March 19, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 3

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the quality and international appeal of

Newfoundland and Labrador technology and products was successfully showcased during our

Province's most recent trade mission to Latin America.

Last week it was an honour to lead a team of Newfoundland and Labrador

entrepreneurs and educators on a trade mission to Chile and Argentina. Over the course of

five days, forty official meetings took place between mission participants and Latin

American companies. This followed weeks of advance preparation to match the services of

mission participants with Chilean and Argentinean business opportunities.

A consultant, Rodrigo Delgado, was commissioned under the

Canada/Newfoundland Comprehensive Economic Development Agreement to match Newfoundland and

Labrador companies with compatible businesses in Latin America.

Using the advance consultation process proved very successful and was a

major reason why the companies found the meetings so beneficial.

During this mission, it was apparent that the products and services of

INNOVA Multimedia, Superior Waterproof Coatings, Biomedical Implant Technologies and

Memorial University held great potential for the economies of these two Latin American

countries.

Memorial University's thirty year track record in telemedicine and

distance education attracted great interest in academic and business circles in the two

countries, while the products of Superior Waterproof Coatings generated significant

interest from potential wholesale and retail distributors.

In Chile, INNOVA Multimedia Limited signed a Memorandum of

Understanding with the Universidad de Santo Tomas that will result in Santo Tomas using

INNOVA Multimedia's educational software throughout its system of thirty-two schools and

colleges. The programs will be translated into Spanish to be in use for the next school

year in 2000.

Biomedical Implant Technologies had such successful contacts that they

are planning their own return trip to Latin America for follow-up meetings, particularly

with the aim of partnering with Latin American universities to develop a curriculum for

dental implants.

Meetings were held with representatives of the mining and gas sectors,

including SIPETROL, the international branch of the state-owned petroleum company in

Chile, which has requested further follow-up with the Newfoundland and Labrador delegation

at the Offshore Technology Conference being held in Houston this May.

Besides the direct initiatives undertaken by actual participants on the

mission, the meetings also served as an excellent venue in which to promote the potential

of many aspects of Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic.

Both INNOVA Multimedia and Biomedical Implant Technologies are

participants in Memorial University's Genesis Centre, an incubator mall for high-tech

Newfoundland and Labrador initiatives that helps establish international contacts for

their products and services.

There was considerable interest in the Genesis Centre and technology

transfer products from the ministry of small and medium sized business enterprises in

Argentina.

It should be noted that these Newfoundland and Labrador companies

assume their own expenses for travel and accommodation on these trade missions, and they

maximize every business contact for the immediate and future potential that each encounter

represents.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the

participants who were on this successful trade mission to Latin America, two of whom are

in the gallery today, Peggy Miller with INNOVA Multimedia and Fred Dixon with Superior

Waterproof Coatings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of my

departmental staff and Canadian Embassy officials in Buenos Aires, Argentina and Santiago,

Chile, for the conscientious approach they applied to every business contact on this

mission.

Mr. Speaker, it has been in our national media that Newfoundland and

Labrador led all of Canada in Gross Domestic Product Growth in 1998, and is poised to

duplicate that achievement in 1999.

I can assure this hon. House that our potential and the calibre of our

provincial expertise extends well beyond our nation to an eager and accessible

international business community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if I wasn't being so badly harassed by

the members on the other side, I wanted to compliment the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I wanted to thank the minister for her courtesy in

sending the Opposition a copy of this fine statement, this articulation of the great work

her department is doing in cooperation with business in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. I

cannot say a bad word to the minister or the government about this statement. I do not

know what is wrong with the hon. members opposite. I know it is Friday morning and they

are testy and they are tired after one day in the House, and they are sleepy and they are

rappy and they are nappy and they are all that. I wanted to tell the minister what a good

job she is doing, her department is doing, and the government in this regard is doing.

We have no problem with this kind of marketing initiative, this kind of

initiative being led by ministers, being led by the government. We think that is part of

what government ought to be doing. Unlike some people over there, when they were over

here, continuously talking about the ministers travelling, and ministers spending public

money promoting the Province, and all that kind of stuff, we are not like that. We believe

the government ought to be doing what government is doing in this case. This is a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, is there something in Beauchesne's

that you can use to stifle the gentlemen who seems to be so irate, the Member for

Bonavista North, is it?

This is a good statement, a fine piece of work. I compliment the

minister, I compliment the Newfoundland companies who are involved in this initiative. If

there is one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: What is wrong now?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if there is one word of caution, I would

say to the minister in this statement, it is dealings with companies in Cuba. I am not

against making business decisions and business inroads in dealing with Cuba, but I say to

careful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Early in the morning, not

quite awake.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RIDEOUT: The same as usual, nothing has changed. Mr. Speaker,

my compliments to the minister, and a good job.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the hon. member for Lewisporte started to speak I thought he had a

different statement than I had and that I heard, but when he finished I was sure he did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, we too have no objection to the government

using its good offices in cooperation with the Canadian government to introduce

Newfoundland business people to Latin America. I want to commend her on giving us this

report.

The businesses, as she indicated, are paying their own way. They are

using the good office of government to promote their activity. As she has indicated, they

show great potential and great interest. I would perhaps ask the minister if she could be

so kind in a report or a statement to the House to give us a list or a report of the

successes that have been happening. We see all the interest here and the great potential

interest. Could she tell or give us a report on what the progress has been in actually

entering into international contracts as a result of the trade missions that she and her

predecessors had over the last couple of years?

I would remind the Member for Lewisporte that before he was here after

the last election we all welcomed in the Speaker's Gallery the Cuban Ambassador to Canada

and cheered on the relationship between this Province and the idea of developing business

relations there. It was one that I fully support as well.

One thing I would add in closing is that if the minister is so pleased

with the growth in gross domestic product she should perhaps tell us -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - that it is really Hibernia oil that is increasing and

not business development. Perhaps she could give us a breakdown on that, Mr. Speaker, the

next time she blows her horn.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance opened

debate in this House on a $1 billion interim supply bill. Actually, I guess the interim

supply bill is probably about one-third of what the Budget will eventually be. Now that

bill, once it is passed and the House gives approval for it, will enable the government to

continue to meet its financial obligations, I guess for probably three months or more. So

there is no need, from a fiscal perspective, for the minister to have to move up his

Budget date, rush into the House on Monday with a budget. The House is obviously going to

approve interim supply for the minister.

The Minister of Finance has given himself so little time to give any

thought to all of this pre-Budget consultation that he did with people, that people bought

into it from all over the Province. The Internet was locked up for a couple of days in a

row giving the minister advice. The minister has left precious little time, if any, for

any of that to be inputted into the Budget.

The question I have for the minister is this. Why the sudden rush? Why

is the minister panicking now to get the Budget into the House two or three days early, to

get it done quickly? What is he going to say to all those people who obviously will feel

duped by this pre-Budget consultation process because it was a fake in nature.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises two questions. The first is the date and timing

of the Budget and the second has to do with consultation. I will address the first one

first, obviously.

The Budget has a variable date. Normally, we try to do it the third

week of March, not the last. This year it was delayed because we had an extensive

three-week consultation with the electorate, which I am sure some members found profitable

and others did not. What I would say is that the date has varied in past years to as late

as April and May for elections and other reasons, and this year it is within the same time

frame, it is within that week. It is not the third Thursday, it is not the fourth

Thursday, it is a Monday.

The Premier said yesterday why we are doing this. Next week we expect

that - we are deeply into consultation with the nurses and there may be issues that arise,

from a management perspective, that would interfere with the Budget and the due

presentation of it. As the hon. member knows as well, the presentation of the Budget is

completely separate from the passage of estimates in the House, which normally does not

occur until the closure of the spring session, in either May or April, or in most years it

is June.

With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, the member is right on this point;

whether the Budget is delivered now, next week or the week after does not make a

fundamental difference when we have Interim Supply. Nevertheless, there is a custom of

this House that when appropriate, when you are able to do so, you do it by about the

middle of March, and certainly not past the latter part of March. Monday is as appropriate

as next Thursday or this Thursday.

With regard to the second point, Mr. Speaker, we have had extensive

consultations. We told the electorate what our plan was in the Red Book during the

election. The Budget will reflect every commitment made in this book. In addition to that

we had, as I say, the three weeks of detailed consultation with the electorate and as well

we had consultations over two nights a couple of weeks ago. Even at this point we are

still formulating the last items to be included in the Budget and the Budget will reflect

the input from those members of the public who chose to participate in the consultation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte, a supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance alluded to it again in his answer

this morning, and the Premier alluded to it yesterday, I think, in discussions with the

media. I say to the minister: Isn't it true, isn't the real reason, the one factor that is

driving the minister to move up his Budget date, rushing into the House on Monday with a

Budget, the fact that the nurses are going to be in a strike position in this Province the

middle of next week? Isn't that the real reason, and if that is the real reason why won't

the government tell it like it is, why won't the government say that is a fact? Why won't

the minister come clean with the people of this Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, that is, in fact, what I understood the

Premier to say. I heard him being reported on radio this morning. Let's be frank about it:

If the nurses go on strike, as they have given notice to do next Wednesday, do hon.

members think that the business of the Province will be business as normal? No! There will

be closures around this Province. We do not have the luxury of the Opposition to oppose

and criticize; we are going to be responsible for the management of the institution of

this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: We are not going to be here in the House reading budgets

and having receptions at that point in time. We will be engaged with determining how the

health care of the people of the Province is being handled. Frankly, I believe the people

of the Province understand and support this decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: At least he would not phone from Florida and tell

them he is not.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have been there. That is further than

the Minister of Mines will ever get.

The Minister of Finance can rant all he wishes. The role of the

Opposition is to hold the government accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: If the minister does not like that, too bad, I say.

During the election campaign, the Premier saw more nurses than he cared

for. In fact, there were times when he was making jokes about all the nurses that he saw.

The nurses were saying to the Premier, as I understood it at the time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: The nurses were saying to the Premier during the

election that `casualization', workloads and not wages were the issues that they wished to

discuss. The Premier, on behalf of the government, made commitments to solve those issues.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier: If these were the issues during

the election and the Premier committed to solving them, why is it today that we are

staring a nurse's strike in the face in this Province? Why haven't the questions been

addressed? Why haven't the issues been solved? And why are we staring at back to work

legislation next week in this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, not only is the gentleman opposite

having trouble figuring out whether we are dealing with Argentina or Chile, he is having

trouble figuring out the difference between negotiations and lack of negotiations.

I am quite surprised that the member, being an experienced member of

this House, is even asking these kinds of questions. The member knows that as we speak in

this Legislature collective bargaining is ongoing. He should know that by mutual agreement

and mutual request by both the parties, there is a news blackout.

If the member opposite is interested in the best public interest, and

the best public interest is to allow those who are at the negotiating table to negotiate,

to not have a public dialogue, to not set conditions or pre-conditions, to not discuss

parameters, to not interfere with the proper collective bargaining process, all he would

be doing at this time, recognizing that both parties are at the table in good faith, that

both parties have asked for a news blackout, is to respect that process and to hope, as we

hope on this side, that we can come to a resolution that is fair to everybody and that

sustains a quality health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier would like for us to be

interested in nothing more than making him and the government look good, and ask no

questions. That is what the Premier would like, but that is not the way it is going to be.

We are not interested in breaking any blackouts. We are not interested

in jeopardizing any issues at the negotiating table. What we are interested in is having

the Premier address what were issues three or four weeks ago when he said that those

issues would be solved - the `casualization', workload for nurses. Both sides said that

salary was not the issue. Is that the case today? Are those issues still the issues? If

they are, why can't they be solved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is really humorous. The hon.

member is having trouble keeping his story straight for more than five seconds. His

opening breath is that we are not interested in breaking the blackout and violating the

negotiating table confidentiality. Then, as he takes an in breath, he says: Now can you

tell us what issues are being discussed at the negotiating table?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: This is a moment when I am sure the member wishes

that his second comment was `backupable'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this morning are for the Premier. The people of the

Province might be forgiven for thinking that Brian Tobin got cloned when he was in Ottawa

for the social union talks. Because on February 4, when the social union talks were over,

the Brian Tobin who stepped off the plane said he would not intervene in the Avalon East

School Board process no matter how tempting it might be politically because, quote: It

would be wrong.

Four days later, one day before the election, there was another Brian

Tobin who said, quote: If a genuine consensus of the community is not reached at the end

of the consultations, then government will take steps to slow down or if necessary shelve

the reform process.

If constituents' views are in conflict with some of the recommendations

of the Board, you said: We will act accordingly to ensure that there is, at the end of the

day, a community consensus.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to her question.

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to ask the Premier this. In light of

the fact that more than 8,000 residents of the West End of St. John's who now have a K to

XII system and want to keep it and are in danger of losing it with the Avalon East School

Board proposal, I would like to ask the Premier: Which Premier is he? Is he the one who

will not intervene because it would be wrong, or is he the one who will intervene to slow

down or shelve the process unless all recommendations of the Board agree with community

consensus?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Sheila

Osborne who was saying that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador ought to allow a

proper process to be followed, that Sheila Osborne was saying government should pay

attention to a proper democratically elected process. The Sheila Osborne after the

election campaign has obviously came to the conclusion that the elected school board and

the proper process of the elected school board - that Sheila Osborne is saying we should

ignore the elected school board.

We intend to ignore both Sheila Osbornes. We intend to listen to what

we said during the election campaign, and that is to allow the school board to do its job,

to allow them to complete a consultation process which is still ongoing, to allow them to

listen carefully to what parents and members of the community are saying, and to allow

them to indicate to the House, including to the Sheila Osborne who obviously is on both

sides of this issue, what changes they are contemplating before government would even

think about interfering and acting. I would say to the Sheila Osborne who is intolerant

and who is in a hurry that she ought to practise a little patience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

Hon. members ought to know that the rules of this House state that when

the Chair stands there should be silence. The Chair has to be heard in silence.

I just want to bring to hon. members' attention this morning that the

practice in this House has been to refer to hon. members as hon. members of the district

they represent, or the position that they hold. Both members this morning have violated

that Standing Order so I ask them, in the future, and all members, to acknowledge the

rules of this House, and to refer to hon. members by the district they represent or the

position they hold.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I am not the one who said I would intervene in the

process. The hon. Premier is the one who said he would intervene in the process. I am

asking him if he will intervene. We do not know yet whether the Avalon East School Board

will revise its initial plan for school -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Wait until May 7?

We do not know yet whether the Avalon East School Board will revise its

initial plan for school reorganization in the region or not. One thing we do know is that

the current proposal does not reflect the community consensus.

Is the Premier aware that Beaconsfield High School, if it is

transformed to a IV to IX, will be 200 pupils over its rated capacity? The classrooms will

then have a pupil-teacher ratio of between thirty-one or thirty-five to one. That is a far

cry from the fourteen point seven that was touted in the Throne Speech. Does he realize

that Booth High School was rated poor in the fall -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to her question. She is on a

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Does the Premier realize that the present high

school was rated good, and the school building the students are proposed to go to was

rated poor and proposed to be demolished in the fall of 1998? Has the Premier heard enough

from parents and students now to state definitively that unless the current proposal

regarding the West End is changed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to her question quickly.

MS S. OSBORNE: I am asking the Premier if the present proposal is

not changed regarding the West End of St. John's, if it is not changed to reflect the

community's wishes, will the Premier intervene?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the Speaker

for his clarification on the rules of the House. I must say I was in some confusion that

the rules had changed, given the way in which the member opposite had referred to me in

the earlier question, therefore I responded in kind. I thank the Speaker for his

clarification. I assure the Speaker I will absolutely abide by his ruling.

With respect to the member's question, the member just stood and said,

in response to my earlier comments: I am not the one who said I would interfere. Now the

member cannot have it both ways. You cannot be standing in the House saying that as an

Opposition member and as an Opposition party you would not interfere in the work of an

elected school board, you would not shut down the process of an elected school board, but

in the next breath ask the government to do exactly that, to interfere with the process.

What the government said during the election campaign, many members on this side said and

meant. That we would ensure that a proper process of consultation took place, that the

people of the Avalon East Consolidated School Board district would be given an opportunity

to be heard, that we would want to assure ourselves that a genuine attempt at reaching

consensus would be made and that where appropriate changes, if they were appropriate,

would be entertained.

I think all of that, to the extent I can observe it, appears to be

underway. The board has already indicated, already in advance of formalizing it - I heard

on CBC radio a few mornings ago the chairman, Kathy LeGrow, indicating that some changes

are already being contemplated. You know, these people are elected as we are, but they are

volunteers. They do this without any pay. They do this without any compensation. They take

on one of the most difficult tasks on behalf of all of the citizens of the Province. They

do not do it for money. They do not do it for pensions. They do it to improve the life of

the community. They do it as volunteers and we ought to respect their role and give them a

chance to complete their jobs before we condemn their efforts!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MS S. OSBORNE: My question to the Premier was: If the school board

does not change its proposal will he intervene at the end of the day? I did not get an

answer to that. These parents in 1997 voted 83 per cent in favour of reform. They were

promised optimum programming, lower pupil-teacher ratios and neighbourhood schools. Eight

hundred people are now bused out of the area, when, if the present proposal is

implemented, 1,400 will be bused out of their neighbourhoods.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that she is on a supplementary and I ask her

to get to her question.

MS S. OSBORNE: I ask the Premier: Will you stand by your February 8

commitment to the parents and students in St. John's West by promising to intervene to

halt this restructuring unless the board's proposal for the West End of St. John's is

completely revised so as to optimize programming, lower the pupil-teacher ratio and give

neighbourhood schools, which is what 83 per cent of them voted for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, once again, here we have a member

standing in the House asking the government, in advance of the process even being

completed, to overrule it, to shut it down, to violate the mandate of an elected school

board. I don't believe there are many members in this House in their heart of hearts, on

either side of the House, who believe that is the way to proceed. We have to give the

process a change to work. I am not going to prejudge the process. I am going to await the

outcome of the process. We have said publicly that if you clearly have a process that

results in an unworkable plan that is something we would look at. I happen to think that

progress, it appears to me, is being made.

If you are asking me whether or not there is going to be unanimous

consent at the end of the day, that every single community, every single parent, is going

to be happy and satisfied, that never exists in a democratic society. If you are asking me

whether or not I think they are listening, they are consulting and whether or not I think

they appear to be flexible, it appears to me that progress is being made. Let us let

people of good will and good faith do their jobs before we prejudge the outcome of their

deliberation.

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I am not asking you to intervene now. Mr. Speaker, I

am asking the Premier if the school board's proposal is not changed, will you then

intervene, as you promised on February 8? That is a very basic question. I am not asking

the Premier to intervene now, I am asking the Premier to commit to intervene if the Avalon

East School Board's proposal is not changed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: It is a basic question.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if there is a fire we will all man the

water buckets. If there is a strike, we will do our best to maintain the health care

system. We hope that does not occur. If there is pandemonium and total breakdown in the

education system, government will take its responsibility. If there is a flood, we will

all head for dry land. If, if, if.

If the member would be patient and allow the school board, these

volunteers who give freely of their time, with no expectation of any compensation or

reward other than the betterment of their community, if the member would allow them to do

their jobs, allow them to have a chance to fulfil their obligations in a responsible

fashion, if she would do that, we would all be far better off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. The town

of St. Alban's has been trying for some time now to rectify concerns with the sewage

treatment plant. At present, the town has an average domestic sewage disposal of 700

litres per capita per day. That rate is about 40 per cent more than that recommended by

the manufacturers of the plant for the process presently being used. Therefore, there is

sewage that is not being treated that is entering the bay.

I understand that the minister is aware of this problem, as he is the

member for that district. I ask the minister what has he done to rectify this situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell the hon. member that not only in Bay d'Espoir, but in

Conception Bay, in Trinity Bay, in Notre Dame Bay and in Fortune Bay there is sewage going

into the water. Until such time as we can find dollars to take care of all of these

particular sewage problems, then obviously we are going to have to live with it.

I have been in contact with the council in Bay d'Espoir. They have

their five year capital proposal in to the department. As monies become available then we

will address their problems, like others in the Province.

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

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, not only is the sewage disposal 40 per

cent higher that the manufacturer recommends, but even more alarming it is 60 per cent

higher than that recommended by the Department of Environment. This is a serious problem,

most especially considering the disposal site is very near aquaculture sights in that bay.

I ask the minister how much longer will the town have to wait? How much

longer will the consumers of products from the aquaculture sites have to wait before this

problem is resolved? Why have you allowed this to go on so long, Mr. Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During 1998 the town's engineer, Kendall Engineering, was given some

dollars to do the update research on the St. Alban's sewage treatment plan. That has now

been received by government. We will look at that, as I said, when we make our allocations

in water and sewer projects for this coming year.

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

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The town of St. Alban's has been trying for some time. You are right,

Kendall Engineering has done a study. Directly from that study, it says: Because of the

potential negative impact of the current plant and the impact it may have on the

aquaculture industry, immediate action is required to rectify the sewage treatment

problem.

I ask the Minister this. Has he read this document, and if he has, does

he agree with the conclusions and the recommendations in the document?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: As I said to the hon. member before, we are aware of

the problems not only in Bay d'Espoir but in other communities. We will look at the

dollars that are available to address the problems as they arise.

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

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

My questions are for the President of Treasury Board. "In 1991 the

Picher Board found that the bargaining relationship" - between government and the RNC

- "was `not... [a] positive'" and working relationship for reasons the board

described as the "`misapplication of the process of negotiation.'"

The recent Scott arbitration board, in writing about the current state

of bargaining between the two parties says, "The poor atmosphere appears rooted in an

inappropriate dependence of both parties on automatic resort to interest

arbitration."

In other words, the government does not take its collective bargaining

role with the RNC seriously because it knows the Cabinet will have the final decision and

will use its powers to impose a unilateral agreement.

Why does the government confuse its roles as employer with its roles as

legislator and fiscal regulator? Why does government persist in taking such a high handed

and condescending approach to collective bargaining with the RNC?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Member for Waterford

Valley I would have to say to him that government, in reaching its decision with the RNCA,

did not overturn the arbitration award. It was modified. Looking at the public protection

of this Province it was quite within its right in doing so. It was fair to the RNC as it

was to all other public sector employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Valley.

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

Members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary do not have a fair and

reasonable mechanism for the resolution of their bargaining disputes with the employer,

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. At the heart of the current dispute, of

course, is the fact that under current legislation members of the RNC do not have the

right to strike nor do they have binding arbitration.

Some years ago the Liberal government gave the RNC Association a

written commitment that they would amend the RNC act to provide for binding arbitration in

all future negotiations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his

question.

MR. H. HODDER: Why did the government not fulfil its written

commitment to provide for binding arbitration in legislation as they had committed to do

in writing to the Association?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the opposite member's

question I would have to say to him that government at this present time is quite within

their jurisdiction in the present set of contract negotiations. However, I will remind the

member opposite and tell him that we are now investigating the possibility of providing a

resolution for members to exercise their right. That is currently under review.

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

Valley.

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

In other words the written commitment we have here in writing is no

longer a commitment.

Dr. John Scott in the arbitration decision states: "The public

service collective bargaining environment in the Province has been subject to constraints,

reviewed above, which might fairly be described as somewhat atypical of normal collective

bargaining climates."

In other words, collective bargaining is being severely compromised in

the public service by governments use of legislative powers and use of mandatory, maximum

wage increases.

Is the minister concerned at all that the actions of her government has

placed collective bargaining in great jeopardy in this Province both with the RNC and with

other bargaining units as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from an important

document which I am prepared to table.

It says: Government has decided to implement a new wage restraint

policy in that there will be no increase in the salary or wage scales of employees of the

provincial government or its agencies for two years. This includes corporations such as

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, institutions such as the University, doctors, all others

who draw salary from the public purse. The two year period will begin following the end of

existing agreements for pay plans. No collective agreements which exist will be broken but

there will be a freeze for two years.

Mr. Speaker, an arbitrary freeze: Government is aware of the

difficulties which will be brought to bear on our employees by this policy. We know they

will have to tighten their belts, but the only other option - it goes on to say - is to

raise taxes or borrow money and we are going to impose a freeze.

That was a statement by the previous Progressive Conservative

government of which the Member for Lewisporte opposite was a strong supporter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I could read the rest of this very long

speech by one of my long-serving predecessors, the hon. Brian Peckford, which went on to

point out that government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, just to finish the point, in case the

members opposite have not gotten the point, these kinds of high-minded statements by

members opposite, in Opposition, when contrasted by their actions in government, leave

them looking just a tad transparently political and partisan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I would really ask them to try and reconcile their

positions in government with their actions in Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: On the last day that the House of Assembly met in

December, I had intended to table a report of the Commission of the Internal Economy for

the last fiscal year, April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998. As members who sat in the House may

recall, we were very busy on December 15, and inadvertently I did not table the document.

However, I directed the Clerk to send each member a copy of the report, and directed

copies to be deposited in the Legislative Library and in the press gallery. I shall now

table that report.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider

the raising of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for

the granting of Supply to Her Majesty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of provincial government

retirees who are asking the government to provide an increase to provincial government

retirees receiving the smallest pensions - a retroactive 7 per cent increase over

thirty-nine months to all provincial government employees - and the indexing of provincial

government retirees' pensions to compensate for the effects of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, this group of people is one of the growing groups of

people being treated unfairly by this government. We see government being prepared to

ignore an arbitration award for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in what is, in fact,

binding arbitration, but binding on one side only; binding on the RNC but not on this

government. It is binding on the RNC because as soon the government accepts the award of

the arbitrator it is binding upon the RNC. It is not binding on this government because

they have a way out, and the way out they have is not supposed to be there to allow them

to impose a monetary settlement on the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. It was put there

to preserve operational control of the force by the government.

That is the plain and simple truth of the matter, and anybody who says

anything to the contrary is misleading the people of this Province and certainly

misleading the RNC.

The other group we have are the nurses. The Premier of Ontario, another

fellow named Harris, yesterday announced a $100 million expenditure to hire 10,000 nurses.

How many nurses in Newfoundland are we going to lose as a result of this great opportunity

for Newfoundland nurses, being maltreated by this government, to be part of the

out-migration from this Province? How many are we going to lose? How many is this Premier

prepared to contemplate losing as a result of treating nurses unfairly in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, we have a growing number of groups of people in this

Province being treated unfairly by the government: its own employees in the RNC, in the

nursing profession, and its former employees, the retired pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday we are going to hear the Minister of Finance

tell us that there is going to be a tax credit for our senior citizens over sixty-five who

have small incomes. Nothing wrong with it, Mr. Speaker! Nothing wrong with it! Nothing

wrong with having a tax credit for seniors over sixty-five who are amongst the poorest of

our people. No problem with that, and I don't think there would be a dissenting vote in

this House if a motion were put to this House as to whether or not there should be a tax

credit for senior citizens aged sixty-five and over; not one dissenting vote. I do not

think so. Maybe the Minister of Fisheries would walk out of the House and would not vote.

There may be one, but I do not think there would be a dissenting vote on this side of the

House for that measure.

That does not go anywhere near to even contemplating addressing the

problems of the public service pensioners, many of whom - and I do not know what the

numbers are, what the breakdown is - are not near the age of sixty-five. They were made

redundant by this government or by the previous government. They have been out on

retirement for a number of years and have yet to reach their sixty-fifth birthday and will

benefit nothing from this public relations gesture that the Premier and the Minister of

Finance have concocted in order to try and fool the people of the Province into thinking

that they are treating retired people seriously.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a unique problem. Other provinces have had to

deal with this. In Nova Scotia recently, the hospital corporations, their retirees

suffered from a similar problem. They had a similar problem where many of them were

receiving such low incomes that they were being forced to the welfare rolls, living below

the poverty line. A creative solution was found within the laws of trusteeship and

pensions and some of the complications that arise. A solution was found that was designed

to benefit those on the lower end of the scale and not the one person whom the Minister of

Finance likes to keep talking about who has a pension from this government of in excess of

$100,000.

That is not the person who was out there protesting yesterday, and many

times before. That is not the person on whose shoulder the Premier put his hand and

indicated everything was going to be alright, to the person making $100,000 on pension.

That is not the person the people were talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: It is the ones on the lower end of the scale. If this

government were serious about finding a solution, they would do so.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to speak in support of the petition that the member has

presented.

MR. GRIMES: There is nothing on the paper, Tom.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven thousand names.

MR. T. OSBORNE: There is nothing on it for the Minister of Mines, I

say, Mr. Speaker, because he has spoken against the seniors ever since we have started

supporting them in this House. There is nothing on it for the Minister of Mines and

Energy. There is nothing on it at all for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, there is a good reason that we see as many senior public

service pensioners out in the lobby as we saw this week. There is a good reason; because

the fight they are fighting, the cause they are fighting for, is just. We, on this side of

the House, have given support to the public service pensioners now for almost two years,

since this issue came to light. We will continue to support the public service pensioners.

Many of the public service pensioners in this Province are living below

the poverty line. The Minister of Finance, the Premier and the Minister of Mines and

Energy will stand in their place and say that some of these people are receiving over

$100,000 a year. There are a very, very few of the public service pensioners receiving

that much money. The majority of them are between $10,000 and $20,000. Many of them are

below the poverty line. Many of them are below $12,000 a year.

The members on this side of the House will continue to fight for the

public service pensioners of this Province - the people who have built the system that we

are now enjoying, the people who have worked within the public service and have delivered

the laws, delivered legislation, enforced the legislation that we in this House have put

forth.

We in this House have accepted the raise. Every other public service

member has accepted the raise. Yet, this House, the Premier and his government, refuse to

give the increase to the public servants pensioners. Simply put, that is wrong.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition with 450 names attached to it. The

petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislative session convened;

The petition of the undersigned residents of Bonavista South, namely

pupils and staff of Matthew Elementary School, hereby petition the government to

immediately look at the road conditions on Route 235 between Birchy Cove and Bonavista.

This road has deteriorated to the point that it is a safety hazard for our school buses

and our families who travel this road.

In recent weeks this road has gotten much worse. Pupils travelling on

the bus have hit their heads on the bus roof because of the bus bouncing on the bad

sections of this road, as well as the buses having had several springs broken. Several of

our families have had their cars damaged;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to upgrade and pave Route 235 between Birchy Cove and Bonavista in order to bring

it up to an acceptable standard;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the 450 names on this petition are all names of pupils

from Matthew Elementary. They do not all travel that

section of road, I say to the

Premier. It is from Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, Upper, Middle and Lower Amherst Cove, where

they travel to Bonavista to attend Matthew Elementary School.

It was just a week ago that I had the deputy minister and the assistant

deputy minister come down and travel over this

section of roadway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is down between Birchy Cove and Bonavista;

five kilometres of road, I say to the Premier, and it is in very bad condition.

At one time there were schools in Newmans Cove, Upper Amherst Cove,

Middle Amherst Cove. Those schools were closed and the people agreed to bus their children

into Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to close schools and expect children to

travel over our road network to get to other schools, then I think the least we should do

is provide them with, at the very least, safe buses and a decent road to travel over.

This

section of road between Birchy Cove and Bonavista is five

kilometres. There are 2.5 kilometres of the road in very serious condition, deplorable

condition. The shoulders are all broken off the road, loose pavement upon the road, and

potholes. It is not uncommon to get telephone calls from bus operators, bus drivers, to

complain about this road and ask that something be done with it.

At the meeting we attended the other day, there were people there from

all communities but they set their sights on this

section of road only. They did not come

out and say: As bad as the road is in Upper Amherst Cove and Middle Amherst Cove, we need

this done. We like to have it done, but here we are realistic. This is the worst part of

the road and, Mr. Minister and Mr. Premier, if you cannot pave the full five kilometres

then maybe you will look at upgrading and paving the 2.5 kilometres which is the worst

section of road. This is the plea that is coming from the students. This is the plea that

is coming from the parents.

Last week I had a call from a couple of parents in the area, and they

were going to block the road. They were frustrated. Nobody was listening to their plea.

This is not the first year that this

section of road has been bad. It has been bad for a

number of years. They were going to block the road and I asked them to hold off. I said,

if you block the road then you are going to deprive schoolchildren a chance of going to

school. Some of those students are taking Level II and Level III, and every day is very

important. I said, wait until we get some government officials out there to look at this

section of road and maybe something can be done in the meantime without having to revert

to such action. They have agreed to do that, and they are waiting in anticipation of the

Budget being brought down, provincial roadwork being announced whereby they might be able

to see at least 2.5 kilometres of this

section of roadway upgraded and paved.

I say to members opposite, I say to the Premier, I say to Cabinet

ministers, that this petition can be verified by calling the superintendent of the local

area there, Mr. Paul Goodman from the Clarenville detachment, and he will verify that what

I have said here in this House this morning is certainly truthful and accurate. It is the

worst piece of road in this area. It is a piece of road that not only buses and

schoolchildren travel over; it is the only road that people can use to get to Bonavista -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - to go to the hospital, to do their banking, to go

to government offices. It is the only road that they use to go and access the services in

Bonavista.

My plea is to look at this petition, react to the students -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - who saw fit to sign the petition, and I look

forward to a positive response.

Thank you.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to rise for a few minutes to support my colleague in

presenting these petitions. I know because I have petitions of my own, of road conditions

in the area, that I am going to present over the coming days, that are coming to my office

as of now.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are lots of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I wonder what the member in the back is saying? Maybe

he has one to present in his own district, Mr. Speaker.

A lot of people in this House could stand and talk about road

conditions in their area. I can certainly talk about road conditions in my area, where the

Premier himself has been a federal member. We have had members on all sides of the House

in that district. The truth is that road conditions, as my colleague has just presented in

this House, is a reality in this Province today, especially in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador; and especially the point that the Member for Bonavista South made - and it is a

point that we should all remember - is that with school reform and the many closures

around the Province of schools and so on, that children are being bused further and

further over deplorable road conditions. That it is just not acceptable any more. It is

not acceptable to the parents.

It is a real practical problem when we talk about students - and I have

talked to parents who say it is hard enough to convince their children to go to school

these days. It is hard enough when they have to drive for twenty, thirty, sometimes forty

kilometres to go to school, but it is really hard, parents say, when they are trying to

convince their children to stay in school. I say to the minister, on a very serious note,

I have sat and talked with those parents. I have talked to those parents.

It is hard enough to get your child to go to school every morning, when

they have to go forty kilometres, but one morning I sat on the bus with the children in

the community of Pacquet and went to school. If that was my six-year-old little girl that

I had to put on that bus that morning - and I say this in all seriousness - when I spoke

to that parent, I could see how they would have trouble saying, my little girl had to go

on that bus. I sat in the back of that bus and went over a dirt road for some twenty

kilometres, as children were popping up off their seats.

The serious part of this - and I say this to the Premier and the acting

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation today - I hope that we do not hear, in the

not very distant future, of a very serious accident in this Province when thirty

schoolchildren are on that bus. It happened in my district two years ago, Purbeck's Cove,

where the road was in such bad condition that the bus bounced and went over the side of

the cliff and was hung up on the birch trees on the side of the road. Now, Mr. Speaker,

that is a fact. That is exactly what happened, and that is what we cannot see happening in

this Province.

The point I am making today on this particular petition is to add the

fact and to make sure that we realize, with the school reform that is happening, that many

schools are closed down, children are being bused further to go to school, they are

younger as they get on the buses, and our little children - six, seven and eight years old

- are getting on buses 7:00 a.m. to be bused over terrible, terrible conditions, as my

colleague said, in Bonavista South. It is happening in my district and it is happening in

other districts in the Province.

My message for this today is to keep in mind the point of school

reform, the long distance that children are going over these days, and that the government

in their Budget looks at again, at a timing that is so necessary, that more money is put

into provincial road construction around this Province, so that especially rural

Newfoundland communities can have a decent road to drive over. Some have still not been

paved since Confederation.

As we celebrate the 50th birthday of Confederation we have people in

this Province not asking for the second lot of pavement, not asking for a double-lane

highway, not asking for a median to go through their town: they are asking for their first

lot of pavement. That is something we all should be ashamed of in this Province, party

after party, year after year, government after government. Nobody in this Province should

be driving over twenty and thirty kilometres of dirt road when we see budgets come and go

and the right amount not being put into the budget.

I think, from the numbers in the Throne Speech, there is something like

$16 million again this year for roads throughout this Province when we look around. But

the timing. The La Scie highway thirty years ago was paved. It is finished. It is worse

than some of the gravel roads.

We are at a stage in this Province where I am hoping and I am hearing -

I hope the Premier can talk about this someday - that there may be a new

provincial-federal agreement coming very soon, within the next year or two, where we can

really address this problem. Because it is at a point now where it has to be addressed or

the infrastructure in our Province - which enhances tourism by the way, and so on - can be

brought up to date and brought up to scratch, so we can say to people who come into our

Province: You can drive over at least pavement in this Province and not gravel roads.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I can ask the indulgence of the

House I would like to, on a point of order, convey what I think is important and urgent

information to all members of the House.

I have just been sent a copy of a press release which has been issued

by the RCMP Commercial Crime

Section in St. John's. I would just read, if I could, from

the release. It certainly refers to an investigation which all members here are aware of

into the activities of a member of the House and two of his staff.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Premier have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: Let me just read the release:

The RCMP Commercial Crime

Section in St. John's has concluded their

investigation in alleged wrongdoings of former provincial government Cabinet Minister,

Beaton Tulk, and two members of his staff, Philip Wellon and Ruby Batstone. The

allegations were not substantiated in the investigation. There will be no criminal

charges.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know that I can say on behalf of all

members in the House, unanimously in the House, that we all welcome this news release. I

think it is fair to say that all members, during the course of questions on this

particular matter and the allegations that were raised by Mr. John Woodrow, expressed the

desire to see an impartial investigation by the RCMP. That has now been conducted.

At the time that the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal and

Member for Bonavista North stepped aside from his duties and indeed requested this

investigation, I indicated at that time that beyond the RCMP investigation, for greater

certainty, I would ask the Conflict Commissioner to have a look at these matters as well.

Having received this information today, which I join all other members in applauding, I

intend now to refer the matter, so that the process that we set out is followed totally

and in an exacting fashion, to the Conflict Commissioner for his review as well.

I would serve notice that there will be no change in the status of the

member with respect to Cabinet until such time as a full investigation is completed by the

Conflict Commissioner. I know that seems a little onerous but it is the procedure that we

announced and it is the procedure, I think, that we should see followed through on.

I do want to say on a personal note that I know, and I think all

members in the House will appreciate, that there can be no greater burden for any member

of this House, on either side of the House, to carry than an attack or the suggestion of

wrongdoing - for that matter, no greater burden for staff members; I see one of the staff

members is here and I do want to acknowledge Philip Wellon and Ruby Batstone -, than the

suggestion that somehow you have done something which is wrong or in conflict or violation

of your public duty and your public oath of office to behave in an appropriate fashion.

There can be no greater burden for your family, for your spouse, for

your children, for your relatives, for your loved ones, than to see you go through this

kind of public investigation. It is an unfortunate but necessary burden that all of us

carry who participate in public life.

I want to say to the Member for Bonavista North - and I know I say this

for every member in the House - that members everywhere feel joy today at this result. We

congratulate you for the courage you have shown in moving so swiftly to ask for such an

investigation to clear your name and we salute, sir, the great grace and dignity you have

shown during these last months in very difficult circumstances. Congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would just want to take a few

moments to make a few remarks on this subject as well on behalf of my colleagues on this

side of the House. I agree with the Premier. I think the Premier was speaking for every

member in this Legislature when he expressed the sentiments that he did. I want to, for

the record, say ourselves that all of us who offer ourselves for public office

unfortunately, from time to time, find ourselves perhaps in the midst of controversy

(inaudible) allegations of conflict and so on, but the most substantial of all is when

there are allegations of criminal wrongdoing. This member unfortunately had to endure that

allegation for several months.

I have known the hon. gentleman for quite a number of years. We came

into politics, I guess, not far apart. I came in 1975, I believe he may have come in 1979,

so I have known him for quite a long time. I'm not surprised at the result. I am delighted

with the result, as I am sure he is and his colleagues are, but I am not surprised. It is

unfortunate that when those types of allegations are made a process has to evolve.

Investigations have to be undertaken and it takes time, and during that time the member

himself and his family unfortunately suffer. All one can say is that we are sorry. One can

never say anything that undoes the hurt or anything of that nature. It is unfortunate but

that's the bowl that we live in, that's the reality that we live and work in. We might

argue that it should not be the case, but it is what happens when you put your name on the

ballot paper sometimes and you thrust yourself into the public forum.

We are delighted with this result. I hope that the other part of the

process follows quickly and is concluded quickly because I do believe - we will disagree

politically - that this gentleman can add strength to the government, and anything that

adds strength to the government is good for the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to join with the Premier and the Member for Lewisporte in saying

that we are also pleased that the result of the investigation has been positive for the

member. I think it is unfortunate and a little known, I suppose, risk of political life

-little appreciated, perhaps, by the public - that allegations of this nature can be made

for partisan or personal reasons. Because of the public nature of our roles they are

treated perhaps a lot differently than they would be in other walks of life.

Unfortunately the member has had to endure not only a public scrutiny

or personal scrutiny and a police investigation, but perhaps a view of a cynical public

about that sort of thing for an unduly long period of time. It is unfortunate it has taken

so long. I am certainly pleased with the outcome.

I will add, I suppose, to what the Member from Lewisporte said. Not

only did he and his family have to endure this for a long period of time; he also had to

go through an election with this hanging over his head. I think it is a tribute to all of

us - I do not know, maybe something was said - but I never heard one single word said

during the whole course of this election or pre-election as to whether or not this

allegation or this matter was to be treated in a partisan fashion by anyone, or anyone

encouraging the electorate to do so. I think that is a tribute not only to the member, and

the opinion which is held by members here, but also to all of those who engaged in the

political process in this Province.

I think it is appropriate and proper, the way it has been handled to

date, and appropriate and proper that the Conflict Commissioner also investigate the

matter. As far as the report of the Premier today, I am pleased, along with all others,

that the result has been the way it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say very quickly that the past

two or three months have not been the best two or three political months that I have spent

in twenty years in politics. It was in 1979 that I first got elected.

Let me start off first by saying that I want to pick up on something

that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just said, and that is the people of Bonavista

North. I was under a police investigation when the election was called, and I want to say

to you quite clearly that I owe a great deal of gratitude to those people who gave me, I

think, in some seven elections in which I have run, the biggest majority that I ever had;

a majority of some 2,700 votes. I want to thank them for believing the word of Beaton

Tulk, and getting out and voting for me on polling day. I think those are the most

important people that you have to thank.

I say, too, that it has been a hard time for my wife, my family, my

kids and so on, in the past two or three months. I want to thank them for standing by me.

I do want to say clearly that I think it is an important day for all of

us in that there is a process in place for us to clear our name in front of the public. I

think we should follow it, and we should follow it closely, and we should never try to

avoid it; because one you try to avoid then it, then you create the kind of cynicism that

is all too prevalent in politics today.

I do want to quickly thank the members on both sides of this House for

the way that we have all conducted ourselves in this matter; and especially, Sir, thank

you for your faith in me.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. FUREY: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on

Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

(Bill 2)

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole,

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

We will resume the debate on the resolution presented yesterday.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I, too, want to join with my colleagues here, and those who have

spoken, to say to the Member for Bonavista North that I personally am very delighted and

pleased with the report that has come back from the RCMP. I have known the member for a

long time and I certainly say that while I disagree with him often politically, we are

pleased that this investigation has gone the way it has gone. I compliment him for the way

in which he moved quickly on it to preserve not only his own good reputation but the

reputation of his staff.

We today are very pleased and delighted to join with the people who

have already spoken, and say it is a good day for members of this House, a good day for

parliamentary democracy. This investigation has now gone a route that we were not

surprised it would go, but during the process we all have these moments of anxiety. To him

personally, and to his family - some members of the family I have known for many, many

years - it is a great moment and a very pleasing outcome of the investigation.

Earlier today in the Question Period, I was directing some attention to

the dispute with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the manner in which government

has handled this dispute. I want to go back to that for a few moments.

I have the report, the Dr. John Scott Board of Arbitration Report.

There are some things in this report that cause me great concern. I note, in Dr. Scott's

report, there are some items that I do believe indicate that government has not handled

the negotiations with the RNC in the matter which one would think desirable.

Mr. Chairman, we know that government has the power, under legislation,

to vary the recommendation of Dr. Scott. We know that

section 51 of the Act provides that

the arbitration awards which will be given under sections 47 and 49 of the same Act are

subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - in other words, the

Cabinet - and that Cabinet can, under the Act, vary. It can make modifications; it can

make additions; it can make deletions in any of these matters that government may

prescribe or decide.

The difficulty with this particular process is that there is not a

binding process; that we have not yet seen put forward by government a satisfactory

dispute resolution mechanism. We on this side understand the difficult role that

government has to play in this matter.

I referred earlier in the day to a letter which was written to the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association by this government, and I want to read the

letter. It is written to the president. It says: This letter acknowledges that the

employer is committed to recommending to the House of Assembly the required changes in the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act which would provide for binding arbitration on all

collective bargaining issues in future negotiations.

Mr. Chairman, that was a commitment written to the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary Association by the Liberal government in the early part of this decade. We

have not had any effective bargaining. I think the last wage increase was in 1991, and

there have been some rollbacks and changes since then. Consequently, this is an awkward

piece of correspondence. What this says is that the Liberal government committed to the

RNC that they would introduce amendments to the Act which would give the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary Association binding arbitration. Mr. Chairman, that didn't

happen and today I was attempting to ask the minister why.

Mr. Chairman, if it did not happen there must have been logical reasons

why it did not. Why would the Liberal government say to the RNC, on one hand, yes we are

going to give you a commitment, we are going to tell you that we will introduce

legislation which will give you binding arbitration and do that as part of the final

agreement process, sign it and put it into the addenda to the collective bargaining

agreement, and then over the process of that collective agreement's life they did not

fulfil their commitment? Mr. Chairman, this is a contractual obligation. Since this would

form part of the collective bargaining agreement reached on a prior date with the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary Association, this becomes part of the agreement. Why?

Now, Mr. Chairman, there may be very good reasons. I am not saying the

reasons do not exist. I am saying that the Liberal government, on the one hand, told the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association in writing - it forms part of their collective

agreement - that they would introduce binding arbitration. They did not. Mr. Chairman, we

have to ask the question: Why?

Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to -

MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, on a point of

order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Following very closely what the hon. member is saying with respect to

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association and the admitted fact that they are in a

very awkward bargaining position, because they do not seem to have resolution mechanisms

that are available to most other collective bargaining groups, maybe the Opposition

critic, because he is doing a good job, might also do a little bit of research and inform

the House as to the current arrangement which gives the RNCA arbitration which is not

binding, which administration actually put that in place.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, there is not a point of order. If you

are going to take credit for putting in a type of arbitration that you now have, which is

not working, so you are taking credit for putting in something that is not working now,

has not worked in the past and is not likely to work in the future. The Minister of Mines

and Energy wants to take credit for something that does not work. I mean, this government

does many things that do not work. The Mines and Energy Minister just stood in his place

and said: We are proud of the fact that we put in place an arrangement that is not

working, has not worked, and is not likely to work in the future.

If that is the kind of statement the Minister of Mines and Energy wants

to make, maybe he should get up and admit more failings of his government. That is the

first time I have seen him make that mistake, to get up and publicly acknowledge that his

government introduced something that was an absolute failure. It cannot be working very

well when we see the RNC officers out here in front of the building, we see them down in

front of their headquarters, having to man information lines and that kind of thing.

Mr. Chairman, what we are saying is that the Minister of Mines and

Energy just stood up and said: We are an absolute failure in our bargaining with the RNC

Association, and we are proud of it.

Let me comment again on the whole changes in the bargaining climate. I

am using as my reference here the report of the chairman. Let me point out that Dr. John

Scott was agreed to as the chair of the arbitration board by the government, he was agreed

to by the RNC Association, so the government approves of Dr. Scott. Therefore when he

writes his report he is writing a report in a very non-partisan, non-political way. He has

examined the facts and said: Here are the facts, here are some of things I want to say in

this award.

Right at the beginning of the document, page 4, Dr. Scott notes that

the bargaining atmosphere between the parties appears not to have improved over the last

eight or nine years. In other words, there is a hostile atmosphere. In 1991 the former

board, which was chaired by Mr. Picher, found that the bargaining relationship was not

positive.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: With leave?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have loved through my few remarks to have the deputy deputy

deputy House Leader be here and the Member for Bonavista South because they presented a

petition in the House of Assembly that I did not have the opportunity to respond to on the

roads. The Member for Baie Verte spoke about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Why? I did not have the opportunity because the Premier

asked for leave. I will take the opportunity now. It has nothing to do with the members

opposite, but they should listen to what a responsible government sits on this side of the

House since 1989, compared to the previous eighteen years of Tory government.

I want to start off by talking about when I was in the opposition from

1985 to 1989, and what we did not get in the District of Port de Grave. From 1985 to 1989

not one nickel, for four years, went into the District of Port de Grave for roads, for any

type of infrastructure. No monies whatsoever went into that district from the then

provincial government. Why was it? Because I was noted to be an individual on the

opposition who asked questions of a government which I considered were not doing an

appropriate administration of a government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now listen here, (inaudible). We never got much in

Fogo, either.

MR. EFFORD: No, nothing in Fogo, absolutely. In fact, all people on

the opposition were cut off completely. Now we hear petitions coming to the House of

Assembly on a day-to-day basis about roads in their district, about infrastructure in

their district. Let me remind the hon. member opposite that from previous to 1989 there

was a Tory government in power for eighteen years. Who was sitting in that, representing

the Baie Verte district? The member now sitting next to you, sir, the member now, who was

then the premier, who spent a short time as premier. Twenty-nine days as premier, and then

previous to that Minister of Fisheries, and other ministers of Cabinet. Now we hear them

standing in the House presenting petitions to get roads. What happened when that

government was in power for eighteen years?

AN HON. MEMBER: John, can you sing?

MR. EFFORD: No, I will not attempt to sing, but twenty-nine days is

a mighty long time for a premier from the Tory side, yes.

Since 1989, how much money from the Liberal government under Premier

Clyde Wells, and now Premier Tobin, has been spent in that Tory district up there on the

Baie Verte Peninsula? More than was spent in the previous eighteen year under a Tory

government. Now they have the audacity to come in this House of Assembly and present

petition after petition asking for more roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know what? He just presented a petition up

there, and to make the best of it we are going to take a long hard look at it.

MR. EFFORD: We are going to take a long hard look because we are

concerned as a government. We are concerned about those children on that school bus. We

are concerned about it. We are going to take a look at it, but the hon. members opposite

should compare, should get out Hansard and look at from 1985 to 1989, get out the capital

works programs and look at from 1985 to 1989 what was not in a Liberal district, but what

has been done in Tory districts since 1989 up until now, 1999.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. EFFORD: Zero. Zero in St. Barbe, zero in Fogo, zero in the

Liberal District of Port de Grave, zero in Twillingate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Starved them to death.

MR. EFFORD: Starved them to death. This is a government which

cares. I remember previous to the election the Member for St. John's West made accusations

that this is not a caring government. These are examples of a caring government which

cares about people regardless of their politics. Regardless of their politics we care

about children on buses, we care about people living in rural parts of Newfoundland. Let

me also remind the hon. member, we have to catch up. For all of those years that we did

not get anything we have to catch up and we have to try to keep up to par, balance it out.

Fairness and balance. Did I say that word?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairness and balance, but first of all you have to

have the balance.

MR. EFFORD: We have to have the balance in our home area, in our

own districts. So Port de Grave, St. Barbe, Fogo, Twillingate, even though they are

realigned now, we have to look at what is right and fair for all people in Newfoundland

and Labrador, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all I am standing to talk and speak on interim supply. That is

what I am standing here for today, and we will go right to roads.

First of all, let me say about the fairness and balance they are

talking about here, that every time he stands he talks about fairness and balance, how

they are going to spread it all out over time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Don't you go interrupting like that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: On this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, we do not take

it in that manner, fairness and balance. We say first of all balance and then be fair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the minister for enlightening us and correcting on balance and

fairness and fairness and balance. Whatever that means.

By the way, before I forget, I will say this. I am glad the member

stood up because I would like to say too in the House - he just reminded me by standing -

of the situation today and how the minister will be back in his seat soon, we hope.

Because we have some more questions for the minister on rural Newfoundland and what is

happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are looking forward to the questions.

Today we were talking about roads. The Member for Bonavista South

brought forward a petition of people in his district. What the minister has to be reminded

about, especially the Minister of Fisheries, is that he is a minister sworn in as a

minister of the Province, of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what he has

to remember.

As far as in the district I represent, it is one of the toughest areas

in the Province as far as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SHELLEY: I let you speak, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

You are going to have to be quiet, take a few seal pills and relax, Mr. Chairman. He has

to remember that the road system in my district is very tough. They call it a spider web

road, that branches out a lot of different ways. It is not like, for example, the Southern

Shore that gets one road right on through about fifteen different communities. The point

that I'm making -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I have noticed, first of all, the

Minister of Fisheries has taken advice from a Tory and taken seal pills but I have also

noticed he has been eating in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. EFFORD: (inaudible) there is an explanation. I have permission

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the minister speaking to that point of order?

MR. EFFORD: To that point of order, yes.

CHAIR: I ruled it was not a point of order. Do you rise on another

point of order?

MR. EFFORD: A new point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

When I came into this House in 1989 I had permission from the Speaker

of the House of Assembly, because of a disease I have, to eat appropriately when it is

needed. Every hon. member in this House of Assembly is fully aware of that request and it

was approved by the Speaker of the House.

CHAIR: Order, please!

No point of order. The member wanted to take the opportunity to explain

a certain situation.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Before I was so rudely interrupted -

AN HON. MEMBER: By your own member!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I understand the Minister of Fisheries. Boys, I'm glad

it is Friday, I say to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why we keep trying to change the subject. I

do not know why the people keep interrupting. I only have ten minutes.

Let's get back to the interim supply and the road situation. As we

talked about that, just a couple of reminders during the election. The Premier would not

have known about the road conditions because with three days left in the campaign here

comes the Premier, not in a car, not in a bus, not in one helicopter, not in two

helicopters, but three helicopters planked down in the middle of Baie Verte. Here comes

the Premier down in Baie Verte, right across from my headquarters. He landed in Bay Vista.

Three helicopters.

That is not the funny part. Here is the funny part. Three helicopters

for the Premier to land, for the Premier to walk into the Bay Vista. We had this big rally

of some forty people. Thirty of them were my relatives who went over to see what he looked

like. The Premier waltzed in with the three helicopters saying: God bless the Member for

Baie Verte, he will not be back in the House of Assembly again, he does not have a chance

go get back in the House of Assembly again.

Before the three helicopters left he wanted to make sure he left a good

impression on the people of Baie Verte. So what he did was announce a fire pump for

Burlington that had been announced two weeks earlier. That was the big announcement coming

from the Premier and that was going to give him the momentum to knock that Member for Baie

Verte out of his seat. He didn't even come close. The big charade of three helicopters, I

thought it was Apocalypse Now all over again. Three choppers coming up around the

bay. Forty screaming people in the Bay Vista, and it was going to be the end of the Member

for Baie Verte.

It did not pan out. As a matter of fact, if you look on this side of

the House today, from my colleagues and the NDP, right up along the benches, the truth is

it never panned out anywhere. The Premier's intention was to wipe them all out. He was so

popular and so strong there was not going to be a member left over here.

Then the predictions that he was going to win them all. Our leader, the

Member for Kilbride, was going to be wiped out. Gone, he was gone! Then for a split

second, if you do not have your senses, when you listened to the Premier on the radio,

first he said the leader was going to be knocked out I said maybe he is doing polls. Maybe

he knows something we don't know. Then he said the Member for Ferryland was going to be

wiped out. That is when the laughing started around the Province.

Then he gets some of his buddies in the media saying: The Tories will

be lucky if they have five members left in the House of Assembly, the NDP will not have

any members in the House of Assembly, we are going to be riding roughshod over there. Move

all the benches over. There is going to be nothing to look at but one or two seats. The

truth is it did not pan out: the helicopters, the charades and the money. Every time we

opened up the Robinson-Blackmore - it was not a little

article up in the corner, it was a

full page of the Premier, the big picture of the Premier. We are going to be wiping out

the Opposition. There is nothing left and we are going to have a Frank McKenna here. It

did not pan out. This Premier is no Frank McKenna. He wasn't bringing all the goodies into

Newfoundland like the premier was doing in New Brunswick. It did not happen.

The truth is, the Premier underestimated a lot of things. He

underestimated his own people and where they would be on the road. So that all comes home

to roost. It started here yesterday. The Premier can spin any way he wants and he is good

at it. He is good at spinning. What he said on television one day and what he said on the

radio the next day - and he spins it because he has been doing it for such a long time.

The truth was, in the example that we saw here in the House of Assembly yesterday, that

people believed the Premier when this gentleman said: He put his hand on my shoulder and I

was sure we were getting something done with the pensions. When he put his hand on the

shoulder of the nurse that he was speaking to, they were sure that it was going to be

resolved. When he looked at the RNC and spoke to them on the steps in their uniforms, he

was sure. They were all sure that it was all going to be done, but what happened?

It did not happen. It is not happening and the real truth is this. The

truth is that all of this is coming home to roost. It is all coming home to roost. People

of the Province are saying the truth is that from February 12 on the real truth of the

February election of 1999 is about to be told. It is going to come out in black and white.

People in this Province, only one week after the election, they are starting to say that

the real truth is coming out. The pages will be turned, and the real truth behind the

battle of February 1999 is going to be told in spades.

MR. EFFORD: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: It is the only way they can get me to shut up, Mr

Chairman, do a point of order that is not going to be a point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of

order.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have no problem sitting in my seat

and listening to the hon. member opposite talk about the Premier, and talk about the

election, and all things. Why doesn't he explain what he and his colleague did with the

Career Academy students in the opposition office? Give us a clear explanation of what

happened there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

It was a point of order. It is not an intervening speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

First of all, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: My ruling was there is no point of order, and I recognized

you.

MR. SHELLEY: Is that a new ten minutes?

CHAIR: No.

MR. SHELLEY: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, to continue on before I was so

rudely interrupted. Friday morning always works in here, friday morning always works

(inaudible).

Like I was saying, the story of the election of 1999 is about to be

told. All the people in this Province were misled. The RNC were going to be taken care of,

the nurses were going to be taken care. Lay your hand on the shoulder, you are all healed.

That is what the Premier was doing. Lay your hands, you are healed, everything is going to

be taken care of. Do not worry about it, everything is great.

Then the Premier jumps in his helicopters. He was landing everywhere,

running through the malls, and of course lo and behold, everywhere he went the pensioners

were looking at him in the face.

What really happened? We do not really know what really happened, but

it does raise suspicions when all of a sudden the pensioners were taking their adds off

the air. They were not confronting the Premier any more. The last three or four days -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the House would appreciate

the continuance of the great speech from the Member for Baie Verte. I certainly want to

get up to make the intervening time and say to the Member for Baie Verte that we are

looking forward to him continuing his speech. If he would look over this way...

I want to give the Member for Baie Verte the opportunity to continue

his dialogue because it was so interesting and so much taking the government to task. We

hear more from the member.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I'm glad the hon. Member for Waterford Valley sat down,

because I did not want to go to sleep for a while yet. He is proof of life after death.

That is a good description.

I want to take just a couple of minutes to talk about the hon. member

opposite, how he evaded answering the kind of questions about the students. I would like

to have a full understanding of the students from Career Academy pre-election. A

pre-election meeting?

Do I understand right, was it Radio Rick who was involved? Radio Rick

was involved in the meeting. Would it be factual? I cannot believe that an hon. member

opposite would do that to a group of students who had a very serious problem, would be

taken into the opposition board room, led to believe that it was an official from the

Department of Education, Mr. Fifield - Radio Rick -, brought into the board room for a

meeting. I would like to have an explanation from the hon. member. What was it that

actually happened in that meeting? Was it factual that he led them to believe they were

going to get a meeting through the official from the Department of Education to the

minister?

I cannot imagine that any hon. member, regardless of their concern,

would lead to that type of manipulation of students. Then to stand in this House of

Assembly for ten minutes and talk about what the Premier was (inaudible) quoted by the

news media in the paper of taking out (inaudible) the number of seats. You cannot talk

after the news media from one day to the next on what was said. I have often heard, you

discard 50 per cent and you discard another 50 per cent. You only believe 25 per cent of

what is written.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shelly was in on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you in on that?

MR. EFFORD: He was the member who arranged the meeting. He sat in

the board room. I am going to take my seat in the House of Assembly and I am going to give

him time to explain how he could do that to a group of students who are going through such

a dismal situation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chair, I'm so glad that the minister would afford

me the opportunity. I was going to do it on a point of order but it would not suffice.

What I was going to do it in the point of order, so that it is on the record and in the

book, swear to it, just make two words. What the minister just said was not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about it!

MR. SHELLEY: I am going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, calm them down. Maybe they are afraid.

Here is what the problem is. They are afraid I am going to tell the truth and they cannot

play with it any more. They are afraid of the truth. Like Jack Nicholson said: You can't

handle the truth. That is what it is. I said this when I got up earlier, and I want to say

this to the member before I go on, because it is appropriate to say it. I started to say

it, and I do not even know if I got it out the first time. What happened today, I respect

the member and I respect him personally for what happened in the whole situation. I have

to say that before I go on to the next point.

Because the truth is that if the Minister of Education at the time when

I raised this issue had done the respectable thing that a lot of ministers have done in

the past, and listened to what I told him, and investigated earlier the allegations that

the students were making, this could have been stopped. It could have been avoided. I say

to the members, you can believe it or not, I am going to tell you. It is up to you if you

believe it. I spoke to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, that is true. I went to him.

There is something else that got lower and lower in this, and if the

minister was upset about that he should have talked to the Premier. The Premier that day

spoke to me in confidence as we have our private conversations. He asked me how come I

knew so much about this particular gentleman. I say this on record in the House. I was

hoping to be called during the investigation. I do not know the man, I've never met the

man, never spoken to the man, never had a fax from the man, a phone call, a smoke signal,

anything from the man. I do not know the man, Mr. Chairman.

Actually I am doing this today, not for the benefit of anybody else who

asked the question, I am doing it for the benefit of the member to enlighten him on this.

(Inaudible) really involved. The minister can believe it if he want to take it, or

whatever. I do not really care, to be honest with you. As long as I state it, I will say

it. All that schemozzle that day that the minister keeps referring to was a lot of

misunderstanding, mistruths and so on. It is a lot of innuendo and hearsay. The minister

knows what can happen with that stuff.

I will say this to the minister, because I want to say it to you today

in the House of Assembly -

AN HON. MEMBER: To the member.

MR. SHELLEY: To the member. He is not the minister yet. He will be

back soon, but not yet. We are looking forward to him getting back in the chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) about the Career Academy.

MR. SHELLEY: I was just telling it and you had your back to me, so

I'm not telling it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You can't handle the truth. Mr. Chairman, so I'm

saying it to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I know. You are not getting the salary. You cannot be

referred to as the minister. When you get the stripes back, Mr. Chairman, I say to the

member now, we are looking forward to the member getting back in the chair. I am sure he

is enjoying his EA position now, but we have many questions. The Member for Lewisporte is

certainly going to have a welcome back for the member when he returns to the chair.

I want to say to the member - because the Minister of Fisheries, the

truth is he is not listening because he knows I am telling the truth. He knows what

happened here. He knows that the real reason why this whole schemozzle started was because

I went to the minister and said: I have students that are telling me things that do not

sound very good about the Career Academy. That was my only source.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I do not mind the Member for Topsail, the legal

beagle. I do not mind the legal beagle because if he had to stand up for you he would not

win a traffic ticket. He would not win a fight on a traffic ticket, Mr. Chairman. He

almost got knocked off. He is going back to his seat so he can baggle on again. The legal

beagle from Topsail is going back to his seat so he can baggle off. We are all getting

reeled in this morning. We are all going to say something this morning.

MR. WISEMAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: The big petition that the member put up from Topsail.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Chairman, time and time again in this House hon.

members have been reminded that it is unparliamentary to refer to an hon. member other

than as an hon. member. I would ask that the Member for Baie Verte withdraw his comments

regarding the Member for Topsail, referring to the Member for Topsail as a legal beagle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Does the Member for Topsail want to be called an

illegal beagle? Mr. Chairman, is there anything unparliamentary about the word beagle?

Surely there is nothing unparliamentary about the word legal. There is no point of order.

The member has lost his marbles.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly won't call the member a legal beagle anymore. I will refer

to him now as the illegal beagle.

MR. WISEMAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail, on a point of order.

MR. WISEMAN: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Baie Verte

could clarify what he means with the word beagle, whether it is a dog -

MR. HARRIS: There is a ship called the beagle.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible). All I said was that I would not give the

member, the legal beagle -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that could be anybody. There are lots

of people out in Topsail. You never referred to the Member for Topsail.

MR. SHELLEY: No, there are lots of people in Topsail.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North, on a point of

order.

MR. TULK: I think the precedence of this House will show, and I

think I was the culprit, that at one point I called the Member for Stephenville a gopher.

The Speaker of the day ruled that you are not allowed to refer to a person as an animal.

Mr. Chairman, beagle, to me, is an animal; it is a dog. It is inappropriate in this House

to refer to a member as an animal. It has been ruled before in this House and I think if

you search Beauchesne you will see the same thing is true. I would ask the hon.

member to withdraw his remarks.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I know that the Member for Bonavista

North is anxious to get back into his old position. He is really struggling and clutching

at straws here this morning. I have no doubt what he says is correct, but my friend from

Baie Verte referred to the Member for Topsail as a legal beagle.

Mr. Chairman, the connotation of legal beagle is a lawyer or paralegal

or something of that nature. It has nothing to do with animals. There might be people who

would like to call us animals but it has nothing to do with animals. The connotation of

that phrase has nothing to do with animals, nothing to do with barnyards, nothing to do

with anything, only something to do with somebody involved in the legal profession in some

way. What is wrong with that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to the point

of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

language, but the word beagle has many meanings. There was a ship called the beagle, The

SS Beagle . I think Charles Darwin sailed on the beagle back in 1850 when he went out

to Galapagos searching for information on the origin of species. That was a beagle.

There is a dog called a beagle, and then there is a phrase called the

legal beagle. Now, a legal beagle is a phrase. In fact, it is usually used - there is a

difference in a context. If I were to call someone a dirty dog, that would be a term of

appropriate and it would reflect negatively on an individual. The phrase and the context

are very important. To refer to somebody as a legal beagle is, in fact, a compliment, and

the fact that there may be some irony associated with the person to whom it is directed is

a matter of conjecture and a matter of usage.

The phraseology, the language that is used in the House of Assembly

that is considered unparliamentary, are words of a derogatory nature, not words that are,

in fact, praiseworthy of the talents and ability of a member, such a the term legal beagle

connotes. So I don't think that the Member for Bonavista North is correct.

I am sure there are other metaphors that are equally praiseworthy that

recognize the qualities of animals. If a member, for example, pursued an issue with the

thoroughness of a bloodhound, would that be unparliamentary?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. I think the Chair has heard

enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Let me just say that the term that is being use here, legal beagle,

would appear to me in my very limited experience in the legal field - and the Chair would

certainly recognize that there are people who sit in this hon. Chamber who probably come

from a background where they are better qualified to speak to that particular issue. Just

let me point out: It appears that it is a commonly used term. However, the connotation of

beagle, if there are hon. members who take exception to the fact that it could be

construed or in some way insinuated that they belong to some group other than Homo

sapiens, then maybe we should consider taking a second look at it.

The Chair will examine the matter and rule on it at a future date.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is only one thing I am sure of now, Mr. Chairman, that because of

the point that was raised by the Member for Topsail he has now enshrined his name - and I

can still refer to him as the legal beagle, or if he prefers we could call him the Homo

sapien or abbreviate it. Mr. Chairman, what this has done for sure is it has enshrined the

name of the legal beagle in the House of Assembly for years and years to come. Now,

whether you rule on it later on that it can or cannot be -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, boy, you are so good.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes? Good.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

CHAIR: Leave is denied.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I want to continue my comments

relative to the negotiations with the RNC. I was quoting earlier in the morning from the

report by Dr. John Scott on the collective bargaining climate that this government has

brought forth in this Province relative to nurses, relative to the RNC negotiations, and

other members of the bargaining units that the government deals with from time to time.

What has happened is that Dr. Scott says the government is relying and

inappropriately using its powers to impose settlements. What the government is accused of,

in Dr. Scott's words, is the misapplication of the process of negotiation. Mr. Chairman,

quoting again from Dr. Scott's report, it says: The poor atmosphere appears rooted in

inappropriate dependence of both parties on automatic resort to interest arbitration.

It says as well down here: On the one hand an interest award must not

insulate public service workers or their representatives from considering themselves and

their situation within the context of the current economic and social realities which are

faced by groups in the public service generally. On the other hand - and this is the

message to government - an interest award must not insulate a government from the need to

recognize the complex interplay of its responsibilities as the employer to make real

collective bargaining choices.

Dr. Scott makes a point, that government has tended to confuse its role

as the employer with its role as a legislator and fiscal regulator. In other words, the

government has kind of taken the attitude that we do not really have to listen to what the

arbitration board brings forward because we have the cards in our pocket. We have the

power to impose any settlement that we want; we can vary the award. Therefore, when you

have that kind of situation, I say to the President of Treasury Board, that collective

bargaining in this Province is seriously jeopardized and is really, really in a very poor

state.

The issue here, of course, is that again the government committed

itself to bringing in binding arbitration; they did not. We say to the government that is

inappropriate. If they gave their word then they should have an explanation to the RNC

Association as to why they did not fulfil their commitment. I have not seen, heard or read

any of the comments from the minister which would tell the RNC Association why, when the

government committed to bringing in binding arbitration, they did not do it.

Dr. John Scott as well writes: The public service bargaining in this

Province has been subject to constraints which might fairly be described as atypical of

normal collective bargaining climates.

In other words, what Dr. Scott is saying is that collective bargaining

in this Province is in very poor shape. We know that twenty-two collective bargaining

units have signed their collective agreements with the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, but they have signed because they have been told by the government that they

either sign or else. In other words, they have been forced to accept the constraints that

government has imposed.

In the case of the other bargaining units, however, they have the

option. They could have opted to go on strike. We know that the nurses in this Province

are in the process of exercising that particular option. Whether they go on strike next

week is something that they have a right to decide. The nurses' association, in

consultation with the membership, will make a decision after they have finished the

bargaining that is ongoing as we speak in this House today. They will make a decision of

whether or not they will pull their workers off the lines, as they would say, pull them

out of the workplace and actually go on strike.

The difficulty with the RNC is that they do not have that particular

resolution mechanism. Therefore, when the government goes and says to the RNC that we will

not let you have binding collective bargaining rights with binding arbitration, that means

that they are not treated in a very fair manner because they do not have a dispute

resolution mechanism.

I can understand why the members opposite do not want to address this

issue. I asked questions to the hon. the minister this morning. Her answers, which were

read from her notes that were supplied, did not address the questions whatsoever because I

know she does not want to address the questions. She has her scripted answers. It does not

matter what the questions are; the answers will be the same, regardless.

Mr. Chairman, we want to again say to the government: Why is it that

you gave a commitment and then did not live up to it? Why do we see more concern by the

government as to what is happening in collective bargaining?

The writings of Dr. Scott clearly show that the government, in relying

on its powers to impose a settlement, has weakened collective bargaining in the Province,

not only with the RNC but with others as well. The exception is, the RNC do not have a

satisfactory dispute resolution mechanism.

We wanted to ask the minister, and I am sure that she would, in the

next few minutes stand in her place - she is present in the House - and tell the House

what alternate dispute resolution strategies her government has in mind relative to

negotiations with the RNC. This will be a great opportunity, during debate, to answer a

question that she did not answer in Question Period this morning. It will give the

minister the chance to say: We are looking at giving binding arbitration to the RNC

Association membership, or we are looking at other mechanisms that will assure that there

is not an over-reliance on interest arbitration which is not working, has not worked in

the past. The RNC members feel that they have not been appropriately protected in their

collective bargaining rights. I welcome the comments of the minister when she gets a

chance to stand, in a few minutes.

We know that the award here is quite lengthy, and there is a dissenting

commentary by the government appointed member as well which is also quite lengthy. We want

to say to the minister that the public collective bargaining environment in this Province

has been subject to constraints. We understand that, but others in the public service have

the right to withdraw their services. In the case of the RNC, they do not have that right.

Is it the intention of the minister to give the RNC the right to withdraw services? If she

is going to do that, what will be the conditions under which that would apply? Is she

intending to bring in binding arbitration? If she is, then what will be the conditions

that she would put on that? Because, as you know, or the minister would know, the

government does have the right to bring in binding arbitration but to also impose in that

certain guidelines and certain conditions.

Interest arbitration did not work in the early 1990s, it did not work

in the mid-1980s, and it is not working now. We want to say to the minister that it is

high time that she took the opportunity to stand in her place and tell the RNC Association

what they intend to do - what the government, as the employer, intends to do - because

obviously what is happening now is not functioning properly. It is not acceptable to the

RNC, and it is certainly not acceptable to the public as well.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few words on Interim Supply.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: Keep going. The candidate in Humber East tried all that

in the election and she is still upstairs working in the office. So, keep going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: I just wanted to speak a little bit about the -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: I would never say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the students Lynn dragged in from other

districts still did not help.

MR. MERCER: That is true, but we will not speak to that. That is

not the purpose for which I rise today.

I just want to say a few words about the pensioners, and I speak to

that from a point of some knowledge. I come to it from a position of having spent some

twenty-five years in the public service, so I know a little bit about whereof I speak on

this particular issue.

The issue of public pensions is fairly straightforward. Even members of

the Opposition, if they were to care to look at it and to read it, I think they could very

quickly understand and grasp how the calculation is done and how the monies are afforded

to our pensioners. It is a very simple calculation. It is based upon years of service and

your best five years of employment, the best salary that you get in those five years. Your

pension is based upon a percentage of that, based upon your years of service; nothing very

complicated. As I say, the members of the Opposition, if they care to do the math, could

probably do it themselves.

Mr. Chairman, the amount by which a pensioner is entitled upon

retirement, is not a question; it is not an issue. The pensioners knew what their pension

was going to be. It was a very simple calculation. The only thing that has befuddled me in

the recent time since I have become involved in politics is how pensioners who have just

retired, retired as little as one year ago - I heard one on the radio yesterday who had

retired in 1997, two years ago, and could not understand why his pension was not indexed,

could not understand why there wasn't an increase afforded to him, an increase that was

afforded to other public servants just recently.

I have been trying to get my mind around that: why people who have

retired, who have spent twenty-five, thirty, thirty-five years in the public service, with

a union, a union to explain to them how these matters work, and yet they do not

understand.

Mr. Chairman, in the twenty-five years that I was in the public service

I do not once recall - I do not ever recall - NAPE coming forward to the membership and

saying: Here are some options with respect to your pension. Here is what your federal

counterparts are doing. They are paying for a COLA clause, a cost of living adjustment. I

never heard NAPE once bring that to the membership, but I did hear NAPE bring to the

membership time and time again: We need to get a few more days for sick leave, a few more

days for holidays, a bit of a pay increase, all of which are good and practical; but never

once in my twenty-five years in the public service did I ever hear a NAPE representative

come to the office and explain to the members who worked in that office the benefits of an

indexed pension.

I guess, thinking of the times in which we lived at that time, in the

late 1960s and early 1970s, pensions were so far into our future and retirement was so far

into our future that we chose not even to take a look at it.

I think there was an obligation placed upon the unions of today to

explain to the members that, upon retirement, the pension that they would receive on the

day of retirement would be the pension that they would continue to receive through their

natural span of life.

Perhaps again, back in the late 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, when

inflation was at a very low level, maybe it was not a big issue for the membership. I am

quite sure at that point in time most of us were more concerned with getting an extra

statutory holiday, a few more days of sick leave, or whatever the case might be.

I would argue that there was an obligation on NAPE, there was an

obligation upon the leaders of the union, the membership, the union leadership - there was

an obligation on their part - to explain to the members what the implications were.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, in the twenty-five years I spent in the public

service I honestly, truly, I can stand in my place and say that I never heard one union

member explain to the members the need for an indexed pension, and what the implications

of that were.

Many of us working in the public service at that time would look at our

federal counterparts and see that they were paying large premiums, extremely large

premiums compared to ours, for the pension plan. We were asking at the time: Why are these

people paying such a large amount? Obviously they were looking more into the future than

we were.

The point is, and I again say, Mr. Chairman, that the leadership within

the union never once laid that issue on the table. Now, why didn't they lay that issue on

the table? Well, that is for them to answer, not for me.

I will recall, at that time the government of the day, when inflation

was getting out of control in the mid-1970s, early 1980s, their answer to the problem was

not to sit down with the leadership of the union and try and negotiate something which

would be more equitable for the long-term future of the employees. That was not the

approach, Mr. Chairman. The approach was: Let's go out and borrow another $100 million.

Let's go get the money, bring it in and give it to the membership, to the pensioners. That

was the approach. That was the approach for seventeen years while I was in the public

service under the leadership of the party opposite. Whenever there was a problem in the

public service, whenever there was a problem to be solved: Let's go out and borrow another

$50 million, another $100 million.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, in 1989 we were facing annual deficits in

the order of $230 million. That was the solution to the problems that we had, and that is

perhaps why the union leadership at that time saw no need to burden its members with

increased premiums for a retirement package and for future pensions. That was perhaps why

they chose not to