November

30, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 74

The House met at 2:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to

commend the leaders of the Province's five major churches for taking a

pro-active and public role in nurturing more responsible stewardship of fish

resources.

The formation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Inter-Church

Coalition for Fishing Communities was officially announced in churches on the

weekend by the five comprising denominations - the Anglican Church of Canada,

the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, the Roman Catholic Church, the

Salvation Army and the United Church of Canada.

As material circulated by the churches points out, "For the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, living in this fragile economy, the only

ethical course of action is to undertake an energetic and dedicated effort to

rebuild the fishery - stock by stock, and species by species."

That message, Mr. Speaker, echoes the much repeated clarion

call of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for better management of our

fish resources.

I point out that the five churches mentioned are circulating

a petition calling on everyone to make the achievement of optimal sustainable

levels on a stock by stock, species by species basis their highest priority for

fisheries policy.

Mr. Speaker, the petition further calls for "the

establishment of a form of joint management for the fishery, co-ordinated

between the federal and provincial governments, which ensures a rational,

non-political process, a process which strives for the full participation of the

people of fishing communities in a transparent, accountable, decision-making

process."

I do not need to remind this House that the Province has for

years been seeking joint fisheries management. With the moratorium on northern

cod, and other key groundfish stocks in serious decline, the need for joint

management is more critical than ever before. I point out that joint fisheries

management was a recommendation of Dr. Leslie Harris, who headed the task force

on northern cod, and of Mr. Aidan Maloney, who conducted the Commission of

Enquiry into the Erosion of the Newfoundland Fishery.

It is indeed encouraging that all of our major churches have

spoken with one voice to call for more responsible fisheries management, and for

shared management of fish resources. Again, Sir, I commend and support the

initiative they have taken, and I strongly recommend and urge that hon. members

also give it their full support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Member for Grand Bay.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement. Of course, the

news yesterday and today, all of the airwaves and the various media have been

covering this issue - this initiative taken by the five major churches in the

Province - the pro-active public role, I guess, in encouraging both levels of

government to take a joint management role in our Province's fishery. It is a

very, very important message, and one that we very strongly have supported over

the years on this side; an initiative that we had hoped would have been taken

before now, and that indeed this Province would have had a more major say in the

management over our most important industry, the fishery.

As I said on occasion last week, I think, we missed a couple

of good years. We really had an opportunity to put joint fisheries in the

forefront of the nation, but we missed some valuable time and I guess the

churches are concerned about that as well.

I want to commend the churches for taking this action. It is

nice to see that they are calling upon both governments to get on with it

because, as we all know, our fishery is in a critical state. The people about

the Province are suffering. The Province's economy is suffering, and I guess we

will probably be hearing a little more from the churches in the Province over

the next number of weeks, particularly if this government continues on its

collision course with the public servants of the Province. I expect that we will

hear more statements coming from the five churches in the Province about action

or inaction by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I ask leave to address the minister's

statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has consent.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also would like to join with the Minister of Fisheries and

Opposition House Leader in welcoming the initiative by the church denominations

on this issue of management of our offshore resource.

I would go further, as the Leader of the New Democratic

Party, in saying that not only must there be a management of the resource that

is closer to the Province in terms of joint federal/provincial management, but

that there also ought to be a role for the communities who are dependent upon

that resource to have a direct say.

I know the Member for Eagle River, for example, would support

that in terms of the Labrador coastal communities. There are many communities

around this Province, and regions, which are totally dependent on the fishery,

and they themselves ought to have a say in how that resource is used.

I think, Mr. Speaker, mechanisms have to be found to provide

some way for the communities themselves, and the participants in the fishery, to

have a direct say in how that resource is used and how jobs are provided.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, as it was outlined to me by one of

those involved, that the churches also see that as a way to go, and I am very

delighted to see that kind of local initiative coming from the churches and I

would like to see more support for that and some concrete mechanisms put forward

by all parties who are involved as to how that might be accomplished, but there

needs to be a say, a more direct say on behalf of the fishermen and the people

who are participating in the fishery. If that was there, Mr. Speaker, twenty

years ago, I do not think we would have faced the disaster we are facing now.

Oral Questions

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

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

some questions.

I understand that he has now said publicly outside the House

of Assembly, that it looks like it may be Monday of next week, the 7th of

December when the government brings down its economic statement. I do not know,

we have asked the question in the House several times as he knows and we have

never been given an answer in the House, but the media are reporting Monday,

December 7th as the date for that statement, and he has said that he was going

to wait until after Mr. Mazankowski's statement I think which is this Wednesday.

May I ask the Premier first of all, to clear up when is it

going to be, when are you going to do your statement, you must have a decision

made by now? Why exactly would you have to wait to explain to the public why you

want to wait until the federal minister's statement on Wednesday? What can

possibly be in that statement that you do not already expect, and more

specifically, in what way will it make a difference to the already difficult

task that you have at hand in trying to reduce a $150 million deficit, to begin

with?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Maybe I am mistaken or maybe the hon.

member is mistaken. I do not recall being asked several times in the House what

day it is going to be, but maybe I am mistaken; anyway, the record will show

that. I suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we were going to try and aim for the 7th,

but I also said to the media: if we do not make it on the 7th, don't say you

failed to meet your commitment, it may be the 8th or the 9th, or it could be the

4th for that matter. We could do it ahead of time on the 4th.

We wanted to wait until after Mr. Mazankowski delivered the

federal government's position, just in case. I do not know what is going to be

in it. The Prime Minister did not confide in me and I would not have expected

him to confide in me or any other premier for that matter, on what the federal

minister was going to include. We though it wiser for us to wait, so if we had

anything else to deal with, we would, at the very least be in a position of

dealing with it all at the same time. We just think that that is a more sensible

approach to it. But there may be absolutely nothing in the statement when it

comes down, when Mr. Mazankowski's statement comes down. There may be absolutely

nothing in it that would have directly impacted on the decision we have to make.

I don't know that there is, but I don't know that there isn't either. It is

erring on the side of caution that makes us take this decision.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if the statement is going to be

brought down next Monday, December 7, 8, or 9 - and I can assure the Premier we

have asked in this House on at least three occasions when the date is going to

be. We may not have asked him specifically, but acting ministers or whatever. In

any event, nearly a month will have passed from the time his Minister of Finance

brought down his statement on November 12 to the time when he brings down his

minibudget, December 7 or 8, whenever it is going to be.

Now, I have to ask the Premier this question: Doesn't he

realize that all of the uncertainty associated with this time lag is putting a

chill on consumer spending during a pretty high shopping season, the peak

shopping season. It is also putting people through a lot of periods of anxiety.

I am sure he is aware of that. Isn't he aware that businesses are complaining

and are hurting, and isn't he aware that, because of all of the uncertainty, his

own government's revenues are likely to erode even further? Doesn't he realize

what all of this uncertainty is doing to the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, maybe there is some

additional uncertainty, I don't know. But everybody in the Province, as a matter

of fact, just about everybody in the country, knows the difficult economic

situation - not just the Province, but the entire country.

I was speaking last night with Premier McKenna in New

Brunswick. They are running into exactly the same problems. Their problems are

essentially of exactly the same proportions as ours are, the same kind, running

into the same difficulty. It is happening in Ontario. I read the report in the

Globe and Mail this Saturday, what is happening with the Government of Ontario.

Everybody knows these circumstances.

Prudent managers, Mr. Speaker, don't rush at these decisions

and implement decisions that may turn out to have been unnecessary or an

inappropriate decision for the problem that we have to deal with. We also, Mr.

Speaker, have followed the practice, since we have been in power, of letting

people know as soon as we could what the circumstances are. We have been very

frank and straightforward with people. We have not made any final decisions yet.

We have some idea as to where we are going to go. We know, generally, some

directions that we have to take. We are going to wait until we have everything

done and make sure that we have to do all of the things or there is not some

better solution.

In the meantime, discussions are going on with the union

leaders, and hopefully those discussions will enable us to deal with the problem

in such a way as to cause the lease possible adverse impact on employees or

people generally who derive their income from the public sector and, in the end,

the least possible impact on the overall economy. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of

prudent management, not just simply rushing at the problem.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Premier's definition

of prudent management and the people's definition will be determined in due

course. Let me ask him this: Every day now for the last three weeks or so there

seems to be a new horror story about what the government plans to do in its

minibudget; rumours are rampant. I am sure the minister can agree with that, and

I am sure the Premier does. The latest public one is this story that some

hospital worker in Corner Brook was told by some management personnel over there

that severance pay would be reduced significantly or cut out altogether and that

if people are thinking of leaving in the near future, they had better do it by

Tuesday, I think, December 1st because if anything is going to happen, it is

going to be effective as of December 1st and so on. That rumour is running

rampant throughout the entire public service, by the way, according to the calls

we are getting at our office, not just from that hospital worker in Corner

Brook. So, I would like to give the Premier the opportunity to stand in the

House today and at least put that rumour to rest.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: With respect to the first of the comments

the Leader just made, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the federal government

knew days and weeks before we did what the overall situation would be, they knew

days and weeks before they told us what the circumstances are, they are going to

act by December 2nd. They are doing prudent management, I would suspect,

preparing for it to put it in the right place, to do it in the right way. We

were prepared to move rather more quickly until they stated that they were going

to make their economic policy statement on December 2nd, so, Mr. Speaker, I

think we are moving pretty prudently and moving expeditiously. I know the Leader

of the Opposition would like us to move irrationally and rush at something and

make a botch of it but we are not in the habit of doing that. Now, Mr. Speaker,

the second part of it, horror stories are rampant, horror stories are not

rampant, horror rumours are being generated and created, some of them by the

very comments that the Leader of the Opposition is making. There is not one iota

of substance to that, as far as I know. I mean, this is utter nonsense. There is

no credibility to it whatsoever but I am not even going to try to give it

credibility by pretending to deal with it in a serious fashion.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is why I wanted the Premier

to take the opportunity to clarify it, because I can tell him that these are not

rumours that we are starting. These are people calling, worried to death, who

are public servants, because they are hearing this rumour and they believe it to

be true.

Now let me ask one final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I

may. It seems as if we are really going through a replay of the 1990 Budget,

because the same thing happened in 1990; the same thing happened in 1991, and

now again in 1992, so the government has lots of experience in dealing with

messes of this sort - there is no question about that.

I want to ask him directly a very serious question about this

entire process: Was the Premier and/or the government informed by Department of

Finance officials, back in March of this year, just prior to the finalization of

their Budget, that the projected deficit this year was indeed going to be in

excess of $100 million? And did the government, in fact, ignore and reject those

facts that came from Finance officials and deliberately cooked the figures to

show a $29 million deficit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing asking the

government to deal with rumours. It is another thing fabricating and spreading

malicious, silly statements like that.

Mr. Speaker, what was in the Budget was exactly what Finance

officials advised - not one iota different. For the Leader of the Opposition to

stand in the House and make that statement is disgusting - disgusting.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

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

Premier also.

I ask the Premier: Does he not think it is hypocritical for

him to be espousing his support for a literacy movement while at the same time

he is shutting down libraries in the Province? I ask him: Does he not feel like

the Grinch when he is forcing library workers to take a week's unpaid holidays

at this time of the year, just before Christmas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that is another gross

misrepresentation.

Two years ago when the government cut back on the public

service generally, amongst others that were cut back were the libraries board.

Last year they tried to put this money back in. They cut back on other things

and hired in the public sector. Well that is up to them. They are running it;

but do not come complaining to government if they make the decisions to run it

in that way and say that government is closing the libraries. Government has

nothing to do with closing the libraries. Everybody has had a reduced budget -

the libraries board included. Their total budget this year is over $6 million -

over $6 million - and what they have done is put in an additional $170,000 in

last year's budget to replace the reductions that had taken place two years ago.

The government could not agree with that.

Now they decide to run it in the way in which they did, but

that is up to them to decide. We respect the independence and objectivity of the

Public Libraries Board. What is happening now is that the union that represents

the employees of the libraries are now organizing to try and make a collective

agreement argument, and try and cause me to meet with them. Well I do not meet

with employees and interfere with the collective bargaining process and with the

procedures that occur in collective bargaining.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, derisive laughter has never

been a substitute for intelligence, and it is not today either. It never has

been, and it will not be in years to come. It just displays a lack of

intelligence to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, that is all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government has provided

more than adequate support in terms of the financial circumstances in which the

whole Province finds itself.

There was an increase of nearly $400,000 over the prior year

provided to the Public Libraries Board. The figures I have here indicate that

1991-92 was $5,957,000. This year it went up to $6,400,000.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well let me ask the purest Premier, who does not interfere

with collective bargaining, if he realizes that there are many children

throughout this Province who, due to the poor economy that he and his government

are responsible for, do not have books of their own to read and have to depend

upon the libraries?

And I ask him also: Does he know that this is examination

time in many of our schools and universities? Our children rely - because they

haven't got resource books of their own - on the libraries. What's he going to

do to make sure that those libraries stay open?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We could direct the libraries board to

close them down at other than a time such as this. As I recall the statement

that was reported in the news media, they were doing this deliberately to try

and cause as much embarrassment and put as much pressure as possible on the

government. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that's the way the Province's Library Board is

going to be run by its executive director, or whoever is taking these decisions,

than maybe we might well have to take it over more directly and run it more

directly by Government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, seeing the Premier is completely

out of touch, I will go with a supplementary to the Minister responsible for

Employment and Labour Relations, a former president of the NTA. I ask him if he

realises that CEIC refer people who are looking for work - and of course that's

hundreds and hundreds in this Province now - those looking for work outside the

Province, they refer them to the libraries, because they have a source of

national papers and job opportunities. I ask him: will he put pressure on his

colleagues, and the minister responsible, to make sure that libraries are kept

open, not only for the youth of the Province, not only for the workers who are

out of work, but for those who are looking for work that they can't find in this

Province because of this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'll deal with that too, but

let me just - because I may have been mistaken. The difference was $181,000 more

this year than last year. That was the actual figure, of increase. But we didn't

give them the money to do what they specifically wanted to do, because of the

restraints.

Now if CEIC has been reduced - the great CEIC, Canada

Employment and Immigration Commission - has been reduced to referring job

applicants to public libraries to read newspapers, God help us, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: This certainly shows a premier who's out

of touch with what's happening, Mr. Speaker, when we see in this House of

Assembly a premier who can't find enough money to keep a few libraries open when

he can find $118,834 to provide furniture for the eighth floor and the eleventh

floor.

MR. TOBIN: His office and Cabinet room.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier if

he could inform this House what happened to the furniture that was replaced on

the eighth and eleventh floors? If it's in storage, would it be possible to make

arrangements for me to go have a look at the furniture that was replaced?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that there's

been any furniture replaced on the eleventh and eighth floor except: when we cut

the size of the Cabinet from twenty-three down to fifteen we put in place the

old Cabinet table that had been used for years and years. We brought it out of

storage - where the former government placed it and put in place all these new

expensive desks and equipment - and we distributed that around. I don't think

it's in storage but I'll check on it. I believe it's being used generally in the

public service - I don't know if the Minister -

MR. ROBERTS: Parts of it are in the Cabinet room.

PREMIER WELLS: I'll check and see. Some parts of it are

still being used as tables in the Cabinet room. But we went back and used the

old desks. There was a desk in my office that I gather the former premier used.

I don't know why in God's name he ever got rid of the old furniture.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - why he ever got rid of the old

furniture.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He didn't!

PREMIER WELLS: I'm back using the old furniture.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He didn't!

PREMIER WELLS: I'm back using the old furniture that was

there years and years before the former government took office. They put in

place - I don't know how much money they wasted on it - this old furniture, and

every time I moved I tore up my tie or my suit, because of the splinters coming

out. So, Mr. Speaker, I went back and I got the old furniture. So I don't know

that there's been any furniture replaced or in storage anywhere. The same

furniture is still there as far as I know.

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

Kilbride.

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

$118,000 I would imagine some of it has been replaced. Certainly in the meeting

room that the Premier is renovating. There had to be chairs in there that are

being replaced. I ask the Premier to undertake to make arrangements for me to

view what is in storage, if he could. I have another question for the Premier,

the Premier who can't find money to keep libraries open in this Province. Would

the Premier undertake to find out for this House if during the last month there

have been ten desks, and during the last week ten chairs, delivered to the

provincial courts in Atlantic Place, Mr. Speaker, at a reported cost of about

$60,000?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea, but I'll take

the question as notice. I do know we have ten judges down there who have managed

to bring the docket in the provincial court up-to-date for the first time in

many, many years - or more up to date. I'll take the question as notice and find

out. I have no idea what's been delivered down there. There may well have been

some furniture. I mean, there are people working there and they do need a place

to work, I will let the member know.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister, while he is looking into this, find out

what happened to the old furniture that was there, and if it is in storage,

would he also make arrangements for me to view the old furniture that is now in

storage, if that is (inaudible).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will get an answer to both

questions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to, I guess the acting

Minister of Education, in the absence of the minister.

The minister has a letter from the chairperson of the

Bonavista/ Trinity/Placentia School Board in which he says, and this is dated

November 24th: It is now six months since the beginning of our fiscal year and

we are still unable to finalize a budget because government has not yet

announced school board funding for the 1992-1993 school year.

Would the acting minister tell us what is going on and how

many school boards in the Province are in this position?

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

MR. BAKER: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the

boards have been advised of the allocations but just in case, I will have that

checked into in the next few minutes and advise the hon. member.

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

MR. TOBIN: Does anyone know what is going on?

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The board in the letter says, it has had to beg the

government for interim grants to pay salaries, and spending on their maintenance

and curriculum had to be curtailed and cancelled in some cases. I think it is

shameful that this government is so incompetent that, after eight months of a

year, the school board still does not know what level of funding. Could he

advise the House, also, as to what level of funding they are to achieve for this

year?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, off the top of my head, I do not

have the numbers for all the boards and so on. However, I can tell the hon.

member that the amount of funds, the direct money that government gives to

school boards in the Province for next year will be approximately, I believe, $8

million more than in the previous year. We have committed more funding, more

money to the school boards in terms of funding than ever before.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This problem seems to be related to the elimination of school

tax. Can the minister explain why, after three years of planning to do away with

school tax, the minister and his department have not yet figured out how they

are going to fund school boards. I ask, is this gross incompetence?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Member for

Ferryland to relax a little bit and I will explain to him exactly what happened

in that regard.

The school tax was abolished, and I think people all over

this Province are very happy with the fact that the school tax was abolished;

number one.

Number 2: We have replaced the school tax revenue that would

have otherwise been collected by the school tax, we have replaced it from

general government revenues.

Number 3: We have, on top of that, added equalization. We

have put more money on top of all that, on top of the school tax money, on top

of the previous partial equalization, we have added an extra $8 million to pay

out to the school boards of the Province. Mr. Speaker, there is more money in

the budget now for the coming year and there will be for the coming year than

there has ever been before, and I would like to point out to the hon. member

that that applies to all, to every single school board in the Province, and not

just to the ones outside St. John's. It even applies to the St. John's school

boards, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have been aware of the $10 million in equalization.

The question I asked is: after three years of planning, does the government have

a policy on how they are going to fund school boards, and furthermore, I will

also ask the acting minister, will the minister answer a question referred to in

a letter by the chairperson of that board that refers to clawbacks? Is it

government's intention to claw back school taxes received by the school boards

during the period April to June of this year?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as

clawbacks in the context that the hon. gentleman is talking about. I can only

say to him that the planning has been done. More money has been put into the

school boards and to the school board system, in this Province and it has been

distributed more equitably this time than ever before in our history -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: - because we do not agree as members opposite

did with providing differential funding around this Province and making school

boards in the poorer parts of this Province suffer. We do not agree with that

and we have corrected that inequity, we put more money in the whole system, and

that is good planning, I say to the hon. gentleman.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister

saying that after three years of planning to eliminate school tax, there is now

no funding policy, as such, specifically in place? If it has been in place, why

haven't the boards received their funding this year to date?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time the boards

know exactly what funding they will have, and I said to the hon. member in the

answer to my first question, in case he did not listen - he is not listening

now, but in case he did not listen the first time, I will say to him that I have

asked somebody right now to check on that, because it is my belief that they now

know exactly what funds they will have for the next year as much as it is

possible to do in any year, at this point in time. They now know, however, I

have asked somebody to check to make sure and I will inform the hon. gentleman

there is no need to get all excited about that. I will get back to him.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister responsible for

Employment and Labour Relations. I am sure he is familiar with the media reports

concerning teachers in Western Labrador, having to withdraw their volunteer

services last week, which has brought an end to practically all the extra

curricular activities in schools in Western Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the teachers

did this because they have acted out of frustration, anxiety and fear that a

government is again going to be tearing up the collective agreement that they

negotiated a couple of years ago. Given his portfolio as Minister responsible

for Employment and Labour Relations and his past history in the labour movement,

I wonder if he can guarantee the teachers in Western Labrador and, of course,

the teachers throughout this Province, that in the interest of treating teachers

and people in the labour movement with fairness and balance, treating them

fairly and in the exercise of good labour practice, can he guarantee them that

these collective agreements will not be torn up?

MR. SIMMS: A good question.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his

question. It took him a little while to get to the question but in terms of the

answer, to try to point this out, over the last couple of years, these

particular teachers, because they have a separate bargaining unit, have taken

upon themselves this particular action. They and only they will answer to the

public for their actions. I cannot answer for their actions, nor can you, nor

can anybody else in this House of Assembly, they will answer to the public for

their actions. If you are proposing that they are taking these actions because

something has happened to their collective agreement, then I do not understand

the premise for that suggestion, because absolutely no decisions have been taken

at this point in time with respect to teachers in Labrador West, teachers

anywhere else in the Province or other members of the public service working in

the Province. There are discussions ongoing, as has been pointed out in this

Legislature today, there will be decisions taken at an appropriate time and

announced, the unions are being involved, their leadership is being involved in

the discussions. and only they can answer for their actions that they are now

publicly taking and they must take responsibility for that.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister may not know why

they are taking their actions but I am sure that they will remember, the

teachers will remember that he did not live up to his responsibility to their

movement, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister is aware of the

fact that the teachers in Western Labrador are facing unemployment and cutbacks

in their salaries, Mr. Speaker, because of the minibudget that has been

announced by this administration? Does he also know that the mining companies

have cut their grants to the school boards because of this infamous payroll tax

reform that this regime, which you are a part of, has instituted, and that

because of this, Mr. Speaker, they face layoffs and cutbacks in their salaries?

Are you aware of this?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, absolutely not! If anyone is

portraying to the public in this Province, whether out of Labrador West or

anywhere else, that this government has made decisions that will have that kind

of an impact, that would have to be an improper representation of the facts that

are before all of us, up to this point in time.

Now, there are discussions still ongoing. There are all kinds

of discussions still ongoing that will become the full knowledge of everybody at

an appropriate point in time. There are good discussions ongoing. A lot of

people, by the way, are doing good constructive work to try to make sure that

the best possible decisions, in everybody's best interest, are made at this

particularly difficult time. If somebody wants to go forward and portray it as

certain decisions already being made by this government, that is not true, that

hasn't happened. The only thing is that the Minister of Finance has alerted the

Province, generally, that we have a problem, that we are going to bring down

some kind of a financial statement and a minibudget which was asked about today.

It could be anytime, December 4, 8, 9 or 10. The decisions will be announced at

that time.

Now, the rumours, the speculation and so on: If anybody wants

to go around and take action, like the teachers in Labrador West are doing now,

based on rumour, innuendo, speculation, that is up to them to decide. As I have

indicated before, only they can answer to the public, to the students and to the

parents for that, not I, not anybody on this side of the House, not anybody on

that side of the House. The reality is, whether people choose to believe it or

not, that no decisions have been taken that any teacher and/or any other public

servant could say impacts in this way on me and my prospects for future

employment, because it hasn't happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

Section 13 of The Auditor

General Act, I hereby table a special report of the Auditor General regarding

the audit of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Government House Leader for

consenting to the introduction of, and granting leave to present a petition

which is not in the exact form that is recommended for petitions to government.

I have the honour today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition

on behalf of 4,000 residents of the Province of Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: And Labrador.

MR. HARRIS: - Newfoundland and Labrador, concerning the

...

I want to thank the Member for Eagle River, Labrador, for

reminding me of that.

This petition is from 4,000 people who are concerned about

libraries in this Province, and literacy. They say in their petition that

libraries ensure that important information and knowledge is available to all.

In smaller and remote communities, libraries are often the only place to get

reading materials, news magazines, and research data.

This is a petition to the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador requesting that they provide funding to keep libraries open in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is from many of those small

communities around the Province, from Embree, Twillingate, Pasadena, Codroy,

Port aux Basques, St. George's, Cow Head, Lumsden, and many other places.

I do not see any specific petitions here from Labrador, but I

know that particularly in Labrador, where the availability of access to

particularly written information is very difficult, that these are of particular

importance there.

Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis in this Province that is being

addressed in the wrong way. As a result of the inadequate funding that the

government has given to libraries; as a result of government decisions in other

areas, employees are being asked to pay an extraordinary and unnecessary price

for having jobs that happen to be in the public service or supported by public

funds.

Today there are, in the House, library workers who are here

to protest the actions of the government in providing inadequate funding to

libraries. They are here because they are not working this week, as they have

not been working another week this year, and neither are they getting paid. For

two weeks out of the fifty-two week year these employees, as a result of

inadequate government funding, are not getting paid. That is tantamount to

saying that there is an additional tax on their income to support the library

service and to support some of the government services. These people are being

asked to suffer a loss of 4 per cent of their gross income because they are

unable to work because of the inadequate funding that has been given to

libraries.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you can cut it whatever way you want. The

Premier can say what he likes about the operation of the boards, but these

individual employees are being asked to bear a burden that no one else is being

asked to share. They are having their incomes cut by 4 per cent in order to

support the public provision of library services.

This is a terrible situation, and I hope that it does not

foreshadow what actions this government is going to take in the next number of

days and weeks in addressing the financial difficulties of the Province.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to hear about

government workers being asked to forego income as an additional tax on their

specific incomes, and that any hardships or any cutbacks that might occur be

shared equally amongst the taxpayers of this Province.

We have a bad example being set here. Whether it is being set

by the Public Libraries Board themselves or being forced on them by this

government, it's something that we will oppose as strongly as possible. I know

that the teachers will oppose most strongly and most vociferously and most

politically actively in the coming weeks and months. If this government tries to

impose this kind of additional taxation on people in the form of lost income and

lost wages, there's going to be a very heavy price to pay at the polls come next

election.

So I ask, along with these petitioners, that the government

do provide sufficient funding to keep these libraries open so that the students,

the public, and, as the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes pointed out, those

looking for information about jobs and employment, can have access to public

libraries which they deserve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to rise to

address the petition that was presented and probably add some light to some of

the statements that were given by the hon. member.

First off, I had the pleasure of spending Friday and most of

Saturday in Toronto with tourism ministers. In private discussions with a number

of ministers from Ontario they advised me at that time that they were getting

ready to cut $600 million from their budget. They anticipated that not only

would all government departments be affected, but also they anticipated that

libraries as well would be included.

When the member talks in terms of the fact that we have

forced people to do things, I should point out very quickly that this government

forced upon the Public Libraries Board an additional $185,000. That was done in

a time when most other government departments were being cut back. So an

additional $185,000 was put into the Libraries Board.

Maybe the problem that we do have is that the Libraries Board

themselves have been acting and have been operating independent of government.

The Auditor General in their report for the last number of years, and in

particular last year, submitted a very scathing report with respect to the

Public Libraries Board for their tendering policies. I understand also from my

hon. colleague for St. John's South that the Public Accounts Committee did

likewise in a recent meeting.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Libraries Board

was to adhere to the Public Tendering Act alone that they would have probably,

in savings, netted enough money to keep the libraries open. I wouldn't say they

would have done it entirely. I'll cite one example that was brought forward by

the Public Accounts Committee or by the Auditor General. One in particular was

the tendering practice to purchase two vehicles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three.

MR. WALSH: Three vehicles? The design was so specific

that they got down to exactly what colour the vehicle should be on the inside.

It had to have a red interior. Because there was only one person in town who

could provide a vehicle right down to the final detail we probably - or the

Libraries Board - probably spent thousands of dollars in excess of what was

needed to purchase those vehicles, because the detail was so specific. I say to

you that a lot of those dollars could have gone to keeping the libraries open.

Mr. Speaker, it's regrettable that the libraries have been

closed for two weeks. In St. John's, as was pointed out this morning when I met

with people who work there, in actual fact in St. John's the libraries have been

closed for three weeks so far. In one week they were actually closed down while

a new coding system was put in place, and regrettably people were unable to use

the libraries during that coding process as well. That was something that was

done to make the libraries more efficient; but in actual fact here, two weeks

for budget reasons, they were also closed for one week so a coding process could

take place.

What I'm saying is, when you look at the some $700,000 that

was spent to purchase books last year, if that had gone through a proper

tendering process we wouldn't be in the shape we're in today.

I want to say also that in October I met with the

representatives of the Libraries Board and explained to them my concerns, and

explained to them what I felt would be a plan of action that we could put in

place to avoid this week's close down. I suggested a number of things, some of

which included: 1) that we collectively appoint two independent groups to come

together. Representatives of the Libraries Board, representatives of my

Department, the possibility of some of the employees being represented. Then

also, I suggested that we appoint an independent third person to chair the

gathering to see how we could together, collectively look at the budget of the

public libraries, to see where some funds could be saved and what we could do to

avoid the closing that is taking place this week. The response I received from

the Libraries Board was a letter asking me to define more clearly what my

intention was and more clearly what it was that we were going to discuss. We end

up here today, Mr. Speaker, with the libraries closed for yet one more week.

I am not sure what else we can do as a government or what I

can do as the minister responsible than to ask the parties involved to come to

the table so that at least we can have an opportunity to look at the budget

process, so that we could avoid what is happening this week. We have done our

part in trying to do that, but I can assure this hon. House and I can assure the

people of the Province and I can assure the people who are working at the

libraries, that as minister, I do not intend to see the tendering process abused

in the future as it has been in the past, and that I intend to ensure that if

the people involved are not going to follow the tendering process to the letter,

so that we could get best value for the money that we are spending on behalf of

the people of this Province, then I will ask Cabinet to put a group of people in

place that will allow us to do that or ensure that we do that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WALSH: - and if I might, just in conclusion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALSH: -and if I might, in conclusion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are two members standing and we cannot have two, we can

only have one standing. I will ask the hon. member to take his place as well.

I remind hon. members that when the Chair says the time is

up, then the hon. member should sit down. If he wants to, he can ask leave of

the House to continue but he should not carry on, so the minister's time is up.

MR. WALSH: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, not while I'm standing

he won't.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a petition here before this House with

4,000 signatures on it from all around the Province, at least from all around

the Island part of the Province that we know of from what the member read out,

and what do we have here but a weak-kneed minister who gets up here and attacks

the Libraries Board because they have to close the libraries. The minister does

nothing.

The first major problem that he has had in his department and

he hides his head in the sand. Not only does he hide his head in the sand, he

stands up here proud of the fact that the St. John's libraries had to be closed

for three weeks instead of two weeks. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is not the most

useless thing you have ever heard from a minister, I don't know what is.

4,000 people petition this House of Assembly for our support

in keeping the libraries open. Did they get the support from the minister who

could do this with the stroke of a pen? He broke the rules of the House of

Assembly by standing up here and not speaking in support of the petition as our

rules say, he got up and spoke against it, which he is not supposed to do

according to the rules anyway. He got up and spoke against it, he spoke of being

proud that the St. John's libraries were closed for three weeks, how are the

libraries in this Province supposed to benefit from a minister who is in charge

of them if they cannot at least get the support?

The people who signed this petition can at least get his

support to keep the libraries open in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We had 4,000

people sign this petition in this Province, some probably from Shea Heights too.

I think there is a small library up there, I do not know, unless you have that

closed down too since I have left, have you? I do not know if you closed that

one down too, there was a small one up there at one time, but, Mr. Speaker, we

cannot find a few dollars to open up the libraries in this Province yet we can

find for the eleventh and eighth floors, $598,000 to make a few changes because

it did not suit the Premier.

We can find half-a-million dollars for renovations to the

eighth and ninth floors and included on top of that, we can find $118,834 for

some furniture for the Premier's office and for the eleventh floor that already

had the best kind of furniture that you could buy. He even supplied us with the

cost of the furniture that was put in there before. There was $148,000 worth of

furniture put on the eighth floor alone in 1985. But that wasn't good enough for

the Premier, Mr. Speaker, he needed another $118,000 besides that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lies! Lies!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Premier

would need that much money when we can't find a few extra dollars to keep

libraries in this Province operating. Mr. Speaker, we all know the illiteracy

problem we have in this Province.

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 hate to interrupt the Member

for Kilbride when he is responding to a petition, but on three occasions, heard

by, I am sure, most everyone in the House, the Member for Carbonear has said,

`Lies,' very loudly. We can't let that go on because that is not parliamentary

and he must withdraw that.

I mean, what the member is referring to are figures that the

Premier tabled in the House of Assembly, that he is reading from. They are not

his own figures, they are the Premier's figures. The member must be corrected,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, on several occasions

last week the Chair made reference to the fact that members are sitting in their

seats and responding while other members are making a speech, shouting out lies.

The Chair has said that this is unparliamentary. The Chair did hear the word,

but I can't say who it came from. But an hon. member, if he said it, would stand

and withdraw it.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member for St. John's East, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is the duty of

all members of the House, when unparliamentary language is being used, to advise

the Chair of that. If the Speaker couldn't identify the member, I could. It was

the member for Carbonear, Mr. Speaker, who on three occasions said, `Lies', in

reference to the speech of the hon. member. I think the hon. member should be

asked to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point order, the Chair can't name a

person at this point when, as I said, the Chair doesn't know. The Chair will

check the Hansard. If the hon. member has said it, then he can clear the air

very quickly and get up and make the withdrawal. If not, he can wait until I

check Hansard.

The hon. the member for Carbonear?

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Kilbride -

MR. REID: He doesn't seem to be looking for an apology,

Mr. Speaker, I don't think.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not to him, but to the members of

the House that the member owes an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, yes, I don't have any problem

withdrawing. I have been sitting in this House, Mr. Speaker, for the last two or

three weeks listening to unadulterated mistruths.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All the hon. member is entitled to do, all he is supposed to

do is make a withdrawal.

The hon. the member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter if he

withdrew or he apologized or not. Nobody listens to him. The Premier doesn't

listen to him, the people of Carbonear don't listen to him and, Mr. Speaker, I

certainly don't listen to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, he knows something

more than I do. Maybe these figures are not true. He may have some more

information that these renovations may have cost more. Maybe the hon. member

would like to get up and tell us what he thinks the renovations cost and why we

have the libraries in this Province closed down, when the Member for Carbonear

keeps standing up defending the Premier's spending $750,000 on renovations to

two floors that were done only four or five years ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Order 13, the adjourned Second Reading

debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate, the hon. the member

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

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

On Friday, I adjourned the debate on the Shops Closing Act. I

was pointing out a couple of concerns, extremely important ones, in fact. I

wonder if the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations shouldn't be called

Roger Flutie because he seems to be pulling a quarterback sneak on this one,

trying to get the stores open on designated holidays so that then they can say,

`Well, everyone is working anyway. Look around you, everyone is working. So why

shouldn't the public servants work on the same day.' The next piece of

legislation we will see in this hon. House is a bill that eliminates the four

days that have been taken away from the list of holidays. The people in the

Province should be very, very concerned about this, especially the public

servants.

We saw in the report - and I referred to that briefly on

Friday - submitted by the Chairman the back-up information coloured so that it

would appear that almost everybody is in favour of this legislation anyway.

Those who came to the hearings, you know, supported it. Employers are all for

it. CBC Crosstalk: A lot of calls were in favour of it. Look, if I wanted to

doctor an open line show tomorrow I could easily do it. I know a few hundred, a

few thousand people who could easily call in and stack any Open Line as all of

us have done, I suppose, from time to time. It is quite easy to get a few to

call in if you know an issue is going to be on Crosstalk or Open Line or

anything else, and be all for it. Any politician worth his salt will never lose

a poll on an Open Line show if he has any organization at all, and that is what

we find in the report. What has Crosstalk got to do with the Shops Closing Act

or the hearings? I didn't see Ann Budgell coming up to the hearings and telling

us that she was in favour of the store closing days or that she had so many

calls. It just added a little bit to the report which seemed to weigh it in

favour of the minister because the government wanted to push through these

holidays, the elimination of the four holidays, so then, they could eliminate

them from the docket of the public servants of the Province and that next year

or the year after, we will see that we have cut our statutory holidays down to

the minimum and government is saving a lot of money.

Mr. Speaker, we saw the representatives of the largest unions

in the Province come before the committee to say that they were not in favour of

the elimination of these days as holidays for people who work in the stores. If

we look at the larger centres, especially here in St. John's, most of the people

employed right now are employed in the various stores. If stores are allowed to

open on the four days designated, that means practically ever family is involved

in having somebody going to work, whether it be the mother or father or

whatever, you may say well what difference does that make, well it means that

people who have holidays such as us and the public servants for this year can go

shopping and enjoy ourselves but other people have to give up that day to go to

work. What we are also forgetting are the days involved, now one of them I have

no serious problem with and that is Discovery Day because the argument can be

made, has been made and undoubtedly will be made again, that Newfoundland was

not Discovered on June 24th, 1497, that John Cabot was only another visitor, we

already know, have proof on the Northern Peninsula that the Norwegians were here

years ago. When they came we had natives here to meet them and, of course, a

recently discovered Irish manuscript basically proves that St. Brendan, in his

voyages, as was always taught, came to Newfoundland back in the 6th century. So,

consequently, Discovery Day means very, very little, except the time frame of

the holidays. We had a gentleman who came before the committee, an individual

who, on his own, came in because he felt strongly about the elimination of

holidays and he made a few good points that nobody else did. He said, if you

look at the time frame of our holidays, they fit in well with our overall scheme

of things in living in Newfoundland and Labrador. We don't have the best

climate, our geography is pretty rough, our terrain is rough and rugged, our

transportation and communication systems, although they have improved, still

have a long way to go - but the holidays that we get, give us that break, give

us time with our families. Discovery Day is right at school's end, a good

weekend to take off on a camping trip with the family, after the pressure is off

the exams. The family can relax and go off for the extra day. We have St.

Patrick's Day in the middle of March and what better time to have a holiday than

in the middle of March? Then, you go on to St. George's Day at the end of April,

a long drag before you get into May and so on. All of these holidays are little

rewards, I suppose, that we have for living in the tough environmental

conditions and tough overall economic conditions that we have in a Province like

ours.

But there is also something else of extreme importance that I

mentioned on Friday, and I am glad to see the Member for Harbour Grace is in his

seat today because he was not here Friday, I do not believe when we debated

this. What they are talking about here is really the eventual elimination of

Orangemen's Day and St. Patrick's Day and St. George's Day but let's even up

with Orangemen's Day and St. Patrick's Day. These two days in Newfoundland have

a long history of tradition. For years people of different religious persuasions

paraded, celebrated, historical events, religious events, that happened years

ago.

I understand - I could be wrong on this - but I understand

that perhaps outside of Ireland, Newfoundland is the only place where St.

Patrick's Day is a holiday. For 37 per cent of the Irish Catholic population of

Newfoundland, St. Patrick's Day used to be one of the three most important days

of the year. You had Christmas Day, Easter and St. Patrick's Day, and I'm not

sure which one came first. Because, up our way, the celebration of St. Patrick's

Day took forefront over, I would say, certainly Easter, maybe even Christmas.

Even today, all through my district, through Ferryland district, into Placentia,

and I'm sure, in many other parts of the Province, St. Patrick's Day is a day

when the Irish Catholics celebrate. We have our BIS here in St. John's, with the

St. Patrick's Day parade, and, of course, we look to other places like New York

and Boston and so on. So, these are extremely important days.

Now, you might say: What has that got to do with the bill?

What we are seeing here now is that on St. Patrick's Day and on July 12,

Orangemen's Day, and on St. George's Day, all the stores will be open. The malls

will be open. So, number one, most of the people who live in St. John's, the

larger centre, will now be working. And, as I said, it is undoubtedly the thin

edge of the wedge. Because if all these people are working then why shouldn't

everybody else? It would be just as well for everybody else to work then. We

will see the minister coming in next year saying: Well, now we feel that these

days are not important anymore, and we will eliminate them from our provincial

holiday list, and the work force of the Province will also be forced to go to

work on these days.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we are setting a very dangerous

precedent by toying with these days, especially the two that I mentioned,

Orangemen's Day and St. Patrick's Day. Because a lot of people in the Province

strongly celebrate Orangemen's Day, and you can't do it if half your membership

is working, if you are involved with clubs and parades and everything else.

Certainly, in my own case, to say that I know what St. Patrick's Day means up

around - people would suggest -

MS. COWAN: Maybe they would rather be paid than parade.

MR. HEARN: The minister, who says very little when she is

supposed to speak, the Minister of Environment, who says very little when she is

asked a question, interjects from her seat: Maybe they would rather be paid than

parade. Maybe you should take a poll of the workers of the Province and see are

they willing to give up these days. They aren't paid holidays anyway, so it

doesn't make any difference. They like the day off because it gives them time

with their families to celebrate historic and religious events, which are

extremely important to the culture and history of this Province we live in.

One of the strengths of this Province, if we are going to

come out of the economic doldrums that we're in, one way to do it is through the

field of tourism. We have in this Province a few specific days - forgetting our

resources and our attractions. We have a few days in this Province, because of

the way we celebrate them, we can draw people from all over. Two of them being

Orangemen's Day and St. Patrick's Day. We have had people from all over who

flocked to Newfoundland because of the way we enjoy ourselves and celebrate. We

are getting away from the long, dreaded, dreary winter and having a bit of fun

and relaxation. But most of these events can only take place because everyone is

free to participate.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, and we will be suggesting, that

the list of holidays be left as is. That is what our members on the Committee

stated, that the list should be left alone. We agree, as I mentioned, with the

omission of the clause regarding Sunday closing. Leave it as is. We agree with

Thanksgiving Day going back, but the rider being the other days should also be

put in. This government was taking out Thanksgiving Day. I know there isn't much

in this Province to be thankful for over the last three or four years. There

certainly isn't very much and maybe it would be just as well to eliminate

Thanksgiving Day. But people still look beyond the fact - they are not thankful

for this government, they are thankful for the free and open society that we

live in and they would like to give thanks.

But I suggest to members that if you want to talk about

history, if you want to talk about tradition, if you want to talk about culture,

and if you want to talk about the way people feel - if you ask people whether

they want to keep Thanksgiving Day, or Boxing Day, or Victoria Day, compared to

Orangemen's Day or Paddy's Day, then I would suggest that both of these latter

days will come certainly up the line ahead of many of the holidays on our list.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the House, when we go to make

final decisions on this, that we leave well enough alone. I would suggest to the

people out there who are not aware of what is trying to be sneaked through here

by the quarterback, that this is just the crack in opening the door which will

now see the government eliminate forever, from the books in Newfoundland,

certain days as holidays. To me, it is a shame that this be allowed to happen.

We have a lot of things here to be proud of, but if we start

whittling away at our history and our tradition and our culture, then we are

going to be just the same as everybody else, and that is one of the reasons they

will give you. No one else in Canada has as many holidays as we have. Nobody

else in Canada deserves as many holidays as we do. Nobody else in Canada has to

go through the rough times that we do. So consequently, I don't apologize to

anybody because we have a day or two more off a year than anybody else in

Canada.

Is that why we are cutting out days, because we now have more

holidays than anybody else in Canada? We have to be like every other Canadian?

Whatever they do in Montreal we must do here? Whatever they do in Toronto we

must do here? Mr. Speaker, we are different. We should be proud that we are

different, and we should keep that proud feeling that we have, that we are

different, because if we are going to attract attention here, if we are going to

boost our tourism industry, then they are not going to come here if we are the

same as everybody else.

Who is going to come here from Toronto if we are like

Toronto? Who is going to come here from Montreal if we are like Montreal? Who is

going to come here from - I was going to say 'Tickle Harbour'. Who is going to

come here from Halifax if we are like Halifax? No one. We are different, we

should remain different, and we are here on the verge of changing that

difference, of eliminating that difference, so that now we are the same as

everybody else. Mr. Speaker, when you look at everybody else, I would say to

you, it is not a very pretty sight.

So, hopefully, before the day is over we will see some

consensus in leaving well enough alone. Because I think the minister, getting

all tied up in the pressures that he is facing with teachers and everything

these days, really forgot the significance of the days that he is trying to

eliminate, and will probably go to his colleagues and we will see the days that

I mentioned added on to the list.

The other sections of the amendment we have no problems with

at all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words. I am certainly not

going to be long-winded, but I would have a few words pertaining to Bill 22. I

have no problem with Clause 3. I have seen, over the past number of years, where

it was not lawful for stores to open, and they did open, and the fines were so

minimal that they possibly made it in the first twenty minutes they were open.

So the rest of the day was scot-free. I have no problem with increasing the

fines in that area. If that is the law, then everybody has to abide by it, and

if you are part of a conglomerate you have no more right than the ordinary

individual.

The other thing I see about it, the present system where

those big stores are closed, I have no problem with them staying closed. That

gives the corner store people a chance to make a few dollars over the weekends

and holidays and whatever. Those are the people who depend on those days when

you can't go to the big store, so you go to the corner store. It makes for a

better economy, especially in the rural areas - and not alone in the rural

areas, I suppose, but in the urban areas, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with the thinking of this

government. There are two days there - my name may not suggest it but yes, my

ancestors are Irish. I have great respect for them, but I have great respect, as

well, for many other people, no matter what their religion, their history, or

where they or their ancestors came from.

Mr. Speaker, this government seems to be taking away the bit

of religious history that we always cherished and a day that we always looked

forward to. I can remember home, as a boy, my mother making the shamrock. I can

recall it. We were so proud to wear that shamrock and go to mass on Paddy's Day.

I don't think that minister has a right to take that away. We still have Paddy's

Day. But you can't do it if you're working. I don't think the government has a

Irish, Scotch, Welsh, or from the Scandinavian countries. A community that I

come from, there were all sections there. People from Norway, that originated in

the Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Scotland, England.

I'd have to be truthful, in saying to the hon. Member for

Harbour Grace, he knows, and the hon. Member for Carbonear - there was a lot of

animosity out there between Orangemen's Day and St. Paddy's Day. Look, that all

went with the tide. There isn't any more of it. I now attend Orangemen's Day

with the boys just the same as they come over and attend ours. It's a bit of a

unification thing now. It's something that everyone looks forward to. It's a

holiday, like my friend and colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes pointed out.

Those holidays are unique in different times of the year that

respond to the needs of the people at those particular times. Mr. Speaker, I

know that the Member for St. John's South will agree with me, that there were a

lot of great things that happened on St. Paddy's Day, and so will the Member for

Harbour Grace agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member for Eagle River. I told him

before he was wet behind the ears and he's getting wetter. Wetter! If he keeps

it up he'll never get beyond the seat where he is now. Never get beyond it.

Instead of improving you're going the opposite way. I thought that when you came

in the House, I said: you know, there's a fine young man now, perhaps the same

age as one of my sons, one of my younger sons, in fact, and I said he perhaps

has the credentials and perhaps the ingenuity, and the wherewithal to get - the

Premier will make him a minister some day. But now I can see, no way. He even

doesn't understand our religious history. He doesn't understand it. The little

boy, he's only a boy, he never lived through it.

I heard the Minister of Environment today. It was pathetic

what she said: wouldn't they want to get paid for the days rather than take them

off? Mr. Speaker, I lived in an age when there weren't very many people out

there getting paid. Very few getting paid. We always had St. Paddy's Day. I'm

sure the Orangemen always had Orangemen's Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: You belong with Loyola boy, retire.

MR. PARSONS: They all had their fine days, and days that

we all respected and cherished and looked forward to. The hon. Member for Eagle

River, like I said, he's only a boy. He got up one day in the House, sure, and

asked me what did I know about Goose, up in Labrador. I was in Labrador before

he was born, before he was thought about. Now he's over there yakking away. It's

just like a ripple, a ripple in a very small stream. The stream is not going

anywhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: Yes. A little gurgle coming from over there.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That's Crosbie.

MR. PARSONS: Oh, glory be. Oh my. What you don't have to

listen to. But, Mr. Speaker, the other part that frightens me about this

government, and I want to say to the Minister of Labour now, he's part of this

government, he's an ex-teacher, an ex-president of the Newfoundland Teachers

Association. I'm very leery about some of the provisions they brought in too to

do away with the denominational educational system. They're trying to do away

with that - the religion in our schools. Now they're here today trying to take

away the two holidays that we look forward to in a religious aspect, in a

religious vein. They're doing the same thing with the denominational educational

system, they are trying to get rid of that through the back door and my friends

for Fogo and St. Mary's - The Capes, both colleagues said it right, they said:

this is a thin edge of the wedge and that is what is coming.

The elimination of those holidays, the elimination of the

holidays for poor people, for poor people, not for the people who can afford to

take a trip here or a trip there, it is the poor working class and they are the

people to whom we have to give some thought; they are the people who are making

the bucks out there, who keep the country, the Province running. Those are the

people who have every right to have that holiday and we should not sit here in

our grand seats, in our grand offices and say: look, eliminate it.

Who are we eliminating or what are we eliminating, the rights

of the ordinary people -

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Minister of Environment and Lands may

not understand, perhaps she did not come from an ordinary setting, but an awful

lot of us here did. I do not know but she should be back in her seat -

AN HON. MEMBER: The little red hen.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, little red hen -

Back on her roost. But Paddy's day was a great day. I am very

proud that I was part of it for a great number of years. I always had a lot of

fun on it, but I have stated to hon. gentlemen here today that I had just as

much fun up at the Masonic when we all went up there too, and had a spree -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. PARSONS: Oh, indeed we did -

AN HON. MEMBER: You were not let in up at the Masonic.

MR. PARSONS: Oh indeed I was, that old stuff went out

years and years ago and I saw a lot of animosity, a lot of hard feelings when I

was boy -

AN HON. MEMBER: All this happened when the new Minister

of Justice arrived.

MR. PARSONS: All this happened when the new Minister of

Justice arrived. Now I am not sure if he believes in anything -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is an Orangeman.

MR. PARSONS: He was supposed to be an Orangeman and I

can't see for the life of me -

AN HON. MEMBER: An Orangeman?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, he was an Orangeman -

AN HON. MEMBER: They would not take him in, he said.

MR. PARSONS: They would not take him in. Perhaps this is

where this is coming from, that is his way of getting back at the Masonic Lodge;

that is the way for him to get back to the Orangemen; that is the way the

Minister of Justice is getting back at the Orangemen: I am cutting out your

holiday.

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not like anybody.

MR. PARSONS: The Minister of Justice does not like

anyone. He does not like the Micks or the Orangeman, so there you are, there is

the Minister of Justice. Do away with the holidays that will give both of them a

bit of leisure time, both the Micks and the Orangeman, that is where it comes

from. I did not realize until he walked into the Legislature that is why this

legislation is before the House at this particular time. It is the new Minister

of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is getting back at them.

MR. PARSONS: Oh yes, he is getting back at the Orangemen,

they would not let him in. I don't know if I had been an Orangeman at the time

if I would have let him in either, but I certainly would not allow him into the

Knights of Columbus, I would be one person who would stand up and say: no, not

him.

AN HON. MEMBER: They kicked him out of the Boy Scouts.

MR. PARSONS: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I do not know if they ever kicked him out of

the Boy Scouts, that is only a rumour. But, Mr. Speaker, going back to realism,

I say to the minister that over a great number of years, even when money was as

scarce as I suppose hens' teeth, there were always a few concerts on St.

Patrick's Day and St. Patrick's Day was a holiday for us all and every one of us

enjoyed it. We make up 38 per cent of the population of Newfoundland so why

don't you leave it alone, why don't you leave it alone?

As much as big business would like to see all those holidays

eliminated, we are not big businessmen, we are ordinary people who are here to

serve the ordinary Joe out there, the working class. So I say to the minister:

leave the holidays alone; you are not taking anything away from the elite but

what you are doing is you are pushing down the people who make our Province

work, the working class. They expect their holidays, that is all they have, a

few of those days. Where you and I and a lot of us, not the elite, but a lot of

us in the working class can take a holiday and go to Florida or some place. With

those people, those are the few days they depend upon; those are the few days

that the government should not have the right to take away from them, so I ask

the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I thought that Murphy would be speaking on

it, but I do not know if he is allowed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Oh, listen to himself. Oh, he has awoken

from his slumber - the old ex-Minister of Finance. Oh, glory be! I think that

this might be his idea, as well as the Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Grinches.

MR. PARSONS: The Grinch that stole Christmas - and now he

is trying to steal away the couple of days that we have, that had religious

value to a great number of us. Here he is trying to steal them away. He has

stolen everything else from us.

MR. HEARN: Is the Member for Harbour Grace going to sit

back and let them take those days?

MR. PARSONS: Yes. The Member for Harbour Grace and the

Member for Carbonear - are those two hon. gentlemen going to sit back and let

them take away those two days?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is what I am asking. At least I am up

and doing my best, but I am in opposition. I do not mind the Minister of

Justice. They would not allow him into the Orange Society. The Orangemen did not

want him, and I do not know now if anyone wants him.

AN HON. MEMBER: They kicked him out of the Girl Guides.

MR. PARSONS: They kicked him out of the Girl Guides, my

colleague says. I do not know. No, I do not think so.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am dead serious in saying to the

minister responsible: Look, leave the holidays alone, especially St. Patrick's

Day and Orangemen's Day. Leave them alone. As far as Discovery Day, there are

some people out there - St. Brendan really discovered Newfoundland in the sixth

century, so that does not make one bit of difference to me, but St. Patrick's

Day does.

Seeing that some of my colleagues would not be allowed to

speak on it, I am sort of representing them as well in saying that -

AN HON. MEMBER: They have a gag order.

MR. PARSONS: They have a gag order, the same as all the

rest.

I saw you today in Question Period when you were asked a

question and the Premier stood up and answered, so it is sort of a gag order,

yes. I suppose you could say gag order, yes.

In the meantime, representing even the other side of the

House, I know the way those hon. gentleman feel, and I feel the same way. So I

say to the minister, on behalf of all the members - most of the members on that

side - even the Member for Bellevue, he certainly agrees with what I am saying,

I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is right. He wears the ring, and I know

it.

On behalf of all the members in the House, I say to the

minister: You should be ashamed of yourself for bringing that legislation to the

House. You should sneak out of here and say: Look, let's forget it. Let it die.

You are insulting the greatest majority of people in Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. HEARN: Why have committees if the unions are going to

come and be against it and then to just ram it through anyway?

MR. PARSONS: Why? Why? What do you want committees for at

all? The unions were all against it - taking away holidays. What were the

committees for in the first place?

I must say to the minister that I never had very much faith

in them in the first place. I never saw what good they really did do, because it

was a foregone conclusion, with some minor amendments, that it was going through

anyway. Here were all of those committees going around, and in fact made trips

all over the Island, and the end result was the same.

The same thing about this shop closing act -

AN HON. MEMBER: Three amendments.

MR. PARSONS: Three amendments - but it did not change the

body of the bill. I say to the minister now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I do not think he is a real bad fellow. In

fact, I suppose in his heart he thinks as much about Newfoundland and Labrador,

perhaps, as I do. I do not know.

In that light I say to the minister: Reverse your decision.

Do not mind your colleagues. Do not mind the Minister of Justice. Look, I am

positive the Minister of Fisheries agrees with me. I am positive. I would not

even have to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he agrees with me. Even the old

biologist - I cannot see why the old biologist who has a great lot to do with

all those bills being brought before the House; he is the brains behind a lot of

it - but I cannot see him doing something like this. He was never a mean man

toward the populous. He was always out there saying, this was good for the poor

person.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: It was him alone? Well the Minister of

Finance is pointing to the Minister of Labour and saying that he is the one who

instigated it; he is the one that brought it about; so it will have to lie at

your doorstep.

But I say to you again before sitting down: Give it some

thought. It is only a couple of days and it means an awful lot to an awful lot

of people.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he

closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you Mr. Speaker, just a couple of

points before I move second reading of the Bill. A number of the speaker's

opposite as they addressed this Bill did not express a lot of concern with the

actual content of the Bill itself but stressed the point that they felt this was

the thin edge of the wedge and that there was some other agenda here and this

would lead to an erosion of some long standing and well respected holidays

within the Province.

I will take just a couple of minutes to point out the

distinction of difference that here we are talking about some amendments and

some change as to whether or not the shops close on the particular day. I agree

fully with the sentiments expressed by the members opposite because the same

sentiments have been expressed by members on this side, that there is absolutely

nothing, and I have this much faith in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

there is absolutely nothing that we could do in this Legislature that will take

St. Patrick's Day away from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, absolutely

nothing. There is nothing in the power of this Legislature that could take

Orangemen's Day away from the people who observe and respect and want

Orangemen's Day and so on. These holidays are alive and well in Newfoundland and

Labrador and will continue to be alive and well and the people that are involved

in shops, which is what this Bill is about, they will make their own

arrangements to take their holidays on St. Patrick's Day if that is their most

important day, they will take that day and celebrate it just like I do and

regardless of whether it shows up as a shop's closing Bill or anything else,

when St. Patrick's Day shows up I will be celebrating St. Patrick's Day in some

way shape or form.

The same thing happens with those people who hold Orangemen's

Day near and dear to their hearts, they will celebrate Orangemen's Day and if

there are people involved that get impacted by the Shop's Closing Act who want

to observe Orangemen's Day more so than any other day for the year they will

find a way to observe Orangemen's Day regardless of what this piece of

legislation says.

The holidays are well entrenched in Newfoundland and

Labrador, everybody knows and understands that and the holidays will prevail.

However, whether or not the government of the Province should declare that

certain shops should close on that day is the issue for debate. We contend that

there is no connection between the two. We do not subscribe to this kind of

suspicious view that there is really another agenda, that will take care of

itself in time to come. We are not stripping holidays, it is not a valid

argument, we are realigning the opening and closing of shops to do business so

that we will be in line with the rest of the country. The legislative review

committee process has worked well in that there are three meaningful amendments

that will come forward at the committee stage to be moved by my hon. colleague,

the Government House Leader at that point in time, and we are convinced, as we

were at the beginning when we introduced this particular Act, that the changes

will make for a better situation with respect to people opening or closing shops

and observing certain holidays and making sure that if the shops are supposed to

be closed, that appropriate penalties are in place for people who violate those

kinds of things. So with those few comments, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great

pleasure to move second reading of the Bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops Closing Act",

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 22).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we take order 20 please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order 20, Bill 47.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Co-Operatives Societies Act". (Bill No. 47).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, this is a

very simple Bill a very simple amendment to the Co-Operatives Societies Act, as

all members are aware in terms of the credit union's in the Province, we have a

number of credit unions scattered throughout this Province, the largest one

being the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union and this government in essence

guarantees deposits, there is an organization called the Credit Union Deposit

Guarantee Corporation and it's function essentially is to oversee the

guaranteeing of deposits in Credit Unions.

There are a couple of representatives from government which

sit on this corporation, two, I believe, and three from the Credit Union

Central. Credit Union Central's job is the development of Credit Unions

throughout the Province. So Credit Union Central is responsible for the proper

development and the spreading of the Credit Union movement throughout the

Province. The Deposit Guarantee Corporation comes into play when a Credit Union

is in the process of being formed, and it ensures that certain conditions are

met in order for Credit Unions to be fully recognised and to have their deposits

guaranteed. So that's the general set-up with regards to Credit Unions in the

Province.

Unfortunately, when the original Co-operative Societies Act

was brought into force there was an omission. This addition to the Act corrects

that particular omission in the original Bill. At the time, government set

certain regulations with regards to the operation of the Guarantee Corporation.

There was never anything put in the Act to authorise government to do it. It was

naturally assumed that government had the right to provide or to give them

certain conditions under which they would operate, because obviously government

is guaranteeing the deposits - is the actual guarantor.

So this was an oversight. We've since discovered that really

there should have been in the original Act some kind of clause which simply gave

the Minister of Finance the authority to make regulations respecting the

organization, management, powers and responsibilities of the Credit Union

Deposit Guarantee Corporation. That should have been actually stated in the

original Act.

This Bill provides that amendment to correct an oversight. I

should point out to hon. members that an unfortunate part of this particular

piece of this legislation is that in the second clause, the commencement, the

Act is considered to have come into force on July 12, 1991. It has a retroactive

affect. Really, what that says is that the rules and regulations that have been

used since 1991 are hereby legalized. So that's in essence what it's doing.

Legalizing the mode of operation of the Guarantee Corporation that's been in

existence for the last year or so.

Mr. Speaker, that's an explanation as to what this very

simple Bill is all about.

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

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

the minister for his explanation of this part of the Bill. I'll speak a little

generally on cooperatives before asking some questions on the Bill.

I was fortunate enough to be Minister of Rural Agriculture

and Northern Development for a short time, and the cooperative societies, the

Co-operatives Act, came under that department. I must say that before I went

there I had very little knowledge of what cooperatives were or what they should

be accomplishing. I, like a lot of people, figured they were more of a socialist

tool to obstruct, to get a lot of people in one community to put pressure on to

get their own way. Now I was educated fairly quickly while I was in that

department as to the advantages of cooperative societies for particularly a

province like Newfoundland.

Once I did get a good understanding of what the cooperatives

were supposed to be achieving, and what their aims and goals were for the

cooperatives, I happened to - my wife is a member of a consumer's cooperative

here in the city, and I am about to become a member of the Eastern Farmers'

Co-op.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have come from a complete

misunderstanding of what cooperatives are to the understanding that the

cooperatives - especially the two that I mentioned - are nothing but good

Newfoundland owned and operated businesses. That's their function, that's their

intention, and that's what they should be able to achieve.

We have Credit Unions in this Province that have their board

of directors in this Province. We're not paying out big fees to national banks

or international bank managers and directors. We can operate a reasonable system

in this Province under the Credit Union that's operating, and provide the board

of directors from Newfoundland expertise and from Newfoundland people. All

cooperatives should be able to work like that, Mr. Speaker.

One that I followed very closely over the last seven or eight

years - it might be a bit longer than that now - is the Petty Harbour

Fishermen's Co-op. It was not too long ago when people in Petty Harbour had big

problems in the glut. Well, I guess all around the eastern Avalon, there used to

be what was called the glut fishery. If we could only have those times back

again, I'd say. Have them managed a bit better, but have them back. It would be

very good.

The reason for the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Co-op was

because of the glut fishery. It started temporarily for a while, the fishermen's

union in bringing in offshore boats and trying to take care of it that way. But

a group of fishermen in Petty Harbour, along with the help of the cooperative

societies and the help of the Fogo fishermen's cooperative, actually, and the

help of the provincial government at the time, a group of fishermen in Petty

Harbour got together and made their own fish plant. They made their own

business.

Every year in Petty Harbour it would seem to be always

doubtful whether the regular business in Petty Harbour, the regular fish plant,

the two that were there, were going to open. Whether the owners had enough

capital to open up for the summer and that. There was always an air of

uncertainty in the fishing industry in the Petty Harbour area. It became more

certain I guess once the fishermen's co-op was open. At least they had a place

to sell their fish. They even set quotas amongst their own members. Don't bring

me in any more than 50,000 today, or 10,000 today, because we can't handle it.

They worked hard. They made a lot of sacrifices to make a fairly successful

business out of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. Socialist plot is what I thought it

was, there's no doubt about it. I told the people who were involved when I

worked in that department that: I don't want to have much to do with this

socialist type activity. Sam Kean is the actual person who educated me in this.

I must say, he's quite an active, energetic young man and fairly

business-oriented.

Co-ops are what co-ops are. They're businesses, Newfoundland

owned and operated businesses. We should have more of them. The problem with

co-ops is it's no good establishing a co-op from the top down. If the co-op

doesn't start at the grass roots, if people can't convince themselves that they

need a co-op - whether it be housing or fishing or consumer oriented - it's just

as well not to have it. Because there are quite a few responsibilities that the

board of directors take on themselves to operate any cooperative. There are

quite a number of meetings, there's a lot of time that's required to keep these

operated.

To get back to the Petty Harbour co-op. There was a lot of

sacrifice, a lot of personal time and money invested in the Petty Harbour

Fishermen's Cooperative. Right now the success or failure of that depends on our

Department of Fisheries, our Department of Finance, our Department of

Development, probably. Each of those people hold the guarantees that Petty

Harbour Fishermen's Co-op got from government, the same as most other fish

plants in this area. If government is not very careful of what they do with

these guarantees, these government guarantees, we will have no more Petty

Harbour Fishermen's co-op. It's a delicate situation whether they will survive

or not. Without consideration of our Departments of Fisheries, Development and

Finance the Petty Harbour Fishermen's co-op could quite easily be no more.

Mr. Speaker, as far as this Bill is concerned, I don't know

very much of why this is made retroactive to July 1991 when the regulations

which were gazetted in July 1992 were made valid. "This Bill would also provide

that regulations which were published in the Gazette on July 12, 1992, were

validly made." Then the Act is considered to come in place in July of 1991. I'm

not sure if the dates on the explanatory note are the same as the date is

supposed to refer to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: One is wrong? Oh. The minister might take

that to his attention. I'm not sure what dates he's talking about. When he

finishes debate, finishes his discussion with the member for.... The minister

might take note of the dates that are in the Bill. In

Section 2 it suggests that

this Bill will come into affect on July 12, 1991, yet in the explanatory notes

the regulations which were published in the Gazette were for July 12, 1992. Now

I don't know if the two dates are a confusion. The minister might address that

when he gets up to answer the questions. I know he's paying great attention

there to what I said while I was speaking on it.

I would like when he gets up too if he would go over again

the explanation that he made as to why this confusion or why the problem in the

Co-operative Societies Act, and what affect it had over the past year - two

years now, July 1991, July 1992, well, for a full year. What affect it had on

the Credit Unions and the co-operatives that were operating in this Province.

Does it do any damage to their business operations? Will it cost them any money

to correct any mistakes or any problems that this oversight that was created and

now is trying to be corrected?

The minister might get a chance when he - are you going to

speak on this?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The minister might get a chance when he

stands up to refer to the dates of this Bill coming into force and the dates of

the regulations. He might give us some more explanations as to what problems

this has caused for the co-operative societies and the Credit Unions. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

have a few remarks on this particular Bill. I would hope that the minister who

introduced this particular piece of legislation would be able to probably supply

us with a couple of answers.

First and foremost, probably I should say that I've been

associated with the co-op movement in our Province since 1973. In fact, I was a

former president of the Terrington Co-op (?) in Happy Valley - Goose Bay when I

was living there, and also served on the board of directors of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Co-op Board the year before I entered the political scene. So I do

have some time where I served in the Terrington Board and also with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Board. Also at the same time I've been quite actively

involved in the political field with respect to the Torngat Fisheries

Co-operative. I have to say that the survival of the Torngat Fisheries

Co-operative up to today has been due in a great measure to the support of the

former government and the present government.

I have to say, in all fairness, that the government from 1979

to 1989 was very supportive of the Torngat Fisheries Co-operative. I understand

that since 1989 up until now this government has been reasonably fair in making

sure that there would not be too many obstacles in the way of the survival of

Torngat Co-op. However, I'm left to believe that things may change and the belt

is going to get a little bit tighter. I want to say to the minister that when

you're dealing with a co-op that is geographically at a disadvantage, such as

Torngat Co-op - which includes fisherpersons and fish plant workers from the

district of Naskaupi, the district of Eagle River, and all of my district - it's

very difficult to maintain the status quo.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the minister, when

reviewing the overall philosophy of the co-op movements in our Province, that

the minister would be wise to take into consideration all these disadvantages

that remote areas of the Province have with the co-op movement. At the same

time, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair for me as the Member for Torngat

Mountains, and I say this in the hearing confines of this building to the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, that maybe it would be worthwhile

for the minister to pay a little bit of attention for a minute or so, because we

are talking about the co-op movement. At the same time I thought it would be an

opportune time for me to say that I think the time has come for government to

diverse the ownership of the government's stores. Let me explain to the

minister, I will explain as I go through.

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

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

Technology, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the member to clarify

what he meant? I think he meant divest of the Northern stores, is that what he

meant? I am listening attentively and I will speak to the issue in a second, if

he would like?

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order. The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, he can use both words if he

wants to because both would go hand in hand, and I say to the hon. gentleman

that I think it is time for - in fact, the government in the past couple of

months has been looking at options. I want to say that those stores have cost

the taxpayers on an average of about $400,000 to $500,000 a year; this is about

how much the government loses on those stores. But the problem is, there is too

much control of those stores from a few bureaucrats here in St. John's. This has

always been the case, not just now, but those government stores are controlled

by a few bureaucrats here in St. John's and they do not know how this works in

the North.

That is the problem, Mr. Speaker, and I say to my hon.

colleague, the Minister of Finance, that I think those stores would work more

effectively and more efficiently if a consumers co-operative was formed in each

individual community. I say this because I do not think it can work as one big

co-op, as geography is a detriment to its working as one big co-op. I have to

say, I may be a little bit off course, but I understand the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology - I would like to get the minister's attention on

this particular suggestion I am going to make, because I noticed he shook his

head just now when I said that the bureaucrats here in St. John's try to exert

too much control.

I notice a few days ago, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation gave a report in the Legislature, of public tendering act

exceptions. Now, in this report the Department of Industry, Trade and

Technology: the purchase of $8,400 worth of soft drinks, co-op soft drinks. Now

let me just say to my hon. colleague, here are some of the problems we have when

we are dealing with remote areas of the Province.

Not one manager in one of those five stores had ordered this

product. This product was not ordered by one manager. The first thing the

managers knew about this product was that they received an invoice from the St.

John's office saying: This product has been ordered for you to sell.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it?

MR. WARREN: It was soft drinks that were brought into the

government store. I am just trying to tie all this in with saying to the

minister that I believe a cooperatives can work. The people in the communities

have always said to the managers: Here are some of the things that we should

order, but that is as far as it goes. Then the managers send their requisitions

out to their head office. But all of the sudden, things have changed, and they

have been changed by the people at the head office who don't really understand

the way it should function on the coast of Labrador. This has been going on, I

say to the minister - I can't go back before 1967, but I can go back to 1967

when I managed a store in Nain, Davis Inlet and in Makkovik. The same thing

happened then.

In fact, I say to my hon. colleague - he probably should go

back and check the records - but I believe in 1968 in Davis Inlet there was

about $17,000 to the good that year. I would say that might have been one of the

depots that probably did make money, and probably because there was six-feet of

snow and all the inventory wasn't counted. Again, this is just to show you an

example of our last thirty-odd years. It is a business that government is not

running properly. I say to my colleagues that I believe it is time to look at

the co-op movement.

However, I was a little bit disappointed, I say to the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, last week when I was in Hopedale.

The people from the northern stores were there, I think three people from the

northern stores, two from the Co-op Development and one private individual from

the Island. The biggest complaint I got from the people was that there was

nobody from the government there, from the minister's office, taking notes and

listening. There wasn't one person there just listening to the propaganda that

those individuals were giving to the people.

So I was curious. Now, the minister can get up and either

confirm or deny it, but I am sure, knowing the minister, that he will confirm

what I am saying. Halfway through the meeting, I decided to ask a question of a

member from the northern stores. I asked was there any consultation with

government. It was surprising that the member said, yes, there was. Government

has been trying for years - in fact, I say to my hon. colleague, the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, a few years ago a famous person by the name of

John McGrath came on the scene in Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WARREN: A really famous person who was highly

promoted to take over as ADM in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I must say, I don't think

we really saw eye-to-eye on all occasions. For some reason he was determined to

get the stores transferred back to the Bay. In fact, there were many meetings

going on because he was determined to get the stores transferred back to the

Bay. However, I thought, Mr. Speaker, that I did the honourable thing when I was

minister when I arranged for a one-way ticket to the mainland for the gentleman.

So at least he is still up on the mainland. At the same time, he is still

encouraging the northern stores to come back. So he is still trying to get the

northern stores into operating as government stores. I say to the minister that

I really think that people would seriously look at a co-op.

I think one thing is really needed before government makes a

move on this co-op movement. I appreciate what has happened recently,

consultation in the communities with the people. That is most important and it

is a really integral

part if you want to move those stores out of the hands of

government, per se, into our cooperative movement.

There is a lot of education to be done, and I think that the

people like Sam Kean and other people in the co-op movement here, and Jerry

Stone and these kind of people are the kind of people who will help the minister

to look at other ways of government not losing $400,000 or $500,000 a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I should say to my hon.

colleague, yes, in fact our friend Mr. Parsons is the manager in Makkovik.

AN HON. MEMBER: Makkovik?

MR. WARREN: Yes, manager in Makkovik, and I am glad to

announce in this hon. House today that it is quite possible - in fact I met with

the individual only last week and it is quite possible he will be - at least he

will be trying for the nomination of a political party in the district of

Torngat Mountains in the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, is that right?

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and surprisingly -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. WARREN: No, he asked me a question about one of the

managers in one of the government stores.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague -

AN HON. MEMBER: For the NDP.

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Speaker. I know the hon. gentleman is

as shocked as I am. It is for your party.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Yes, well it is very, very interesting.

By the way, I should say this to my hon. colleague. One of

the most outspoken individual managers who ever served in a government store on

the Labrador coast is the present manager in Makkovik. He has probably not

followed all the rules and guidelines as government has set down, but one thing

he has done is make government more aware of the problems that exist. I think

you and I know the gentleman well enough that he is not afraid to stand up and

say: These things are done wrong.

We have too many public servants today who are afraid to say

anything. That is the problem, but unfortunately sometimes maybe this individual

gentleman may say things where he does not necessarily have full support from

his co-workers.

Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I just want to

touch on the credit union. Again I think, during the last number of years, that

I have had good conversations with the President of the Newfoundland Credit

Union, Mel Strong, and they have started initiatives to get the credit union on

the coast of Labrador.

If I resign today, or do not resign for the next ten years,

there is one thing that I would like to see. Things have been done in the last

number of years to get the ball moving. This Bill, I think, when it addresses

the credit union, it is very, very difficult for the credit union to move into

Nain or Hopedale, but I think it is more important today than ever, because

banks do not want to move on to the coast of Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Eagle River.

MR. WARREN: - and doing a good job. Yes, doing a good job

from Eagle River, and they go to Cartwright and go to Mary's Harbour, and they

are also in Goose Bay.

I understand now, talking to Mr. Strong, that moves are being

made to get them coming out of Goose Bay office to go to Nain to start off with.

I think it is a good move, long overdue, and this government will get full marks

from this person here if they will continue to look in that positive vein of

making sure that there are financial services available to the people on the

coast of Labrador.

I say to the minister: I welcome anything, as pertaining to

the co-op movement, that can encourage government number one, to divest, get

away from, and take the stores out of the government's hands. I have always

supported, and I will say this now, that I will not stand in this House; I will

not go to the district and support those stores going into big business hands

such as the Bay Stores, such as - well, to use any name - Lewisporte Wholesalers

or TRA or any of those, I say Mr. Speaker, let the people in the communities

decide. I have said that since 1967; it is the people's decision, those stores

are built there by monies from the Federal and Provincial Government. It was

built there under the Native people's agreement, and maybe it is time we could

have a corporation such as the LIDC; LIDC would probably take it up as a

corporation. It is in the people's hands so I suggest let the people decide. I

believe I am fair to say, and I say this now in all due respect to the minister,

I believe genuinely, he is on the right track; the minister is on the right

track, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the bureaucrats are not. That is our problem,

the minister is on the right track, the minister advocated what he would like to

see done and I agree with that, but the unfortunate part about it is the

bureaucrats in government, in Treasury Board, in particular. And it is no

secret, I had my problems when I was minister and had these stores, because

every year they want to get rid of the stores, that is, the bureaucrats in

Treasury Board, because we are losing money. But we do not just get rid of them

and let a big business take over which will go up there and make it worst than

it is. Let's talk to the people and let the people decide.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: The three years before, and maybe my hon.

colleague from Kilbride, the three years before that, so it goes - and I say to

the minister, you are on the right track, but keep consulting with the people

and let the people decide. I would strongly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I think

the people want to hear from the minister - and I am not saying that the

minister has to go to Nain with me or to have public meetings or things like

that. But I think the time is about right now, where your staff have done their

homework, and I think the people would like to see the minister coming up and

showing them the positive attitude he has taken toward those stores and let that

go into the community, as well.

But I have to say this, with all due respect to you

bureaucrats, the same bureaucrats, by the way, that were my bureaucrats when I

was there, it is very difficult to get them to say what the minister wants to

see done. I can see that there is going to be money saved. The government can

save money and we can definitely -it is as the manager of Hopedale, Ray Darby,

said; and Ray Darby came on the Coast of Labrador the same year I did, in 1967.

And at the Public Accounts Committee meeting in Goose Bay, I asked a question:

'Mr. Darby,' I said, 'can you tell us, have there been any improvements in the

government stores since you came first on the Coast? And the answer he gave me -

and I think you will get the answer right throughout the coast - was 'None; none

and I think that is a fair assessment in cluing up twenty-five years of

government work with the stores on the Labrador Coast. I think they want to see

us moving in a different direction, and I think the people do, and they want a

good service to be provided to those people. If the minister follows the

intention he has outlined in this study on the government stores, I believe we

will meet and achieve that goal. Thank-you.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how to

react to the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains - he is killing me with

kindness. 'The minister is on the right track' - I don't know how to handle

that. That is quite a switch for the hon. member.

But the Member for Kilbride: we have a job for the member for

Kilbride. He is not running again so we are going to put him in charge of the

stores, particularly to monitor the inventory and to monitor door knobs, to make

sure the right kinds of door knobs come into the stores.

The member raised a few important points. It is the

government's intention, as he well knows - and it has been our policy to divest

not only of the stores but to privatize that which belongs in the private sector

and is better operated from the private sector. Now, the private sector, as he

knows, can take on many forms. One of those forms is a co-operative model; with

respect to the Marystown Shipyard, for example, we came very close to inking a

deal to sell those assets off and we all know what happened.

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: That is right. So there is a whole range of

things that we can do.

I should tell the hon. member that we are making considerable

progress in our movement toward divestiture of the Labrador stores, and it is

not because the government wants to abandon those stores. Let me be perfectly

clear that the people of the Coast of Labrador will not be abandoned, and it

will not be something where the government will arbitrarily come in and say:

This is the way it is going to be. If you don't like it, you can lump it, and

tough luck. That is not the way it is going to be done.

We have set out using the proposal from the Deloitte/Touche

study that there are basically three options: either we can maintain the status

quo, the current option, we can move those stores out into the private sector

fully, or the third option is the co-operative model.

Now, I took a position, as minister, and I got concurrence

from my Cabinet colleagues, that the co-operative model is the best option at

this time; but to do that, as the hon. member knows, you cannot just

arbitrarily, in cold turkey fashion, dump these stores as a co-operative -

Is there a fire alarm or something, Mr. Speaker?

DR. KITCHEN: It is pretty hot in here, but not that hot.

MR. ROBERTS: 'Garfield's' speech.

MR. FUREY: There may well be a fire alarm. I don't know

if it goes off in here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh yes, it will go off.

MR. FUREY: Does it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure who cares?

MR. FUREY: The hon. member has a good point.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is music somewhere.

MR. FUREY: Christmas music? Okay.

So we opted for the co-op model, but we went a step further.

We said, we are not going to do this just cold turkey, so we instructed the

Labrador college, as you know, to have a series of conferences with proper

translation and that kind of thing. You attended some of them, I think. They

tell me those sessions went very well and I am waiting for a full report to come

back.

That is not going to solve it and get it out into the

co-operative model either. I see a period of time, considerable time, before we

actually get -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Maybe. It may well be two years, three years,

I don't know, but the government is not going to arbitrarily abandon the people

of Coastal Labrador and just leave those stores helter-skelter in their laps and

walk away from it. That is not the premise or the foundation or the principle

upon which we are operating.

So the Labrador Community College is helping us, Enterprise

Newfoundland is helping us in the Labrador region, and, indeed, the government

senior officials have been instructed to move in a very logical and methodical

way toward the co-operative model.

We have saved, last year, $487,000 in the stores. The member

was there for the Public Accounts Committee and he knows that. And we have

instituted new things that the report has said. We should be redeeming coupons

and those kinds of things, staggering hours for better access by people. So

there have been a number of improvements, including taking the hon. the former

minister's picture out of the stores. We have noticed our sales have gone up

every since we have taken his picture out.

The first time I ever visited the stores of Labrador, I

walked into the first one in Hopedale - I think the hon. member was with me -

and just over the frozen turkeys was a great picture of the hon. the Member from

Torngat Mountains, and it said: The hon. the Minister of Northern Development.

MR. ROBERTS: A special on turkeys, was there, that day?

MR. FUREY: No, but right under the picture was 'on sale'

- I don't know if that meant anything, or whatever; but we did take those

pictures down in all five stores. He looked like a little king of a fiefdom or

something. We took all of the pictures down, and immediately the sales went up.

It was just amazing!

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, you are kidding now. That is not true.

MR. FUREY: I am kidding.

But we have saved considerable money, and I just want to

assure the hon. member and the people of Labrador, particularly those who are

most affected, th