April 30,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 27

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the 500th anniversary of the

historic voyage by John Cabot to this Province is little more than five years

away. This anniversary of world significance provides a major opportunity to

highlight, build and promote Newfoundland's and Labrador's heritage and culture.

Because of the significance and anticipated magnitude of this anniversary and

the efforts required to maximize its potential, there will have to be a

monumental, organizational and planning exercise to ensure optimum success and

to provide the opportunity for the entire fabric of our society to fully

participate. Only through such a wide participation can we garner the awareness

and support to be truly successful. Over the past year we have researched and

reviewed various organizational and planning structures of other major national

and international events to determine the most appropriate mechanism to maximize

the impact of the 500th anniversary of discovery by Cabot on this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is therefore with great pleasure that I am

today announcing the formation of the John Cabot (1997) 500th Anniversary

Corporation. This corporation is to be responsible for the planning, organizing

and overseeing of the celebrations in the Province during 1997 and to

appropriately recognize the significance of the 500th anniversary of Cabot's

voyage to our Province. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the

corporation is to emphasize the opportunity for increased tourist development

and the economic developments associated therewith, to encourage and promote our

sense of pride and accomplishment in the Province's rich heritage and to nurture

a renewed faith in our future in a rapidly changing world. The corporation will

encourage the participation and involvement of as wide a spectrum of the general

public as possible including, but not limited to such groups as culture and

historical organizations, tourism and economic development associations, the

arts community, our youth, our aboriginal people, our educational institutions,

senior citizens, civic and sports organizations, service clubs, churches and

religious institutions, labour groups, and municipalities, etc. The private

business sector will also be encouraged to participate in the celebrations and

to benefit from the many and varied opportunities 1997 will offer.

Notwithstanding the importance of this historic event to

Newfoundland and Labrador this opportunity also offers the opportunity to be an

event of national and international significance. As such, I have already held

discussions with my counterpart and colleague, the Honourable John Crosbie, to

have this event recognized nationally by our federal counterparts. Mr. Crosbie

has been very cooperative and supportive of this initiative and I look forward

to a fruitful and positive working arrangement in this regard as we proceed.

To facilitate the corporation's ability to garner private and

public sector financial support, the John Cabot 1997 Corporation will be a

"not-for-profit" organization and completely arms length from government

direction.

The legal documents necessary to formalize the corporation

are near completion and I am further pleased to announce that the Chairperson

and Board of Directors for this new corporation have recently been approved by

Cabinet. The Board make-up ensures broad representation of all regions of the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that Mr. John Murphy has

agreed to chair this corporation and I am confident that with his drive and

energy, he and his fellow board members will indeed ensure the appropriate

planning, organizing and overseeing of the 1997 celebrations to maximize the

benefit to this province. Mr. Murphy brings to the Chairmanship not only an

outstanding public profile, but also a successful entrepreneurial philosophy.

These attributes will serve him well in this most challenging endeavour. Over

the next several weeks the identification of an office and administrative

support will be finalized to provide for the ongoing operational requirements of

the corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the 500th anniversary of John Cabot's historic

voyage from Bristol, England, to Bonavista will provide each of us with a unique

opportunity to re-affirm our identities as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and

indeed as Canadians. It will be a chance to look to the future, honour the past

and take up the challenges of the present for all of us. It will be an

opportunity to start fresh and focus on areas of our lifestyle and environment

that may have been neglected in the past.

I seek the support of all honourable colleagues in this House

and from every corner of the social fabric of our society to seize and be part

of this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the other board members that have agreed to

serve are Mr. Peter Woodward of Labrador, Mr. Sid Blundon, the assistant deputy

Minister of Tourism, Mr. Gordon Slade, the vice-president of ACOA in

Newfoundland, Mrs. Regina McCarthy who is the past president of Hospitality

Newfoundland, Mrs. Joan Whalen of Placentia, Mrs. Barbara Crosbie of St. John's,

Mr. Bernard Bromley from St. Anthony, Mr. Peter Gullage from Bonavista, Mr.

Aiden Maloney of St. John's, Mr. Roy Oldford of Grand Falls, and Mrs. Gudrid

Hutchings of Corner Brook. There are three others, Mr. Speaker. We have not been

able to contact them in the last few days, but we hope to be in a position to

announce their names shortly.

We think this is a world class celebration, Mr. Speaker. It

is a national celebration that happens to be occurring in Newfoundland and I

would ask all Newfoundlanders to provide some energy and to look forward to this

celebration with a positive view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the minister just

said, the 500th anniversary of John Cabot's discovery of Newfoundland offers a

tremendous opportunity of national and international significance, an

opportunity to boost the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

Unfortunately, the government has left until dangerously late

the start of concerted planning for the anniversary activities. The government

has delayed until less than five years from the anniversary year even this

announcement of the establishment of a corporation. Now, because this is an

opportunity of international as well as national significance, more than five

years lead time should have been provided for. The City of St. John's has been

urging the government to get on with the preparations for a couple of years now.

The City of St. John's has wanted to establish planning activity but has been

told by the provincial Department of Development, responsible for tourism, to

wait. Wait for us, was the statement from the provincial government.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council last summer

recommended to the provincial government that the government establish a

corporation to guide the organizing to maximize opportunities flowing from the

500th anniversary. Yet the government has procrastinated and here we are at the

end of April of 1992 before we hear even the announcement of the start of a

corporation.

Now in the Budget the Minister of Finance announced that

there is provision in the estimates for an anniversary corporation, yet a

perusal of the estimates document does not reveal any heading for the

anniversary corporation. Now I hope the minister will tell us later what

budgetary provision there is under some general heading of the Department of

Development to allow the anniversary corporation to get off the ground and do

its work.

I would also call on the minister to table the objectives of

the corporation, as well as the entire constitution of the corporation, so that

we may have a chance to examine it. Since the 500th Anniversary of Cabot's

discovery of Newfoundland and Labrador is such a magnificent opportunity, an

opportunity for the economy of the Province generally, in particular for the

tourism, the culture and historic resources sectors, Mr. Speaker, I trust that

the minister responsible will provide for maximizing opportunities for those

sectors in the formal objectives of the corporation.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister, in his

later comments about this, to deal with the specific recommendations of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council for a corporation to have as part of its

mandate, dedicating whatever funds are raised from the federal government,

private sources, provincial and municipal sources for a major arts event during

the 500th Anniversary year.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the

Official Opposition, I would like to offer our best wishes and pledges of

co-operation to Mr. John Murphy and the members of the Board of Directors

appointed by the provincial government. We regret that the government waited

until so late to make these appointments, but we assure the members of the board

that we will do our utmost to support them in their efforts to make sure that

the 500th Anniversary -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: - provides a maximum benefit to the people of

the Province. Mr. Speaker, we look forward to forming the government before

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, a critical situation has

developed on the South and Southwest Coasts of the Province for those engaged in

the fixed-gear groundfish fishery.

The virtual collapse of the fixed-gear cod fishery in the

area known as 3Pn resulted in a disastrous winter fishery this year for hundreds

of fishermen from Burgeo to Port aux Basques. Furthermore, for hundreds more in

communities from Belleoram to Ramea, in the area known as 3Ps, there has also

been a dramatic reduction in landings from last year's catches for the January

to April period.

The current crisis, Mr. Speaker, is particularly serious, but

it is not confined entirely to the low landings experienced to date this year.

Rather, it is the continuing decline in catches over the past several years that

has culminated in the acute situation in which fishermen now find themselves.

Mr. Speaker, longliner fishermen on the South and Southwest

Coasts have always been independent and self-supporting. In fact, they have

always operated for a longer fishing season than anywhere in the Province, with

the winter fishery in the region usually beginning in November and continuing

through April.

These fishermen are now in a situation, however, where not

only have low landings dramatically reduced their incomes, but they have been

judged ineligible for federal government assistance programs. They are voicing a

growing sense of frustration, because, while many fishermen throughout the rest

of Atlantic Canada received the benefits of the federal Special Ice Compensation

program and the Atlantic Inshore Gear-up program, they did not qualify for such

assistance, even though the latter program was designed specifically to address

catch failure.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through its

Fisheries Loan Board, implemented an assistance program to support fishermen who

are encountering difficulties in making payments on loans for their vessels

because of reduced landings. This initiative provides for interest forgiveness

and deferment of principal payment in areas of catch failure such as that

experienced on the South and Southwest Coasts.

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on the federal government to

offer parallel assistance to fishermen in this region. I have today written the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asking that this be done, and to begin by

defining the area as eligible for the inshore gear-up program under the Atlantic

Catch Failure Program.

I have also asked him to give special consideration to the

South and Southwest Coasts for a new income support program, because the

Unemployment Insurance program is inadequate to address the needs of fishermen

in the region. The resource situation in their fishing areas has reached a point

where unemployment insurance will not provide them with the income support that

is necessary. In fact, despite their best efforts, many of the fishermen who

began fishing in November have to date been able to gain only three to four

weeks of insurable earnings.

It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, and that of my colleague

from LaPoile, that the federal minister will give this matter his immediate

consideration and respond favourably to the requests made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: I want, as well, Mr. Speaker, to table a copy

of my letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, dated April 28.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I first want to thank the minister for providing us with a

copy of the statement a couple of minutes before coming to the House. It would

be interesting to see the date on the minister's letter, because, surely to God,

it must be dated six months ago, Mr. Speaker, not dated yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sure it is not dated yesterday, it

must be six months ago.

Yesterday or the day before, in response to the minister on

the fish poll, I said the Premier was over in Europe playing catch-up football.

But where has the Minister of Fisheries been, that he stands here today and

recognizes that a critical situation has developed on the South and Southwest

Coasts of the Province for those engaged in the fixed gear groundfish fishery.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable!

Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that the fishery is in the mess

that it is? Is it any wonder that there is such frustration out and about this

Province amongst those who are trying to make a living out of the fishing

industry, I say to the minister? I mean, this should have been recognized months

ago. The minister, himself, and his department should have been putting together

a program to help those poor souls to keep body and soul together. But what does

the minister do, the minister who should be referred to as the `Minister

responsible for Letter Writing', Mr. Speaker? All he has done this past three

years is write letters. Poor old John Crosbie must be swamped with letters from

the minister. Never a suggestion of what the minister or the government are

going to do themselves, Mr. Speaker. What contribution is the provincial

government going to make to the program he is calling upon Mr. Crosbie for? If

he at least indicated to the federal government that they are willing to make a

financial contribution to help those people then maybe the thing would happen a

lot faster.

I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, as saying that I

sincerely hope the federal minister takes the provincial minister seriously, as

hard as that is going to be this late in the game. But I hope he takes his

request seriously and I hope he comes up with some money to help those people

who need it so badly. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that those people need

assistance, and I can only go on record in this Legislature and call upon Mr.

Crosbie to, please, try to find some dollars to put a program in place to

address this, because it is very obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister of

Fisheries and this government are not going to do anything to help those people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have to chastise the minister for being so

late. I have to chastise him for not having any suggestion whatsoever that the

Province is going to contribute.

This reference to the loan board, I want to say to the

minister, there are some very, very serious problems with the process in the

loan board. Things are not going as well there as the minister would want us to

believe. There are some serious problems with the processing of loans and so on

and the interest payments. People are experiencing some serious problems.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else I can say except that I

wish the minister had done this months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of

order today because something has come to my attention over the last day or so,

and it deals basically with the Estimates Committees that have been struck now

and scheduling has started. It deals - and I ask Your Honour for your

consideration. The estimates committees will be starting soon. We have an

nonelected Minister of Justice. The estimates committees are an extension of

this Legislature. The Minister of Justice cannot sit in this House to answer

questions about the Department of Justice. So it raises the question, Mr.

Speaker, and that is why I rise today, to ask the question: what is going to

happen to the estimates of the Department of Justice? Will they be dealt with on

the floor of the Legislature as are the estimates of the Premier's office and

Treasury Board?

Of course, we reflect back a number of years. There were no

estimates committees. They were all dealt with in Committee of the Whole here at

the House, the Legislature. So I want to raise the question, Mr. Speaker, and

ask for Your Honour's consideration. Because it seems to me that the estimates

committees being an extension of this Legislature, that the Minister of Justice

cannot sit in this House and answer questions, then how can he appear before the

estimates committee as the Minister of Justice to answer questions about the

estimates of the Department of Justice?

So I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I consider this to be an

important question that I am putting in front of Your Honour.

MR. TOBIN: Your reaction shows you're embarrassed by it!

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not appreciate, by the way, Mr.

Speaker, the interruptions. Because I consider it to be very serious. Otherwise

I would not have risen in my place today to put this question to Your Honour. So

that is the question that I want to propose. It is a serious question. There

would seem to be a contradiction in the matter if the nonelected Minister of

Justice is allowed to comment before. I know that the Government House Leader is

listening, and maybe (Inaudible) resolving all of this, that maybe that will be

the end result. That the estimates of the Department of Justice will be dealt

with on the floor of the Legislature like -

MR. SIMMS: Or at least an elected acting minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, whatever. But I put that to Your

Honour for your consideration because we consider it serious. We think it is

something that needs clarification.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I expected this but I

regret that the member opposite is using such a serious situation to play silly

little political games. The estimates committee -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if members opposite would listen

they would learn something.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

The hon. the member who previously spoke asked for order near

the end of his remarks. The Chair did not stand to rise. But I think the member

did get the order that he was required to get and the House was required to give

him. So I ask hon. members to please extend the same courtesy to the present

speaker.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The estimates

committee provides an opportunity for members of the House of Assembly on the

one hand to question on the other hand the ministers. Not question other members

of the House of Assembly. To question ministers. Okay? And the officials who

come to those meetings and provide the minister with information and so on. So

it is a time for members of the House of Assembly to question the cabinet

ministers and in the presence of their officials.

This is not a regular proceeding of the House of Assembly in

the sense that the only people permitted in here to speak are the officers of

the House plus the members of the House of Assembly. This is an occasion when

the members of the House of Assembly have an opportunity to question the cabinet

and the cabinet ministers' officials.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Mr. Roberts is a

cabinet minister. He is not a member of the House of Assembly. As such he will

not be - if he were a member of the House of Assembly I suppose he could

question - but he will not be questioning. He will not be fulfilling a role, or

the part of his role, that comes from him being a member of the House of

Assembly. He will be fulfilling his role as a cabinet minister in this Province

which he is according to law. So there is no problem here.

The Minister of Justice will answer with his officials for

what is happening in the Department of Justice of which he is the minister,

legally. So there is no problem here. It is simply the Opposition playing their

silly little political games again, but I don't mind that.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to add to the

submission made by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader. I am a member of

the social budget estimates committee. I serve as Vice-Chair of that committee.

The committee is chaired now by the Member for Pleasantville. Yesterday the

Chair approached me about scheduling, and mentioned that the Minister of Justice

- the nonelected Minister, Mr. Roberts - will be out of the Province for most of

the next month and the Member for Pleasantville told me that there were only a

few times when the minister was available, thereby indicating to me that the

intention of the government is to have the only representative answering for the

estimates of the Department of Justice at the sessions of the House Committee

dealing with Justice estimates, the nonelected minister.

Now budget estimates committees are committees of this House.

They are extensions of this Legislature, as the Opposition House Leader has

correctly said, and if a nonelected minister - of course a nonelected minister

is a departure from democratic practice - but if a nonelected minister cannot

sit in this Chamber and answer our questions, then how can an nonelected

minister sit in a meeting of a House Committee and answer questions.

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

I just want to advise hon. members that the Chair is not

going to allow this to develop into a full-scale debate.

Hon. members are on a point of order, and when the Chair is

ready to make the ruling the Chair will make the ruling. The Chair has the

authority to make that decision. When it figures that it has heard enough points

on the point of order, the Chair will make the ruling.

I would ask hon. members too, please - it is a discourtesy to

the Speaker when the Speaker is speaking to be shouting out, questioning the

Speaker's decision when the Speaker is partially through his decision. This may

have happened, but I say to hon. members that it is a total discourtesy to the

Chair, and the hon. members I know do not want to do that. It might be something

that has happened.

I would ask hon. members, in submitting their points of

order, to make new points of order and not to keep repeating what has been

repeated by a previous member. So if hon. members have new points to make to the

point of order, then the Chair will hear them, but the Chair is not going to

listen to people repeating the same arguments, and I am not suggesting that the

hon. member did that. The Chair is just directing hon. members in their points

of order not to repeat other arguments made by other members.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I will now move on to a new point

in my submission, which is that I have no problem with Mr. Roberts, the

nonelected Minister of Justice, participating in the scrutiny by this House of

the estimates of the Department of Justice. But I submit, Your Honour, that Mr.

Roberts is a nonelected official the same as the Deputy Minister of Justice and

the Deputy Attorney General; the same as the assistant deputy ministers. If the

Justice estimates are to be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House, then it

would be quite in order for Mr. Roberts, as well as the Deputy Minister, Ms.

Spracklin, and the assistants, to sit in the gallery and pass notes to the

elected acting Minister of Justice.

If the Justice estimates are to be dealt with in the

committee dealing with Social Budget Estimates, chaired by the Member for

Pleasantville, then it would be quite in order for the nonelected Minister of

Justice, Mr. Roberts, to be present, flanking the elected acting Minister of

Justice along with the deputy and the other members of the department executive.

But the point of the submission of the Government House Leader, which I am

endorsing, is that it would be quite improper and unparliamentary to have a

nonelected minister, a nonelected official, answering for the government

estimates of a department. There has to be an elected minister or an elected

acting minister heading the government delegation and answering for the

government.

We have no problem with a nonelected official such as the

nonelected minister, Mr. Roberts, accompanying an elected member of the Cabinet

and offering advice to the elected member of the Cabinet, but we consider it to

be quite wrong and quite unparliamentary for a nonelected official to be the

sole spokesperson for the political arm of the government.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Humber

East for simply proving my point, that this is a silly political exercise. It

was obvious to everybody who was listening to her that it is a silly game.

Mr. Speaker, she mentioned that - and I don't need to

reiterate the point that the Estimates Committee is an opportunity for elected

members of the House to question Cabinet ministers. Mr. Roberts is a Cabinet

minister, so there is no problem there.

The only other point that she mentioned, Mr. Speaker, had to

do with the availability of Mr. Roberts and the fact that in private discussions

with the Chairman, which she now makes public of course - typical - that she had

the impression that somehow Mr. Roberts was unavailable and that maybe there

would be stand-ins, and that was not proper and so on, and that Mr. Roberts had

some difficulty of availability. I would like to point out to this House that

there are four separate occasions already where we have indicated Mr. Roberts is

available and we can make more occasions. One of the problems is the Member for

Humber East does not want to attend meetings on Fridays and Mondays, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah ha! Long weekend Lynn.

MR. BAKER: She does not want to attend meetings on

Fridays and Mondays, and I would suggest that if she has any difficulty that she

appoint someone else to sit in her place on those occasions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Long weekend Lynn.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to have a

few words to say on it. Now members opposite may not like to hear this matter

being raised, and I can understand why, because they are very sensitive about

the whole issue. They will do all the yelling and shouting they want to try to

stifle the points being made by this side of the House, but the fact of the

matter remains, Mr. Speaker, this issue is a very important and a very

significant issue. This issue has not been raised before in this Legislature. It

is a new matter for us as a House to deal with. It is precedent setting, and

therefore it is a matter that requires some serious consideration. You can't

just get up and toss it aside as a silly political game, which the Government

House Leader does with every issue that is raised by this side of the House.

They can't just shout down the Member for Humber East every time she stands to

speak because they don't like hearing her speak. They can't take the criticism.

That is invalid, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that the issue is a fairly

straightforward one. It has never occurred before in this Legislature since we

have referred the estimates out to committees. That has not occurred before. We

happen to believe on this side that there is room for some argument and some

investigation, and we raise it today in advance. It does not have to be ruled on

today, but it should be investigated. It should be checked with other sources:

Ottawa, the House of Commons. We checked with our own parliamentary legislative

council people, but I don't know how far they have gone. I don't know if they

checked it out with Ottawa or asked for advice. We have, but we have not got a

call back yet. And the House of Commons in Britain. It is a serious important

issue.

Now there is no point in arguing it and making a political

game out of it as the Government House Leader says we are trying to do. We are

not. We are trying to raise a valid issue. He would just hope that we would

simply let it go by, forget about it, not even raise it. But, Mr. Speaker, we

will not do that. As a responsible Opposition we need to know what the rules are

going to be and if it is right or wrong. In our opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is a

lot of room for doubt.

With respect to the other point that the Government House

Leader alluded to at the end of his last argument, making some reference to some

comment the Member for Humber East made about scheduling, I mean that is not the

issue. He can use that if he wants because he can't defend the other issue very

strongly, so he decided to take an attack on this other issue of scheduling.

That is a matter that will be worked out between the Chair of the committee and

the Vice-chair of the committee as there always has been. But I will remind him

that there has always been an understanding that there would not be meetings on

Monday mornings and Friday afternoons. There has always been an agreement on

that -- always. So it is nothing new that the Member for Humber East raised, and

the Government House Leader is very weak in that particular respect.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a new point on

this point of order that has not been raised yet. It has been indirectly raised

in the issue of scheduling. It is one of the consequences, of course, of not

having an elected minister and not therefore being able to have the estimates

discussed in the Committee of the Whole. Having a small select committee means

that there are oftentimes scheduling problems. I noticed, for example, that if

the problems of the Minister of Justice's

schedule are - as related by the

Member for Humber East - causing this problem, we see the Justice Committee

estimates scheduled for May 11 Monday morning in the House, and that is the day,

Mr. Speaker, that the women's lobby annual meeting is scheduled this year in

Gander. I know the Member for Humber East, who is also the Justice critic, will

be attending that particular event and perhaps other members, including myself,

will be attending that event, as is the tradition, to meet with the women's

lobby and advise them of positions on various matters. So one of the

consequences of using the out-of-the-House Estimates Committee is you only have

a very small number of people, instead of the whole House, to be involved in

this. I think that is a problem that Your Honour ought to consider, as well,

when seeing whether or not it is, in fact, proper to have this particular

situation in effect when you have an nonelected Minister of Justice, as we have

right now.

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

MR. BAKER: To that new point, Your Honour. It is not

really a new point. If he had been listening, the point had already been raised.

However, I have indicated to this House that there is no

schedule drawn up yet.

The committees have not even been appointed yet, that is to come a little later

on today. Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the House that arrangements will be

made to have all appropriate ministers attend to the Estimates Committees and

provided that there is some degree of co-operation with members opposite -

obviously, at this point in time, there is not going to be any co-operation.

That is fine, we can deal with that too. But, Mr. Speaker, there are other

dates; there are May 8 and May 15 right now, and there may be other dates that

we can arrange, as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, as the next few days go on, we will have a

schedule in place and we will have lots of opportunities to examine the Justice

Estimates, so this is not a problem of scheduling at all. All kinds of

allowances can be made. As to members in the Official Opposition saying that is

not really the issue, I agree with them, that is not really the issue; however,

Mr. Speaker, scheduling is not a problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I don't know if hon. members are asking to make

presentations. The Chair is standing and about to make a pronouncement when hon.

members realize that I am standing.

The points have been made and, as I understand it, the point

of order raised by the Opposition House Leader as to whether or not Mr. Roberts,

in his capacity as minister, or to use the qualifying word, nonelected minister,

be allowed to sit on the Estimates Committees, that is the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not sit on them - not sit and answer

questions?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, to attend the Estimates Committees, in

his position, to answer questions put forward. The Chair is going to take that

under advisement and I will report back as quickly as I can.

I want to make a further statement, though, to say I believe,

because it is new, that it is more appropriately dealt with, through a report

from the committee. Hon. members know that the House tries not to make too many

rules with respect to the committees and any problems that the committees have,

there is a correct procedure for them. They make a report to the House, and if

they were now making a report to the House under this circumstance, then the

Chair would have to deal with it. But we don't have this situation now. It is a

matter of putting the cart before the horse, it seems to me, but anyway, the

Chair will take it under advisement and report back as quickly as possible.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Together with my hon. friend from Lewisporte, I would like to

beg the indulgence of the House just for one moment to extend congratulations on

the occasion of a 100th birthday, to a lady who lives in Lewisporte, Mrs. Dulcie

May Garland, who, in fact, is my wife's great-aunt, so I have a personal

interest. She will be 100 years old on Sunday coming and, of course, family and

friends are coming from all over the globe to share in this. She is a tremendous

lady, who spent, I am told, some ten years travelling as a nurse with Sir

Wilfred Grenfell, so that is quite an honour, I think, to be able to look back

upon.

Her memory, I will say without any hesitation, is greater

than my own, and on the first occasion that I met her, on Christmas Eve, two

years ago, she proceeded to tell me a great deal about my ancestry and the

history of the Windsor family on Exploits Island, where she spent most of her

life. She has told me some tremendous tales of that beautiful part of our

Province. In fact, she told me on that occasion that the Sceviour home, the home

in which she spent a great deal of her life, my wife's grandfather's home, was

actually built by a Thomas Windsor, which I found to be quite interesting. She

is now residing at North Haven Manor in Lewisporte, and I would like to thank

the House and welcome this opportunity to extend to her, together with my friend

from Lewisporte, a very happy birthday and congratulations on this very

important occasion.

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

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is, indeed, a great pleasure to join with my hon. friend

from Mount Pearl in congratulating Mrs Dulcie Garland on reaching such a

tremendous milestone. I have known Mrs. Garland for many years. I can't go back

to the time when she lived on Exploits Island, of course, but for many years she

has been a close personal friend, and previously, in my life as a pharmacist,

she was also one of my customers. I must admit though, Mr. Speaker, her health

was such that I never ever had the occasion to sell her any kind of medication,

and I believe her health has held her in good stead up to this present day. It

is a remarkable feat. Mrs. Garland is, indeed, an absolutely remarkable lady.

She has left her mark on Newfoundland, as my friend for Mount Pearl has stated,

and she continues to leave her mark on everybody who has the good pleasure to

meet her. I will be attending the party that will be held in her honour at the

North Haven Manor on Sunday and it will my great pleasure to join with my friend

from Mount Pearl in extending congratulations and best wishes on behalf of all

members of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to address some questions

to my friend, the Member for Windsor - Buchans, the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, who, I understand, had a great tribute paid to him in recent days

out in the Central Newfoundland area. If I remember correctly, somebody told me

he was hung in effigy, so he joins a long list of hangings in the past,

including your's truly, Mr. Speaker, and there will be others, I am sure, who

will follow in years to come.

On a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister

this: A few weeks ago, at a forestry conference in Grand Falls - Windsor

sponsored by, I believe, the labour movement out there, while he was a guest

speaker at that conference, I understand that the minister admitted, as I

believe he has publicly on other occasions, that the Province is only planting a

fraction of the trees that will be needed to meet our future forestry

requirements. I am told he said that at the conference and I believe he also

said that our future in forestry depends on a very vibrant forest resource. I

also think he has made comments publicly in the past expressing concerns about a

shortage in the resource occurring sometime within the next couple of decades. I

want to ask the minister, Does he still stand by those comments? And presuming

that he does, can I ask him when is he is going to stop, as the minister,

passing the buck to the paper companies and others, putting the blame on them,

and when is he going to recognize and fulfil government's obligation and

responsibility to ensure that we have a forest resource to sustain future

generations?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether or not I

was burned in effigy but I can assure you of one thing, Sir, if I was burned in

effigy in Grand Falls last week it was to answer for the sins of my predecessor,

the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a former Forestry Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comments

I might have made at Grand Falls, I doubt very much - maybe there are tapes -

but I doubt very much if I said that the planting program was going to be less

than it was last year. We don't control, as the minister knows, the kind of

silviculture program the companies have. We contribute to it but they decide the

level of their silviculture program and the number of seedlings they are going

to plant.

So, Mr. Speaker, there won't be any difference in the number

of seedlings planted this year, the amount of money spent by the Province in

silviculture.

The question, Mr. Speaker, was: Do I remember in Grand -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Well, okay, I'll concede. I'll defer and let

the member ask the question again.

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

MR. SIMMS: I asked him, Mr. Speaker: Did he admit at the

conference that the Province is only planting a fraction of the trees that will

be required to sustain our forestry resource for the future, and did he also say

that it is very important and very well known that the future in forestry

depends on a vibrant forest resource? That was the question.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker: No, I

didn't say that we would be only planting a fraction of what we need. But it is

a fact of life, Mr. Speaker, that we have been harvesting trees in Newfoundland

for 100 years and we have been planting and practising silviculture for twelve

years. So, Mr. Speaker, there is lots of room for silviculture in Newfoundland.

We can't hope, Mr. Speaker, with the kind of budget we have, to plant all the

seedlings we could plant. We have been cutting for 100 years and we have been

planting for ten or twelve years.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is no problem to go out into the forests

of Newfoundland and find areas where, if the government had the funds, they

could plant. We have a limited budget, Mr. Speaker, and the Department of

Forestry is using every cent this year, as we did the year before and the year

before that and the year before that, every cent in planting and doing

silviculture around this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, we need to do five times as

much but we need five times as much money.

Mr. Speaker, I did, indeed, say that the future of forestry

in Newfoundland depends on a vigorous silviculture program in this Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would love to stay on that particular topic, because I am

not sure if he understood the question yet. But I think he admitted at the end

that, yes, we are not planting as much as we should be planting. That is what I

asked him at the beginning: Is that what he said, that we are not planting as

much as we should be planting? Because, given that fact and now admitting, as

well, that the forest resource is the future and in order to make it vibrant we

have to plant more trees, essentially, I have some other questions that I want

to ask him.

Last week, I understand, publicly or in an interview with the

news media or somebody out there, Mr. Speaker, the minister dropped a bombshell

when he said that the government was considering privatizing the Wooddale Tree

Nursery operations. Now, I want to ask him, Mr. Speaker, if that kind of an idea

simply wouldn't put the responsibility for ensuring that there is a strong

future supply of resource in the hands of somebody who is simply only interested

in making a profit, as opposed to somebody who would have other obligations,

i.e. the government? Secondly, doesn't he think it would be fairer, probably,

for him to stop inflaming the situation that exists out there by dropping these

kinds of hints and rumors and be more straightforward with the workers and the

people of the Province by telling them exactly what the government's plans are,

not hinting at what they might or might not do, taking into account they have

been considering it for the last three years?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I never said anywhere that

government was considering, for the past three years, privatizing Wooddale. What

I did say is that the government, in trying to get a handle on the mess that was

left to us by the previous administration, in looking at the financial situation

of the various Crown corporations and what was or was not being accomplished,

was that it was suggested that Newfoundland Farm Products be privatized. It was

suggested that other Crown corporations be privatized. Wooddale is not a Crown

corporation. But it was suggested, and I saw the recommendation, Mr. Speaker, it

was passed for consideration, that we privatize Wooddale.

I might tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, that he might well know that all seedling production in Nova Scotia and

New Brunswick is done by the private sector, and they have just as big planting

programs as Newfoundland has. So, Mr. Speaker, it is possible - I don't intend

and I have not considered privatizing Wooddale but, Mr. Speaker, there are some

people in Newfoundland who suggest that maybe Wooddale might very well be

considered for privatization.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would be more

straightforward. Is he considering it, is he going to consider it, or is it not

an issue with him? That is the question. I would like him to address that.

Now, he mentioned as well in passing that Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick are owned by private operators. But he should be aware, as I am sure

he is, that they have been planting a lot longer than we have. We only started

back in the early 'seventies, I guess it was, mid-seventies, when a Progressive

Conservative government with some foresight came into office in this Province.

So you cannot compare us with other jurisdictions.

I want to ask him specifically this question. What plans does

the minister have to deal with the plight of those people who are affected - I

think it is somewhere, total of fifty, who will get some weeks work, up to six,

and others who will not get any. I want to ask him, what is he going to do to

get enough work weeks for those fifty or so people who will be affected, won't

get any work, so that some of them will have a chance to put some bread and

butter on the table?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, Wooddale started around 1979.

The employment figures were staggering. It started at about 120 and in 1987

peaked at 175 people working in Wooddale. There was some question in the

department whether ever that number was required. The hon. member of the

Opposition knows better than anyone else why in 1987 there was 175 people

working in Wooddale when no more than probably two-thirds of that number would

have been necessary.

Now, in 1980 the government decided -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, in 1980 the previous

government made a decision that Wooddale was going to go to container stock

production and bought thirty greenhouses. Knowing that they were going to go

into container stock production and knowing that container stock production is

not nearly as labour intensive as bare root production. Yet they let the

greenhouses sit on the ground from 1980 to 1985 before going to - to maintain

the employment levels. When the companies wanted container stock.

Now as a result, last fall to make sure that all the

employees in Wooddale qualified for UI I authorised and permitted work that

would normally have been done this year, this spring, now, I authorised that it

be done last fall. So that in excess of between twenty and twenty-five people

would qualify for UI. Well now we pay the price. The spring is here. There is

roughly thirty people, as the hon. member knows, who will not be recalled. We

are going to do for those thirty people what we - we have the same concerns for

the people who have lost their jobs.

Two hundred and fifty people lost their jobs when number six

closed down in Grand Falls. The government has concern for providing employment

for those people. I have a concern for providing alternative employment for

thirty -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member please to -

MR. FLIGHT: - people in Wooddale. And we will do what we

have done, Mr. Speaker, and what we are trying to do for everyone else who has

lost their jobs. Look at trying to put together alternative employment programs

through employment generation (Inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Final supplementary. I'll make this one short

and hope the answer might be just as short, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has

alluded to having to look for make-work projects and things like that, can I ask

him to confirm then, is it true that he told workers at a meeting last week,

publicly, that indeed: we are going to have to try to find some make-work

projects for you and for others during this summer because it is an election

year? Did he say that?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, but maybe the reason the

employment went to 175 in Wooddale in 1987 is there was a by-election in Windsor

- Buchans at just about the time when it would have been nice to have that

number of people working there. But no, I did not say we were looking to provide

employment for people laid off all over this Province because it is an election

year. I told them as I have told them since 1989 that this government is

concerned about providing employment for people who lose their jobs through no

reason of their own. We are doing that. We will probably find alternative

employment for the people of Wooddale. We will use every effort to do that, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. The minister who just

criticized the Leader of the Opposition for creating jobs and is proud as punch

that he is putting the people out on the street again, Mr. Speaker.

In his answer to the Leader of the Opposition he did mention

the close-down of paper machine number six in Grand Falls a couple of years ago.

At the time of the close-down, Mr. Speaker, there was what was referred to in

this House of Assembly as a high powered team put together to go out and see

what the effects of the closing of the machine would be in central Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the minister was there a

report prepared by that team? I believe you were the Chairperson of it, and the

Minister of Development and others were on it. Was there a report prepared, Mr.

Speaker, and will the minister release that report to this House of Assembly and

to the public? If he will not release it, Mr. Speaker, why would he not release

it?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a report

completed and submitted to Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I will take it under

advisement. I am not aware of any reason why that report can't be released.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. He told

the Mayor of Bishop Falls last week that he was not going to release it, so I am

glad that he did change his mind, and I would appreciate a copy of that report

to see what the committee did.

Mr. Speaker, another time in this House of Assembly, one time

last year I believe it was, the minister made an announcement that there would

be an experiment take place in providing Labrador wood to the Stephenville mill

to see what the expenses of that would be, and that there would be a report

prepared on that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that the wood has been delivered and

the report probably prepared. Will the minister release to this House of

Assembly that report and maybe give us a quick run down on whether it was a

successful experiment or if it was a failure?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I think it was a successful

experiment. There was, I think, 5,000 cords of wood delivered to Stephenville so

it was successful in that sense. Again I see no reason, Mr. Speaker, not to

submit or provide to the members of the House of Assembly the results. The

purpose of the experiment was to determine whether wood could be brought from

Labrador, whether it was economically feasible to bring wood from Labrador, and

the government contributed to part or most all of the cost of transportation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why the status of that particular experiment

can't be delivered to the members of the House of Assembly. I will see that it

is done.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is

my final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the experiment is that, yes,

it did get 5,000 cords of wood to Stephenville, but it was not very successful

in that it was totally impractical to bring the wood from Labrador to

Stephenville because of the cost and the price of newsprint at the time. So in

that sense it was a failure, Mr. Speaker.

The minister at the time when he was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and should ask the

question. I have reminded the hon. member of that before, so the hon. member

should get to the question.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the question is: the

minister will remember that when he started this experiment he said that if

there is a shortage of wood on the island some time in the future this

experiment will show us if we can bring wood from Labrador to Newfoundland to

substitute for that shortage for a short time.

Mr. Speaker, with him laying off people at the tree nursery

now, and I believe it has been proven that Labrador wood cannot be delivered to

the island practically, will the minister tell us does he not consider it to be

very short sighted that he closed down our tree seedling nursery and our

silviculture programs, and would it not relate to what has happened because of

the poor planning in our fishery that we have no fisheries now, Mr. Speaker, and

the silviculture program, by closing that down or reducing it we will have no

trees for the future too?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we are not closing down the

Woodale Tree Nursery. We are running the nursery on an economic cost efficient

basis. We will produce as many seedlings this year, Mr. Speaker, as we produced

last year. We will probably be producing five years from now as many seedlings.

Because of the technology, because of the number of people needed to produce the

same number of seedlings, Mr. Speaker, we can produce 10 million seedlings in

Wooddale with seventy-nine employees. We could probably do it, if we wanted, Mr.

Speaker, with less.

So, it is hogwash, Mr. Speaker, and hypocrisy for the hon.

member to indicate that because we are not recalling thirty employees - there

will still be seventy-nine employees at Wooddale. All that is needed to grow and

produce the seedlings required for the silviculture programs that we have had in

the past and we envision in the near future, will be the employees that are

there. And no, Mr. Speaker, we are not closing Wooddale. We intend to support

Wooddale and continue the level of seedling production that we have had in the

past and, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, increase it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was at the speech that the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture gave in Grand Falls the other week, and he gave a speech which he

hadn't read before. So I want to phrase my question in a very particular way,

because I want to know whether the minister, in fact, knows the answer to it.

Now that he has admitted that we are under-planting the replacement for our

forests, can he answer now the question which I asked several weeks ago? He has

had lots of time to think about it. Does he know whether any studies have been

done by his department as to what percentage or how much valuable sawlogs from

Crown Lands and from paper company-owned lands are not being turned into lumber

but are, in fact, going into the paper mills for fiber or are being turned into

wood chips for fuel burning? Does he know what studies his department has done

and what the extent of that problem is?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the hon.

member was at the meeting. I can also confirm, Mr. Speaker, that he wasn't very

visible at the meeting either, skulking around, Mr. Speaker, trying to play

politics with the union types who were at the meeting. Mr. Speaker, he had the

nerve to announce that it was just by coincidence that he arrived in Grand Falls

at the same time as a meeting sponsored by the Newfoundland Federation of Labour

was going on. The Member for St. John's East just arrived at that meeting by

coincidence. What a coincidence, Mr. Speaker!

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we know that the sawlogs or

lumber produced from sawlogs - it doesn't matter where they are cut, whether

they are cut on Crown land or on company land - have got more dollar value than

sawlogs turned into pulp. We know that and, Mr. Speaker, we are making efforts

now to make sure that as few sawlogs as possible are converted into pulp in

Newfoundland. You don't need sawlogs to produce pulp, Mr. Speaker, and sawlogs

are more valuable to the economy of Newfoundland, provide more dollar value,

than pulp.

So, Mr. Speaker, we know that and it doesn't matter where the

logs come from, from company limits or Crown limits, there is more economic

value in lumber produced from sawlogs than in pulp produced from sawlogs.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

I guess I have to ask the question again: Does the Minister

of Forestry and Agriculture know how many sawlogs from Crown lands or from

company-owned limits are, in fact, being wasted and are not going into lumber

production? Does the minister know what the extent of the problem is? Has his

department done any studies to determine how much valuable lumber, valuable

work, value-added employment and boost to the economy, is being lost by this

failure to adequately use our timber resources?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, up to this day we know, because

up to this day every sawlog produced on company lands by company employees was

turned into pulp. No sawlogs off company limits were turned into lumber.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. FLIGHT: Off company limits. I obviously did not ask

my staff to count the number of logs.

There is major, major, wood production off company limits to

feed those two mills - or the three mills - and every sawlog cut on company

limits to this day has been by and large turned into pulpwood. As the hon.

Minister of Development pointed out while the question was being asked, it has

not been possible for my staff to count every log that has gone into the mill

yards in Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Stephenville up to this point in time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am afraid the minister betrays his ignorance. I know there

is certainly a proportion of company limit lumber going into sawlogs because I

have had people tell me that this happens, but the minister obviously does not

know the extent of the problem.

Can I ask the minister: What specific programs does his

government have in mind, or what does he intend to do to require that valuable

sawlogs be turned into lumber as opposed to pulp, whether they are on company

limits or on Crown lands? Now if the minister wants to say we cannot do anything

about company limits, tell us that he does not know anything about his own

Forest Management Tax Act, but tell us what is the government doing to ensure

that all sawlogs, or sawlog valuable timber, is in fact going to that purpose

and being replaced perhaps by fibre? What specific programs does his government

have, and what is he going to do about this very serious problem which he does

not even know the extent of?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is

asking those questions on behalf of the major sawmilling industry in St. John's

East, and his constituents will be waiting with bated breath for the answer.

Coming off Crown lands, we have now implemented a program

whereby no sawlogs - no sawlogs - cut on Crown lands will go to the paper mills

- none; to the extent that we can control it; to the extent that we have the

enforcement; to the extent that the companies will co-operate - none.

Now in order to make sure that no sawlogs cut by company

employees on their limits, to make sure that theirs go to lumber production, it

is a laudable goal. It would be a great thing if you could achieve it. The

problem is finding a mechanism to have the company take all of the sawlogs they

cut and have them delivered to sawmills or turned into lumber.

Number one, we have to compensate them either financially or

certainly we have to compensate with fibre which will come off Crown lands, and

there is some question if that can be done. But we are working with the

companies to try to find a way to utilize the sawlogs that are cut on company

limits, even by company employees, to be turned into lumber as opposed to being

turned into pulp.

The hon. member need not expect that to happen tomorrow or

the next day. There are a lot of negotiations, there is a lot of co-operation

going to be needed. We think it is possible. I do not know how long it will take

to accomplish it, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister of Social Services.

During the past few days I have had the opportunity to talk

to several social workers who were extremely concerned about being overworked in

this Province. I want to ask the minister directly: Will he make a commitment

today, on behalf of the Department of Social Services, that the recommendations

in the Hughes Commission Report as they regard his department, particularly the

Child Welfare Department, that these recommendations will be implemented?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I think it is common knowledge

that the demands on our social workers throughout the Province have been greater

than ever before, and that is of course due to the very difficult economic times

in which we find ourselves. But as to the Hughes Report, as I said yesterday in

the House, we will take the time necessary as a government to look at and deal

with the recommendations that are made in the Hughes Report, so I cannot say to

the House now how we will react to any particular recommendation. I can only say

that we will promise to, as quickly as possible, examine all thirty-five

recommendations and decide what course of action we would take as a government.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister has now admitted

that his staff are overworked, that they are overburdened, and they cannot do

the work that they are supposed to be doing, and people, and particularly

children, who are the responsibility of the Child Welfare department in this

Province, are suffering as a result. Let me ask the minister then. Will he make

a commitment today that the social workers, the BSW graduates, the professional

social workers who are coming out of University this month, that they will

receive employment? - that the forty of them will be gainfully employed in this

Province? Will he do that?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, irrespective of the fact that

we now have the Hughes Report to deal with, we have been addressing for some

time now the difficulties, if you like, in the field offices as far as the work

load is concerned. That would have happened in any case. Because the work load

is there.

But solving a problem does not necessarily mean hiring more

people every time you have a problem. We are already reacting to the problem in

the field and the demand on our social workers. A demand, by the way, which is

not going to lessen unless economic times improve dramatically and quickly. We

are going to have the problem with us for some time. So we are reacting.

We are computerizing, for example, all fifty-two district

offices and regional offices, and the head office itself. Full computerization,

a program that has already commenced and will take a couple of years to

complete. That computerization, along with support mechanisms that are being put

in place in all regional offices, will ensure that our field workers, social

workers, financial officers and others will have the support necessary to help

them with their ever increasing, really, work load.

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

- Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the minister that

the process for computerization started back some years ago, back when I was

minister as a matter of fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister would not

confirm that they are going to implement all the recommendations of the Hughes

Report. He would not confirm that he is going to provide assistance to the staff

by providing additional staff and help them get out from under the burden that

they are under.

Let me ask the minister this: that since Beaton Tulk - this

should be familiar to the minister - for whatever reasons left the Department of

Social Services, since he left, he was the ADM responsible for Child Welfare in

this Province. While there has been a re-alignment in this Province that

position is still vacant. There are two ADMs doing the work of three ADMs for

far too long. Now, because of the crisis situation that exists in this Province,

will the minister stop balancing his books on the funds that he is saving from

having an ADM, balance his books on the children and the poor of this Province,

and immediately put in place an ADM who is responsible to carry out these

programs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the ADM position of course is

vacant at the present time.

MR. TOBIN: How long!?

MR. GULLAGE: Having a position vacant is not unique. We

have some four or five other senior positions that are vacant at -

MR. TOBIN: And put a professional social worker in the

position this time! A professional social worker!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have some -

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

The hon. member has asked the question and I believe the

Member for Burin - Placentia West was given a fair amount of leeway in asking

the question, and he is still insisting on another question. So I would ask the

hon. member to let the minister answer the question, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, the

position is indeed vacant and has been for a while. We have other positions

vacant as well, senior positions that have to be filled. That is not to suggest

that the work is not being done because it certainly is being done. As quickly

as possible. Incidentally the social workers, in the main, the vast majority of

them, are in the district offices in the field delivering service in the field.

The position he speaks of that is vacant is a programming and planning position,

which is not a delivery position. So I fail to see the connection between the

two supposed problems that we have.

As quickly as possible we will be filling the ADM position

that he speaks of. It is indeed vacant at the present moment. We recognise the

need for filling that position with a person who has training and background, if

you like, and able to deliver management in the area of programming and

planning. As quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker, we will be filling that position.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Labour Relations.

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

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

Closing Act."

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

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

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

Newfoundland Registered Nurses Act."

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf

of sixty-two residents of the community of Piccadilly/Abrahams Cove in the

district of Port au Port. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is: we the

people of Piccadilly/Abrahams Cove water committee petition the provincial

government for funding of a much needed well, pump and waterline to service the

people of the area. The old line freezes every winter and over twenty homes are

without water. The petition is signed by sixty-two residents.

These are two areas of the district which back about ten or

twelve years ago formed themselves into water committees and I do believe that

it is now a local service district. I have spoken to the minister on this

matter, and I have also followed that meeting with him with a letter. As well I

have spoken to the engineering department on the west coast of the Province in

Corner Brook who support me in this petition and feel there is a need for these

people. The water system we are talking about here is a water system that was

first designed for sixteen families and at the present time there are thirty-two

families on that water system. I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is all

the more important, and I am sorry the minister is not here because I gave him

prior notice that I would be presenting this petition, but what makes this more

important is that back about fourteen or fifteen years ago the family called me

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to interrupt the hon. member for

a minute. I will not take it out of his time. I want again to emphasize the

importance, from the Chair's position, of having petitions in the right format.

I have said to hon. members that if they are not in the right format that we

check with the clerk and the clerk would then tell hon. members whether or not

it is in the right format. We can provide hon. members will all kinds of these

in the right format. This is not in the right format and I will just bring it to

the attention of hon. members. I know that hon. members generally approve this

kind of thing because it is again petitioning with respect to water, a pump and

so on, etc., but I thought I would point that out to hon. members. It is not in

the right format so I ask hon. members to try and get these petitions in the

right format because it is not difficult. We will provide them with the forms if

they want them. As I said to the hon. member I will not take this out of his

time.

Does the hon. member have the consensus of the House to

proceed?

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I have been

presenting petitions of that nature in this House for some sixteen years. I do

not write the petition, the petition comes to me, but nevertheless I will try to

inform people. This is quite an urgent thing. The Budget is being passed and the

funding for this, I suspect, the water component, will come under the Department

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Before my time elapses I want to point out,

and I only have five minutes, that some fifteen years ago I had a call from a

family who thought their children were sick because of the water. I had the

Department of Health go out to Piccadilly and

whereas .4 points of coliform per

millilitre is the limit for permissibility, for contamination of water, some of

these people had as high as 40 to 60 points of coliform per millilitre of water.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is highly contaminated water. So these people do not have

the recourse to go back to a well system which they had some ten years ago. What

has happened in this particular community, and it may sound like little things

to members opposite, but it is not a little thing, because what has happened to

this community is that it has grown and that is good, but the thing is that the

water system there - and they have been paying for their water system - the

problem is that the water system is too big and they have had a lot of problems

with their pumps. They are a rural community, with high unemployment, and they

are asking for just a small amount of money, as I told the minister in the

letter. They are asking for $25,000 to drill another well and provide the

facilities for this well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government to look at this

petition and to take it in the light from which it comes. It is not the type of

community where they can go back to their wells. The water is contaminated. The

ground water throughout all of Piccadilly, the whole of Piccadilly which

stretches some three miles, its ribbon development, all the water is

contaminated. So if this water system is not fixed, then all winter they have to

drive miles and miles and miles to get fresh water. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the government and the minister when he reads my comments to please accede to

this request because it is very serious.

There is a convent on that water line as well, and I have had

representation from the Sisters in the area who also asked me to bring this to

the Legislature. I do hope that the department will accede to the people's

request. Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will make a few

comments in support of the petition presented by my colleague on behalf of his

constituents of Piccadilly/ Abrahams Cove.

Mr. Speaker, I have in my district some local service

districts, especially in the White Bay area, that use and are always dependent

on the community water services committee. I believe that is what it is that is

looked after by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I always

found that the allocation of funding under this particular program is always

late, very late in the season. It is late, for one thing, for the capital

program. Why not all come together? Whether it is a community council, a town

council, a city council, or a local service district, the same thing is

applicable. The need is there. The time for announcing the project should be

done pretty well at the same time as the announcement of the capital program.

This particular local service district is in dire need, no

question. I am of the understanding that it is a drilled well now in the

community.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they need another one.

MR. WOODFORD: And the community has outlived that

particular well. It is very inexpensive - I have said it here in the House

before - way to provide water to communities in this Province. It can be done

also, Mr. Speaker, in larger communities and not only in local service districts

comprising of twenty to thirty-five families.

This particular local service district has its water

contaminated as well. That is questionable too. I always question the Department

of Health on that particular thing, and I am sure other members have ran into

that as well on what they call contaminated water. We can see a city or a town

in this Province with coliform counts of probably 300 to 400, and we have local

service districts and smaller municipalities in the Province that are on a well

system, not only drilled wells but local dug wells, that are turned down by the

banks for mortgages. It is ludicrous and hypocritical, Mr. Speaker. I just

thought I would get that in here now. They will turn it down if it is over

fifteen coliform, if the count is over fifteen, which is ridiculous, yet you can

go to a city or town and get a mortgage and the banks and lawyers will put it

through without any problems.

Mr. Speaker, those two particular communities are asking for

$25,000 if I am not mistaken. Members opposite, especially the Cabinet

ministers, should take that into consideration because this program is not

announced. It looks after a whole community and a community comprised of some

thirty-odd families. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister in his wisdom,

while looking at the programs will make that recommendation to his Cabinet

colleagues and I am sure that the results will be positive.

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

Tourism.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise and discuss

this petition briefly. It is dealing with local service districts and I am

familiar with the hon. member's area having campaigned for him a number of times

up and down that particular strip. In fact, I think I had to haul three dogs off

his right leg one day to make sure he survived, but he raises some good points.

There is some difficulty in this area with water; there has

been for a long time and it is not just that particular area of Port au Port,

but as I recall there are some other small communities as well - Fox Island

River organized its water since ?... no. So there is a number, Mr. Speaker, but

we have to look at it in the bigger, larger picture, that there are, I believe,

some 200 local service districts throughout the Province. I know in my own

district, Castors River North particularly, people still go to a local community

spring to get buckets of water even throughout the winter and summer to just -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: - I know, what I am saying is that we have to

look at the bigger picture and look at the 200 communities, as the minister and

his officials do and rate them; and unfortunately in my own district, even

though it is a very severe problem, Castors River has not come in for funding

over the last number of years. Even those areas which do come in for funding,

little areas like Brig Bay and Bear Cove in the northern tip of my district, the

money is so small because we are limited by the amount of budgeting.

I think you have $1 million for local service districts, $1

million, and when you try to spread that out, it is so small that you really do

not even put a dent in it, so what we have been trying to do in those little

areas is, for example Brig Bay, when we have $10,000 or $15,000 we marry it to

job creation dollars, use the provincial money for materials and apply the other

monies for labour, so it is a difficult problem, but now that the minister has

arrived back in, with the hon. members' concurrence, I will ask the minister to

conclude so that he can speak as minister directly to this petition.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, are the hon. members agreeing

with this?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the member's petition, insomuch as it is

a subject which I brought to the minister's job and had been discussing with my

predecessor previous to serving this present ministry. I will just have to deal

with all these smaller communities on the supply of this type of infrastructure

to them. I am delighted that he has brought it forward, as it adds fuel and

ammunition and justification to the need for us to develop new and innovative

ways of delivering these services to these communities.

I have also talked to my hon. friend, the Minister of

Development and Tourism and the Minister of Health in visiting these areas on

the Northern Peninsula particularly, and I have been out in the member's

district and concur that these services are much needed - it is even needed in

my own district as a matter of fact. I have one community in my district, Fox

Harbour, with 101 families and they need $2.4 million worth of water and sewer

work, which they will never be able to get, they cannot afford it, and these

kinds of infrastructures are needed in these small communities and we will just

have to deal with it and find new and better ways of doing that and I support

the member's initiative in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of twenty-five

residents of Little Bay Islands and the prayer of the petition is as follows:

We, the undersigned residents of Little Bay Islands petition

the hon. House of Assembly to instruct the hon. Minister of Fisheries, not to

approve, transfer temporarily or permanently, the crab processing licence of S.

T. Jones and Sons Limited to any other area in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is in process or just about done, except

for I guess some legal technicalities or papers to be signed, a sale of the crab

operation at Little Bay Islands. The new owners have approached the community,

its council and the citizenry in general, looking for the concurrence or the

agreement of the islanders to transfer the license on a temporary basis, I

believe to the Community of Fleur de Lys in the district of Baie Verte - White

Bay.

Obviously, Little Bay Islands being a one-industry town with

the crab plant being their main employer, the words `temporarily tranferred' is

a matter of great concern. Being an island, forty-five minutes steam from the

mainland of the Island of Newfoundland, there is tremendous concern that if a

license is transferred on a temporary basis it will never come back. The license

cannot be routinely transferred, it requires the authorization of the minister,

himself, and people are concerned that if the minister does make such an

authorization, they will never get it back.

If the minister does entertain the particular request,

assuming it is either in his office or on the way to his office, then I would

only hope that the minister would work with the company and the community

concerned to obtain some level of guarantee of the return of the license to that

particular community. Because without that particular license, Little Bay

Islands is, essentially, economically dead and will join the list of many

resettled communities in this Province.

Now, when I raised this matter in the Assembly yesterday, the

hon. the Minister of Health flew off the handle with me, Mr. Speaker, and

accused me of making a political football of this particular situation, this

particular serious situation. Mr. Speaker, I attended a public meeting of well

over 100 people, one of the largest public meetings ever held on Little Bay

Islands, by invitation of the council and the citizenry, and by resolution

passed almost unanimously, if not unanimously, in that public meeting, I was

given that political ball, Mr. Speaker. I was asked, Mr. Speaker, to inflate

that political football, I was asked, Mr. Speaker, to run with that political

football, I was asked, Mr. Speaker, to kick that political football, and, above

all else, Mr. Speaker, I was asked to do my best to score with that political

football. So I make no apologies to the hon. the Minister of Health, who has

relatives on the island and is somewhat embarrassed by the conundrum in which he

personally finds himself. My only comment to the hon. the Minister of Health is

that if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the Clyde Wells kitchen.

So in summation, Mr. Speaker, Little Bay Islands is a

one-industry town. There is going to be, if it is not already, on the minister's

desk, a request for a temporary transfer. The word `temporary' is very suspect

on the island and people want assurances and guarantees that, if, indeed, the

minister does entertain and eventually grant such a transfer, that the license

would return posthaste to Little Bay Islands with minimal disruption to the

local economy. Without such, Mr. Speaker, the island will certainly die and end

up being resettled.

As I indicated yesterday, it is not a matter of robbing Peter

to pay Paul in terms of the communities involved. If we rob Peter here without

guarantees, then we kill Peter to pay Paul, and nobody, I don't think, on either

side of this House, would, in all conscience, want to see a community with a

long and vibrant history in the fishery of this Province go down the tubes over

a license transfer.

So I support the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I

seek assurances from the administration, particularly the minister, that

particular sensitivity to the ongoing presence of a crab processing operation in

Little Bay Islands be uppermost in his mind when he deals with this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't sure if the minister was going to rise to respond or

not. He gave some indications, but I was afraid that the Speaker was going to

call time and we couldn't get this petition supported. I feel it is quite

necessary that this House of Assembly go on record as supporting the petition

put forward by my colleague from Green Bay on behalf of the people of Little Bay

Islands. I have a great lot of sympathy for the Member for Green Bay because,

like his district, I too have island communities in my district that have a crab

plant. I know how important it is to the economy of Fogo Island, and I am sure,

to the economy of Little Bay Islands, in having that crab plant there.

The one area of fisheries jurisdiction that the minister has

exclusive control over is the licensing of onshore processing facilities. I urge

the minister to be extra cautious when giving licenses or transferring licenses

from one area of the Province to the other, albeit at this time it might be

temporary. But I can certainly sympathize with the people of Little Bay Islands

when they see their only potential source of employment going from their area to

another part of the Province. While, indeed, it might be welcome news for that

part of the Province, it is certainly not welcome news for the people of Little

Bay Islands.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular area, what we are seeing is a

kind of unusual twist of fate. Because, last year, I think a crab license got

transferred from the area that this one is presently proposed to go in. One has

to question, why would they transfer one year out and now the next year be

trying to transfer in?

So I have no hesitation or problems in supporting this

petition on behalf of the residents of Little Bay Islands. The crab plant they

have there is the lifeblood of the community, an island community. It has only

one source of employment, and that being that sector of the fishery. I want the

minister to look long and hard at any idea of transferring that license to

another area of the Province which, in effect, would mean the death of the

community of Little Bay Islands, and I ask the minister not to do it. To

consider very carefully what impact this would have on the people of Little Bay

Islands.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I apologise to the hon. member

for not being here yesterday to answer his question. I was in Clarenville

speaking to the Chamber of Commerce. I understand he asked the question.

I should point out at the beginning that I have heard stories

that a certain company is going to be applying to my department for a transfer

of license, but up until about 9:00 this morning, no such application was on

file. That surprises me, because certainly, there is a process to be followed, a

process that requires people who wish to transfer licenses to advertise through

the public news media their intentions. After a certain time has elapsed, then,

of course, if there are any objections, they will be sent in to the Department

of Fisheries to our licensing committee, and then that licensing committee will

look at all aspects of the application and the number of people who may be

opposed or support the proposition. Then a decision is made.

I can assure my hon. friend opposite that no action will be

taken to transfer a license from Little Bay Islands to Fleur de Lys under any

circumstances unless and until it has gone through the process and then it will

be dealt with by the officials on the licensing committee in the Department of

Fisheries.

Now, it is interesting to note that the plant for which this

license is being sought, that of Fleur de Lys, is the same plant that in 1989

had a crab license. The government of the day in 1989 also had a policy similar

to what we are following now, to the effect that a moratorium was placed on the

issuing of new licenses, and in cases where applications were received to

transfer licenses, the process we now follow would have to be followed, that of

advertising and going before the committee and justifying what was done.

It is rather strange that four days before this government

took office -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four days.

MR. CARTER: Four days. In fact, I believe it was on May

1. I believe we took office on May 5? Four days before that date the

then-minister, Mr. Peach, took it upon himself, without reference to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? Who?

MR. CARTER: Mr. Peach, who was then -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he from?

MR. CARTER: - short-term Minister from the district of my

friend from Carbonear.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was after the election.

MR. CARTER: After the election.

AN HON. MEMBER: When they had no mandate.

MR. CARTER: This is an interesting story now. You should

listen to it.

Four days before the Wells administration was due to be sworn

in, this gentleman, who was then Minister of Fisheries under Mr. Rideout, issued

an order that at least four licences be either issued or transferred - a blatant

contradiction of their own policy, of their own regulations.

One of the licences that Mr. Peach ordered to be transferred

was the one from Fleur de Lys to Old Perlican. There were others, as well. I put

a stop order on some of them, as you would.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Fleur de Lys.

MR. CARTER: Yes, Fleur de Lys. I have evidence of where

it was moved from Fleur de Lys to Old Perlican.

At the time, I should point out, by the way, that the then

Premier, or the Premier-elect - he was campaigning - was very generously using

Mr. Quinlan's helicopter in order to campaign around the Province. In the

process of that then, it was agreed there and then that that licence would be

transferred from 'A' to 'B'.

It is rather ironic that now the controversy is -

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Premier was going around in 'B's'

helicopter.

MR. CARTER: Yes. Now the issue has raised its head, but I

can only tell my hon. friend that we will be more considerate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: - and we will operate within the guidelines

that we have established.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the one from Red Harbour?

MR. CARTER: The one from Red Harbour, if the hon.

gentleman would ask me that question tomorrow I shall answer it, but now I am

running out of time and I want to set my hon. friend's mind at ease and tell him

that this government does not act the way the previous government acted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. CARTER: I should point out a very interesting point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: May I have leave to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to take his place, please, and it

might be the right time to remind all hon. members that when the Chair, or the

person in the Chair, says that the time is up, then hon. members should proceed

to take their place. I know that hon. members would like to finish their last

phrase, and I am generally flexible on that manner, but sometimes members go on

and get into the second and the third sentence and that ought not to happen. I

gather that the hon. minister was not given leave.

I don't want to delay the House. I just wanted to comment

again on petitions so that we know where we are going in this in the future. I

called the Member for Port au Port up here, as hon. members would notice,

because he was leaving the House and I told him that I wanted to say something

in reference to him, although the Chair is not allowed to enter into debate. The

member did say that he presented lots of petitions that were not in accordance

with our rules and regulations. I know hon. members do that, but I ask hon.

members, please, to abide by the rules as much as possible because sometimes we

can get into trouble if we allow one and then we don't bring it to the attention

of hon. members another time. If we are sort of going all over the place it is

going to get us into problems. All hon. members ought to know what the standard

format is for a petition.

I just wanted to conclude by saying that I was going to say

to the hon. member, I don't think he would have presented that petition in 1975,

first when we arrived on the scene, when we were so particular not only about

its format but also the way we ended. We thought we had to end them the right

way. If we didn't, we didn't think the petition would get acted upon, and the

petition always ended with: 'I ask that it be laid upon the table of the House

and referred to the department to which it relates.' Today, we hardly get to

that line.

I thank hon. members.

Is there another petition?

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present on behalf of some residents of

Island Harbour, a community on Fogo Island. Some time ago I wrote to the former

Minister of Highways who was acting at the time, the President of Treasury

Board, about a

section of road in the community of Island Harbour. There are

seven households on this particular piece of road. Presently, Island Harbour is

an unincorporated area. It does not have a council and thus the Department of

Highways have assumed responsibility for roads in that particular community.

These people have been petitioning and asking the Department of Highways in the

local area for a number of years now to develop that

section of road so that it

is passable. Presently for about five to six months of the year these residents

have no access to ambulance service, and are unable to get fuel to their homes

in the winter. They have to pump it off into barrels and drag it in on a skidoo.

Mr. Speaker, that is just not adequate.

Highways have the equipment in the area that could easily do

this piece of road. There are seven school children who have to walk

considerable distances through snow drifts so that they can get to bus stops. It

is a piece of road that would be approximately 1000 feet. Two of the children

who live in that area suffer from diabetes and in winter they frequently have to

go to hospital by ambulance and have to be dragged out on a sled. In this 20th

century, in 1992, that is certainly not an adequate mode of transportation. The

department has known, the former minister, the President of Treasury Board

indicated in writing to me last year that every consideration would be given to

doing that portion of road during this coming construction year. To date we have

seen very little evidence that it is going to take place. I ask the present

Minister of Transportation to give some consideration to having this

section of

road made to a condition where traffic can drive over it. Normally it is a

policy with the department that if three households are on a given piece of road

it will be brought to an acceptable standard. What we have in this case is seven

houses, a number of children who have to go to school each day, we have some

senior citizens there, this area has no access to fire protection, and I call on

the minister to use the good graces of his department to bring that road up to

an acceptable standard so that people who live in that

section of Island Harbour

will be able to have the services provided that other communities and other

people of this Province have.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long is it?

MR. WINDSOR: It is about 1000 feet of road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to very briefly

support the petition presented by my colleague for Fogo. It is indeed a sad

reflection when in this day and age you have a situation whereby there are

people living in a community that do not have access to a road only 1000 feet

away. I support the petition, Mr. Speaker. It is only fair that the provincial

government provide adequate fire protection to these residents. It is only fair

that these residents have access to school buses. It is only fair that these

residents be treated the same as all other people in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I urge the minister to do whatever needs to be done

to ensure that that 1000 feet of road is put in place and that the people from

this area of Island Harbour have the same fair access to the transportation

system as other people of this Province have enjoyed.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to this particular matter I will have the

officials of the department review this particular matter to determine, in fact,

what condition the road is in and what can be done with respect to maintenance

to improve its condition. I will have them have a look at it with respect to

expenditures under the capital program for upgrading and perhaps the paving of

this particular road. As the member is aware every year the roads in the

Province are assessed and the funds are allocated on the basis of need. I guess

in this year's program that particular road was assessed and found to be less

needy that the other roads.

MR. WINSOR: There is no road.

MR. GOVER: There is no road. Like I said, Mr. Speaker, I

am not totally familiar with the exact facts of this particular road which is

the reason why I am going to have my officials investigate the situation and

make a report to me before I pass any more detailed comments on the road. I am

prepared to commit to the hon. member that I will have the officials in the area

go out and have a look at the road and provide me with a report on the road to

see into which category of consideration this road should fall. Mr. Speaker,

unlike perhaps previous administrations we all know there is a great need on

Fogo Island, and elsewhere in Fogo district for road work that has been

neglected for seventeen years of Tory administration. The needs have built up,

built up, and built up. Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to treat Fogo District in

that particular way even though it is represented by an Opposition member.

Therefore I commit to have this matter investigated and see what can be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to call motions 6, 7 and

8, but before I do I would like to point out an error in motion 6. In the

document that I tabled when I made the motion the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs was included in number 6 and it was inadvertently left out in

the printing, so I would like to make that correction for hon. members. I would

also like to point out that the committees referred to are the committees as

tabled in this document that was tabled in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call motions 6, 7 and 8.

MR. SPEAKER: We will move them together. Hon. members

agree to that, all of them. It has been moved and seconded that motions 6, 7 and

8, and that is with reference to certain heads of expenditures being referred to

the appropriate committees.

It is moved and seconded that this motion be now adopted by

the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in

favour, please say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please say nay. Carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 10, Bill 17. We are resuming the

adjourned debate.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few

comments on this Bill that has been introduced by the minister. He should leave

the chamber. He should hang his head in shame leaving the chamber with the

hardship he has inflicted upon Newfoundlanders, particularly as it relates to

this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I just wondered if before the hon. member

gets into his speech I could inform hon. members of the Late Show?

On the Late Show the topics raised will be a matter raised by

the Member for Kilbride with respect to questions asked the Minister of

Provincial Affairs about the cost of amalgamation. The second matter is the

matter raised by the Member for Fogo who raises a question with respect to

responses given by the Minister of Labour on the Workers Compensation Board. The

third matter is raised by the Member for Green Bay with respect to questions

asked the Minister of Development re: crab processing licence in Little Bay

Islands. These are the topics.

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this bill that

has been introduced in the Legislature. I had hoped to have an opportunity the

other evening to speak after the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

spoke. He got up and praised this bill as a great thing for Newfoundlanders.

Convinced Newfoundlanders, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations said he would go all across this Province singing the praises of Bill

Well I find it somewhat ironic, Mr. Speaker, that this

minister was the same minister, this minister who was going to sing the praises

of Bill 17 from one end of the Province to the other was the same minister who

put the teachers of this Province on strike. There is another minister, a former

President of the NTA in this chamber today who attacked government vehemently.

She could not stop attacking government, and now she sits in a Cabinet that has

put the blocks to the labour people in this Province, in particular the teachers

of this Province and who has heard a word?

Now, Mr. Speaker, if a wage freeze was bad for the teachers a

couple of years ago, what is this bill? How can someone have an about face so

quick? How? How can a minister of the Crown - there are two, there are two

ministers of the Crown in this House today who have been involved with the NTA,

and both of them have since turned their backs on the NTA, make no mistake.

There is a minister in this House who put the teachers on strike in this

Province, and yet he comes in and brings in a piece of legislation that is worse

than the teachers of this Province have ever seen before.

We have the present Minister of....

MR. DOYLE: Employment - not Employment, Environment and

Lands.

MR. TOBIN: Environment and Lands, who was president of

the NTA. Mr. Speaker, you should hear her. You should hear how bad the

government was because they were going to freeze the wages. The government did

not negotiate and tear up the contract, for whatever was put in place was

honoured. Then there was the wage freeze. Yet, these two ministers would like

the teachers to believe that they are still friends of the education profession.

There is no wonder that the people of this Province are

saying: we got hoodwinked with promises from the Liberals in the last election

campaign. There is no wonder that the people of this Province are saying: we can

no longer trust this government. What teacher can trust the Minister of

Environment and Lands or the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations? What

teacher in this Province can trust either one of them?

The Minister of Employment got up the other day and he said

he was prepared to sing the praises of Bill 17 from one end of this Province to

the other. I do not know a whole lot about Judas but I read a little bit about

him one time. I read about the nine cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am serious. The hypocrisy

we have seen. I mean, we see them out on the steps of the Confederation

Building. With all the teachers in front of them talking about this big, bad

government. Yes, it did not take him long to change his mind when he became a

minister of the Crown. When he became worse. When he became part of the worst

government, the worst record of labour relations in this Province, it did not

take long for the two of them to hightail it in the corners. We saw the

reception that the Minister of Education got from the teachers. We have seen it.

We saw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pure ignorance!

MR. TOBIN: That's not ignorance!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is!

MR. TOBIN: That's not ignorance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: It is not ignorance, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

minister that if you corner anyone they will fight back. If you push anyone far

enough and if you punish them enough, and people see that they are being

betrayed - there's nothing as bad as being betrayed. I can tell you that. It

happened to me once and I will never forget it. There is nothing as bad as

someone betraying you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: Yes. There are two ministers in particular who

betrayed the teaching profession. Those are the Minister of Environment and

Lands and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that have betrayed

them. There are other ministers, Mr. Speaker, like the President of Council.

There is the Minister of Education. There are other ministers who were involved

in the education profession who went out and got elected promising to get

greater labour relations for the teachers of this Province.

But teachers were not betrayed the same as being led by

people who put them on strike. That is betrayal of a fine order and it should

not be tolerated in our society. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage, I went down

and helped get him elected.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I was down to help get him elected, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: You did too.

MR. TOBIN: Yes I did so, spent two or three times down

there for rallies, speaking on his behalf to get him elected. Hearing him on the

stage, Mr. Speaker, one would have to wonder -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes. And I can tell you something else, he won

the polls I campaigned in too.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: He won the area I campaigned in too. Probably

the first time ever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. TOBIN: The next candidate for this Party will win it,

Mr. Speaker. Make no mistake about that either. I can tell the members opposite,

particularly the people from the teaching profession, that you have betrayed

your constituents in the teaching profession, you have turned your back on them.

Today I had reason to ask questions of the Minister of Social Services regarding

social workers in this Province. I can tell the minister that what has taken

place today and over the past few months in that department is a total lack of

leadership on the part of the minister.

I know when I was minister, and I say when the Member for

Port de Grave was Minister of Social Services, that we both increased the staff

of social workers in that Department, and I can tell you something else. In the

past few months in particular, probably within the past year, there has been

more pressure put on the social workers of this Province than ever before. Make

no mistake about it. In the past year there has been more pressure put on the

social workers of this Province than ever before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. TOBIN: I can tell you why - because this government

has no economic plan whatsoever. People are being thrown on the unemployment

roles day in and day out; because you will stand and vote for a Budget in this

House which will do nothing but throw people on the welfare roles. That is why

social workers are overworked - because this government has no direction as it

relates to the economy; because the caseload in the Department of Social

Services has never been as high as it is today. That is why the social workers

are overburdened. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Cabinet you have to accept

part of the responsibility, because you have no plan. You have done absolutely

nothing.

On Friday Mr. Crosbie will be on the Burin Peninsula to open

up a new fish plant in Grand Bank, and this government has done absolutely

nothing to support the people of Grand Bank. It was the federal government who

opened the plant. Now you have the federal government in Trepassey - Mr. Crosbie

again in Trepassey. What did this government do for the plant workers of

Trepassey? They turned their backs on them. That is what they did. What did they

do for the plant workers of Gaultois? How much money are they putting up to

assist the plant workers in Trepassey?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? This government?

MR. TOBIN: This government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, they are out doing absolutely nothing.

NatSea on the south side is closed today because this

government did absolutely nothing for the employees of NatSea plant. That is why

it is closed today. I talked to them, and they do not know where their member

is. They do not know where the government is. They do not know. They do not

know. That is what is taking place in this Province, and until such time as this

government gets a direction -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well Mr. Speaker if there is anyone who can

speak, and someone making a fool of himself, it is the Minister of Forestry

because I said to some of my colleagues today, and some of his, I only wish we

could get him on television. I only wish we had cameras in the House. I only

wish we had cameras in the House.

This government, as it relates to the fisheries, turned their

back on the people of Trepassey; turned their back on the people of Grand Bank.

Not a nickel is going into the construction of that plant in Grand Bank that

will be opened on Friday - not a nickel from this Province gone into that

operation - not a nickel; nothing going into Trepassey, except criticism.

Now there are a lot of things that have to happen. I see Mr.

Crosbie is on the move again today, but there is nothing happening in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing. If it

comes to closing dockyards, this Province does not need anyone to teach them,

because when we left government there were 500 people working in the Marystown

shipyard. Today there are fifty, and if it had not been, in the last two years

for the federal government, Mr. Speaker, works from the federal government that

the Yard bid on, got by bid, there would be no work at the Marystown Shipyard at

all.

This government is using Kvaerner. I have never seen the

tactic before. This government is using Kvaerner as a deflection of their

responsibilities. Kvaerner does not own the Marystown Shipyard, never did own

the Marystown Shipyard. This government owns the Marystown Shipyard and this

government has the same responsibility to the Marystown Shipyard and its

employees as the previous administrations did for twenty-five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, give it away, do what you

like with it. Put people back to work, that is what I want in the Marystown

Shipyard. If the Member for St. John's South wants the Marystown Shipyard, and

for the next twenty years can do as well as the former government did when they

owned it for twenty years, let him have it. I have said before that I have more

confidence in the Norwegians, in the people of Norway, to look after the economy

of this Province than I have in this administration. I have more confidence in

the people of Norway to look after the interests of the Marystown Shipyard and

the employees of the Marystown Shipyard than I have in this government.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Old pork barrel, Mr. Speaker, municipal

grants.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's what I'm talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, what an attack on my

district! They are going to pay it back, though.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about people. They say they

are going to put in a wage freeze for the employees of the Marystown Shipyard.

What employees of the Marystown Shipyard? There have been no employees in the

Marystown Shipyard since this crowd came to office, none. They have turned their

back on rural Newfoundland.

When I think about the President of Treasury Board - you

know, today, I listened to the news and I heard the Member for Gander -

Twillingate. Gander - is that what they call it? Grand Falls - Gander?

MR. SIMMS: Grand Falls - Gander.

MR. TOBIN: Grand Falls - Gander.

MR. SIMMS: Gander - Grand Falls.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Baker, Mr. Speaker, talking about the big

federal government going to reduce the pensions of people in this Province by

three dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nine.

MR. TOBIN: Nine dollars. Well, Mr. Speaker, what is he

going to say about what his brother is going to do to the people of this

Province? When is the Member for Gander - Grand Falls going to tell us about how

he feels about what his brother is doing to the employees of this Province?

MR. SIMMS: He is not going to.

MR. TOBIN: When is he going to stand up and tell us what

he thinks of his brother and what he has done to the people of this Province?

MR. SIMMS: All politics, he's not going to do it. He is

playing little political games.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't know his brother. I know one of

his brothers, I was -

MR. SIMMS: You don't?

MR. TOBIN: No.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, worse than him.

MR. TOBIN: I met him once, Mr. Speaker. I know one of his

brothers well because myself and my colleague for Fogo, and his brother, and

some other people, were involved in our university days in the PC Party, back in

the 1970s.

MR. SIMMS: He was a PC, too?

MR. TOBIN: No, one of his brothers. We were fairly

actively involved, Mr. Speaker, on campus in the PC Party, and some other people

around.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were involved in other things, too.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was. As a matter of fact,

at one time I even received the Executive of the Year by the Newfoundland Sports

Federation for being executive of the year in this Province for Newfoundland and

Labrador. I was involved in a lot of things. But I was never, unlike the Member

for Placentia, involved in another party. Unlike the Member for Placentia, I

never ran for another party.

MR. SIMMS: What party did he run for?

MR. TOBIN: Placentia.

MR. SIMMS: For whom?

MR. TOBIN: Us.

MR. SIMMS: Ran for us?

MR. TOBIN: Yes!

MR. SIMMS: When? No, he didn't, he ran for the nomination

and couldn't get it.

MR. TOBIN: Well, he ran for the nomination.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, that's a big difference.

MR. TOBIN: Well, that's for our party.

MR. SIMMS: That's why he became a Liberal, he got mad.

Sooky.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it's not. And if he keeps up

interjecting I'll get Mr.... Sparrow, is it?

MR. SIMMS: Patterson.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Sparrow, the Independent. Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, I want to get back to this bill, because I have to point out the

hypocrisy of the Minister of Employment and Labour. I have to point out how he

stood on the steps of this building and went to the teachers because the

government was bad. And that same minister, that same teachers' leader who is

now a minister of the Crown has turned his back on the teachers, has betrayed

the teachers, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that him there?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that's him, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again. It doesn't make sense. I

don't understand what you are saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: We are talking about how 'Roger' cried on the

steps of Confederation Building with our government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. TOBIN: That is what I said. I said he betrayed the

teachers. He turned his back. The Liberals, for some reason, went out and got

him. He was attracted to Liberalism. The biggest conservative government that

this Province and this country has ever known, that is what he was attracted to.

He got in, and what did he do, Mr. Speaker, together with the Minister of

Environment? What did he do? He betrayed the teachers. He turned his back on the

very crowd that he lead to the picket lines in this Province. That is what he

did, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on the street.

MR. TOBIN: He should have left you on the street, too.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be interrupted because this is a

serious piece of legislation. Ask the nurses, ask the teachers, ask the Public

Service Commission, ask the crime-fighting organizations what they think of this

government, Mr. Speaker, and what they are doing to the people of this Province.

Ask them, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, that is not accurate.

AN HON. MEMBER: We never backed the 'Black Maria' in

here.

MR. SIMMS: We will see.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, they were talking (inaudible) so

the Member for Placentia must be talking about size.

AN HON. MEMBER: Waistbands.

MR. TOBIN: What we are talking about here is the

employees, all of the employees, Mr. Speaker, all of the employees in this

Province. We are not talking about them in any other way, Mr. Speaker, or any

other shape or any other fashion except as employees of government. I don't

know, Mr. Speaker, what the Member from Placentia was trying to talk about. Size

64 - I don't know what he is talking about.

But, in any case, Mr. Speaker, there are in this Province

today thousands and thousands of people who are dissatisfied with what this

government is doing. Make no mistake about that. And they are in your district,

too, I can tell you that. I can tell the member that there are some great people

who worked on his campaign the last time that will not be working on it next

time, and I know one, in particular.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no relevancy here.

MR. TOBIN: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your cousin.

MR. TOBIN: My cousin? I never said my cousin, Mr.

Speaker. Why does the member think it is my cousin?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will pass that on to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: That will surely make up their mind.

MR. TOBIN: That will surely make up