April 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 22

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Transportation brought in a

Statement relating to the truckers in this Province and it certainly did not do

anything to solve any of their problems, which I understand the minister was

told about yesterday evening in no uncertain terms. It certainly has done

nothing to lead to any easement of the confrontation at the work sites that has

taken place over the last couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, one of the key issues for dump truck operators

was some guarantee of work for local dump truck owners when construction

activities occur in their area. Why did government choose to ignore the concern

of the union and the dump truck operators and allow trucks to be brought to the

work site from outside the area where work is taking place?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to disagree with the way the hon. member has

characterized the initiatives taken by the government yesterday, which are of

significant benefit to the independent dump truck operators. He says we did

nothing to assist the union. Mr. Speaker, the union made representation to the

Board of Public Utilities which was conducting the inquiry into this particular

matter and they made six specific recommendations. Of those six recommendations,

four were addressed in the statement yesterday, and one, partially - for

example, recommendation number one, that rates for asphalt and rock be reviewed,

the rates for asphalt and the hourly rate were announced to be reviewed

yesterday; that avenues of exploitation be recognized and efforts made to close

them - we increased, by tenfold, the fine for violating PUB rates, from $500 to

$5,000 as a minimum and from $2,500 to $25,000 as a maximum. In addition, Mr.

Speaker, we put in a penalty prohibiting any contractor who violated PUB rates

from bidding on Works, Services and Transportation work for one year.

(Power failure) would be effectively closed down for one

year, so that is a very, very serious penalty that government had to think long

and hard about before imposing on the contractors and road builders of the

Province, so that item two, has been addressed; that the freeze be continued -

that was done; that the industry be monitored - that is being done; that rates

be regulated - that is continuing.

Now, he raises one particular issue, which is local

preference. Mr. Speaker, local preference has an up side and a down side. If

work is going on, say, in the Glovertown region, and you are a trucker in

Glovertown, it is probably great for you because you are going to get the work

that year, but when the work moves from Glovertown, say, to the Great Northern

Peninsula, you are out of luck. So one of the reasons why local preference was

not included was to allow all the truckers of the Province to get work anywhere

in the Province, and since the money is raised from the taxpayers of the

Province, that is fairness and balance, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, make no wonder the lights went

out with the wind coming from the hon. gentleman. He did absolutely nothing for

the truckers in the Province. You did nothing except to bring in something that

meant nothing to the truckers. Not only that, you have been told so by the

President of the truckers' union. That is what he should get up and admit.

Now, let me say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, if all of this

is so good for Newfoundland, in the Maritime Provinces, for example, guaranteed

work for local owner-operators: in Nova Scotia it is 80 per cent, in New

Brunswick it is two-thirds, and in Quebec it is 75 per cent. If these provinces,

Mr. Speaker, can regulate in favour of the local owner-operators, why can't we

do it in Newfoundland and Labrador?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the regulatory regimes in the other provinces

were reviewed as part of the report of the Public Utilities Board. This was

looked at. It is actually in the report. When the board looked at it and saw how

those schemes were operating in the other provinces, they did not recommend it

for inclusion by the government. And one of the problems, Mr. Speaker, is as I

pointed out, you have road work every year dispersed around the Province, but if

you are a trucker, say, on the Burin Peninsula and there is no road work going

on, on the Burin Peninsula, should you be told: 'Don't go to the Great Northern

Peninsula to get work. Don't feed your family because the truckers on the Great

Northern Peninsula have to have access to that work'? Does he want that

situation to be invoked, where people in his district, in his riding can't seek

work elsewhere in this great Province of ours? No, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if this minister and this

government were worth their salt, there would be work all over Newfoundland and

Labrador for truck drivers. The minister should not try to play one part of the

Province against the other -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - but should create work for all of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members ought to know the rules now. Question Period is

not a time for debate and the hon. member is into a supplementary and should get

into his supplementary question.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I apologize; I was carried away,

I tried to follow the example probably, of the minister when he was responding

to questions.

Let me ask the minister: will he confirm that what he is

doing is creating a recipe for frustration for the workers and the same type of

work stoppages that we saw in this Province in the last few years will continue,

because neither he nor the Minister of Employment and Labour has the guts to do

what needs to be done and protect the men who drives these trucks to earn a

living to support their families?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

The member's outrage is somewhat belated because the large

oversupply of tandem trucks in this Province did not occur in the last two

years. In fact, this government took action to freeze the number of certificates

so that the industry could eventually achieve stability, Mr. Speaker. So to

accuse this government of taking no action on this particular issue, when the

large supply of tandems, when certificates were issued and no -

AN HON. MEMBER: And the railway deal -

MR. GOVER: - then the great railway deal, work for

everybody, burn your boats, sell your boats, get into the trucking industry, a

railway deal is coming, there is work for everybody; certificates going left

right and centre, well, Mr. Speaker, that had to come to an end and this

government took action to bring it to an end.

Now, as for truckers and what this government is doing for

truckers? Mr. Speaker, I met with the Newfoundland and Labrador Road Builders

Association, and their views are contained in the report, and if we had caved in

to the Association - they want deregulation, no regulation. What we have done is

said: the PUB has laid down fair and just rates to compensate you for your work

on the roads and we are going to increase the penalties ten-fold so that you pay

those fair rates and if you do not pay those fair rates, you won't get any work

out of the government. That is a commitment to feed families in this Province,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question when I stood up was for the same minister. Now, I

am running scared, I believe the minister had spinach for his dinner. Mr.

Speaker, the driving conditions in the Province for this past two days have been

the worst experienced this winter. Can the minister give us an explanation for

the deplorable conditions of the highways for the past two days?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I would have to disagree with the

hon. member's assessment that the roads are in deplorable condition, apart from

periodic occurrences when there are heavy snowfalls, when there are heavy

snowfalls, problems do arise.

I would like to point out that hon. members opposite always

allege that the poor road conditions or the poor snow clearing is due to

cutbacks. Now I have looked at the budgeted figures - the actual figures. For

1988 the actual amount spent on snow and ice control, not taking out provincial

revenue, the gross amount spent was $21,092,000. That was in 1988, the actual

amount spent by that group over there. In 1992, for the budget year upcoming,

budgeted $24,980,000 - an 18.5 per cent increase over when the hon. members were

in power, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: Climatic conditions from time to time will

prevent an ideal operation of the clearing component of the department, but by

and large this division is carrying out their work satisfactorily, and I have

even had letters of commendation on the quickness with which roads have been

cleared in this Province. We are doing the best we can under the circumstances,

and we are doing 18.5 per cent better than members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I want to

remind the minister that we are not in power on this side - you are. On two

occasions yesterday morning I went to where two school busses were off the road

because of slippery conditions - because of snow conditions in April - in April.

In April when the blades were removed from the snow clearing equipment. I want

to ask the minister: Is it not a fact that part of the problem originates from

the fact that the department has switched from winter to summer equipment? And

furthermore that the

schedule was reverted to normal summer hours? Is that not a

fact - the first of April?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, the policy is quite clear. If the

weather conditions require equipment to be operating equipment will be operating

regardless of the cost. With respect to this specific incident in the Torbay -

Pouch Cove area there was one operator on shift at 4:30 a.m. Freezing rain

commenced about 7:00 a.m. and heavy snow at 7:20 a.m. One operator left the

depot at 7:00 a.m. and the remainder of the crew were out at 8:00 a.m. That was

a pretty good response considering that the problem started at 7:00 a.m. and the

full crew were out by 8 a.m. The first operator had returned to the depot by 9

a.m. and the rest of the crew had returned for a second load by 11 a.m. Mr.

Speaker, we are not miracle workers. We do the best we can. It has nothing to do

with Winter or Summer hours. If the snow comes down in June and there is a need

for people to be out working to clear that snow whatever the overtime costs are,

Mr. Speaker, are not a consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. What he

came back for at 9:00 o'clock after he went out at 7:30 was to put on the blade

because he had no blade in the first instance, he had no blade on the plough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: With the forecast calling for Winter

conditions for at least two days why did not the senior management of the

department instruct the operating crew to prepare for the adverse conditions

that were forecast? That is all we are asking. Everyone knew about the storm and

there was no one down to White Hills until 4:00 in the morning. It was not

staffed by anyone to do anything as it pertained to weather conditions.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the forecast, I

believe at one time there was a warning about the snowfall and then the warning

was not even issued, but snow was forecast. Now, Mr. Speaker, he says when the

first operator left he did not have a plough on. I have just indicated, Mr.

Speaker, that freezing rain commenced around 7:00 a.m. When the operator left

the depot at 7:00 a.m. what did he need a blade on for, to plough the rain?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. I will try not to raise my voice because I noticed when the

questioner raises his voice the minister goes off in a tirade so I have a very

simple question. In the province of New Brunswick which at last count was run by

a Liberal government, at least two-thirds of all trucks are hired on a local

preference policy based on the following order: residence on the road where the

contract is let; secondly, in a fifteen kilometre radius; thirdly, in a twenty

kilometre radius; and to recognise others, every fifth truck is to be hired

outside the radius requirement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why can't the minister and his government

have a policy in this Province that provides for balance between the residents

of an area and those from outside, and provide some stability in the trucking

industry in this Province which is what the truckers are looking for?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I do not believe

that is a policy which would lead to stability in the trucking industry. The

people who were not residents of the local area would effectively be precluded

from earning a living. As the member is aware - being a lawyer - we have

mobility rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Certainly,

are we now to say to citizens of the Province: you cannot seek employment

anywhere in this great Province of ours? You are precluded from seeking work in

Labrador because you are from the Island? Or if you are from Labrador, you

cannot come and work on the Island?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or if you are from Conception Bay, you

cannot work in St. John's?

MR. GOVER: Exactly. What this will provide, Mr. Speaker,

is a benefit where construction activity is occurring. But what about all of

those other truckers dispersed all over this Province? Are we to say to them,

you cannot feed your family? How far do we carry local preference? If there is a

piece of work going on in the Burin Peninsula for a water and sewer project, is

the government supposed to say; well, the unemployment rate in Bonavista is x

amount so people should - you know, right now they can go down and work on the

Burin Peninsula. But we are saying: well, for water and sewer, because the

unemployment rate is higher on the Burin Peninsula, you cannot come down here?

Local preference will not work. What will work is regulation:

regulation of the number of truckers; making sure that the truckers are paid

what they are entitled to be paid, that rate which is determined fair by the

Public Utilities Board; and allowing all citizens of this Province to find work

wherever they can in this Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the residents of the local area

must earn a living as well. This seems to be the problem. I would like to ask

the minister if he can tell us why his government has to choose the very

punitive measures which seemed to be disguised in his statement yesterday when

he talked about that he will request the assistance of enforcement agencies to

control disruptions.

Is he, as he said later apparently to the media, threatening

the truckers of this Province with mass arrests if there are any problems? Like

there was a demonstration here last winter. Is he trying to avoid that

situation, and threatening truckers with regulation?

If they are so much in favour of this proposal, as he

suggested in his answers to the questions from the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, why does he need to threaten with arrests and further measures in this

statement in order to have them go along with his policies? Why does he have to

do that, Mr. Speaker, if they are in favour of it?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, there was no threat. As the hon.

member is aware, being a member of this legislature and being a lawyer, we have

to live in a society governed by laws. If any individual breaks that law or

breaks the law they have to be subject to a penalty in order to allow society to

function.

Demonstrations of this kind in the past have driven other

operators out of the business. You could have a demonstration in a particular

locality whereby the local truckers did not allow workers from outside to

participate in the construction. You could have a demonstration by members of

the association which prevented truckers who were not members of the association

from acquiring work.

Mr. Speaker, where a law is violated there has to be

enforcement. To do otherwise would be to advocate anarchy, and perhaps that is

what the hon. member is advocating.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. This has

to do with the operation of stability in the industry, which the minister says

he wants to have. Mr. Speaker, why does he have to threaten truckers with arrest

and also threaten to take away their licences for what he calls creating of

instability in the trucking industry? Why hasn't his administration sought

changes in the Labour Relations Act which would permit collective bargaining, an

orderly and proper collective bargaining by these truckers to allow a proper

stability in the industry? Why is he taking this punitive route? Why does he not

do that? Why doesn't his administration change the Labour Relations Act to allow

these truckers to negotiate collectively?

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

and Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, there are no punitive actions

being taken. All that is being said is that if the law is violated, if

disruptions or instabilities are illegal an appropriate sanction will be

imposed.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to ask the contractors to pay

regulated rates, and if the penalty for their failure to pay regulated rates is

that they will be thrown out of business for one year, then I think in fairness

operators guilty of illegal acts should also have their operating certificates

revoked for the same period of time, which is one year.

As to the collective bargaining issue, Mr. Speaker, that

would perhaps be better answered by my learned colleague, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Education. As the

minister can see there are many memorial university students in the visitors

gallery this afternoon. The students are here because they are quite upset about

the government causing Queen's College to close. The student leaders have been

trying to get a meeting with the minister. The university semester is drawing to

a close, and I would like the ask the minister if he will meet with

representatives of the CSU as well as the presidents of Feild Hall and Spencer

Hall after Question Period outside the House?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have some news for the hon.

member. Meetings have been arranged for days. I have already made them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: They call it political grand standing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is a serious question and I

want to address it because there is some misinformation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, there is some misinformation in

the hon. member's question. The university did not close Queen's College

residences, the government did not close it, it was the Queen's College

Corporation who announced -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are on the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not on the board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education is answering the question,

and hon. members should extend him that courtesy.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, if I may begin again. The

government did not close the residences or announce the closure. The Queen's

College Corporation announced their intention to close the residences in

September of 1991. There were three or four reasons I have been given. I have

not been briefed fully on it because it is not a government decision, but I do

know that they lost a considerable amount of rental money last year as a result

of the University building an extension to the administration building, and the

University was paying Queen's College a substantial amount of money - in the

hundreds of thousands of dollars - for rental space. Now they are using their

own space.

Secondly, we did reduce the subsidy over a three year period.

It was a small amount of money in terms of the total operating value of the cost

of the residences, but we did reduce it. I think it was $180,000. It was in

Works, Services and Transportation budget. We reduced it over a three year

period.

The third reason why I gather they are closing is that the

residences need considerable maintenance and refurbishing. There are tremendous

costs associated with keeping these residences in first class shape, and I

gather Coughlan has the same problem.

The fourth reason I think is very important, and I would like

to spend a minute explaining that there has been a reduction in the perceived

needs for accommodation in St. John's. We have, in St. John's now, I do not know

how many students in accommodation, but we have excess space. We have in Paton

College, I am told, 120 or 130 vacant rooms. More and more students are going to

Grenfell. They are going to stay home to do their first year in central

Newfoundland, on the Burin Peninsula, in Labrador, so the perception is that we

have excess space and we will need perhaps no additional space in the future. So

the College looked at that - Queen's College Corporation - and I gather these

were the reasons why they announced their decision to close.

I have met with representatives of the Corporation. I have a

meeting arranged with one of the student leaders, and more importantly, I think,

I would like to tell the House and the public that the government has asked

Memorial University to do a long-term study of the accommodation needs, not only

for Memorial but for Cabot and for Marine.

Mr. Speaker, that is the full answer to that question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. member, I want to remind hon.

members again of the necessity for questions to be brief and answers to be

brief, and hon. members have to co-operate on both sides. When hon. members

asking a question insert extraneous statements - or extraneous matters I should

say, not statements - extraneous matters in the question, then obviously

ministers feel entitled to comment on that. So I ask hon. members on both sides

please to co-operate.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was short and to the point. The minister's answer

was extremely long-winded and avoided the point. My question is whether the

minister will meet this afternoon, after Question Period, outside the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: - with the President of Feild Hall, the

President of Spencer Hall, two of the residences that are closing in September,

because of the actions of this minister, as well as representatives of the CSU.

I just came from a meeting with those students, and they did

not know anything about an agreement for a meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is again into making a speech, and the member

knows that she is not permitted to do that. Hon. members should be reminded

again of repeating questions. Beauchesne is quite specific on this. 410 (9) says

that questions should not repeat questions already asked, although this does not

mean that a member cannot ask the same point put in a different way.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the students wish to forego next week's meeting the

student, the answer is 'yes', Mr. Speaker. I will meet with them any time, and

shortly if they wish.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is trying to distance himself from the pending

closure of the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The members now are commenting on the answer, and that is not

permitted. The member's job is to ask the question, and I ask the member to do

it please.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister not see that it is a dreadful mistake to

allow, and even actively cause, the closure of the north side residences - the

residences that are the most popular with the students; for which there is

always a waiting list, and which are now accommodating over 200 students? Does

the minister not see that is a mistake, and what is the minister proposing to do

with those buildings? Is he going to sit idly by, smiling benignly, while those

buildings are boarded up?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the Chair I

will not go back and correct all the misinformation in the hon. member's

question because the Government is not closing these buildings, which are

private property, and the Government is not going to intervene to do anything it

should not do with private property. I will meet with the students. I have met

with representatives of the college and we will do everything possible. One

final comment, Mr. Speaker, I understand student's loyalty to their residences

and I appreciate the position from which students come.

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

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

President of Treasury Board. Yesterday the minister informed the House that

negotiations had re-opened with the Newfoundlanders Teacher's Association. In

view of Bill 17, which the minister could possibly be bringing forward tomorrow

or Friday, will the NTA be able to negotiate salary increases and other monetary

benefits?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, under Bill 17 the Newfoundland

Teacher's Association will be able to negotiate changes to their current

collective agreement that in total will cost the Government no money during this

current fiscal year, and will be able to negotiate changes in the coming fiscal

year that will cost in total no more than 3 per cent. That is the intent of Bill

17 and those are the limits under which the NTA can negotiate for those two

years. There are no restrictions currently placed on a possible third year of

any contract. That is kind of jumping ahead a bit.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, again in view of Bill 17 let

me ask the minister if the NTA will be able to take job action, including strike

action if there is a dispute on salary or other monetary benefits, other

monetary discussions? Will they be able to take job action after the minister

gets Bill 17 passed in the Legislature?

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

MR. BAKER: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, this is another supplementary

to the minister. Will Government be seeking changes to the teacher's collective

agreement during the negotiations? For example, will Government propose changes

in annual and sick leave benefits similar to those recently imposed on

management and non-union employees? (power failure)

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The whole of the collective agreement is open for bargaining

and that process hopefully will take place. I cannot even guess at what the

outcome may be, but the short answer is everything in the collective agreement

is then open for question or change by either side.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

The Chair wants to take advantage of this opportunity to

remind hon. members again about a couple of the well-known (power-failure)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will recess the House for a few moments to see what the

longevity of this situation might be. Maybe we will have to recess for the whole

afternoon, but if hon. members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot see but I can hear. We will probably agree to recess

for maybe ten or fifteen minutes to determine whether this is a

long situation or a short one.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To those listening, as we said for the record and Hansard, we

recessed.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow,

Thursday at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.