April 17,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding with our routine business today I would

like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery: Mr. Ray Pollett, the Mayor of the City

of Corner Brook, and Mr. Jim Kennedy, City Manager of the City of Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with

the concurrence of the House and before we move to Orders of the Day, I would

like to take the opportunity to mention in a public way the passing in the early

hours of this morning of Mr. Arthur Warren the father of our colleague, the hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains. Mr. Warren was a resident of Chance Cove,

Trinity Bay and though he was in his eighty-fifth year I know those of us who

have gone though this traumatic experience would want the House to express its

condolences to Mrs. Warren, Jane, his wife, who is still alive. And to the

Member for Torngat Mountains and the family.

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly like to

support what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. I know that the Member for

Torngat Mountains is going through a difficult time and whatever we can do to

lighten the burden at this particular time we would certainly support it.

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

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

join in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and offer my condolences to

the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains and to his family in the loss of his

father.

Oral Questions

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

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

Minister of Social Services. The Minister yesterday in the House told us that he

had asked for an internal audit to review the payments made to the Chairman and

members of the Social Assistance Appeals Board. At the same time the Premier has

told the House that he is making inquiries. Would the Minister not now agree

then that the only way in which the public can be satisfied is if a full,

independent judicial enquiry is called into this matter?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should not be

surprised at the political garbage which is coming from the Opposition on this

particular issue. I have stated very clearly my position in this matter. I do

not make these decisions. There is only one person who I know of could make that

decision, and that would be the Premier. I am quite satisfied that I have done

absolutely nothing beyond the Minister's realm of responsibility. And if the

Opposition wants to waste the time of this House of Assembly, the taxpayers'

money, in going on with such garbage, I am prepared to sit here and answer any

questions they put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister said: the first time I

was aware of any amount of money being received by the chairman of the Appeals

Board of that magnitude, was, when I read the Sunday Express on Sunday morning.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on two occasions in this House, during debate in exchange with

my colleague for Torngat Mountains, the Minister acknowledged that he knew of an

increase from $200 a day to $350 a day for the chairman. Now, Mr. Speaker, which

was true, the one that he said in debate or the one he said, as a response to

the

article in the Sunday Express?

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

MR. EFFORD: My goodness, goodness.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Last year, some time last fall, a decision

was made by Treasury Board and Ministers to increase the per diem rate from $250

to $350 for the chairman of the board. What I said yesterday, when I read the

Sunday Express, the amount of $1,400, a claim put in by the chairman of the

board for one trip, I think it referred to, that is what I said, that was the

first time I became aware of that, was Sunday, the amount of money, $1,400 for

one trip, that is the responsibility of the chairman, to submit his claim; the

Minister of Social Services or the Minister of any Department does not have

anything to do with claims for appeals board.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never answered the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary. In

view of the controversy surrounding the Social Assistance Appeals Board, whereby

many Opposition Members have to represent their constituents at hearings, would

the Minister immediately ask for dismissal of that Appeals Board and appoint a

new one free of political patronage, especially in view of the fact that the

Ombudsman, who normally would have dealt with that kind of thing has now been

eliminated and now there is no provision except the Social Assistance Appeals

Board, as the last line of defence for these people - it is tainted with

political interference. Would the Minister ask Cabinet to dismiss that Board and

appoint a new one?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: If I did not know better, Mr. Speaker, I

would suspect that the hon. Member for Fogo has been dipping into the $20,000

luxury which they had when he was a Minister in Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: -or probably smoking the $5,000 worth of

cigars -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: But, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon.

Member, let me tell the hon. House of Assembly I have absolutely no intention of

abolishing this Appeals Board and re-appointing Ida Reid as Chairman of the

Board.

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

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

for the Minister of Social Services. Has the Minister been advised of an

investigation being conducted by the Public Service Commission into allegations

of impropriety by his office into a job competition for a position at the

Whitbourne Detention Centre involving his campaign manager in the last election?

Can he advise the House what knowledge he had prior to today of any interference

by his office or his political staff in any such improprieties involved in the

position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is happening

in this hon. House of Assembly, but I have never heard such political garbage

and political nonsense in my life. I realize I deserve it probably, but when I

did ask the questions on the Opposition they were sensible questions with good

answers, and I knew the answers when I asked them. My first question would be to

the hon. Member for St. John's East. How many campaign managers do I have? Now I

realize the only Tory who was in my district in the last election was my

opponent because everyone else voted for me, but I cannot be responsible for the

actions of everybody in the district.

Mr. Speaker, five minutes before I came to the House of

Assembly I was informed that the hon. Member for St. John's East went down to

the Public Service Commission and made some allegations about that. I have

absolutely no idea of the political garbage he is going on with, and if he wants

to go on with it, then fine, do so. I am here and I will answer all questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Undoubtedly the

Minister will also have been advised that I attended the Public Service

Commission at their request to advise them of what I knew.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. EFFORD: I did not hear what the Member said.

MR. HARRIS: I said the Minister would also be aware then,

presumably, that I attended the Public Service Commission at their request to

advise them of what I knew. I want to know whether the Minister can confirm that

the allegations involved the supplying of questions by a Member of his staff to

this individual.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, okay if the House would -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. HARRIS: Can the Minister advise the House whether or

not he is aware of the allegations that a member of his staff supplied to this

individual, who is now the chairman of the Social Services Appeals Board, the

questions that were to be asked in an interview with the Public Service

Commission? Can the Minister tell the House what he knows about these

allegations and whether he has ever heard them before?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all I did not know that

a member of the Appeals Board had to go to the Public Service Commission. I

appointed -I recommended the Chairman of the Appeals Board to the Cabinet and

Cabinet made the decision, or Government made the decision. The only allegations

that I am aware of, number one, is what was told to me before I came to the

House, and number two, what the member is receiving from the individual who has

been giving him all the allegations over the last three or four days - political

garbage and political nonsense.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the allegations do not concern

the appointment to the Social Services Appeals Board, but rather to a

competition before the Public Service Commission involving a position at the

Whitbourne Detention Centre. The Minister will be pleased to know, no doubt,

that his own assistant confirmed yesterday that such questions were given, in

fact, to the individual involved, and I want the Minister to tell this House now

whether he was at any time aware of that, and what he knows about it.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge, except of

the garbage which has been passed back and forth over the last week or so. I

have absolutely no knowledge. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not know of anybody

working in either of the centres who worked on my campaign. I have absolutely no

idea. And if the investigation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the investigation of the

Public Service Commission, if what the hon. the Member for St. John's East is

saying is accurate, then that will determine the outcome. But I have absolutely

no knowledge. I did not even know the Public Service Commission developed a

criteria for a test paper or a set of questions. I have never seen anything.

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a

supplementary to the President of Treasury Board, the Minister in Government

responsible, as far as I know, for the Public Service Commission. Is the

Minister concerned that allegations are being made publicly that Ministers or

political assistants of Ministers are obtaining competition questions from the

Public Service Commission and passing them on to prospective candidates? And is

the Minister concerned about the impartiality of the Public Service Commission

and political interference by his colleagues, in this case the Minister of

Social Services?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about a

number of things. First of all, I am concerned about members of the Public

Service Commission who would give out copies of questions they intend to ask to

anybody. I would certainly investigate that, and if in fact that is happening,

then these people should go.

I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the nature of

allegations I have heard in the last few days, one coming from the Leader of the

Opposition which indicates that somehow the Premier has been paid sums of money

to make certain decisions as Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful. Despicable.

MR. BAKER: I have heard these allegations and it

indicates the depth to which hon. members opposite will go. I say to the Leader

of the Opposition he is making an attempt to go out with a bang, but all he can

muster is a whimper.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is no trouble to know

when a Government is in trouble, when you get that kind of defence coming from a

Minister speaking on behalf of the Government. Let me ask the President of

Treasury Board this. Is the President of Treasury Board on behalf of the

Government going to have an investigation conducted into the allegation that a

member of the political staff of a Minister of this Government called up the

Public Service Commission, got questions that were to be asked in a competition,

and passed those questions along to a person involved in that competition so

that the person could have an unfair advantage over somebody else in

Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the question and do not duck it.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if the nature of the allegations

are similar to the one I just mentioned, which the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition has been getting on with over the last few days, the foolishness and

conjecture he has been getting on with, I am not going to investigate any such

nonsense. However, I will try to find out if a member of the Public Service

Commission is giving out questions to anybody. Because if a member of the Public

Service Commission is giving out interview questions to anybody, then that

member should not be on the Public Service Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: You are reaping now what you have sowed.

Keep your ears open. You are not as clean now as people think you are.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Fisheries

- a great relief for the Minister of Social Services.

I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware of the

decision that has been made regarding the future of the Canadian Salfish

Corporation? I know, in essence, the Province is practically a partner of the

Canadian Saltfish Corporation. There has been a lot of anxiety expressed over

this issue over the last number of months, particularly by residents of Labrador

as to what the future of the Saltfish Corporation or some similar agency might

be. Would the Minister be able to inform the House if he has been informed of a

decision and what it might be?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, and I thank the hon. Member

for the question. On March 25 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr.

Valcourt, came to Newfoundland and at his request met with me and my officials

to discuss the future of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation. At that time, the

Minister indicated to me that he would like to see the Saltfish Board wind up

and maybe some other kind of a regime be put in place to accommodate the needs

of the fishermen. At that time I expressed to him the fear that we could not do

that sort of thing, not in the Labrador area; maybe on the island part of the

Province yes, but certainly at this point in time some such organization is

necessary in Labrador.

I have since written the Minister again repeating what I said

to him at the meeting and expressing the concern that we do not have enough time

left now in this year to make that kind of a transition, from the Saltfish Board

to the private sector, and I have requested him to delay any such decision,

certainly in Labrador, maybe for a three to five year period, which would give

us a chance to investigate other ways of maybe diversifying the fishery in

Labrador and providing some kind of an arrangement to accommodate the fishermen

in the meantime.

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

Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Assuming the

Corporation will fold up or be abolished or whatever -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: - I am wondering -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to indicate to hon. Members the importance of Question

Period. It is a very important time, and I realize there are some Members trying

to trivialize it. The public want to hear the answers to questions and they want

to know that Members are being serious about the Question Period. I ask hon.

Members, please, to govern themselves accordingly.

I ask the hon. Member for Grand Bank to continue.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister

again. Assuming the Corporation folds up or is abolished, has the Minister had

any specific discussions with the Federal Minister about arrangements for

Labrador? The Minister says he has discussed and talked about or written about

keeping things in place for three to five years. Is he talking about keeping the

Saltfish Corporation as we know it in operation in Labrador for that period of

time, or has he specifically talked about some other arrangement to accommodate

fishermen on the Labrador coast?

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

MR. CARTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did discuss that prospect

with the Minister, and the Minister at the time indicated that maybe the private

sector could do the job in Labrador. I expressed some doubts as to whether or

not that could work. The Minister then put together a working group given the

mandate to maybe put together some kind of a proposal call looking to find out

what interest was out there on the part of the private sector to move into

Labrador to do the job the Saltfish Corporation was mandated to do.

I have expressed some concerns to the Minister that that is

not going to work at this late date, and my request to the Minister is that he

leave the Saltfish Board alone in Labrador, allow it to function as it has been

functioning - maybe tighten it up and probably recognize there is less need for

it on the Island part of the Province. My suggestion to the Minister is that

maybe in terms of the Island part of the Province it could act in a voluntary

way. If any salt fish processors on the Island wanted to avail of the marketing

expertise of the Saltfish Corporation fine, on a voluntary basis it could be

done, but to maybe deregulate the industry on the Island and allow the Saltfish

Corporation to stay in place for at least another three to five years.

Mr. Speaker, I would be quite willing to table the letter I

wrote the Minister on April 8, in which I have spelled out the Province's

thoughts on this. I am happy to table it now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Realizing

that Labrador has special needs and should be given special consideration in

this matter, from personal observation I believe there could be some pluses or

benefits to a different arrangement for the Island portion for salt fish. I am

wondering if the Minister is satisfied that the abolition of the Saltfish

Corporation will be in the best interest of the salt fish industry in the

Province? Would he express to the House his feelings on that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, back in January I visited Ottawa

and talked to the Minister about the future of the Saltfish Corporation and was

advised then by the Minister that he had put together a committee that would

visit the various user groups, and fishermen on the Island and in Labrador, to

discuss the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and its future role. The Province was

asked to appoint somebody to that committee, which we did. The Committee

travelled Labrador and parts of the Island for a month or two then reported back

to the Minister, and it became obvious in the course of their travels that the

need for the Saltfish Corporation on the Island part of the Province has greatly

diminished over the years. When it came about, in 1970, there was a very dire

need for such an organization but not anymore. All the groups we have talked to

- the various user groups, the fishermen's associations, the salt fish

processors and others - all seem to agree that the Corporation has outlived its

usefulness on the Island. But as I said a moment ago, that is not the case in

Labrador and that is why we want it to continue there.

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

West.

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

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I am sure he is aware that the

amalgamation plan he was proposing to bring in before the election of November

1989 he then delayed for a year. I am sure he now would be able to brief the

House on how many amalgamations have taken place in this Province based on his

grand scheme that was supposed to be imposed in 1989?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give the Member

an up-date as to where we are with the amalgamation procedures. We started out

almost a year and a half ago now with some forty-two groupings of communities,

113 communities in all. To date, five of those groupings have come together

either by way of amalgamation or annexation. In the process now, over the next

few weeks I foresee that three or four more will be agreeable to amalgamation -

we are getting that close to having final decisions made. The most contentious

area, of course, is the Northeast Avalon, and I would hope we will have a

decision on the seventeen communities which are in this area before this Session

of the House is complete. I have stated that publicly already.

We have about 35 per cent of the population of the Island in

the Northeast Avalon, and needless to say it is a very contentious issue amongst

the councils; they would like to see this process completed, and so would we. We

have other amalgamations, of course, throughout the Province, both in the urban

and rural areas of the Province. With the exception of two or three groupings,

all the commissioner's reports are in to me and we are in the process of

finalizing recommendations to Government.

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

Burin - Placentia West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister if he could

name the ones which have already been done. Can the Minister now tell me how

many feasibility reports on amalgamation are still outstanding? And can he

confirm that in some cases over a year has passed since the public hearings were

held and the reports have not yet been released? Why not?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have had a delay in some of

the commissioners' reports. There are about a half dozen outstanding. None are

outstanding over a year. The problem we have had in some instances is the fact

that commissioners appointed by the towns in question in these particular

groupings have not completed their part of the work for whatever reasons. None

are outstanding for a year. With the exception of one or two, no grouping has

been in process more than a year - none are outstanding more than a year, I

should say. We should have the process substantially complete I would think over

the next month or so, and all commissioners' reports will be in to me.

I have presently out of the forty-two groupings approximately

thirty to thirty-five reports in, with a few remaining to be finalized. As soon

as we get the commissioners' reports in to the Department which are outstanding

on the part of commissioners appointed by the towns - that is where the problem

is with about a half dozen of the groupings. As soon as those are finalized and

in to the Department, we will conclude our recommendations and report to the

House.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says there have been

none outstanding in excess of a year. I wonder if he can tell us then when the

one for the Corner Brook area was done? Corner Brook, Massey Drive, Mount

Moriah, if he could tell us. If there are none done more than a year, could he

tell us the dates when that was done?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: I would have to check the exact date when we

finalized the hearings there.

MS. VERGE: February of 1990.

MR. GULLAGE: February of 1990, Mr. Speaker, would be the

start of the process. The hearings are only the beginning point of the process.

From that point when the hearings are held there is a considerable dialogue

which takes place between the commissioners, the staff of the towns in question,

the councils in question. And the feasibility process, in fact, is a very

detailed process. The hearings is only one small portion of it. I would have to

check the completion date of the process itself. In fact, the process is not

complete until the commissioners submit their report. We are still awaiting the

report of the commissioner appointed by that particular grouping. When that

arrives in my Department and we finalize our recommendations, we will report on

the matter.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister now that

he has admitted that there are some of these in the process of being in excess

of a year and that absolutely nothing has been done about it, does the Minister

have any intention of continuing with the amalgamation plan or is he going to

scrap it as another poorly thought out political motivation by this Government?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: I am glad the Member asked that particular

question, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the Member will probably be

surprised to hear - although he should not be surprised - that we have groupings

of communities waiting to have feasibility processes started in their areas. We

have requests from communities which were not even considered in the forty-two

groupings who want to be added to the feasibility process. Because we have work

to do with the forty-two groupings, we are continuing on with that; the staff

cannot be freed up to start the process with new groupings. And you may think it

is a negative process, but in fact there are many groupings of communities

throughout this Island that want to be included in this process, because they

see the benefits of coming together and sharing the limited resources almost

everybody has these days, at every level of government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Social Services. As a result of the t.v. news features in recent days which have

focused on teenagers who live on the streets in St. John's we have all been

reminded of the lack of protection for young people between the ages of sixteen

and eighteen who are neither adults nor children under the law and they seem to

fall between the cracks.

Now the Minister can blame our side and we can blame his

side, but blaming each other as to why this has happened is not going to help

anybody. So what I would like to ask the Minister is when does he intend to

bring in the draft amendments to the legislation to provide protection for these

young people?

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

MR. EFFORD: The hon. Member is quite right. There is not

much point in blaming the former administration for not doing anything, but that

is exactly what happened. The Child Welfare Act has not been overhauled since

1972. We have now begun the bringing in of a completely new Child Welfare Act,

and that part of the legislation will be dealt with, the vacuum age, between

sixteen and eighteen. Hopefully, if it can get before the Legislative Review

Committee this summer, I will be able to introduce it in the fall sitting of the

House of Assembly. That is the intention of the Department, if everything goes

according to plan right now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port, on a

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I will make this a final

supplementary. First of all, I would like to say to the Minister that he has had

two years to do this, now he is talking about the fall. What I would like to

suggest to the Minister is why cannot the Minister bring in a simple amendment -

I can tell you that we have talked about this in Opposition and we will

co-operate - so that these children can be looked after. I should say if I am

asking a question, is the Minister aware that - I mean, this is a major Act. All

we are looking for is help in this legislation, so would the Minister not bring

in the simple amendments so that those children would be looked after this

spring, before the next session of the Legislature?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. Members

opposite only had seventeen years,

whereas I have had almost two long years to

do it. I realize that. I also realize that it is a major, major piece of

legislation to bring in. And there is not only the vacuum between the ages of

sixteen and eighteen which needs to be dealt with, it is much more complicated

than that. I intend to introduce a completely new Act in the House of Assembly

this year, but in the meantime, we are taking care of the children - the people,

I should not say children, between sixteen and eighteen; we are providing lots

of services for them in different houses in St. John's under the Board and

Lodging Rules of the Department of Social Services. They are not being forgotten

as the Member is trying to portray in this House of Assembly. The Act will be

brought into the House of Assembly this year.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Minister

is deliberately trying to misinterpret what I am suggesting. Is the Minister

aware that what I am trying to suggest is that we would pass an amendment which

would look after this problem immediately in the House of Assembly, and he can

go ahead with his major thing. Would the Minister do that particular thing and

deal with the major legislation in the fall - when he has to - because it is a

major piece of legislation, and bring in an amendment which we promise as an

Opposition to pass in this House quickly?

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

MR. EFFORD: Let me remind the hon. Member Opposite, all

hon. Members Opposite, that they are not now in Government; they are an

Opposition. They do not tell this Government what to do. That is the difference.

I am concerned -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Your arrogance is disgraceful.

MR. EFFORD: I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about all the

problems, all the children in the Province. A completely new Act is being

drafted. When it is prepared, when the all the information is submitted from the

different groups around the Province, and that includes between the ages of

sixteen and eighteen - and that is a very important part of the legislation. But

I am not prepared to bring it into the House of Assembly until all the groups in

the Province have the opportunity to submit their proposals so that we can

properly deal with it. The worst thing we could do is rush it and not put the

proper legislation through the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the

question asked by the Opposition House Leader, I place upon the Table of the

House a list of trips taken by the President of Treasury Board, the President of

the Executive Council, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and

claim from Government during the fiscal year April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, a

one year period, showing destination, date of trip, length of trip, proposed

purpose of trip, and the names of personal political departmental staff

accompanying the President.

Mr. Speaker, I am please to table today the answer to the

question. In the year there were five trips, one to Goose Bay and Nain which

took a couple of days. This was a Chairman of the ad hoc committee on Goose Bay:

meet with the council and various interest groups; another trip to Ottawa to

meet with the hon. William McKnight on the same matter; a trip to Gander to

speak on behalf of the Government at the 50th anniversary dinner of the

Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Association; another trip to Gander to speak at

the 25th anniversary celebration of the Knights of Columbus, that is the

McCormick council; and another trip to Corner Brook to attend some meetings with

officials from the head office of the Province's bank. So, Mr. Speaker, there

were five trips in the year, and I hope the Opposition does not find that to be

too extravagant. On three of these trips I was accompanied by my wife.

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to present a

petition from a number of residents of the Placentia Bay area from Jerseyside,

Dunville, Placentia, particularly the Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Heights area

who petitioned the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador and Legislative Assembly asking that the Government try to assist in

the re-instating of Extension Services at Memorial University.

Once again we see a number of people from rural parts of

Newfoundland expressing concern that the service that meant so much to them has

been eliminated. Another concern with the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: How many jobs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEARN: The Member for Carbonear is not tuned in,

apparently, to what Memorial University Extension Service does. How many jobs

did it create? There were a number of people employed by Memorial University

Extension who have lost jobs indirectly. That is not why these people are asking

that it be reinstated, so that a few people who work there will have jobs. It is

not the jobs that they are looking at, it is the significance of the operation

and the effect of Memorial University Extension Services on the events that are

happening in rural Newfoundland, the co-ordination, the promotion of rural

activities, the identification of the problems in the local areas, the ability

to organize and give local people a chance to hold forums, to express their

concerns, to offer solutions to the many problems facing them. This is what it

is all about, Mr. Speaker. This is why Memorial University Extension is so

important to the people. This is why residents of many, most all, perhaps, rural

areas in Newfoundland are coming out in droves and sending in petitions to be

presented. The unfortunate thing about it is that many of the residents,

including the residents here who have signed this, are from areas represented by

the hon. Members who refused on behalf of their constituents to stand up and

present petitions on their behalf. The hon. Members, whether they are taking

direction from the Premier, or whether they are just trying to follow in his

footsteps and are telling the people: we got rid of Memorial University

Extension because it is no good for you. We are the ones who decide what is best

for you. We have the knowledge, the ability, we are omnipotent. And that is the

Premier's attitude as everybody knows and Members are taking up the same way:

No, I am not going to present a petition. It does not matter what you want. I am

your representative, and I will decide what is best. That is not why you are

elected. You are elected to present the wishes of your constituents in the House

of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the President of

Treasury Board.

MR. HEARN: He cannot take a lecture.

MR. BAKER: As the hon. Member well knows, when speaking

to a petition you address the signatures, you address the concerns expressed in

the prayer of the petition. If the hon. Member cannot think of anything to say

about MUN Extension, and all he can do is stand up and lecture Members, I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he is not doing a very good job presenting the

petition. He should be relevant to the petition.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: To the point of order, which is not a point of

order. I remind the hon. gentleman, the reason I got off on a tangent was

because of questions asked by his colleague, who has no idea what MUN Extension

is; and a reminder to the gentlemen opposite, my words and my feelings, my

support for MUN Extension are already on the record of the House. What I am

trying to do is get them to do what their constituents have asked, to get up and

support this request, also. Hopefully, then, Government will re-instate the

Extension Service.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members of our Standing Order No. 92, when

presenting petitions. I have done this on several occasions, now, so much so

that hon. members ought to know the rules. I say to hon. members that the job of

the Chair is to enforce the rules and, equally, the job of hon. members is to

follow the rules. I want to make sure that is understood emphatically. I will

read the rule again to hon. members, it says, "Every member offering a petition

to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it

comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it

contains." I ask hon. members, please, to follow that rather precise and clear

rule. Thank you.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

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

respect your judgement and agree with it.

The University Extension Service, over the years, has done a

significant amount of work, particularly - not `only', but particularly - in the

rural areas of the Province. It has also extremely beneficial to the groups of

people in St. John's, as has already been exemplified, in the number of requests

for support from the more urban areas of the Province, but, in particular, in

rural Newfoundland. That organization has helped where no other organizations

have, despite what gentlemen opposite say, that, you know, it is a thing of the

past. Perhaps, today, when we have so many groups and agencies springing up all

over the place, the one common co-ordinator out there has been Memorial

University Extension.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before rising to support this petition of residents of the

Placentia area, I paused, expecting the Member for Placentia to speak in support

of it. I am very surprised -

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

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

a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it surprises me that, after your

ruling a moment ago, the hon. member would get up and deliberately defy the

direction given by the Chair. The point of order, simply, that I have, Mr.

Speaker, is that she should confine herself to the material allegations in the

petition and if she does not know anything to say about MUN Extension, then

maybe she should let somebody else get up and speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. The

Government House Leader is just trying to waste my time.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, I again remind hon.

members that when speaking to a petition, they confine themselves to the

statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached

to it, and the material allegations contained therein.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this petition, calling

on the Government to reinstate Memorial University Extension Service. The

Extension Service has provided invaluable supports to all parts of Newfoundland

and Labrador, but mostly the rural areas of our Province and, of course, most of

our people live in rural areas.

The Extension Service has provided catalyst for community

development, has offered workshops and courses, some informal, to give

individuals, groups and communities the skills and support they have needed to

achieve their own goals, goals for the improvement of their communities, some

economic goals, some citizenship goals; but, in all, the work of Memorial

University Extension Service has enriched the rural parts of our Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, rural Newfoundland has not been under such

attack since the 1960s, when Premier Smallwood imposed his resettlement

programme, as it is today, when this new `real change' Liberal Administration

has resumed the resettlement programme by closing hospitals, scaling down other

hospitals, closing community college campuses in all but name, and now, more

then ever, the rural areas need the continuing operation of Memorial University

Extension Service.

Mr. Speaker, although members of the Government have denied

this, their Economic Recovery Commission is purporting to subsume the role of

MUN Extension. Some of their people have been saying that they are superceding

MUN Extension, but the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that a successful agency which

operated at arms-length from the Premier and the Cabinet is being replaced - at

least, the allegation goes - by an unproven bureaucracy which is under the thumb

of the Premier, an agency which does not have to abide by even the Public

Service Commission in hiring, as flawed as that process may be under the new

rgime.

Mr. Speaker, the loss of MUN Extension at the same time as

the Government is withdrawing life supports from rural areas, and at the same

time as the Government has instilled fear in people of the Province through the

massive downsizing and through the thousands of layoffs, is very, very worrying.

Not only has MUN Extension provided valuable services in

rural parts of the Province - some of which were co-ordinated through St.

John's, including the publication of Decks Awash - but MUN Extension also

operated programmes in St. John's. I mention in particular MUN Extension Arts

which has operated in recent years on Duckworth Street, providing a focal point

for artists of all disciplines. With the closure of MUN Extension Arts there

will be no art education programmes anywhere in the Province this summer, and

the artists who have made a living here in our midst are having that fragile

livelihood jeopardized, because many of them got inspiration and encouragement

and support as well as space to work through MUN Extension Arts. And there is no

replacement in sight.

Indeed, instead of even talking about substitutes through the

ERC or through the Arts and Culture Centres, what we should be doing is joining

with the petitioners from Placentia and calling on the Government to reinstate

Memorial University Extension Service. And if the Premier wants to reinstate MUN

Extension, make no mistake, he can get together with Art May, the President of

the University, and accomplish that, no sweat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I think later in the afternoon I

will have an opportunity to react to some of the comments that have been made

earlier. All I will say now is that the people opposite have been criticizing

this arm's length relationship that the Government has with the University.

Well, I can assure them that from what I heard at the University, if there had

not been an arm's length relationship between the University and the Government,

Extension Service would have been eliminated a number of years ago because of

the activities of the hon. Members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, it is private Member's

resolution.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

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

I just want to make a point to a couple of Members. When the

Chair is speaking no other Member is supposed to be speaking. Particularly when

the Chair is calling Orders of the Day. I have noticed a couple of Members doing

that sort of consistently and incessantly. And I want to remind hon. Members

that the Chair will not tolerate that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition with his resolution.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This resolution is

fairly simple, it is fairly brief, and I think and hope it is to the point.

There is no fooling around with "whereases," there are no recitals because I do

not think it is necessary that there be recitals.

Over the last several days since the Budget came down and

since the University announced its cutbacks so it could live within the budget

that this Government gave it, there have been a number of questions and many,

many petitions to this House, many letters to the editor in all the papers,

there has been a lot of public commentary, calling for the reinstatement of

Memorial University Extension Services.

We thought as a caucus it would be appropriate to ensure that

Members of this House had an opportunity to debate the issue whether or not the

Government should provide additional financial resources to the university. It

is not an arm's length argument. That is not what we are talking about. The

Minister of Education will get up in a little while and talk about independence,

and academic freedom, and the arm's length approach to the University. That is

not what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker.

The University had its budget increased by only $75,000 and

the University had to make some decisions. Many of us might disagree and a lot

of us do disagree tremendously with the decision to cut MUN Extension Service,

but the University had to do something, and the something the University had to

do in terms of MUN Extension can be corrected by this Government; all the

Government has to do, Mr. Speaker, is earmark a few more dollars to Memorial

University for MUN Extension. I do not know if the University wanted to do away

with MUN Extension Services or not as something they wanted to do. I have not

heard anybody say that. There have been people suggest it. They have done it for

budgetary reasons, and the budgetary reasons lie at the doorstep of this

Government. Therefore, we thought it was appropriate to bring in a resolution

calling on this House, first of all, to oppose the closure of the Extension

Department and to urge the Government to provide sufficient funding to the

University to enable it to restore the Extension Service.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another reason for having this

debate today. Just a week or so ago, the Minister of Education in response to a

petition got up in this House and made a great number of observations about the

lack of involvement of Memorial University Extension Service in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. He poked fun at the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. RIDEOUT: The Minister of Education poked fun at the

Opposition for trying to make a connection between rural Newfoundland and

Labrador and the activities of Memorial University Extension. He poked fun at

people who were in the galleries at the time supporting the continued funding of

Memorial University Extension. The Minister got up and in his sarcastic, snide

but yet nice way, suggested that MUN Extension was nothing more than a few jobs

in St. John's. That is what the Minister said. It is in Hansard. I reviewed it

this morning while preparing for this debate. I reviewed the Minister's comments

and I could not believe it, Mr. Speaker. He must be gone totally townie himself

to be able to get up and make the connection that there is nothing to Memorial

University only thirty-three jobs or something, I think he said it was, in St.

John's, five or six of which were field officers in rural parts of Newfoundland

and Labrador, and outside that MUN Extension had nothing to do with rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, MUN Extension had nothing to offer Newfoundland and

Labrador. I say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that Memorial University Extension

is all about rural Newfoundland and Labrador - all about it - despite what the

Minister says when he gets up with his half moon smile and his grin, trying to

convince people on this side of the House that some how or other we are crazy

because we are making a connection between Memorial University Extension and

rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that there

would be no Fogo Island today if it were not for MUN Extension.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bull!

MR. RIDEOUT: There is the brains behind the decision, Mr.

Speaker. I hope Hansard picked up the word `bull' from the Minister of Finance.

This is the same Minister of Finance who talks about short and curlies when it

comes to the constitutional future of Canada, that is the same Minister who

makes that kind of brilliant insight into the obvious. `Bull', he says. Bull!

Let me remind the Minister of Finance about some of the things MUN Extension

Service has been doing within the last twelve months or so in rural

Newfoundland, and then let the Minister of Education get up and say no, they are

not true, let the Minister of Education get up and deny the fact.

DR. WARREN: (Inaudible)

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will have an

opportunity to speak shortly. I assume when he gets on his feet he will tell the

truth, because he did not tell the truth in this House last week when he left

the distinct impression with the media, and which was carried in the media, that

MUN Extension Service means nothing to rural Newfoundland any more, only a few

jobs in St. John's. That is what he said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out some of the rural activities at

Memorial University Extension this past year. I will not go back to five years

ago or ten years ago, when that service was providing a vital leadership role in

many, many communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when they were

helping to organize community councils, when they were helping to keep

communities alive, when they were helping to bring leadership to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. I will not go back that far, just let me go back over

the last twelve months or so.

What about in June 1990 when Memorial University Extension

brought 300 to 400 participants into the Empty Nets Forum. There were five of

those forums, Mr. Speaker, held throughout - where? Were they held in Gander,

Corner Brook or St. John's? No, Mr. Speaker, they were held throughout rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? Because the fishery always has been the backbone

of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, always will be the backbone of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery is in a state of crisis, and Memorial

University Extension reacted to that crisis, Mr. Speaker. That is providing

vital service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, five Empty Nets

Forums.

Four Empty Nets Forums, Mr. Speaker. Where? At Prince of

Wales Collegiate, or Bishop Field College in St. John's? Four Empty Nets Forums,

Mr. Speaker, in Labrador - four in Labrador. Five out around the Province, out

around the Island part of Newfoundland and Labrador, four on the Labrador part

of the Province, nine Empty Nets Forums dedicated to the most important industry

that keeps rural Newfoundland and Labrador alive, and the townie Minister of

Education has the gall to get up in this House and suggest that MUN Extension

means nothing to rural Newfoundland and Labrador any more, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Member for Eagle River.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Member for Eagle River?

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he there when the (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know if he would attend anything

Memorial University Extension puts on any more. I understand they would not hire

him. I understand that out of five in the competition he came fourth. And he

would not present a petition in the House the other day asking that it be kept

alive, that it be kept on, because I suppose he is prejudiced.

Mr. Speaker, the learning and sharing teleconferences - the

Minister, I assume, will respond to all those facts when he gets up - four of

them last year, 95 per cent rural participants. There were over 100 participants

per work shop, there were four of them, that is 400 people, and 95 per cent of

those participants lived, worked and tried to survive in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. How does the Minister square that with his statement, Mr. Speaker?

Decks Awash, 6,000 plus subscriptions, Mr. Speaker. Decks

Awash published by MUN Extension Services, 75 per cent of the subscriptions to

Decks Awash go into rural Newfoundland and Labrador. How does the Minister

square that with his statement that it is no longer needed, that it is no longer

affective?

What about conferences? In addition to the Empty Nets Forums

I have talked about, what about conferences Memorial University Extension were

instrumental in putting together or sponsoring last year? What about the

Southern Labrador Women's Conference? Memorial University put that off, Mr.

Speaker, Memorial University Extension. The Southern Labrador Women's

Conferences, I suppose the Member for Eagle River does not think that is very

important, that women in southern Labrador have a forum and be able to come

together, organize and express their views and be trained in leadership

opportunities. The Minister of Education does not think it is important. MUN

Extension does not extend to southern Labrador, according to the Minister.

What about the St. Mary's Bay Fisheries Conference? My

friend, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, I am sure would be aware of it.

It was put together and sponsored by the Extension Service of Memorial

University. That is a pretty urban activity, Mr. Speaker. That is a pretty urban

activity in St. John's, the St. Mary's Bay Fisheries Conference. What about the

Native Housing Conference in Goose Bay, I say to the Minister of Education? Was

that not important? Was that not worthwhile? Was that not doing something for

people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? And more importantly, was it not

doing something for our native people? I say to the Minister.

What about the Fisheries Conference Co-operation `90,

Planning for Survival, which was held in March 1991 in Gander, Mr. Speaker? What

about the fishery seminars that were held in Triton and Harbour Grace? Is that

not rural activity by Memorial University Extension Service in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador?

What about the Women and Economic Development Conference held

in Gander? What about the involvement of Memorial University Extension in

community television? And talking about community television, Mr. Speaker, I

wonder is why there was a court injunction in Placentia just a few days ago, to

make sure that the equipment of Memorial University Extension was removed from

the office at Placentia? Is it not a fact that MUN Extension is, I do not know,

the operator or part of the operation of the community television down in

Placentia? No, says the Member. Well, I have heard differently, I say to the

Member. I have heard differently, and I have heard that that was the very reason

why the long arm of the law, on behalf of this Government, zeroed in on that

particular office.

Mr. Speaker, all of those things were totally rural. Where is

the Minister of Education when he gets up and makes those foolish, asinine

statements, that MUN Extension has no more validity any more in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador because it is mostly urban?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has tried to

mislead this House and the people of this Province on so many occasions now that

nobody believes a word he says - nobody!

I mean, we have Hansard here. The Minister's own words are in

Hansard. But, of course, Mr. Speaker, this Minister is so used to talking out of

both sides of his mouth he has no idea what he says from day to day, and that is

the problem with this Minister, no idea. The day after the Budget was brought

down - the Budget was brought down March 7, was it not? - Friday March 8, the

Minister of Education had a press conference and announced that Memorial

University's budget was increased by $5.5 million, and then he had to stand in

this House a week or so later, after the President of the University had a press

conference and announced that actually it only went up by $740,000 or $750,000,

that wrong again.

The Minister put in black and white - we have a copy of his

statement - that MUN's budget went up by $5.5 million. So you cannot trust a

word this Minister says, unfortunately.

What about some special projects MUN Extension has been

involved in over this past year? They have been involved in the Co-Op Curriculum

Project. Now, Mr. Speaker, Co-Ops, in many forms are very, very important in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador - the Fogo Island Co-Op, for example, the Petty

Harbour Fisherman's Co-Op - especially now, business being the way it is.

Thirty-two workshops were held, mostly in rural schools. Did the Minister of

Education hear that?

Memorial University Extension held thirty-two workshops on

Co-Op Curriculum Projects in thirty-two rural schools in Newfoundland and

Labrador, not at Bishop's College or Prince of Wales Collegiate, but in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, and this Minister says they have no relevance to

rural Newfoundland and Labrador any more, that their work can be carried out by

Community Colleges or Development Associations or some other group. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Development Associations answered the Minister back in spades, did

they not? They answered the Minister back in spades when their rural development

council told the Minister that he was full of baloney, that he did not know what

he was talking about, that MUN Extension meant a tremendous amount to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should

not open his mouth. We heard the word `bull' come out of the Minister of Finance

in terms of how important Memorial University Extension is.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible), they were responsible for

(inaudible) people on Fogo Island.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is true.

DR. KITCHEN: That is not (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, that is bull. According to the Minister,

that is b-u-l-l.

DR. KITCHEN: No, no. That is your spelling.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the Minister's word; it might be my

spelling. Thank God the Minister did not teach me how to spell.

Mr. Speaker, Healthy Communities Projects, five workshops

carried out, four of them in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. And the

Minister gets up and makes the defence that it can go because it has no

relevancy to Newfoundland and Labrador any more.

Volunteer projects: Three out of the four groups studied were

rural based. All workshops were held in rural areas. The Rural Women's Learning

Project, ten workshops.

MS. VERGE: That won an international award.

MR. RIDEOUT: Ten workshops for 100 people, all held in

rural areas, and I understand it won an international award Mr. Speaker, that is

the kind of activity that Memorial University Extension has become known for.

That is how the expertise and the arm of the University reaches out into Ming's

Bight and Pacquet and Harbour Deep in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. And that

arm is now going to be cut off because of this Government and their budgetary

procedures, Mr. Speaker.

And there is nothing out there to replace it with, I say to

the Minister. The community college in Grand Falls or Springdale or Baie Verte

cannot offer to rural Newfoundland and Labrador what the University Extension

has offered over the years, and what it can continue to offer. And their budgets

have been frozen and cut back. They cannot expand any more. Many of them cannot

even offer an industrial arts programme any more to high school students in

their areas.

We have pointed out time after time that this particular

Budget is an attack in many ways on the rural base of this Province. Now

Ministers get up and deny it. They deny it on MUN Extension, in terms of

hospital closures, in terms of post-secondary education, and cutbacks in

post-secondary education. But the message is getting through to people in this

Province that this Government has an anti-rural Newfoundland agenda. As a matter

of fact, it was only a few days ago I heard a union leader out in St. Lawrence -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Memorial University Extension

did a fine job, I referred to it earlier, under Empty Nets for him. I think for

Members on the other side they should do an empty head conference, and the

person that they should dedicate it to is the intellectual Minister of Finance.

When you look over and see the Minister of Finance, a product of Memorial

University, you sometimes wonder if the University is making any progress at

all. But I suppose you cannot make much progress when you did not have much to

work with.

But there is nothing in the heart of the Minister of Finance

that has any affinity with rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He could not care

less. Let me say to the Minister of Finance what one of his constituents say

about MUN Extension. Just let me read a paragraph or two. This person writes:

since MUN Extension began teaching art in the early 1960s with Christopher and

Mary Pratt as instructors, I have been both a student and an instructor at their

workshops and in their classes. For thirty years they provided art instruction

at a very high level to a variety of interested students.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with rural

Newfoundland?

MR. RIDEOUT: What has it to do with rural Newfoundland? I

suppose, Mr. Speaker, there are no artists in rural Newfoundland!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: If you follow the logic of the Minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind even spontaneous

and small "l" liberal interruptions, but I do not have the ability to shout over

a half a dozen. Now, if you follow the logic and the reference to "bull" coming

from the Minister of Finance, you might as well change the name, Memorial

University of Newfoundland and Labrador, to 'The University of St. John's.' That

is all it will be. It is going to become an elite institution. The Ministers of

Finance and Education made sure of that two years ago when they brought in a

budget that increased tuition fees by 10 per cent at the time. It went up again

last year, it is going up again this year. About 30 per cent in two years. This

Government is out to destroy rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

And one of the manifestations of that destruction is in the

elimination of MUN Extension Services. That division of the University was

something that made the University alive and meaningful to people in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. It was something that provided leadership and a

demonstration of it in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up, I will have a few minutes

later on in the evening.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I really always enjoy the Leader

of the Opposition, and we are going to miss him. In fact I am almost ready to

start a `bring him back' campaign, because I am really going to miss him. When

he gets going in full-flight, I really enjoy him. We are all going to miss him,

I think, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why he keeps picking on - the word I use is

`picking on' - the Minister of Finance and me. He must have done a course with

us and got a `C' grade or a `D' grade. I want to research that, because I think

we must have given him a low mark.

DR. KITCHEN: No.

DR. WARREN: Never did?

DR. KITCHEN: No.

DR. WARREN: Okay.

DR. KITCHEN: Anything I ever gave him was an `A'.

DR. WARREN: You gave him an `A'.

More seriously, Mr. Speaker, I do want to address the very

serious resolution put forth today, and I want to do it without, hopefully,

exaggerating the situation. I want to be fair to all concerned.

I want to provide a little background for the House. The

educational system, Mr. Speaker, is facing new demands every day of the week.

They are demands that education provide a full education, a full development of

every person in society. That is a new demand, greater equality of opportunity,

irrespective of where they live, irrespective of their ability, the income of

their parents.

There is a demand that education be excellent, that we

provide high standards. We have to compete with the world. We have to develop

human beings to compete with the world. We need high standards. So, there are

tremendous demands being placed on the educational system, including the

post-secondary system. At the same time, we have declining resources. Now, that

is the problem the Government was faced with in the last few months, Mr.

Speaker.

I saw, on my desk this morning, a report which said that the

reduction in EPF transfer payments to this Province over the next four or five

years will amount to about $80 million. We had an EPF funding programme which

transferred to the provinces certain amounts of money every year, and they were

increasing. Well, a year ago, two years ago, these funds were frozen and we are

now getting $80 million - between 1990-1991 and 1994-1995, an estimate is, on

that freeze alone, in transfer payments for post-secondary, we are getting a

total of $80 million less.

So, this Government, with declining resources, with the

depression we are in, in the country, we have severe fiscal problems this year,

and we could not provide all the funds that the school system needed, the

university needed, the colleges and the institutes needed. We did provide more

money; even with the freeze, Mr. Speaker, we gave more dollars to education this

year. I do not want to say we did better than certain other departments, that is

not fair. We did reasonably well, but we could not provide more. As the Premier

said so often, we either had to increase taxes, we had to increase borrowing, or

we had to do something else, and we, as a Government, decided that we had to

exercise fiscal restraint. We could only provide to the university, this year,

the $115 million.

Mr. Speaker, the university had, before the Budget was

announced, a $12 million to $13 million problem. With the freeze in salaries,

their problem was reduced to a $7 million to $8 million problem. It is a

significant problem, even though they have a large budget; to exercise

restraints that would result in a saving of $7 million to $8 million is a major

problem. Now, they got some of that from increased fees. The hon. the Leader of

the Opposition points out that the university is increasing fees, and perhaps $2

million or $3 million will come from increases in fees, this year. But, the

university still had a problem, and they did what the Government did, they put

committees in place, and a process in place to examine all the possible options.

One of the decisions they made was to eliminate the Extension

Services. We, as a Government, regret that, Mr. Speaker. We regret a lot of the

other cuts, the programmes that may have to be reduced somewhat. We regret

having to increase, even, student fees, because we want to increase

participation in post-secondary education in the Province. We have made more

available, but it is still going to be a little more difficult for students. We

regret these decisions but we are not going to intervene and tell the University

how to run its programmes with respect to academic and other programmes. The

arm's - length relationship, and I could go on for some time on this, but I do

not want to. The traditional arm's - length relationship between a government

and a university is treasured in North America and in Europe because without

that relationship universities could not criticize governments. They could not

criticize and make positive suggestions for changes in society because they

would be threatened by withdrawal of their funds and their decision making

power, so we treasure in this country this arm's - length relationship. We are

not going to go back to the University and tell them to cut this program, do not

cut that, cut physics, cut two professors here, cut seven professors there.

Number one, it is wrong in theory and it just would not work, Mr. Speaker, so we

have had to leave these decisions to the University. Now, I did, last week, try

to correct some information, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not tell

the story precisely. I have been here in this House listening to how the

University is destroying rural Newfoundland. The University is not here to

defend itself. I could defend myself against the Government's action - I argued

that. Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks the Opposition said, and they said it

again today, that the University by destroying Extension is destroying rural

Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, they have said that this

Government is out to destroy rural Newfoundland, and the University, by

eliminating the Extension Department, is going to be a University for St.

John's. That is what they have said, Mr. Speaker. We have it on the record, what

you said a few minutes ago, the hon. Leader: this is going to be a St. John's

university. I tried to put on record the other day some of the facts about

Extension and I prefaced my comments about the number of employees and the work

of Extension, I prefaced my comments, as I have time and time again, by paying

tribute to the Extension Service and what it has done. I know, better than the

Leader of the Opposition, or as well as the Leader of the Opposition, what

Extension did. I worked with the late Don Snowden when it was in its hayday. I

was on Fogo Island in those conferences and I worked with George Lee, and I

worked with some of the people who are in the gallery today. I worked with them.

I know what they have done and I paid tribute to them, and I pay tribute to them

today. I just wanted to put on record a few of the misleading statements,

because the Opposition was perpetuating the myth that by eliminating Extension,

Memorial was eliminating continuing studies, they were eliminating all those

hundreds of programs that are now being offered in rural Newfoundland. I put on

record, Mr. Speaker, that outside St. John's the total employed persons, about

thirty-three, in the Extension Service, I am pleased to say that a number of the

thirty-three are going to be retained by Memorial to do other programs. Of the

thirty-three, I said the other day, I think I said four permanent persons were

situated outside St. John's. I did not argue that the people in St. John's did

not contribute to rural Newfoundland. I said the number of employees in the

Extension Service - and I was amazed because I know the conferences they

organized. Now, maybe the Leader of the Opposition is exaggerating a bit, maybe

they did not organize themselves all these conferences, maybe they worked with

other agencies. It is my understanding that their role was to work with all the

other agencies and they have been doing that. I do not think they would even

claim they did all that themselves, as he did. That is not their role, Mr.

Speaker. They did work with others. Outside, St. John's, Mr. Speaker, as I said

the other day, there were, I think, four permanent persons, four part-time

secretaries, and one or two contract people, situated in the field. I did not

argue that all those just served St. John's. I just want to put that on the

record. I want to set it straight because the Leader of the Opposition said

differently.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into all the other

agencies that are now there to serve rural Newfoundland. I will say one thing

thought, Mr. Speaker, if George Lee were here today, or if the late Don Snowden

were here today, I think they would say that Extension helps to develop other

agencies, works with other agencies, and almost puts themselves out of work

eventually because they are there to facilitate the development of others.

Extension never went into rural Newfoundland to be there indefinitely and to do

the same thing for the next ten years. The role of Extension has evolved over

the years to help others mature, and they have done a magnificent amount helping

other rural development organizations, community futures, municipal councils,

and all of these agencies blossom, develop, and give leadership in the regions

of this Province. The success of the local development associations, the success

of all these agencies must be in part due to the work of the Extension

Department by helping these groups mature and give leadership to rural

Newfoundland. I have said that over and over in this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do want to defend the University a bit

more because the University is not here to defend itself. This is not a Memorial

University of St. John's. Let me tell you some of the things that Memorial

University does outside St. John's. Not only Sir Wilfred Grenfell, serving the

whole west coast. First year programmes in Burin, in Lewisporte and Grand Falls,

in Labrador West -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: - Mr. Speaker, that is what Memorial

University offers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

DR. WARREN: How much time do I have (Inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight minutes.

DR. WARREN: Eight minutes. First year programmes.

Continuing Studies. You know, I was amazed to find out how many courses are

offered through the Department of Continuing Studies, which was operated - maybe

I am wrong - I believe Continuing Studies was operated by Extension at one point

in time but Extension gave it to someone else to do.

Continuing Studies: I have heard of as many as 3,000 students

a year being offered programmes in eighty to 100 centres all over the Province.

And they are going to continue. We have continuing education offices in

Clarenville, Grand Falls - Windsor, Corner Brook, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, I

gather, and they are going to continue. We have all these teleconference

centres. I taught courses through the teleconference centres from Memorial. Many

others do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Maybe I did not do a good job, I will leave

that to history to record. I am not going to get sidetracked by the hon. Member

for Burin, I know what he is going to say when he gets up, but I will not try to

react to him. But I can tell you that Memorial University continues to offer

courses and programmes - I am not saying that they are going to replace

Extension. Extension had a social activist dimension which may not be replaced

by some of these. But the programmes are there, the services are there.

Telemedicine, TETRA, the Labrador Institute for Northern Studies, the Centre for

Fisheries Innovation of Memorial, the continuing medical education for rural

based health communities. This is not a Memorial University of St. John's. I am

talking about a University of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I reject what the

Opposition is saying, that Memorial is destroying rural Newfoundland by pulling

out. This is not happening. This Government is committed to rural Newfoundland.

Memorial University is committed to rural Newfoundland. They are working with

teachers in rural areas, the university people are. We have social work people

and students, and engineering, business and education students in rural

Newfoundland.

I was pleased to learn the other day that Memorial University

was not going to cut its art instruction programme totally in St. John's. I was

told that they have $150,000 available to continue some of the professional and

personal development courses in the area of art for the Fall and Winter

1991-1992. My colleague the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is

looking for ways to help the art community in St. John's. I hear the colleges

are. I will not get into the role of the colleges either.

The biggest way in which Memorial has contributed to rural

Newfoundland is providing an education for students from all over Newfoundland

and Labrador. I used to believe the myth that the large percentage of our

students at Memorial came from St. John's. I used to believe that. I knew there

was a disproportion of people from St. John's there, proportionate to the

population. But Dr. Harris, who I have a great deal of respect for, did a study

of the graduates of Memorial University some years ago, and he said there were

39,790 - a couple of years ago, 1990, in his Convocation Speech - degrees

representing, he said, every

section of the Province in roughly equal

representation. This is a University for the whole Province. Dr. Harris said

this - I think he was a bit surprised - I was, at the number of people who go to

Memorial from all over this Province. Because I always felt that if you were

closer to the University, closer to Grenfell, closer to first year programmes,

you were more likely to go.

But Memorial has attracted students from all over this

Province. He went on to point out that there was equal representation from the

social economic areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition to say that Memorial

University is now going to become a University of St. John's is doing a

disservice to Memorial University. And even though I do not defend it, because I

was part of it for a number of years - I want in this House to defend the

University. This University serves the whole Province. Now maybe there are some

other things it can do, Mr. Speaker. Dr. May and the Board of Regents will look

at other ways in which they can serve rural Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, I think

it is an injustice to accuse Memorial University of rejecting rural Newfoundland

because they eliminated the Extension Service.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps just one or two other comments, by

leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have four more minutes left.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we have met with people about

Extension the last few days and it has been difficult for us. I have tried to

pay tribute to what they have done. I have tried to tell them, Mr. Speaker, what

other agencies are doing. I must say the colleges may not be able to replace

Extension, but the colleges throughout this Province, and my hon. friends who

are Ministers of career, development and post-secondary education know that

these colleges are there and they are providing a tremendous service throughout

the Province, to rural Newfoundland. I think we have underestimated their

contribution. We have done an injustice to them, Mr. Speaker, by not

acknowledging the work that they are going to do in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I again conclude by indicating support for what

Extension has done in the past. There are some functions that may not be well

performed by other agencies today, but do not underestimate, Mr. Speaker. The

hon. Members opposite: I reject that rural Newfoundland and the people of rural

Newfoundland are dying. I reject that - there is a vibrancy. The rural

Newfoundland people, their conferences are on, week after week I hear of

conferences. Rural Newfoundland is strong, Mr. Speaker, and this Government is

going to ensure that rural Newfoundland remains strong. We believe in rural

Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, and we have a number of policies in place. We will

put more in place that promote development of all parts of this Province, of all

people in this Province irrespective of where they live, irrespective of where

they reside. We have confidence that we will help them develop to meet the needs

and the demands of the future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House now for ten years and

if I have ever seen an actor, if I have ever seen a person speak out off both

sides of his mouth at the same time, if I have ever seen someone speak who does

not have the courage to stay and hear the rebuttal of his comments, the truth

put forward, it is the Minister of Education. What we have in this Province is a

Minister of Education, a Minister of Finance, a Premier who have no commitment

whatsoever nor understanding of rural Newfoundland. That is the problem, Mr.

Speaker. That is the problem. When you get a filthy rich Premier like we have

here, a Duckworth Street lawyer who came up, Mr. Speaker - rural Newfoundland,

the fisheries, the farmers and the development associations are not in his

vocabulary. That is the biggest problem we have going on here in this Province

today. That is what the problem is. We have seen it demonstrated time after time

by the Minister of Social Services who has no understanding of the poor and the

suffering in this Province, and now we have the Minister and others doing the

same thing.

I want to say a few words about what the Minister of

Education said. Most of what he said is not true. Most of what the Minister of

Education is saying is not true. There is no one within this House or outside

who has ever questioned the commitment of Memorial University to rural

Newfoundland. We have questioned this Minister of Treasury Board and others who

have cut the funding to Memorial University to do what needs to be done in rural

Newfoundland. That is the problem. I can solve your problem with MUN Extension

Services in a minute if you would listen to me. That is leave the headquarters

for the Eastern Community College in Burin, forget about the (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: What did the Minister of Finance say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, we lost our chance to govern, but it will

be back again when you get people as arrogant as you to sit on the benches, and

as incompetent as you - there is no doubt about it. Leave the headquarters for

Eastern Community College in Burin - yes, and Carbonear. Forget about paying

rent to a businessman for five years with no one in his building. Forget about

the cost of transferring people. Leave the headquarters there and you will save

yourself enough money to run the MUN Extension Service. That is one solution.

The other solution is take a little bit of the $44 million

that Doug House and the Newfoundland 'senate' is receiving every year. Take that

little bit of money for a few people who worked on the Liberal campaign. Some of

the boys who worked on the Liberal campaign, putting them in plush offices and

paying them tens of thousands of dollars a year, providing them with cars and

everything else. Give that to MUN Extension Services, and see what will do the

most for rural Newfoundland. Will it be the campaign manager of the Liberal

Party who is situated in Gander, with a Government car and a big expense

account? One hundred and fifty thousand dollars for advertising. Give that to

MUN Extension Services and let them go out in rural Newfoundland and see what

will benefit Newfoundlanders, Mr. Speaker. Will it be the black Oldsmobiles, or

will it be people using to some extent their own cars, working on a travel

claim?

No, and the Member for Carbonear and others should be

standing up condemning this Government for the brutal attack, every time you

turn around, that they are implementing and inflicting upon rural Newfoundland.

This is serious business, what is taking place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: This is serious business which is taking

place-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: - yes, Mr. Speaker, I was in Florida. And

while I was in Florida, I can tell the Member for Carbonear, I learned enough

about him that I am not sure that I want to be associated with him again, if he

wants to start talking about that.

Now, I happen to know some of the people who work for MUN

Extension Services. I know one person who lived on the Burin Peninsula as a MUN

Extension Service worker, Mr. Tom O'Keefe. Who did a job that no one else could

have done except MUN Extension Services, particularly for the rural parts.

Places like Petit Forte and South East Bight that are isolated. And I would

suspect that the Ministers of Finance and Education and others do not know where

it is, have never been there, except for the time that it has been brought up in

this House. But have some concern for these people who live in rural, isolated

communities in Newfoundland. Have some concern for the people who need

assistance, who need help in organizing meetings.

And you have some of the people opposite, they stand up from

time to time, and they talk about rural Newfoundland. We have seen more

hypocrisy in the last two years than we have ever witnessed in the last forty

years in this Province. Where are the Members who were members of rural

development associations? Where are they today in this House and are not

speaking out? Where is the Minister of Development, who knows the valuable

contribution that MUN Extension has made to the rural development association

movement in this Province? Where are they? Not a whimper.

But the work that Tom O'Keefe and others have done for rural

Newfoundland - and the Minister of Education gets up the other day and he makes

a joke out of the fact that there are only four people in rural Newfoundland. He

said he knew more about MUN Extension than anyone, because when he worked there

DR. WARREN: I did not say that - almost.

MR. TOBIN: He said when he worked there there were over

100 people worked in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You said when you worked at MUN Extension,

there were over 100 employees with MUN Extension in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You did not say that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What did he say then?

DR. WARREN: I said there were hundreds of people involved

in Extension all over the Province. People working. Extension involved a lot of

people, a lot of organizations (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. And I can say to the

Minister that if he was as incompetent then as he is now there should be 100,000

in the Extension movement in this Province. Because this Minister is the person

responsible for attacking Memorial University and the MUN Extension Services.

And he can twist all he likes, but he will never be able to shake the opinion in

this Province that he is the worst Minister of Education that this Province has

ever seen. He will never be able to shake that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and I doubt very much if the Member for

Conception Bay South will be ever able to shake the feeling and opinions of her

role as leader of the NTA in this Province. But when we got into some of the

comments that the Minister made - let me say something.

He talked about the EPF transfers being down, and so they

are, and the Federal Government should not be allowed to get away with it. And

this Minister and others should be protesting to the Federal Government for

cutting the EPF. But do they know when the EPF cuts started? They started in

1982. And do you know who was on Treasury Board? Would you believe that Mr.

Chrtien was a member of the Treasury Board programme that started slashing EPF

to rural Newfoundland, the man whom everyone of you to a person supported in the

last leadership? That is the fellow who implemented the first surgery on EPF

coming to this Province. And you are so proud of that, right? We have the

courage to condemn the Federal Government when they should be condemned, and on

that issue they should be. And it is now time for you people to stand up and

condemn Mr. Chretien for bringing it in in the first place. But as they are

doing now, they lack the intestinal fortitude or the courage to stand and

condemn someone of their own political stripe. That is what is taking place in

this Province.

And there are other areas. Rural Newfoundland must be allowed

to continue. For those people who are familiar with the resettlement programme

of the sixties, they know what rural Newfoundland is all about. As a matter of

fact, there is a good friend of mine who works with MUN Extension who was a

victim of the resettlement programme in this Province, who was moved with his

family from his home on Merasheen Island by another Liberal regime. He went to

work to try and do things that would help rural Newfoundland, to try and

organize people and to assist people in providing the best opportunities for

them live and be cared for in rural Newfoundland. And they were able to do that

for seventeen years, almost eighteen years, until another Liberal regime came

into power, when again the dreams and aspirations of these people who had such a

commitment to rural Newfoundland were brought to an abrupt halt.

Why? Why do you people not take a trip to a community like

Petit Forte or South East Bight and ask them what MUN Extension Service has been

able to do for them? Why do you not do that? Why do you not go down to the

Placentia West Development Association? I spoke with someone today who was doing

their press release to condemn this Government for their attack on MUN

Extension, but were so frustrated and bitter about the attack on their

development association with the absence of MUN Extension from now on, which had

been a very vital part of the growth and development of that association, they

had difficulty writing the press release.

Is that what this Minister of Education takes pride in? Where

are the Members who represent rural Newfoundland? When one considers the role

MUN Extension Services has played in the Placentia area in terms - and this is

very interesting - of providing a communication network through the cable t.v.

system to the residents of that area in being able to explain to the people of

that area what this Government was doing in their health care cuts, in

eliminating the hospital, attacking the sick and the suffering of that area. It

was MUN Extension that was able to provide assistance in providing that coverage

and information to the people. I wonder, does that have anything to do with what

we saw last week, when they invaded the office and stole everything that was

there? It almost put you in mind of the invasion by Iraq of Kuwait - people

running to get clear of the invasion by this Government sending their people in;

they do not have the courage to do it themselves. They sent people in to get it

done on their behalf, to as quick as they possibly could withdraw the

communications system providing information to the people of Placentia about the

health care cuts. Is that what this Government is proud of? Is that what the

President of Treasury Board is proud of?

The Minister of Education talked about the former President

of the University, Mr. Harris, and what he said about the University being

attended by people from all over the Province. That is true. That was true. But

this Government has raised tuition and the cost of residence to the extent that

people from rural Newfoundland, unless they are rich, will not be able to send

their children to Memorial University. And we are hearing that every day. A

parent told me on the weekend that it is going to be cheaper for him to send his

children to a mainland university, in Nova Scotia, than to send them in here to

St. John's. Is that what this Government is proud of, Mr. Speaker? Is that what

this Government is proud of? They are driving people from rural Newfoundland by

the droves, yet the Premier in the last election campaign said there was a

certain woman who was going to kiss his feet because he was going to bring her

son home; he promised to bring home every mother's son, Mr. Speaker, yet he is

driving every mother's son to the mainland. And now the mothers are being driven

away as well. That is what this Government has been doing for rural

Newfoundland.

There is a hidden agenda within this Government. Through the

elimination of MUN Extension, through the amalgamation issue and through the

local regional service boards, there is a hidden agenda throughout those three

issues to resettle rural Newfoundland, and do not forget it. It is the

resettlement program of the 1960s, except that it is more subtle than it was

before, and people might as well realize it and Members might as well realize

it.

I do not expect the Member for a St. John's riding, such as

my colleague there for Mount Scio - Bell Island or the Member for St. John's

South or others to understand. Surely they have some understanding of it, but I

do not expect them to have the same concept of understanding for rural

Newfoundland as does the Member for Exploits, or the Member for Bellevue, or the

Member for Carbonear, or the Member for Fortune - Hermitage. So I think it is

time for you people to stand and put your thoughts on the record, put your

position on the record of this House as it relates to the basic gutting of MUN

Extension Service in this Province.

You have a responsibility to your constituents. Clyde Wells

did not vote for you nor did anyone in this House vote for you. It is your

constituents to whom you are responsible and not to any one in this House. And

as Private Members you have the right and the responsibility to do that. I agree

that if a Minister wants to disagree with Government he or she has to resign and

I can see the situation they are in, but there is no Member over there in the

back benches who has that commitment to the Cabinet; you have a commitment to

your constituents and it is about time you showed some courage and stood up and

spoke up for what you believe in.

And it is not just the four jobs the Minister of Education

talks about. If he is shooting you that in your caucus meetings, do not believe

him. MUN Extension has touched basically every rural community in this Province.

I have spoken about my own District, and I know it has been very effective in

the Bellevue District as well as in the Placentia District and the St. Mary's -

The Capes District. I am familiar with that part of the Province - and in the

Ferryland District and the Grand Bank District. And I am sure it has done the

same in the rest of the districts in Newfoundland and Labrador. So why do you

sit in this House and support a Government that is not providing enough funding

to Memorial University to continue that service? What do you have against the

people you represent, let me ask the Member for Carbonear and others, that you

cannot stand and defend their rights to have MUN Extension provide assistance to

the rural parts of this Province, particularly your district? It takes courage

to stand up and speak against your Government I know, but some of us have done

it from time to time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you have no worries about the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island doing it either. But you have to have a

sense of responsibility and a conscience to speak on behalf of your

constituents. I know what they did on the west coast of this Province and what

they did in the Clarenville area. And the Member for Trinity North is not here

again. If there is anyone who should be in this House listening, it is the

Member for Trinity North. Because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) meeting with some

constituents.

MR. TOBIN: He probably is.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is in a meeting with some constituents

(Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am not saying anything in a derogatory

sense. I think he would benefit by being here and listening to this debate.

Although it is not sinking in very well with the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island. The Member for Bonavista South is another Member who should forget about

his ambition to be a Member of Cabinet and stand up for the people of the

Bonavista Peninsula. That is what should happen. He should put his ambitions for

a Cabinet position second and let us know his position on MUN Extension and the

elimination of it, and how it will affect his district. Because I have reason to

believe that it will have a negative effect, from what I have heard and from

what I have read.

Mr. Speaker, I know I only have a couple of minutes left -

three minutes to be exact. I believe it should not be just the Minister of

Education and people on this side who stand up and speak on this issue, it

should be all Members who are concerned about the rural parts of our Province.

Make no mistake about it, the biggest losers in the elimination of MUN Extension

are not the four employees the Minister of Education talks about, but the people

in rural Newfoundland communities, people such as the constituents I represent,

particularly in Rushoon, Baine Harbour, Boat Harbour, Petit Forte, South East

Bight, and other areas where they have (inaudible).

It is almost impossible for me to relate the positive input

MUN Extension Service has had on the area I represent. And they do not fly

around in helicopters and other means and modes of transportation, as do the

Economic Recovery Commission and other people. They get in an open boat in the

worst kinds of weather to keep commitments they have in some isolated

communities they could not get to by car. That is the the kind of commitment

they had to rural Newfoundland, and that is the commitment this Government

should have to rural Newfoundland.

Let me say to the President of Treasury Board, I would

suspect, Sir, that to keep MUN Extension Service moving in rural Newfoundland

will not affect the credit rating of this Government. I do not believe that. I

do not believe that when it is said by the Minister of Education and others. I

do not believe for one minute that it is going to affect the credit rating of

Newfoundland, keeping MUN Extension.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are paid to not believe

it and that is it.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: I said, you are paid to not believe it.

MR. TOBIN: I do not know what he is saying.

MR. DOYLE: He said you are paid to not believe it.

MR. TOBIN: I am paid to not believe it? Well I do not

believe it, nor does anybody else believe it!

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

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me ask -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: - my colleagues opposite if they will -

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon Member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member does not have leave of the House.

MR. TOBIN: Okay. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Normally I think we

would be disposed on this side of the House probably to give leave to someone

for some concluding remarks, but knowing the past record of performance by the

previous speaker, there would not be anything contributed to the debate but

another tirade of some sort. So I would prefer to make my few comments than

listen to more of that.

Before I make a few comments to let everybody in the House

assembled know exactly where I am coming from, to explain for a few minutes why

we, on this side, will not support this motion at the end of the day so that you

know full well where we are coming from. Before I make a few comments to explain

why that will be the position of the Members on this side of the House I just

want to talk about some comments made by a couple of the previous speakers, and

I expect that one of the next speakers for Members opposite would in all

likelihood be the hon. Member for Humber East. I will be very surprised if it is

not and I will touch on that just briefly.

But the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, Mr. Speaker,

began his few comments by talking about one of his favourite words, hypocrisy,

because it really comes easily to his mouth and from his lips because he has

lived it for years and has showed it again here today. He still has the gall

today to stand in this House on a debate in which Members opposite indicate that

they are serious about an attempt to try to restore some funding so that MUN

Extension can be maintained, and to talk about options for this Government, to

say that with the ERC they should not have big offices. He was a Member of a

Cabinet in which the first thing one of the Cabinet Ministers did when appointed

was spend $125,000 to redo the bathroom, and he has the gall - talk about

hypocrisy - to stand up in this House today and suggest to the Members and

Ministers on this side that we should not have appointed the ERC and given them

proper offices to (inaudible) -

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Member is

saying, but I hope he is not suggesting that I spent $125,000 to redo a

bathroom, because if he is, that is far from being the truth. If such a bathroom

exists I would suggest it would be appropriate for the hon. Member to visit it.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order. The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I expect in my

remarks he might jump up three or four more times to get on with that usual kind

of nonsense because he knows exactly what I said is no reference to him. A

Minister - he knows full well who it is - did exactly that.

Secondly, he talked about some of the senior staff on the

executive of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador who may still be driving and

are still driving vehicles that are provided by that corporation because this

Government has committed money through that agency for economic development to

try and lessen the amount of dependency in Newfoundland on the Government. I am

sure that they are not disagreeing with that objective and would suggest that

Government should never spend any money on economic development so that there

would be more private sector enterprises established which could create jobs,

employ Newfoundlanders gainfully, and everyone would not have to think in

Newfoundland that the only place to get a job in this Province is to work for

the Provincial Government. He does not disagree with that.

He talked about the cars. And he, again, was a Member of a

Cabinet with his seatmate very close to him now, as I mentioned in some comments

last week, who while a Minister of the Crown had a trailer hitch attached to the

Government vehicle he drove with all expenses paid, went on a "business trip" to

several cities in the United States, put the trailer on, took the whole family

and they stood up in the House and said, 'Oh no, there is nothing wrong with

that. He was on business, and it would have cost maybe just as much had he flown

down, stayed a couple of days in a hotel and flew back.' There was no reason to

go, only an excuse given after to cover up the expense to say that that kind of

stuff happened. That Member would start his remarks by talking about hypocrisy.

I am amazed that they would continue to say those kinds of things.

I will mention as well, Mr. Speaker, before I get into my

comments about the resolution, because I do want to make it clear why we intend

to vote against this resolution today. I will expect that the hon. Member for

Humber East will probably speak next, if not it will be the first time that she

has missed an opportunity on this issue because there is no doubt in our minds

that she is now the self appointed patron saint of all worthwhile causes, and

this one is a worthwhile cause. I am not sure of the motives of Members

opposite, but in this particular case, maybe if she speaks I would ask her if

she would clarify for this House the information that I have - I do not have the

letter to provide, I was not successful in getting the letter - but I understand

that when she was Minister of Education she wrote to Memorial University,

because she did not believe in the arms - length operation, and suggested to the

Board of Regents at the university that she, as the Minister, would like for MUN

Extension to be scrapped.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main on a

point of order.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I was not listening to the hon.

Member very closely, and maybe I should have been, because I was reading the

newspaper, but I was informed by some of my colleagues a moment ago that the

hon. Member made a remark that the Member for Harbour Main towed a trailer down

through the States. Is that what the Member for Exploits said? Mr. Speaker, I

ask the Member for Exploits to retract that, if he said it, because it is a

blatant lie. If he said it. He tells me he did not say it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Harbour Main to withdraw that

remark.

MR. DOYLE: I never accused him of lying. I said it was a

lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. the Member for Harbour Main

withdraw that remark?

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I never called the hon. Member a

liar, I just said what he said was a lie, if he said it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, obviously, but I

never called the Member a liar. The Speaker is misunderstanding, I am trying to

correct the hon. Member in what he is saying.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, just a

difference between hon. Members.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to dwell on those things, and the hon. Member

knows I did not reference any particular Member. I am making comments, and if

the hat fits for a Member on the other side they know that they should wear it,

and they will. They know who is ho, and I do not need to elaborate that for the

House, and I have not done so.

I was indicating that the hon. Member for Humber East, when

she was Minister of Education, contrary to the principle of autonomy for the

University and the arm's - length relationship, did ask, I believe by letter,

for the Board of Regents to consider -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have the letter?

MR. GRIMES: No. I indicated that I do not have it to

table, but I ask her to clarify it in her remarks. It may have been taken with

the Minister's personal file when she left the office. I would like to give her

an opportunity in debate to clarify it because if I am making a mistake I would

not want to leave that on the record, Mr. Speaker. I would like for her to rise

in the debate, because I am expecting she will be the next speaker, to clarify

whether or not she wrote to the university asking them to scrap MUN Extension so

they would have to give less money? Or, if it was just discussed in a meeting? I

am not sure of either but maybe she would clarify that in debate. I only mention

that because the hon. Member for Humber East and the former Minister of

Education, the former, former, Minister of Education, is losing some credibility

in this House now, Mr. Speaker, because while it is recognized that some people

will jump on bandwagons from time to time it is getting fairly widely known that

hon. Member seems to be in the habit nowadays, after being silent for ten years

in Cabinet, to be willing to jump on any kind of wagon that seems to be moving

and going anywhere. It might be a hay wagon, it may be a trike, it could be a

two-wheel bike, a skateboard, or it might be just a rock rolling down the hill,

but if it looks like it is going somewhere and it looks like there may be some

people on it she is likely to jump on that. That is not to belittle this cause

because this is a serious and important one.

I just might mention one last thing before I get to my

comments about the motion itself, if I may. The hon. the Member for Burin

-Placentia West indicated that Members should stand and should reflect the views

of their constituents, and so on, because that is who elected them, not the

Premier, not other Members in the House, but your constituents. If I were to do

that there would not be as much sympathy for the cause of MUN Extension as I

express here today, because I have had calls about health care reductions from

my constituents. When I have been visiting in my district I have been confronted

with that. I have had calls about teacher layoffs in the system. I have had

calls about programme cuts at the community college and the possible effect on

the university. I have had calls and conversations about other things addressed

in the Budget, the wage freeze, pay equity, and so on, but I have had zero

representations from anybody in the thirteen communities of Exploits district

about MUN Extension. That is unfortunate because I have some reservations about

it myself which I will get to in my comments, but if I were to go solely by what

the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia has indicated then I would have no

hesitation whatsoever, I would probably be standing up and saying, and writing

to the university, and forgetting about the autonomy and the arm's - length, and

trying to suggest that they finally did the right thing because I have not

heard, now I may hear after today, and I hope I do, because it will show the

level of concern that is in that part of rural Newfoundland which goes through

Leading Tickles and Moore's Cove and Cottrell's Cove and Point of Bay and

Phillips Head and all those places, Fortune Harbour, Pleasantview, Glovers

Harbour, and they represent rural Newfoundland as well as anybody; they reflect

rural Newfoundland and I did not have any calls relative to MUN Extension, not

one.

The point to be made: The Leader of the Opposition in,

introducing the resolution today, Mr. Speaker, tries to frame it as a very

simple option for us, no

preamble, no

whereas, just a very basic resolution,

nothing fancy about it, something where Members can debate the MUN Extension

issue in isolation and therein lies the whole problem and the whole sham with

his resolution. He knows full well, as Premier for a period of time, as a good

Cabinet Minister, recognized by people throughout the Province, and I say that

in all sincerity, as a very good Cabinet Minister for a long period of time in

the previous administration, acknowledged throughout the Province to have done a

very, very good job -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not you, no.

MR. GRIMES: - and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition,

when a Cabinet Minister in Premier Peckford's administration, was respected by

people throughout the Province for his efforts, he knows from those experiences

that it is absolute folly to think that on an issue related to the Budget of the

Province, you can come in here, put up a motion on one item in isolation from

the total rest of the Budget, and expect someone to make a decision about it, so

what do we expect next Wednesday?

Next Wednesday, he is saying that today we have a choice,

that he has put a very simple self-contained resolution to provide Members of

the House with an opportunity to stand up and vote, to give a few more dollars

to Memorial so that they can keep MUN Extension. So next Wednesday, someone

brings in a motion saying: Why do we not have a nice simple little motion that

says let us give a few more dollars to health care, so we can keep what the

people want in terms of the hospital in Placentia; and the week after, someone

comes in and says: let us have a nice simple straightforward little resolution

that says: Let us put some more money in Port aux Basques for health care and

then the week after, someone comes in and says: Let us have a few more dollars,

let us not clutter it up with all the other stuff now, let us keep it nice and

simple and clean and isolate it and let us give a few more dollars to the Cabot

Institute and then the week after Marine Institute and then to the community

colleges and so on, and on and on it goes. So we would be here in about ten

weeks dealing with ten very neat, simple, isolated resolutions and he knows that

you cannot make budgetary decisions in that context, it cannot be done.

The week after that, we would probably end up with a

resolution saying: Why do we not provide a little bit more money so that we can

keep the 2,000 workers employed, who had to be laid off; there would be nothing

wrong with that motion, absolutely nothing according to the presentations given

by the Leader of the Opposition, and then, why would we not have a motion the

week after that saying: Let us provide just a few more dollars so that we do not

have to have a salary freeze, followed the week after by a motion saying: Let us

provide just a few more dollars so that we can honour some kind of past

commitment to pay equity; all things that they have brought up in the House

previously, but now today, it is convenient and it is nice and we are supposed

to actually be able to, in total isolation from all of the other decisions taken

relative to this Budget, to deal with MUN Extension, and provide the money to

the university.

There were a lot of choices faced, Mr. Speaker, a lot of

tough choices faced in doing the Budget, and Members on this side, in supporting

the Government, there need to be a couple of reminders that there is already a

$57 million deficit forecast for current account for this year. We are already

going to spend $57 million more than we have, but it is okay to come in with a

motion to say well, go and get a few more dollars somewhere and let us give it

to the university so hopefully, they will make the decision to keep MUN

Extension open.

That, followed on the heels of $117 million deficit last year

that we spent, more than we took in on current account; and everybody knows, and

everybody in the Opposition knows that much of the problem in terms of the

deficits we face in this Province now are really attributable to what happened

over the last number of years when members opposite were running the Province. A

lot of people question the word `running', but they were doing something with

the Province - and their political cousins in Ottawa, who have major

responsibility for funding in post-secondary education, and their direction, and

where they are going.

I just have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I, personally, and we

on this side, question their motives. Sometimes, we go as far as to say that

there might even be some crocodile tears and some fake concern by the members

opposite. They must contend that they do not respect anything about the

arms-length relationship with the university. In fact, I hope the Member for

Humber East will stand in the debate, next, and prove that I was wrong, that she

never did, either in writing, or verbally, ask the university, while she was

Minister, to consider scrapping MUN Extension Service. I hope she will put that

on the record. I would like to have it cleared for my mind, at least, because it

is bothersome to me.

We have had an example again, today, Mr. Speaker, where we

question sincerity, because the motion is put, in our estimation, more for

political gamesmanship than any real, sincere concern about MUN Extension, or

anything else.

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

point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is clearly against the rules

of this House, clearly, according to our Standing Orders and precedent, to

question the motives of any member in this Chamber. It has been ruled on dozens

and dozens of times by various Speakers over the years. No member of this House

can question the sincerity, or lack thereof, of any other member, or a

motivation for bringing in a resolution, or anything else.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I am reluctant to - Mr. Speaker, what is

wrong with the Member for Eagle River? I do not want to take any more time away

from the hon. gentleman from Exploits than is necessary, but I will stay on my

feet as long as I need to, to make my point. So, if the hon. gentleman will keep

quiet, I will make it quickly and sit down.

My point, Mr. Speaker, is that no member - and Your Honour

has an obligation to bring the member to order and ask him to withdraw imputing

motives to other members.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Very briefly, to that point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

I do not know which way you are going to rule on it, because

the imputing of motives certainly is a thing mentioned a number of times in

Beauchesne, but I would simply like to take the opportunity to say to the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition that if imputing motives is against the rules of

this House, then that is what he has been doing for the last week or so and he

should follow his own advice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Indeed, he should.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, to ask a question of fact about

allegations made in public is not imputing motives, it is trying to get to the

bottom of a very dirty pit that that Government is perpetrating over there.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, it is against the

rules of the House to impute motives of other hon. members, and I ask hon.

members now and in the future to refrain from doing that.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In light of that

ruling, if I did appear to be imputing any motives, I withdraw. I would not want

that to be considered as part of the record in anything I have said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ask who wrote the letter,

that is all.

MR. GRIMES: In my last minute or so, Mr. Speaker, if I

could, just to again indicate why we, on this side, intend to vote against this

particular resolution: It is fair for members opposite to ask this Government to

provide more money for anything, but the difficulty with this resolution, today,

is that even if we could provide more money for Memorial University - which we

cannot, the decision has been taken in the light of all other possibilities that

had to be considered. The total amount of money that has been granted to the

univ