me with concerns, whether

they are doctors, and patients, and people there, I am going to continue to give

the minister a wake-up call if he still hasn't answered me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now the minister talks about fundamental

changes to the way that health care is delivered in this Province. He talks

about a shift to community-based services that will allow people to stay at

home.

Now on the Burin Peninsula community health care services are

being reduced, not expanded. They had one full-time ADDC worker on the

Peninsula, before government cut out the ADDC. Government is now providing that

service two days a month.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to get to the question, please.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and in light of the fact that

community mental health services -

AN HON. MEMBER: The question.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is part of my question.

In light of the fact that community mental health services

are now being served by just a psychiatrist who comes in occasionally from St.

John's, and being provided by a social worker, I ask the minister: What is your

plan, and where is your plan, to replace institutional based health care with a

community health based service in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I think we will

do is to assign them to the hon. member, but apart from that we are in constant

communication with these health care boards. As I said before, there is a

procedure in place by which the boards raise concerns with the Department of

Health, and this is how it will continue to be addressed.

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

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Since 1989 student unemployment levels have risen

continuously in this Province. This summer it is estimated that some 40 per cent

to 45 per cent of young people in this Province will not find gainful

employment.

Let me ask the minister: What steps are his department and

his government considering to intervene in this impending crisis on behalf of

young people in the Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know where

the hon. member gets his numbers where he estimates what the extent of the

unemployment levels for young people will be in the Province this summer.

It is accurate that consistently the numbers have run

somewhere in the 30 per cent range, a little bit higher. I don't know where

these new numbers come from. It certainly hasn't been reported to me; however

this year, in fact on a couple of different fronts, we are putting in place

increased and enhanced employment opportunities for students.

Very shortly now we will be in a position, because

applications closed on Friday past, on May 27, for the provincial government

sponsored student employment program, in which case there will be some $600,000

this year spent to employ students on a subsidy basis with private sector

employers throughout the Province. We are also funding in the range of almost

$400,000 in employment opportunities for students through the Newfoundland and

Labrador Conservation Corps, which had a very successful pilot year last year

and is being expanded and broadened this year. In fact that, combined with the

efforts in the challenge program of the federal program, are going to provide

more opportunities this summer than ever for students in Newfoundland and

Labrador to have employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we may, in fact, dispute

percentages, but the reality exists that more students are unemployed this

summer, this year, than ever before. The other reality exists that there will be

less students finding work this summer than ever before, so let me ask the

minister this: He brought up the point about the student employment program.

Will the minister consider increasing money for the student employment program

which has not increased in three years?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, I think both of the assumptions that the hon. member

made at the beginning of his question are both exactly the opposite. As I

finished at the end of the answer to the previous question, this year, this

summer, will be the greatest opportunity than ever any time in the seventeen

years that the previous government was in administration. The numbers of job

opportunities for young people in the student category this year will be the

highest ever, the exact opposite of what the hon. member would propose to have

us believe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: In fact, Mr. Speaker, between the combined

efforts of ourselves provincially and the federal government, which has

continued a strong commitment to student employment opportunities, the news is

good news. Everybody would like to be in a position where every student could

have an employment opportunity in the summer. That would be the ideal. We

haven't reached that, we haven't really come close to that, but this summer I

think is the exact wrong time for the hon. member to be up saying that it is a

disaster. We are making progress, there is improvement, and quite the contrary

to the question, this will be the best year in some time for student

opportunities.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't indicate that there

was any disaster. What I indicated were hard cold facts. That this year there

are more students unemployed in this Province than ever before. That is what I

said to the minister.

Now I ask the minister, provincially, will he make a

commitment today to go to Cabinet and look at finding more money for the student

employment program so that more students can find gainful employment so that

they can subsidize themselves for post-secondary institutions in the Province?

Will the minister make that commitment to this House today?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The correct answer is

that we have done exactly that. I believe the hon. member - it was unfortunate,

because I do recognize the circumstances at the time - that the hon. member who

usually does a good job in the Estimates unfortunately missed our estimates this

year, our committee. That issue was discussed at length. I believe the members

on both sides of the House who examined that issue of student employment agreed

in the committee the exact opposite of what the hon. member is saying today.

That they were very pleased that the numbers have increased, that the amount of

money being contributed by the provincial program in both student employment and

the conservation core, which are both earmarked specifically for the students,

is significantly increased this year, and that the available opportunities for

students in Newfoundland and Labrador this summer, this season, will be the best

they've been for a long, long time.

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

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and concerns the privatization

of electrical inspections whereby electrical contractors are allowed to do their

own inspections or hire their own inspectors. Can the minister indicate how many

electrical contractors have notified the department that they would be using

representatives, so-called, to do their inspections, as opposed to the

government's own inspectors? Will the government electrical inspection authority

still be conducting inspections, and what proportion of them? How does the

minister plan to monitor the activities of these contractors' representatives in

the interest of public safety and the public interest?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question, which is an old question, I guess. I guess we have to give the same

answers again, but it is a good opportunity to provide the information again,

because we've dealt with this issue in some detail.

How many of the actual contractors will be using their own

representatives because they will have a qualified electrical engineer on staff?

I couldn't give you the number. I can certainly check. The registrations

finished a day or so ago. There are a number of very large electrical

contractors located on the Island, in Labrador, who have these electrical

engineers as part of their staff and they are registered. That information is

available. I just, for my own purposes, didn't see any need to have that for

myself. It is not something that I will be monitoring. The staff does that

regularly. I can certainly find out if the hon. member thinks that is an

important issue for some reason.

Will we still be doing inspections? Obviously yes. That is

why we kept ten inspectors out of the twenty that were there. Because there will

still be an inspection role for the government, spelled out in the regulations,

the regulations, Mr. Speaker, that I tabled in the Legislature so that all hon.

members could see them last week, if they hadn't of personal interest already

gone to the department to get them earlier.

There will be inspections. It is expected that about 40 per

cent of the circumstances that required inspection prior to today in the old

system which was in place up to yesterday will still require inspection, and

that time to time, on a spot check basis, even those that have the electrical

engineers on staff that do not require inspection, will be monitored from time

to time on an occasional basis to ensure that the department, in the interest of

public safety, is satisfied that their work is consistently up to standard.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I raise this question

because this is the first day of the new system. I also have to bring to the

minister the concerns that are still being expressed by people first of all as

to the safety of the new system, particularly with home inspections and the

potential increase in insurance costs because of the potential increase in

safety when the government system is being replaced by companies who are allowed

to inspect themselves. Has the minister addressed those concerns? Is he aware of

them and can he respond to them?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I believe in this

respect that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. If you check

Hansard you'll find the exact same questions asked about a month ago by the hon.

Member for Grand Bank, the Opposition House Leader and we did answer the

questions at that time. Are there concerns on an individual basis from

home-owners about safety? In the early goings there were some people who asked

and registered some concerns but when they were provided the information they

were completely satisfied. There have been no registering of such concern

recently that I'm aware of, either to the staff or to myself personally through

the minister's office. The issue of insurance costs was raised, it was checked

out and there was absolutely no implication for insurance with respect to

residents or commercial establishments as a result of a change in these

inspection procedures, none at all.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier, following up

on a question I've asked him now on two different occasions pertaining to the

fishing industry renewal boards. I understand negotiations are still ongoing. At

least the last time I asked the Premier he said there were negotiations between

the federal government and provincial government pertaining to the mandates of

the fishing industry renewal boards. I am wondering if the Premier could update

the House now and to inform us whether or not they are close to an agreement on

the mandate of the fishing industry renewal boards because I've heard there are

some difficulties being encountered and that's because I guess of the

implications and the involvement of other provinces in this matter. Can the

Premier confirm that for us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that I

met as late as this morning with Mr. Tobin, the federal Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans and I have to say that my conversation with Mr. Tobin was most

encouraging indeed.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. It's nice to see

that the Premier has something to be encouraged about these days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I was just wondering - obviously he

doesn't want to be more specific and I can respect that, negotiations are

ongoing and probably at a delicate stage.

A question for the Premier or acting Minister of Fisheries,

in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, I'm wondering is the provincial

government aware that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are still issuing -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Minister of Works Services.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, is he? That's as close as he will

get to being minister.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans are issuing temporary

fishing licenses. We have, I think it's safe to say, in excess of 10,000

fishermen who are no longer fishing because of the moratoriums around the coast

and so on, but I understand the federal department is still issuing temporary

fishing licenses. I'm wondering is the Province aware of that and have they

taken the matter up with the federal department, federal minister? It seems

totally incorrect to me that for all those people to be out there willing to

fish and can't and so on, that they're allowing temporary fishing licenses to be

issued today, people are fishing with part-time licenses. Is the government

aware of that and are they concerned about it or will they do something about

it?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries is in

Yarmouth, Nova Scotia attending a conference of the Minister's of Fisheries. I'm

not sure if it's from Atlantic Canada or from a broader group, so I can't answer

the question nor can any of us who are here. I'll take it as notice and we'll

get an answer and inform the House as quickly as possible.

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

Kenmount.

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

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Recently the government tendered

the lease of 8,148 sq. ft. of office space for offices of the Auditor General.

The lowest bidder was placed by Fen Corp. Corporation Newfoundland Limited on

behalf of Adelaide Capital Corporation yet that firm was not awarded the tender.

I was wondering if the minister could offer an explanation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am quite aware of the fact and the point that the hon.

member raises in the House. We did not award the tender to the lowest bidder

because we considered, as a department, that the accommodation was not suitable

at the time where it was located in the building; we looked at the building and

we brought the matter before government and we did not award it to the lowest

tender.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: I am sorry to say an official of your

department, rather than to name the civil servant, confirmed with the lowest

bidder on May 17 that there were no building, structural or proposed lay out

problems or deficiencies that influenced the decision of your department to

reject the bid. I am quoting from a letter here, so, Mr. Speaker, I an wondering

as well, because the lowest bidder had confirmed, through an engineering firm,

that all of the structural requirements would be made, and yet in spite of the

letter and the confirmation from your officials, the lowest bidder did not

receive the tender, therefore the minister's statement that he made earlier

seems to be very inconsistent.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the letter that the hon. member

is reading is not from an official of my department. The letter is from an

individual I suspect who submitted the tender and who did not get the tender and

is making the accusation that an official from my department made those remarks.

I suspect that is what is in that letter. I can assure this hon. House that no

official from my department sent any letter to anybody, either the individual

concerned or the hon. member opposite, so I suggest before the hon. member makes

the accusations that an official of my department made those statements, he had

better check out his facts.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I did not say it was a letter

signed by an official of the department. In this letter it reads and I quote, it

reads the gentleman's name and it says: of your department written to the

minister, confirmed with us on May 17, 1994 there were no building, structural

or proposed lay out problems or deficiencies that influenced your decision; so,

Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the writer of the letter is telling the truth

and I say to the minister, it is very difficult for people to be able to submit

bids and to meet all the requirements and then to find that they did not receive

due consideration and did not get the leasing that was offered by the

department.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I again say, the letter that the

hon. member is reading is repeating what somebody else is supposed to have said

and I don't place any confidence in that. I know very well the tender that the

hon. gentleman is talking about. It also states very clearly in the Public

Tendering Act, that not necessarily the lowest tender would be accepted. There

are reasons why, based on location, based on the building itself, based on where

the office space is contained in the building and I can assure all hon. members

of this House that the Public Tendering Act is followed to the letter of the

law.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is a question for the

Minister of Finance. The Premier was recently quoted as saying that the

Province's financial position has improved quite dramatically and we are quite

pleased to hear that and we would like to know more about it, and of course as a

result of the teachers strike, that no doubt has a very positive impact on

expenses for this year so far, could the minister tell us how much of that in

the agreement, the tentative agreement, is being given back in one form or

another and in what form and what now is the projected deficit for this year,

are we on target or are we well ahead of that?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Premier has

indicated that over the last four months what has happened in this Province has

been a little bit beyond what we had expected at Budget time and we are revising

our estimates in terms of growth. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, in the last month

that is available, which are April's returns, there is a slight increase in most

provincial revenues. It is better than we had projected earlier in the year, so

this is extremely encouraging, and we hope this continues.

However, the hon. member knows full well, having been in the

position himself, that until you can get a trend established over a long enough

period of time you cannot really go and change your budgetary projections. That

point in time will probably come in October when we are informed with greater

finality with regards to the transfer payments from Ottawa. At that point in

time we will have six month's figures from this fiscal year so we can then make

a decision in terms of our budgetary projections, and at that point in time we

change them.

As the hon. member remembers over the last three or four

years our revenue projections have not been met and we have in October or

November had to indicate to the people of the Province that things were indeed

worse and certain measures had to be taken. I believe, if things hold for the

next few months, it is an indication that this year the reverse situation will

be possible and maybe in October or November we will hopefully announce to the

people of the Province that in fact our projections are now changed and things

are much better than we projected.

This is an approach that we have also informed the collective

bargaining agents of our workers. We have also informed them and kept them up to

date on what is happening, so it is a revenue increase. With regards to the

expenditures, which is the other question the hon. gentleman had put, obviously

our expenditures are down, specifically because of the strike, as he mentioned,

and we will not be using the strike savings as a windfall to government but they

will be used in a specific way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Workers'

Compensation Act," Bill No. 27.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise

today to present a petition on behalf of the community of Postville, Labrador in

the district of Torngat Mountains.

I will read the prayer of the petition: `Whereas health care

services, which are a Provincial Government responsibility, are below the

provincial standard in Labrador as compared to health care services provided on

the Island; and

Whereas the Labrador residents are transported by air at

considerable expense to health care facilities in St. Anthony and St. John's for

most surgery and special care and treatment; and

Whereas the Labrador residents have only approximately 250 of

the approximately 800 positions under Grenfell Regional Health Services and

obviously are not receiving their fair share of health care tax dollars from

government;

Wherefore the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador begin

immediate development of a regional health care centre for Labrador residents to

be located in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and government appoint a health care

board from amongst Labrador residents separate completely from the Grenfell

Regional Health Services board; and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever

pray.' The petition is dated May 18, 1994.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this petition, I would like to

take a few moments to express the concerns of the residents of the Torngat

Mountains district. I suppose one can say we have three kinds of residents in

the district of Torngat Mountains: the Innu residents, some of who are

unilingual Innu-speaking people; Inuit residents, some of whom are unilingual

Inuktitut-speaking people; and, as well, the Euro-Canadians of the Torngat

Mountains district, who have for 400 or 500 years been living in that

environment.

Mr. Speaker, I will relate to you an incident that occurred

this winter with one of the constituents who happens to be a unilingual

man had to go and see a specialist in St. Anthony, Newfoundland. It took him two

days to get there and the appointment lasted for twenty minutes. Then, when he

was coming back, he got stranded at the St. Anthony airport, which is forty-five

minutes from the hospital. With no recourse, and not knowing anybody in the town

of St. Anthony, he had to be stuck there for six hours, not knowing who to

contact or what to do. This wasn't so bad for the seventy-four-year-old resident

of Postville. That often happens to the unilingual Inuktitut- and Innu-speaking

people who don't even know how to communicate with security people at the

airports or how to use the technology that is available to them today because

they haven't been trained or taught how to use it.

In that regard, I agree with the Minister of Health in that

we should be striving toward prevention rather than purely treatment all the

time. But if prevention is going to work in the district of Torngat Mountains,

then the residents of that region must be able to understand what is happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am very

encouraged by the beginning of the White Paper delivered by the Minister of

Health, but we sure have a lot of work to do in meeting the needs and

language. I think it is something that I, as representative, call upon, not only

this hon. House, but my government as well, to consider very seriously in the

very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Member for

Torngat Mountains is driving home here is something that we have been saying for

some time, and I fully support that. In fact, I have a letter, over one month in

my possession, that I haven't brought to this House, and this is a good

opportunity to do so. It is from a person who lives in Postville and was

diagnosed in November 1992 and needed treatment, and that person needed

treatment in the near future. He was flown into Goose Bay, sent on to St.

Anthony, and was sent back home again but did not receive any treatment because

there was no room, no beds.

Months later that person saw a specialist again and he

recommended that surgery be done. It was again delayed, and fourteen months

later, when a specialist finally saw this person, it was at such an extreme

stage that he ordered him into surgery immediately and had it performed. Now, I

didn't release it because I didn't seek the permission of this individual to

release it publicly, but that is just one of the many, many volumes of letters I

am receiving, and people I am talking to. There is a need to have a

community-based health care service sensitive to native needs in the area, and

to fly someone by air ambulance into St. Anthony, thirty-five miles from an

airport, to bring them into St. Anthony when there is a special community-based

need.

Now, I served as chairman of a primary health care pilot

project that was going on here in Newfoundland and in Denmark for two years

before I got into politics, and we learned there is a need to develop

community-based health care and have a community service there to cater to

people who are pushed out of hospital probably prematurely. It is very important

that we build up community health bases in the area, but this government has

done nothing to build up community health care, while at the same time, they are

closing hundreds of beds in hospitals across this Province since 1989. Now, it

is not the proper way to proceed. It is not done on a rationalized basis. And

one of the key movements today is in prevention and promotion, to prevent

illness.

The Budget this year has an increase in prevention and

promotion of $43,000 when there are hundreds of thousands being spent trying to

promote Hydro privatization in this Province that people don't want. It is time

for this government to get its priorities straight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: With all due respect to health care

professionals, it is time to sit down with community people, the people who need

that service in the community, and listen to what they have to say, and do

something that is rational and cost-effective in terms of people's demands and

expectations. If they are a part of the process and have an input into what is

happening, they will appreciate the restraints, be a part of it, and accept

that. We have to use our dollars better, we have to stop cutting

indiscriminately, and we have to start catering to people with our health care

dollars in the most efficient manner.

I fully support the member's request here to have a special

concern and a special need as it relates to native people in communities that

are isolated along Northern Labrador. I support the petition and I hope the

Minister of Health will take those concerns to mind and discuss them with his

department officials. Now, is an opportunity to do what is best in Northern

Newfoundland with the five scenarios, or even the sixth being talked about now,

to sit down and listen to the people.

I asked about having public hearings, not just interested

groups, but have public hearings to hear the people out, make the right

decisions for people in Northern Newfoundland, in the St. Anthony area, Southern

Labrador, Northern Labrador, and Central that is served under the Grenfell

Regional Health Service right now, and do what is best for the people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the

Member for Torngat Mountains for presenting this petition. All the points he has

made will be taken into consideration. Providing health care services in the

North is not an easy proposition. We have a land mass which is huge. We have a

transportation system which is basically by air, and there are many problems

involved in it, but we must take into account that people who do not speak the

language of the people who work in health care have to be attended to very

carefully.

I have already had discussions with the Grenfell Regional

Health Care Board on this matter. They are aware of some of the problems, and

they do their best to accommodate. They have built recently in St. Anthony, I

hear, a residence so that interpreters can come and stay there. So there are

attempts being made, and other attempts will be made, to cope with this problem.

We are, at the moment, looking at the whole question of

structuring health care in the North. We had the hon. Member from St. Anthony -

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Education.

DR. KITCHEN: The Minister of Education and I had a

tremendous meeting in St. Anthony on Saturday, a series of meetings with various

groups of people, and a tremendous public meeting we had there, and people had

many things to say to us, many of which we knew, but some things we did not

know.

I might say, for the edification of the hon. the Member for

Ferryland, that Grenfell has probably the best community care system, one of the

best, in the world. It is not good enough, but it is certainly better than what

we had in Ferryland, with all due respect, and for him to say that that

organization is deficient in community care is to give another black name to

people who do a good job.

What the hon. member opposite does, as opposed to what this

member does, is to distort, to exaggerate, to lead and to frighten people to

death. There is no need of that, Mr. Speaker, talking about the volumes of

letters that he has. I'll say there is some volume of letters now that he has.

You can put them in your back pocket and sit on them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear the hon. the Member for Ferryland on a point of

order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, whether it is imputing

motives, or what he is doing, I did not say that, and I stand on record. I

didn't criticize the community health care in that area. In fact, I realize,

because of its geographic isolation, it has a better community health care

system than others. I didn't make that remark, and I ask the minister to

withdraw that accusation there. That is incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is unable to rule on it because we don't have a

record. I don't know exactly what the member said, but it is a matter of

disagreement as to what was said, and the record will bear out whichever is

correct.

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we look forward very much to

receiving in writing - we have already had a brief from the Inuit, the Labrador

Inuit Association, and we look forward very much to having more discussions with

them, and indeed with all others in Labrador and in Northern Newfoundland, on

this whole question of health care in the North. It is ongoing, and we look

forward to it.

Thank you.

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

have a petition to present?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of

some thirty-seven residents of the Deer Lake area, Cormack, Reidville, and so

on, in the district of Humber Valley.

The petition is against the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro. It is nothing new to the House of Assembly for the last two or three

months, that's for sure. In any case, it is incumbent upon me, as the member for

the area, to make sure that those petitions are presented - any petitions that

are signed by residents of the area.

Mr. Speaker, especially in the last two or three weeks, we

have seen some radical changes, I suppose, and it is not public from members

opposite, but it is obvious from some of the polls that have been done and so

on, that members opposite, especially the backbenchers, must have their heads

buried in the sand. I suppose members should realize, especially in the

summertime, what happens when you have your head buried in the sand. One of two

things can happen, and sometimes both. You can smother, or you can get your

backside burned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: In this case, I would say members got their

backsides burned, and if they don't act, and act fast in the next few weeks, and

especially the next couple of years, they will smother, and I am talking about

politically smothering, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: They were treading water for a long time,

Mr. Speaker, and some people around the Province thought for a long time, it was

obvious from the polls, that the Premier could walk on water, but I would say

today, Mr. Speaker, they are in quicksand; they are in quicksand and there is no

way in the world now that they could come out of it - and you know what happens

in quicksand; and, Mr. Speaker, it is the `Clyde slide' story and I would say

within the next few days, next week, you would probably see the House come -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not `Clyde lied', `Clyde slide'.

MR. WOODFORD: `Clyde slide' story, that's what I said -

yes, much like one of those water slides, you know what happens when you come

down there.

Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen? Some of the questions

the people have been asking me around the Province and especially in the

district - and it is no different from what they have been asking me in my

district. I live next to the Bay of Islands, I have all kinds of friends and

buddies and people in the Bay of Islands, the Premier's district, and next door

to the district we have the Member for St. Barbe, I see them all, they come

through the airport in Deer Lake, you go into the malls in Corner Brook, you

walk around the area, even here, I used to be able to go out to a mall out here,

the Avalon Mall or go somewhere like that, Mr. Speaker, nobody would notice you;

you would walk through the mall, do what you had to do, sit down and have a

meal, go to a movie in peace. Now, Mr. Speaker, you can't do it.

I can't believe that an ordinary member, a low-profile member

from the West Coast of the Province could walk through a mall and hear people

ask: `What's going on?' `Why won't they listen?' I can't believe it - no matter

where you go. Just a few short months ago, someone on the elevator wouldn't say

`boo', wouldn't say a word against the government, because you know why, they

were afraid. Now, they don't care, the elevator door could be wide-open, they

don't care, Mr. Speaker, they don't care if there are microphones, they don't

care if there are hidden cameras in there, they are speaking up, and it is

obvious, Mr. Speaker, from some of the advertisements that are going around the

Province today -

AN HON. MEMBER: Facts.

MR. WOODFORD: Facts, the so-called facts - it is funny,

isn't it, Mr. Speaker, a few short months ago, Newfoundland and Labrador

outlined a privatization act, March 4, 1994, it was sent to every householder in

the Province, that was going to be the climax, that was it. A few short days

after that, Mr. Speaker, all would be sealed, the deal would be done, second

reading went through, we were starting to get into Committee and then we were

coming to the next stage which would mean closure on Committee in third reading

the one time; one night all over.

AN HON. MEMBER: Done deal.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, a done deal. But when the

people read the facts, Mr. Speaker, what happened? It started to get worse, it

started to go down.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The one (inaudible) now and that's the

Premier.

MR. WOODFORD: That's the one then, well-cooked,

well-cooked now, well-basted, I tell you that, Mr. Speaker, and when they look

at one of the - FACT 5, HYDRO REMAINS A NEWFOUNDLAND COMPANY. Now, come on, Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundlanders are sick and tired of being talked down to;

Newfoundlanders are not that so-called stunned, Mr. Speaker, they are not

stunned, they can understand when they have been taken, and it is obvious, Mr.

Speaker, from the polls that were done, that they have been taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

I point out that there is not much time left on this

petition.

MR. WHELAN: Not at this moment.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. I believe the hon. minister was

up on this petition. In any event, it is 3:00 p.m., so I will -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: That will certainly rank as the shortest

speech the member gave in this House.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It now being Private Members' Day, which

order is being called? Private Members' Day, Private Members' Motion, Motion 6,

is it agreed? Motion 6, the hon. the Member for St. John's North.

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

I am happy to have the opportunity today to lead off the

debate on Private Members' Day on this private member's resolution. I have had

the opportunity once before in this House to introduce and have a private

member's resolution debated, and on that particular occasion, the members on the

opposite side of the House all got up and left, but I am hoping today that the

members on the other side of the House will find it possible to stay with us so

that we can have a debate on this resolution that I want to talk about.

The resolution, Mr. Speaker, deals with, essentially, two

topics, one being the facts surrounding the situation that we find ourselves in

as a Province economically as it relates to unemployment and underemployment in

the Province, and to have some debate, some discussion as to what government's

responsibility is in terms of seeing that we do what we can to get our people

back to work.

There are a number of facts stated in the resolution that we

have before us today and I don't want to take any amount of time to deal with

some of the things that - the whereases in the resolution. Because I think we

are all agreed that we are at the end of, hopefully, what has been a rather

difficult downturn in the economy. I'm sure the case has been adequately made

many times over the past few years that the 1990s have not been good to us

economically. The economy in Newfoundland has followed what has happened in

Canada and North America, and that is, we have had a decrease in inflation,

which is probably the only good thing that has come out of the recession, but

many bad things have occurred as a result as well.

There has been, certainly, increase in business closures,

there has been reduction in business investment in the Province and in Canada

and, worst of all, I guess, Mr. Speaker, a rise in unemployment. I have listened

to the people in the district that I represent for the past year or so and I

have heard and received one underlying, main concern by way of a message from my

constituents and that is, above everything else that concerns people today and

above all of the issues that are out there for public discussion, the most

important issue that is before people is the issue of employment - the issue of

being able to get a job, to hold on to a job and to be able to provide a decent

living for themselves and for their family.

Now, I guess when unemployment becomes a significant factor

in our economy, as it has been over the past two or three years, people begin to

look at their own circumstance and how it has affected them because, believe me,

there are hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders either unemployed or

underemployed out there in our economy. Some of the groups that have been

severely affected by the economic downturn have received what some will consider

to be significant attention over and above others. I want to say at the outset

of the discussion on this resolution, that I believe it is incumbent upon

government, it is incumbent upon the Legislature of this Province, to ensure

that all individuals in the Province have their needs, in terms of employment

and underemployment, addressed in a fair and equitable manner, consistent with

the needs of all other Newfoundlanders around them.

What is it I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker? Well, I guess I

would have to say that one of the most seriously affected groups of people in

the Province over the past couple of years, without doubt, has been the

fishermen, the people who have been associated with the fishery and they have

been affected through no fault of their own. They have been the victims of a

circumstance brought about by mismanagement of a resource, a primary resource,

and they have found themselves out of the boat, they have found themselves out

of the fish plants, they have found themselves dysfunctional in terms of being

involved in the labour market of the Province, and that affects some regions of

the Province quite severely. Significant steps, billions of dollars in actual

dollar terms, have been taken to address with great validity the need that has

arisen as a result of the mismanagement of others of the fish stocks. So I would

commend the Federal Government and I would commend our own government for the

attention we have paid to seeing that these people, who have had the serious

economic consequences foisted upon them, are being addressed and taken care of.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I recognize, I believe, as do

most of us, that there are a number of people in this Province who have been

indirectly put out of work, economically disadvantaged, because of what has

happened to the fishery, and for whom no particular provision or program has

been put in place to look after or adjust their circumstances. Sometimes this

could give the appearance of unfairness or give the appearance of one sector of

the economy being looked after moreso than another. I don't think that is the

case necessarily. I am confident that it is not the intent of anything that has

been done by any level of government to address the problems in the fishery.

As I move around the district, it being a totally urban

district, where fisheries is not really a significant factor in terms of the

day-to-day lives of the people, I have to say - with respect to people who have

been put out of work as retail sales clerks because retails sales have been

down, people who have not been able to operate their taxicabs and receive the

same level of remuneration that they used to have, security workers who have

been displaced from their place of employment, and many others who are in the

service sector, if you like, of the Province - I would have to say that these

people view, and I believe with great validity, their unemployment situation,

their unemployment circumstance, as being of equal importance to that of any

other person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So it is in that context that I felt we should discuss the

matter in the House of Assembly this afternoon. I want to be on record certainly

as having recognized and having said that everybody's unemployment problem,

everybody who is out of work, everybody who is looking for a job, their

situation is just as critical and just as important to them as is anybody else's

unemployment situation in any area of the Province, regardless of the reason why

they all find themselves in these circumstances.

I want to clearly state that there has to be a recognition by

all of us - government, in particular - that we have a responsibility to ensure

that every person who has a difficulty in the area of employment feels and

understands that their need is important, that their situation is serious, and

that they need some attention paid to them as well.

Let me tell you about some of the things that I've found up

in my district. A gentleman came to me the other day, an individual who had

worked for about fifteen years with the City Council in St. John's. As a result

of a serious automobile accident, he found himself out of work and unable to

return to his traditional employment. The gentleman just happens to be somebody

who doesn't have a high level of education. The facts of the matter are in his

life that: number one, he can't go back to his old job because he can't do it;

number two, there is no other position open to him to which he can gain access;

number three, he doesn't have the primary and basic education that will enable

him to get into a course whereby some government program would pick him up; and

number four, he has no means of his own in which to be able to upgrade his

educational requirements.

As best I can determine, after researching what is available,

there is absolutely no program, no mechanism, nothing out there that can help

this individual in terms of government initiatives or programs to: number one,

get his educational skills up to where they should be; and number two, find a

job for him at the moment in the event that that is not possible. That

individual I would refer to as a person who has fallen through the cracks of no

particular program in place to look after him.

Let me tell you about another situation that I've encountered

recently in the district, if you will. I had a call from a very fine lady up in

the district, as are all the people, of course, in St. John's North - pretty

good people, very decent people. This lady said: `I have a problem.' I asked:

`What is your problem?' She said: It is like this, Sir. I was a social

assistance recipient last year, and the Department of Social Services found a

project on which I could go to work so that I could qualify for unemployment

insurance benefits. I took the job, and today I am drawing unemployment

insurance and my benefits won't run out until next September. That is good to

that extent, but she said: I want to take today, and I have available to me

today, an opportunity to get into an early childhood development program, and I

am wondering if the Department of Social Services can pay for that particular

program, to help me get my skills upgraded so that I can do two things. I can

come off the unemployment rolls, number one, and secondly, I may never have to

go back on the rolls of the Social Services Department. So that would be great

for me, and it would be great for the government.

Well, it just so happens that that individual who is striving

to get out of the cycle of social assistance, unemployment, and then back into

the cycle again, finds herself in a circumstance where there is no program, in

no department of government, federally or provincially, that can help that

person get the training that she is asking for so that she can become gainfully

and meaningfully employed.

Now I say, Mr. Speaker, that is another circumstance of a

person who is falling through the cracks of the system of programs that are in

place to help people.

Those may be only two circumstances, but I highlight these to

emphasize the fact that there are many, many, many - there are tens of thousands

of people - who have no access to, have no recourse to, either a program or a

training situation that will allow them to get out of the poor circumstance they

are in, and to try and get themselves up to a point where they can be

employable.

There are programs that are available to certain sectors of

the economy - or of society, of our people - but there are more people falling

through the cracks because they don't fit into certain programs. Then there are

people who are program specific, if you like, in terms of what is available to

them.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that is, in my view, a situation

which to the extent that we can address it as legislators we should try and

correct. Everybody should have the ability to move forward under some sort of

government assistance if what they are trying to achieve, and what they are

suggesting, is sensible and reasonable at all.

We have, as a government, laid out in the Throne Speech that

was read here earlier in the spring, a philosophy, if you like, as a government,

that really says that government cannot do everything to create jobs for people,

but that this government is committed to the principle of invigorating and

assisting the private sector to become the primary employer of people in the

Province.

So, then, where does the government fit into the whole

equation if, in fact, we are not going to be the employer and if, in fact, we

believe that the private sector should be the employer? Well I believe that it

is the role of government primarily to ensure that we, to the greatest extent

possible, facilitate both the employers in the private sector and the employees,

citizens of the Province, who want to get in the program, to assist them in

getting the training that they want and that they need.

One of the things that I would suggest, having looked at all

of the programs that are available through the Department of Employment and

Labour Relations, and having looked at some of the very good things that are

done through the Department of Social Services, I would first of all say that

these departments are making a noble effort to address the needs of training and

retraining of the people of the Province, but I would have to suggest that the

greatest benefit that we will get for the few dollars we have to spend as a

government, both ourselves and in co-operation with the federal government, I

think the best thing we can do, or the direction in which we should be moving,

is to ensure that, first of all, all of these programs be taken that are

available even now through the Department of Employment and Labour Relations,

that all of these individual programs should not be operating so much in

isolation of each other, as it were, but they should be considered in a global

sense or in a big picture. Secondly I would suggest that we have to understand

that because so many people fall through the cracks in our system as it

presently exists that we have to ensure that there is the maximum degree of

flexibility that is possible in terms of administering programs.

I am aware, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker and other members

of the Legislature, that from time to time there are some government programs

that have every dollar that has ever been put into them spent probably in the

first two or three months of the fiscal year, and there are other government

programs in a specific department and some in other departments that never have

all of the budget spent for them that is allocated. I am suggesting that we need

to be flexible in terms of moving funds, in terms of moving dollars, from one

program to another, so that people and programs and opportunities that we are

promoting with good cause as government become more user-friendly, both towards

the people in the Province and toward the businesses and the non-profit

organizations, and yes, the educational institutions, that all have to play a

part in this whole thing.

I want also to touch on, before I sit down, some of the other

things that I've heard and noticed as I go through, and contrary to what I have

heard probably even in the House.

It seems to me that as a result of some of the programs that

have been put in place to assist certain sectors of the economy educational

opportunities have become diminished or limited to young people in this Province

who otherwise would want to get into and would be able to get into certain

training institutes. I have had too many young people say to me: I cannot get

into the trade school to do a certain course, I cannot get into an institute to

do a certain program, because all of the seats have been filled by programs that

have been designed for certain sectors of the economy, and attached to these

programs are significant dollars that these institutions, both private and

public, want to access.

So, as a direct result of the way governments - and I say

"governments" - have chosen to spend some of the training and retraining money

it has worked to the disadvantage and to the detriment of young people who are

prepared, willing and should be in educational institutes, and who are prepared,

willing and able to go and who are prepared and willing to pay their own way.

They can't get in because of government initiatives that are blocking out their

opportunities.

It seems passing strange to me that almost anybody with

$1,000 or $1,200 in their pocket for a tuition fee, and who has a 65 or a 70

average, can access entrance to Memorial University and get in there without any

questions asked. There is nobody as I know who can't get into M.U.N. if they

have the average and if they have the dollars; but when it comes to our

technical training schools, when it comes to Cabot, when it comes to the Marine

Institute, there are people having to wait two and three years to get into very

basic programs. People who want to be nursing assistants, people who want to be

cooks, people who want to be mechanics. There seems to me to be something

fundamentally wrong with that situation when people can get into the highest

institute of learning with minimum and basic standard requirements, which is a

tuition and the marks, and yet you have people who cannot get into a basic

training course or a technical thing that probably is only an eight or a nine

month course.

So I would say that there is a situation in terms of access

to training and retraining that has to be addressed by this government and has

to be addressed also by the federal government.

These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the observations that I have

made -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - over the past short time.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: If I could have a minute just to clue

up. I would say that these are very significant and important, particularly to

the people in the urban areas of the Province where I happen to represent people

and where a significant portion of the population exists.

I would simply say at this point, and then I will sit down,

this, Mr. Speaker, and it is what I said earlier, that I believe we have to be

committed to the principle. I believe as a government we are committed to the

principle of fairness and equitable treatment for all of our people who find

themselves in unemployed situations but I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have to be

more than committed to the principle. We have to be committed to the principle -

I guess, for want of a better word - of insuring that we correct and fill - if I

may say it that way - fill some of the cracks, many of the cracks through which

people are falling because of compartmentalized programs and because people do

not fit into project specific type of help that is out there for them.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we have to consider

everybody's circumstance and nobody should ever feel that they are being

disadvantaged or prejudiced against, as being unemployed as a result of programs

that are in place to help others and not them. Fairness and balance I believe in

all respects including, training, retraining and employment opportunities, I

believe has to be the hallmark of all of the policies that we annunciate and all

the practices that we follow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It gives me some pleasure today to rise and speak to the

private member's resolution put forward by the Member for St. John's South -

North. I miss my friend terribly from St. John's South. Apparently he's on the

beat somewhere while the rest of us poor slaves are working away here.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just take a moment to go through the

private member's resolution

section by section. The Member for St. John's North

read the prayer. He said that:

WHEREAS this Province has experienced significant

economic difficulties during the past few years due to a general economic

recession; and

WHEREAS the economic difficulties have been further complicated

by the collapse of the ground fish industry and some other sections of the

Province's economy have also been negatively affected by the general economic

conditions;

Now there's not much chance, Mr. Speaker, that many people in

this House would argue with the general spirit proposed in those two paragraphs.

Perhaps some may take some exception that due to the recession this government

has been placed in serious economic difficulties. Some people may take exception

that government hasn't been innovative or creative enough but again that's a

debate for a little later on.

He goes on to say:

WHEREAS this government acknowledges that

the private sector must be the primary engine of economic growth and stimulus in

the Province in order to create new jobs for our people.

Again, not many people on this side of the House or I suspect

in the House itself, Mr. Speaker, would disagree with the principle that private

sector growth and private sector companies stimulate the economy, create jobs

and create wealth for individuals. Not many people, Mr. Speaker, would disagree

with that principle.

He goes on to say:

WHEREAS many unemployed and underemployed

Newfoundlanders do not, at present, have their educational and employment needs

met by specific government programs.

Mr. Speaker, I can say with certainty that I, as a member of

this House, will certainly concur with the Member for St. John's North that many

unemployed and underemployed people in this Province needs are not meet by

specific government programs and that their present educational and employment

opportunities are severely limited. The member goes on to say - and I'm not sure

if he really dealt with it in his twenty minute commentary on his resolution

that:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House reaffirm its support

for the commitment of the government to pursue the development and funding of

programs which will ultimately result in the best chance for long term

employment opportunities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what programs is he speaking about? I had

hoped today that the member would outline the very program initiatives offered

by the government through the Department of Employment and Labour Relations

possibly and initiatives offered by the Department of Social Services,

especially some of the new initiatives, like new beginnings, but he didn't and

I'll deal with that in a moment.

He goes on to say: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House is

committed to the principle that all our people have fair and equitable access to

meaningful programs and support mechanisms that will assist them in accessing

educational opportunities, training and jobs on a fair and equitable basis with

all other Newfoundlanders.

Mr. Speaker, there is no hesitation on my part to support

principles espoused in this private member's resolution. Support of principles

is one thing; but the practical fallout, the initiatives, the work that goes

into principles or achieving principles is completely another, and that is where

this government has fallen down.

I would like just to take a moment to go through some of the

comments made by the Member for St. John's North. He talks about where there are

hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders who are either underemployed or

unemployed in this Province and that their needs need to be addressed in a very

serious way. He has also indicated - and he talked about the fishery, and he has

commended the federal government and his own provincial government for the way

in which they have handled the economic collapse of the groundfish fishery and

the employment programs, the compensation package put forward. If I read him

correctly he is talking about the other hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders

who have not been so lucky. The thousands of Newfoundlanders who are employed in

the construction season, who are employed in the construction industry, both in

the union and non-union sector. I believe those are some of the people that the

Member for St. John's North is talking about.

The people who are employed in the mining industry in this

Province who have been affected because of the downturn in the economy, and who

have found themselves either unemployed or underemployed, people who have been

able to count on for a number of years a decent standard of living without

having the need to take the opportunity to upgrade and train, that he is talking

about these people in that sector of our economy. The thousands also in the

forest industry who have found themselves either unemployed or underemployed as

a result of economic conditions, I believe that he is speaking about those. Also

I would think that the Member for St. John's North is talking about the hundreds

or the thousands of people who are employed in the agricultural industry in this

Province who have found themselves in the same position, either unemployed or

underemployed.

Let me refresh the hon. member's memory so that we can look

at a certain government initiative that took place by the federal government

recently, where this Province was asked to bear disproportionately the cuts made

to the UI system. This Province bore 11 per cent of the cuts in terms of what

were to be saved on the unemployment insurance system while only using and

utilizing 2 per cent of the total pay outs of UI. To re-emphasize some of the

points the hon. Member for St. John's North made, the impact of that will see

some $250 million dragged out of this economy this year, next year and each year

thereafter, but in real human terms it means this. That there will be 10,000

people who will not access UI as a result of those changes this year. There will

be an additional 7,000 people who will receive less benefits. So I suppose the

hon. member is talking about those people in that resolution, but yet, when a

private member's resolution was introduced in this House that called upon this

House of Assembly to condemn the way in which Newfoundland and Labrador was

asked to bear disproportionately its share of the burden in reducing UI, not one

member on the government side stood to do that.

Yet today we have a resolution from a government member

calling for us to commit to the principle of doing something for the unemployed

and underemployed in this Province. It is one thing, as I said earlier, to

commit to the principle. It is a fine thing to talk but another thing to walk in

terms of dealing with the practical situations that people in this Province find

themselves in each and every day: the struggle to survive in many cases.

The hon. member also, Mr. Speaker, talked about two instances

or two personal cases of which he knew, where one, I believe he said a

taxi-driver in the City of St. John's who had found himself in a serious car

accident, and as a result couldn't get back to work. Was that one of the cases

you talked about, was it a taxi-driver who was involved in an accident?

AN HON. MEMBER: A city council worker.

MR. E. BYRNE: A city council worker, I am sorry, who

could not get back to work as a result of his accident and how he fell somehow

through the cracks, the hon. member pointed out. Now, let me outline probably

one of the cracks that that individual found himself falling through. I would

say that that individual, using a best educated guess, found himself at the

Workers' Compensation Commission due to the accident if it happened in the

workplace, and what did he find there, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) accident.

MR. E. BYRNE: It wasn't during work hours?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I apologize. I thought you said

during work hours he was in an accident. I apologize.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is hard to throw you off.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, you haven't actually. So the member

went on to say there was no program to help this individual to retrain. Where do

we look, Mr. Speaker, where do we look to see why somebody like that has fallen

through the cracks? Was he on UI, I ask the Member for St. John's North? Was he

on UI? The Unemployment Insurance Commission could not find him any program UI

driven? How many people, Mr. Speaker, do we see in this Province who are in that

shape? The member is quite correct. He talked about the social services

recipients who had no access to training and that there were literally hundreds

of people who found themselves in that boat and could not, because of

unemployment or being underemployed, or not having the proper training or access

to training, that that person would probably still be on UI, Mr. Speaker, or

still be on social services with no chance of getting off it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring some comments,

further comments. When we look at the educational initiatives introduced by this

government in the last year, and I can really only speak of what educational

issues have been introduced by this government in this House since I have been

elected, in a first-hand sort of way; what have we seen when he talks about

unemployed and underemployed?

Today, Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of university

graduates walking the streets of St. John's, walking the streets of Corner

Brook, walking the streets of Grand Falls, they are certainly not undertrained,

yet they are unemployed. Mr. Speaker, a student was in my office, an hon.

graduate in social work, could not find a job for the last two years as a social

worker; she was in my office a month ago. She applied for a waitress position at

a local establishment where she came up against 350 other applicants; Mr.

Speaker, 280 of them were university graduates, so when the member stands up and

talks about this House reaffirming its support for the commitment of this

government to pursue development of funding of programs which will ultimately

result in the best chance for long-term employment opportunities, what

employment opportunities is the Member for St. John's North speaking about?

Now the member talked about also, educational opportunities

within the community college and Cabot Institute structure, and having worked

with some of these colleges in my former profession as an administrator of a

local training and rehabilitation trust fund in the construction industry, some

of these comments are dead on when he talks about the availability of course

space for the general person or unemployed person or underemployed person out

there, who does not happen to be the recipient of a compensation program, that

they in fact, are coming up against many walls in terms of long, waiting lists

district.

At the Waterford Hospital, personal care attendants who have

been working with that institute for some ten to fifteen years were receiving,

Mr. Speaker, really no incentive to do the Nursing Assistant Program because

their jobs were good in terms of the hours they were getting, the pay was fine

in terms of their take-home, but, Mr. Speaker, about three years ago, many

people got by the nursing assistant waiting list and personal care attendants,

their jobs, their numbers of hours being worked have been constantly and

consistently eroded over the last two or three years, yet they, those employees

of that institution did not have the first opportunity to go in and take the

Nursing Assistant Program either on educational leave, or to pay for it

themselves. As a result many of them, some ten to fifteen, have lost jobs and

the hours of many others have been reduced significantly. I understand where the

member is coming from, quite clearly, but there are some other interesting

things happening that the Member for St. John's North may or may not be aware

of.

In the last month the Department of Human Resources and

Development cancelled a co-ordinating group option for funding for business and

management groups. Some thirteen groups were affected, I say to the Member for

St. John's North. I believe it was $28 to $29 million that will not be going

into training programs that have been well established, training programs that

were developed between the Province, between employers, and between employee

groups.

One example, Mr. Speaker, is a group I worked with before,

called the Atlantic Labourers Multi - Local Training and Rehabilitation Trust

Fund. They have been consistent over the past several years in terms of offering

the latest in training for the construction industry and keeping their members

as up to date and technically advanced as possible. One of the things about that

labour management group, Mr. Speaker, is that the type of training courses they

offered, or would be offering next year, was decided by the employer at the

table this year, based upon what jobs were coming up and based upon what tenders

they would be having.

But, Mr. Speaker, after four years of funding the commitment

to that industry was broken, gone. Initiatives were (inaudible), investments

were made, but the Department of Human Resources and Development saw fit to

cancel those contracts. What are the repercussions? There are eight other

co-ordinating groups in the construction industry that were affected and as a

result the options they have had over the past four to five years in terms of

training dollars and keeping members technically advanced are now lost.

That is a situation, I say to the Member for St. John's

North, that deals specifically with your private members' resolution, and

something that you as a member of the House, and all members of the House,

should be aware of. That is an industry that we have to make a greater

commitment to, to ensure that long-term jobs exist and that technical training

is available, and that people in this society have the opportunity to have that

training that as a result will get them long-term opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. E. BYRNE: The construction industry I say to the

member.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the commitment of this

government and those who are unemployed or underemployed. The member talked

about a social service case and recipients. I would like to backtrack. Maybe the

Minister of Social Services would be able to answer a question related to this?

Back about two years ago he was visited, as well as other ministers were

visited, by a group called Listen. A lady by the name of Mary Ann Fleming, a

constituent of mine, who at one time was a social service recipient, but by her

own doing got herself off the social service wheel and tried to do something

concrete and tangible that would have a net benefit effect for all social

service recipients.

As a result of her efforts, and some other social service

people she gathered around her, the Province funded, back in October and

November, a pilot study for the group Listen that would see them produce a

proposal to present to the provincial government, and the federal government, a

plan that would get social service recipients off the welfare roles and onto the

payrolls. They presented it to the Department of Social Services and to the

Premier, and contained within that proposal was a pilot program where over 600

businesses were visited, some 450 willing to hire some social service

recipients, right now, today, if that program received funding, with a modest

investment, I say to the Minister of Social Services, but they received word

recently that their proposal was turned down.

It was a program that, in my opinion, is on the leading edge

and that the provincial government should take a serious look at and give

serious consideration to, much like the program of the Premier of New Brunswick,

Frank McKenna, in a recent pilot program he has put forward dealing with

underemployed and unemployed people, to try and get them into society in terms

of off the welfare rolls, as I say earlier, and onto the pay rolls.

Mr. Speaker, there is another initiative that we as members

of this House of Assembly should give serious consideration to and that is the

difference between programs that the provinces fund each and every year and

programs that the Department of Human Resources and Development fund each and

every year, and the big difference is this: We, as members in this House, are

ultimately responsible in a more realistic way, in a more tangible way, for the

Province's spending on funding programs, student employment programs, older

worker programs, but the Department of Human Resources and Development, in terms

of the money transferred to that department, how much say does the Province

really have on where that money goes? How much co-ordination really takes place

between the federal training arm and the provincial training arm? This is an

area that is sadly, sadly lacking, and many politicians, ministers, MHAs, have

talked about one-stop shopping, have talked about greater communication, greater

co-ordination, less administrative dollars, and more dollars going into the

actual training programs and less to administrative expenses, but this is an

area that we have not begun to exploit.

I say to the Member for St. John's North, in introducing his

Private Member's resolution, support your government if they pursue, if they

wish to pursue, have greater control over the funding dollars and training

dollars coming into this Province from the federal government so that there will

be little duplication where now there is much, that there will be more

co-ordination where now there is little, and that in the end there will be more

training dollars going to people who desperately need it, and less into

administrative costs.

Those, and that is the type of initiative that we should be

actively campaigning for in this House, because at the moment, and having had

some experience with this, we have little to say over where the Department of

Human Resources spends their money. We have little to do, and little say in, who

gets it and where, and in terms of the Department of Education, the Department

of Social Services, and the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, would

it not be better, in the interest of all people living in this Province, if we

had some degree of control, or some degree of decision making in the millions of

dollars that come in from the Department of Human Resources and Development, so

that we could have a greater control over where we may offer construction

training programs, where we may offer environmental training programs, where we

may offer post-secondary educational programs, where little duplication would

take place.

I think this is where we must head, and this is where we have

no other choice but to head.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: May I conclude by saying this, Mr. Speaker.

While we can stand up today and talk about any employment initiative, that we

must, as the Member for St. John's North said, commit to the principles, and

some of them I agree with that he has outlined, but the proof is always in the

pudding, that we must do more than commit to the principles outlined in this

Private Member's resolution, but day in, day out, week in, week out, we must

work to ensure that those principles are achieved.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise in this debate and support

the resolution so ably and eloquently put forward by my colleague from St.

John's North.

I want to say a few things about this resolution as it

relates to the future of the fishery in this Province, and at the outset I want

to say to the people of the Legislature that I do not believe - I do not believe

- that the money that is being spent on training of the fishermen and plant

workers of this Province over the last two years has been well spent. I believe

that the money that has been spent in the fishery training initiatives over the

last two years has been verging on a scandal, I would say, and I think that it

is wrong and reprehensible, and is certainly not to the benefit of the fishery

that we have had millions of dollars wasted over the last two years in the guise

of trying to train and educate the plant workers and fishermen of the Province

for the future fishery of the Province.

I think it has been wrong for people to come out and believe

that they can train 100 hairstylists in one community. I think it is wrong to

spend $4 million on talking to people about their futures when everybody knows

right in front of them, as clear as their noses on their faces, where their

futures have to be. It is wrong to go and spend millions of dollars in putting

training money through the FFAW and their union when we already have the work

and the basic fundamental aspects of that training already done at the Marine

Institute, which is a noble institution and one that we should be encouraging

more as a centre of excellence for fisheries and marine training in North

America and will serve as an example to the world. So the money that has gone

into this institution of the FFAW and through Mr. Cashin and his shenanigans

with the previous Minister of Fisheries has been a failure and a farce and it

should have ended some time ago. I've said that to our Minister of Fisheries

here today, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that there is a tremendous future for the fishery

of this Province and that training dollars are needed and required, but they

have to be refocused, they have to be re-channelled. There is a tremendous

demand right now, first of all to educate the people on exactly what is in the

fishery, to let the people know what is there next door to their communities

that can offer them some alternative. People in this Province do not know the

reality of the fishery that is next door to them because they just can't see it.

It happens to be fifteen or twenty miles offshore. Just because it is out there

they can't see it and they do not realize the potential. I want to give a couple

of examples of where the potential lies in the future fishery of this Province.

Presently as we speak there is a $75 million shrimp industry

on the Coast of Labrador, stretching from Cape Chidley in the north down to the

St. Anthony basin in the south. Seventy-five million dollars that is coming into

that industry but we haven't got one processing job in that industry on the land

in this Province. We haven't got one job in the marketing of that shrimp in this

Province. As a matter of fact, 600 of those jobs, which are $50,000 at least a

year, are going to people outside of this Province. There are endless millions

of dollars in that resource that is going to people who have no vested interest

and are not committed, like they should be, to the betterment of this Province,

and that is where it is wrong. We have to go educate our people and say: This is

the resource that is there and we can harvest it and we can process it on shore.

Right now in Greenland there are eight shrimp plants over

there with an inshore shrimp fishery of 25,000 metric tons. These plants are

operating eight, ten and twelve months each year. They are taking offshore

industrial shrimp, they are landing it and they are processing it, and they are

creating long-term meaningful jobs in their country. We can be doing the same.

It is the same industry, it is the same stock, it is the same people, actually,

who are involved in the harvesting through the joint ventures.

We want to see some money put into an inshore shrimp fishery

in this Province. We want to be able to go this year and we want to be able to

have the experimental shrimp licence so that we can take our inshore people, the

smaller vessels, particularly sixty-five foot and under, to train them to go and

catch that shrimp, to train them and go and process that shrimp. Here we have a

situation in Black Tickle where the future of the community is zero if we do not

have something for them in the fishery. We cannot sit by and have the future of

the people in Black Tickle dashed. They say that they have no hope while next

door to them they have 100,000 tons of shrimp being taken from them. That is

wrong.

The same thing is over in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the

Esquiman Channel up on the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Right now we have a situation

where 75 per cent of that shrimp is caught in this Province and harvested in

that area but 25 per cent of that shrimp is taken by Nova Scotians and others

who have no adjacency to the

AN HON. MEMBER: New Brunswick?

MR. DUMARESQUE: - New Brunswick - no adjacency to that

resource, no historical dependence upon the resource. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, if you look at the other aspects of the Gulf shrimp fishery, the other

areas, in the Anticosti Island, up in the Sept-Iles area, and over to the Gasp

and Magdalen Islands and that area there, you will find that not one

Newfoundlander is allowed over there to touch one shrimp, not one. Yet we are

supposed to sit by and have our people on welfare, no jobs, while these people

come in and take the jobs, take the training opportunities, and take the capital

that they get from that resource. That's where it's wrong. So we have an

opportunity now, we have a tremendous program that's under the auspices of the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but we have to take that money and use it

wisely. One of the things we cannot do - and I know that the Member for St.

John's North is very sincere in what he says - is that we cannot accept an

economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that's built around the 10/42

syndrome. It is wrong, it has been wrong - it is wrong now and it will be wrong

in the future. We have to look at training opportunities that are going to

extend the processing season, extend the harvesting season, use multi-species

approach to the fishery and be able to give our people good, solid, meaningful

jobs as well as to give the governments of the day less dependence on income

support so that we can have people out there working, productive, able to keep

their communities secure and able to stand on their own two feet.

Now, we do have money in this program but it cannot be wasted

as it's been wasted in the past. That particular industry, Mr. Speaker, can

produce hundreds of jobs - just that one industry alone, hundreds of jobs for

the people on the Coast of Labrador and the Northern Peninsula and indeed we can

do so in other areas of the Province.

Another species right now that we are looking at being able

to get some future in, is the turbot fishery. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we have a

situation where the Russian trawlers are being utilized to take millions and

millions of tons of that fish away from our shores, away from our people and

away from getting good, solid meaningful employment in more communities in

Canada, as a matter of fact, more communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I

know they are landing turbot in Port aux Basques and giving the people in Port

aux Basques some work and that should continue, and I submit today to this House

that that can continue, that if Seafreez wanted to, they could put the people

there to work. They could put the boats out there and they could do it

economically, no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker. I'm sick and tired of people

telling me that they can't do something because it's not economical when we have

our own fishermen who've been down there for twenty years when the fish was ten

cents a pound making a good dollar at it and they can't make a dollar today.

It's not right, it's got to end and I hope that the fisheries minister in Ottawa

is going to take the initiative to do that. So, Mr. Speaker, there is tremendous

potential in that area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just for clarification. If the Minister of

Education would relax for a second, I'm just looking for a clarification that

I've just missed. My understanding is that we're speaking about a resolution to

support government programs for training and education. I just wanted to know if

that's dealing with the resolution?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Burns Secundus

should go back and see Ottenheimer Primus and get himself set straight on the

rules of the House. There's no point of order there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There's no point of order raised by the hon. member.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Okay, I take the hon. member at his word,

but how much more relevant can you get about training in this Province today if

we're not going to talk about training diversification in the fishery to protect

the rural communities of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: And that is a larger issue than any other

issue that we have on the agenda of the public in this Province today - a larger

issue, and we have to use the money that we have gotten now under the TAGS

program, the $2 billion program, and use it wisely. We have to look at these

species, we have to look at educating our people and telling them that they are

out there, that yes, they can indeed have them, and yes, they can indeed have

the support to get the vessels, to get the harvesting capacity and the fishing

gear to be able to harvest it. Indeed, we can encourage them by all means

possible.

I would like to give the people of this House another good

example. Three years ago we went to the community of Cartwright on the Coast of

Labrador - in the middle of nowhere, most people would have us believe - and we

said: There's a crab industry that can be accessed, about eighty miles off the

Coast of Labrador. When I went into Cartwright and said that we were going to

put a modern crab processing plant in that community and we were going to

educate our people to put out an A-1 product in crab, I was laughed at by

officials in the provincial department, as well as the federal Department of

Fisheries and Oceans at the time. They said you can't do it; you can't take

people who have never touched a crab in their lives and turn them into

professional secondary processors in the crab processing industry. Today, Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to tell you, for the second year in a row, we have had

over 120 people working in that community. Last year, that plant made $1 million

profit because of the tremendous product that the people of Cartwright put out

after putting a modern facility in place, after paying the money for training,

giving them access to a crab processing plant and access to professionals from

the Marine Institute who went down there and worked with the people, and got

them up-and-running, and gave them the skills. You give them the tools and they

will turn it around. They will make their communities secure, they will make

their people in the area proud of them, and that is what I can stand here today

and tell the Member for St. John's North that we have done. We have been leading

by example; we want to continue that kind of leadership, and that is the kind of

thing that must be demanded. We cannot have people sitting around in a circle,

saying: Oh, I've got no future. I don't know what is going to happen. You tell

me what is going to happen. I don't like the government. We want more money.

That is what they have been doing for the last eight or ten

months, putting people in a big circle, $4 million, paying somebody, a union

representative, sitting around in a circle, paying them $1,000 a week to gripe

at each other and sneer at each other, and demand all kinds of stupid things

from government that they know they can't deliver, and pay them $4 million to be

able to do that. It is a terrible, terrible injustice to be doing to our people.

It is demeaning, and it is wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: The hon. member knows who I am talking

about, and the fellow next door to him knows who I am talking about, for sure.

The fellow next to him knows who I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Paying for his car.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The fellow who went up to Ottawa, was

going to tear the place apart. All he did was tear his back pocket apart trying

to get the money into it that he got from Fisheries and Oceans.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) saw the full clip, the TV,

the greasy smile.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, I imagine the greasy smile spread

right around his -

AN HON. MEMBER: Chops.

MR. DUMARESQUE: His chops, for sure.

There is absolutely no way can we miss the chance that we

have now. We have a golden opportunity and, as I said to the Minister of

Fisheries a number of times, there is never a cloud that doesn't have a silver

lining, and the silver lining in the cloud that we have now is that we do have

the opportunity, over the next six months, to work with the Department of Human

Resource Development and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations here is working hand in hand with

the federal minister, Mr. Axworthy, to make sure that when we put our hand on a

training program in the future, it's going to be a good, solid, meaningful

training program that will have long-term, meaningful consequences for the

future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are going to be able to stand up in two years, or three

years time, and say: Yes, this is the kind of project the training money went

to. This is the kind of security that it gave to this community, and this is the

kind of proper expenditure of public funds that we can be proud to be associated

with, and I know that the results are going to be real and they are going to be

clear. We have tremendous opportunities in these other species. We have

tremendous opportunities in secondary processing.

Mr. Speaker, I went over to England close to ten months ago

now, went into a hotel in England, and I still have the card here in my

briefcase; I carry it wherever I go. I went into the hotel in England, and I saw

on the hotel desk a little card. It said: Take home a gift pack of fine Scottish

smoked salmon, the ideal take-home gift for family or friends. This attractively

wrapped two-pound side of smoked salmon is vacuum packed, sliced, and ready to

serve for just $31 a pound.

I am sure the Member for Torngat Mountains would love to have

the opportunity to go to that market with the tremendous product that he has

from Northern Labrador, smoked salmon and smoked char, and be able to go in

there and say: `This is what we have to offer you,' and with all due respect, I

would say, the Scottish could just as well go home, because as soon as they got

a taste of what we could produce in Labrador, on that standard, we would beat

them out of their trees on the competition because of the product that we have,

but not once did you see, and nowhere will you see, in that kind of a way, our

own smoked products, our own secondary products.

Mackerel, the same thing; I went to another restaurant over

there and I got a product of smoked mackerel for something like $6 a pound -

smoked mackerel. We are throwing it over the side. We throw it to the dogs; we

throw it to the crabs; we throw it overboard because we can't use it, but there

are people in this world not very far away - as a matter of fact, Newfoundland

and Labrador is the closest of any country to that nation over there who are

willing to pay $6 a pound for it, and it is time that we got more money, more

energy, and if we are going to waste our energy on issues like we have over the

past few months in this Province, beating our heads against the wall in trying

to pursue a political agenda rather than some real change and fundamental vision

for this Province through the fishery, if we are going to pursue that, then

there is no future. I say, it is about time that we demand that our dollars be

used better, it is about time we demand that our energies be used better, it is

about time that we said to Dr. Hulan and the people involved in the seal

fishery, and the products of the seal fishery, to go ahead, gung-ho, go for it.

You have something there that is real and we are going to put the dollars behind

you.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud today to stand here and support

the resolution so ably put forward, and so eloquently written by the Member for

St. John's North because he is dead-on, and we in the fishery are not to take

second seat to anybody. I say to him that we are looking out and we are the

ones, I would hope, who will be able to tell you we want no dollars for nothing

and we want no future on a 10/42 basis. We want to stand on our own the same way

as anybody else in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The resolution by the hon. member is a timely one, no doubt,

but then again, it could have been brought in any month in the last five or six

years, that's for sure, when you are talking about training and providing

something for the private sector in this Province, some kind of a stimulus.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about all the training we like, and

we can talk about all the value-added products we like, and we can talk about

all the monies coming from the Federal Government in the different training

programs, forever and a day, but if we don't have the climate - the economic

climate, the proper climate for entrepreneurs in this Province, either people

who are in business today or someone new, who is looking to get into business or

start a business, you can do all the training you like but there is absolutely

nothing for them to do, nothing.

The only way this country and this Province is going to get

out of the mess it is in today, Mr. Speaker, is through the small business

sector. That is the only way we are going to come out of it. Governments are not

going to take us out, the Federal Government won't take us out, the provincial

government won't take us out of it. But having said that I have to say that back

in the recession of 1981, 1982, 1983, well, 1983 really, I would have to say we

did come out of the recession then based on spending by the Federal Government,

and spending by the provinces all across Canada. As far as I am concerned, we

would not have come out of that recession only for government spending.

Now, times change, economic conditions change, and so on, and

maybe at that time, governments were in a better position. It wasn't a

world-wide recession but more or less a local Canadianized recession that was in

place at that time, and by government spending, both provincially and federally,

we started to come out of it. It gave that kick-start, that stimulus for us to

come out of the mess we were in then. Interest rates were up as high as 26 or 27

per cent. How businesses ever survived, I don't know.

When we look today and see the Bank of Canada rate moving

again from 6.31 to 6.59, twenty-eight basis points, we still have to be

concerned. Although the Bank of Canada rate is 6.59 the prime rate today is

6.75. Now, granted all the other chartered banks have moved a few weeks ago to

6.75, the Bank of Montreal just moved yesterday, I believe, or the day before,

on prime rates, 6.75 is awfully low, but everything is relevant, Mr. Speaker,

6.75 today in prime with a recession in this country and in this Province is

high for small business people or any other business person. It is high for the

Krugers of the world. It is high for the Irvings of the world. It is high for

governments of the world. Like I said, everything is relevant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Everything is relevant to one industry,

relevant to the economic times, the agricultural industry, relevant to the times

now with GATT, the free trade agreement. The forestry industry today could be

going gung-ho in this Province. If we could go in today with our power saws and

give our loggers, who are going to be laid off - if the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture could issue twenty-five or thirty commercial licences tomorrow for

sawmilling in the Province, we could put them all to work, every one of them to

work. Because the price is so high for lumber today in this Province and in this

country, Mr. Speaker - over $400 today, $400 a thousand out my way, for

studding. A piece of two-by-four-by-eight today, over $400 a thousand. Who would

ever think it?

We talk about education and training, we talk about the

fishery being down and trying to get the fisherpeople back into the economy. Now

we have 355 loggers on the West Coast of the Province who are getting their

notice every day of the week, starting to trickle out, and the sad thing is -

MR. FLIGHT: That isn't so - loggers did not get their

notice.

MR. WOODFORD: We got 240 union - I said started to get

their notice. I just got off the phone now from Hampden - another contractor,

with thirty-odd people gone, one from Springdale, another from the hon. member's

district, one from Baie Verte.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) anything to do (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: It is a contracting system but it also has

to do with Kruger. If they are closing No. 4 machine, I mean, they only need I

think it is 300,000 cubic metres, is it, 300,000 cubic metres a year in the

Kruger mill in Corner Brook. It is obvious that with No. 4 machine down, Mr.

Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight hundred thousand.

MR. WOODFORD: Or 800,000.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, well, there you go. So there is an

example of what doesn't have to go (inaudible). What I'm saying is, just imagine

if the minister could tomorrow even increase the cutting, for instance, the

allowable cut for, say, eight or ten sawmillers, for argument's sake - some

might be big and some might be small - all those loggers would be put to work

tomorrow morning, that's what I am saying. But we can't do that; we can't do it

because we don't have access to our resource. Someone else owns our resource. We

can't do it. We can't cut on Kruger limits. In some cases we have - and that is

only in certain areas - and I said this before. I have to give the minister

credit for that, about the 60-40, roughly 60-40. We have the Chouse Brook area

and the Bridgers Pond - Whites River area now that is going well. And timely -

you can talk about things happening. What timing! Here we have the Whites River

area in my district now just about ready to go, Mr. Speaker, and here the lumber

prices, some of the best they've ever been in the country. I have one supplier

who has four requests from outside the Province to ship lumber out. That is what

I'm saying about our economy, about getting out of the recession we are in and

so on, and about the help for small business, about training.

The Member for Eagle River brought up a couple of good points

there. What are we training people for? I've seen enough money over the last few

years, just talk about the fisheries alone, enough money over the last two

years, twelve months, bring it down to eight months - it is enough to make you

sick - as far as I'm concerned, wasted. Every man and his I-don't-know-what has

a school started around the Province. I get phone calls every day of the week,

people trying to mortgage their houses, going down to Canada Manpower, can't get

in on this program or that program. The private schools want their money up

front. The money comes from the Federal Government right to the school.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WOODFORD: The individual - oh yes. The school doesn't

touch it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is another - I'm getting to that. Mr.

Speaker, they don't see it. All of a sudden they find out they owe another

$1,000, they owe another $1,500, another $2,000. For what? I have people calling

me going into a program where, when I check with CEIC in Corner Brook, there are

475 people on the unemployment roll. Here is another program putting another

fifty-five through a private school.

I mean, come on. It is time for someone to stand up and be

counted. I blame both levels of government. I blame the Federal Government

previous to this one and I blame the one that is there today, and I blame the

Administration opposite for not speaking up and doing something about that as

well. As far as I am concerned, our people both in fishing communities and not

only in fishing communities, I am talking about in my area up around the Deer

Lake, Reidville, Cormac, Howley areas and I have the fishing sector of White Bay

area, Mr. Speaker, besides that, it has a forestry content, it has a tourism

potential and so on; people are being misled as far as I am concerned by those

private schools, misled into thinking that all of a sudden, after six, eight,

nine, ten months, they are going to be out and get a good job out of it, and

here it is, 300 people and 400 people, in some cases 600 and 700 people on the

unemployment rolls in the office in Corner Brook, there are no jobs for them,

yet here we are pumping them out, pumping them out just like a donut factory.

Just like a donut factory, you may leave Tim Horton's and you go over to

Colemans and still - I mean, it is ridiculous and people are mortgaging their

homes to get the balance of the money that they can't get through CEIC or

another training program to get into this, I mean it is ridiculous.

Here I had one caller the other day going to a trucking

school on Bell Island, $150 a day, Mr. Speaker, to learn how to use a piece of

heavy equipment and we have people out walking the streets in my area; I do not

have to go outside of that at all and I can pick up the phone and call fifteen

or twenty and give them to a c