4 - Province of Newfoundland FORTY-FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND .Volume XLI Second Session Number 77 . PRELIMINAR Y REPORT (Hansard) Speaker. Honourable Thomas Lush Thursday 15 November 1990

The House met at 2:00 p.m. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. . . r.a.QK?L_Ualiu: Order, please! Oral Questions Mr._peaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Thank you, Mr S pea 1< er. Hospitals and nursing homes were asked by the Minister of Health to submit documentation to his Department by the end of October advising the Department of the implications for their particular institutions of a freeze on their budgets for, next year.

I wonder if the Minis ter could tell the House when the Government is going to he in a position to make final decisions and advise the hospital and nursing home boards in this Province of what the final decisions are1 in view of the fact that the Government keeps saying no final decisions are yet made? 1r_peak ..r: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is quite correct, the hospital boards were asked to make submissions to the Department by the last of October, I think it was, and I am pleased to report that all of them have.

They have —made some suggestions and shown a sincere effort to contain their budgets for the following year. All of these submissions are now being reviewed by the Department, and myself, and hopefully in the not too distant future we will be prepared to have a presentation to take to Government as to what action we will have to take. Mr. Rideout: Can I ask the Minister if it is his intention to provide this House with the a pp r op r i ate in for in a ion a id the final decisions on whatever cutbacks may take place, assuming that this House, and I assume it will, will still he in session ai. that time? Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Health. fir. Decker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the case. It will be done during the Budget Speech, when the Minister of Finance presents the Budget. Mr. paker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideoy_: Mr. Speaker, in other words the Minister is saying that those final decisions will not be made known to the public, to this House, to. the people of this Province until maybe February or March of the coming fiscal year, or the coming year , 1991, when the Budget is brought down? Is that the Government' s plan at the moment? The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: Mr.

Speaker, it would be difficult for me to make the announcements otherwise. We have to work through a budgetary process and final decisions cannot be made until the Budget for the next fiscal year is announced. I can speculate, I can suggest, as hon. members of the Opposition have been doing, but the truth and the facts will not be revealed until the Budget is brought down in March. Li November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 17 Ri

-c Mr. _peaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary. Mr. Rideout: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the administration of a number of hospitals and nursing homes in this Province are indicating to their employees that notices of layoffs will have to be given by the 31 December because those institutions have been instructed by his officials to absorb into their 1990-91 budget the cost of severance and other costs associated with layoffs? _peak: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: Mr.

Speaker, I tabled in this House some time ago the letter which I had written to the hospital administrations and board chairpeople.

Basically, the letter was referring to what will happen in the next fiscal year's budget, however, in that letter we did say that if the hospital boards could take some actions which would not have any affect on the delivery of health care to the patients - we were talking in minor terms, something we were doing - then the hospital boards have the privilege of doing that, however, they have been instructed that if they are to make any changes which in any way interferes with the delivery of health to the patient, they cannot do that until they have prior approval from the Department of Health.

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition might be a bit confused in some actions which I understand are taken of a very minor nature, of things, which in the judgement of the hospital boards and the judgement of the administrators is not really interfering with the health of the people . And they L2 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI most likely would have done them even if we had not been going through this particular exercise which we are going through, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, is the Minister really saying to this Houe now that if there are to he significant cuts in the health care system of this Province in terms of employed personnel that those cuts will not take place - no major layoffs in the health care system of this Province at least not in any public way until the next Budget is brought before this House? Is that what the Minister is really telling us? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: Mr.

Speaker, we are working through a process now, and as I explained to hon. members of the Opposition before., if the Department of Health was like the D e part me n t o F T ran s p o r t a ti 0 n or any other department we would not have to involve boards and other people throughout the Province But when the Department of Health has to make any changes in its budget we do the courtesy to board members in going to them and explaining what we intend to do, what we would like to do, or what we are forced into doing.

We are working through that process right now and we are getting extreme co-operation from hospital boards and nursing home boards throughout the Province, Mi". Speaker, and we are working through a process. It is difficult to get up on any one day and say 3:00 tomorrow evening No. 77 R2

[IJ . we are going to do this or do that. We are simply working through a process, and the final absolute total decision cannot be made until the budget is brought down next year. Now, between now and the time that the Budget is brought down hospital boards might identify some source of saving which in their opinion we could proceed with in this year. So, I would not want to tie their hands totally, Mr. Speaker.

If some board comes up with a suggestion, which in the opinion of the Department of Health and of their own opinion, would not be detrimental to the health care system then, of course, we would proceed with it. But I do not see any wholesale major layoffs taking place, even if there are going to be any, and I doubt very much that it is going to be as extensive as the Opposition would have you believe .But if there are any layoffs. I would not see them happening until the new Budget, Mr. Speaker, The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. ideout:. Mr.

Speaker, I must say to the Minister, it is not what this Opposition would have anybody believe, it is the numbers being worked up by the Hospital and Nursing Home Associations and health administrators in this Province. Those are the numbers that we are talking about. Let me ask the Minister this: in view of the fact that he has now told the House that he has, in fact, received submissions from all the institutions around the Province, can I ask the Minister to confirm that in order to live with the budgetary freeze that the health care institutions in the St.

Johns area, the hospitals and nursing homes, in order to live with the freeze projected for next year, if in fact it goes ahead, that those institutions would have to reduce their budgets by $25 million? That in other words $25 million of the $60 million cut would come here in the St. John's region alone and that 200 employees would be affected. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: Mr. Speaker, we are sort of bordering on speculation here because the hospital boards have not received their budget yet.

Basically, the Department of Health is going to try to maintain this year's budget next year. If we were to treat everybody equal it would probably be the most unequal thing you could do. You would probably s e e in certain parts of the Province that no psychiatric services would he available. If we were to treat everybody equal you would probably discover that parts of the Province had no surgical technology available.

So we realize that, and looking at the whole system from the perspective of the Department of Health, we have to ensure that every region of this Province has an acceptable standard of health care available.

It might mean that there could be places in the Province where there will be significant cuts compared to last year, but Lhe overall effect will be that we are endeavouring to deliver to the people of the Province, wherever they live, a reasonable measure of health care, the most reasonable we can afford to deliver, considering that we only have somewhere between $800 mi..lion and L3 November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 77 R3

$900 million with which to do extremely difficult Financial that, Mr. Speaker. situation. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier. Will the Premier admit that the uncertainty about hospital and nursing home funding for next year and the worry about the possibility raised by the Department of Health of health care institutions having budget freezes are causing grave anxiety and apprehension within the health care institutions?

Will the Premier admit that literally thousands of individuals are scared of losing their jobs and are holding back on their spending, thereby compounding the Province's economic problems? Now, we have been honest enough with the taxpayers to say up front, bearing in m i n d hospital and health care take 50 per cent of our budget, we do not see how we will be able to reduce our expenditures next year, to a point that will enable us to live within our financial means, without also impacting on health care a n d education. So we are trying to find a way of coping with it.

Now, as the Minister of Health said, we cannot make these decisions willy—nilly. It is part of our overall budgetary planning for the next fiscal year, so the absolute final decisions will not be known until the Minister of Finance delivers his Budget in the House. .. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier PremierWells: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that because it is not so. Everybody in this Province is greatly concerned about the economic situation.

Everybody in this country is greatly concerned about the economic situation and the ability of the Provincial Governments and the Federal Government to cope with an extremely difficult economic situation. The Opposition and some other people generally, not the Opposition alone, keep talking about the hospital and medical cuts. There aren't any hospital and health care cuts.

We are looking at how we can live within the limitations, the financial limitations that we have, and how we can reduce our spending in all areas of Government activity so as to enable us to cope with an As soon as you raise the question of possible restraints on Government spending next year, even if you say we wil1 spend as much next year as we are going to spend this year and perhaps even a bit more, even if you say that, people have apprehensions. I understand that. The Government has apprehensions.

There is not one person sitting in Cabinet who is not deeply and vitally concerned with what has to be done to cope with our financial situation and the impact it will have, particularly on health care and education as well as other Governmental services. We are more concerned, I suggest, than the Opposition are, but we also have the responsibility of making sure that we do not in the process bankrupt this Province. rhe Former Government took us close enough to that. We have to act responsibly, bearing in mind L4 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77

. . a [1 the financial situation in the Province and the overall financial situation in the nation, that was not caused by the former Government it is a made—in-Canada Federal Government national economic recession that we have to cope with. So we have to act responsibly. It is easy enough for the Opposition to say, do not cut this, do not cut that, plow more roads, spend more money on everything else, They do not have the responsibility to provide it. We do. r The hon. the Member for Humber East. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that he and his Government are behaving extremely irresponsibly by putting out to the public and the health care sector the possibility of a budget freeze For next year. That is the only idea they have offered. And when health care administrators react by explaining the ramifications of that, the Premier backs off and says, oh, no no no, you are exaggerating, you are fearmongering ±r: Order, please! ihe hon. Member is on a supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier provide greater certainty for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the thousands of health care workers who are scared for their lobs right now? Mr. SIeaker: The hon. the Premier. cLtI_J.Q.li: Mr. Speaker, no Government announces its budget four months in advance of the budget day. . No Government does that. And we will do our financial planning and announce to the people of this Province our ultimate financial plan when the Minister of Finance stands in the House to deliver his budget. Now we were frank with the people from the beginning.

And we have told them generally the kind of financial situation the Minister of Finance and the Government generally is going to have to deal with when we deliver the budget for this coming fiscal year. We were frank, up front about it, and we invited a variety of proposals from anybody in the Province who has an idea. From the Opposition we have got nothing except you can not do it, you have to spend more money. No ideas as to what an alternative should be, no nothing, lust irresponsible proposals to spend more money. Mr.

Speaker, •we have asked everybody involved in the provision of public services in this - Province, all Departments, including health care and education, to bring forward ideas and the Government would welcome those ideas. We are acting tremendously responsibly and it is obvious that the hon. Members opposite simply do not recognize it, Mr. Speaker. Mr.Speaker: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final supplementary to the Premier.

Now that the Premier realizes because of the feedback from health care institutions that the budget freeze his Minis ter of Health proposed would result in a $60 million to $65 million Lb November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 Rb

s ho r t fal 1 and n e c e s s i tate the elimination of 1,500 jobs1 will he say honestly and directly to the people of the Province that he will abandon the idea of a budget freeze for health care institutions and provide some measure of increases to allow institutions to maintain essential services? 1rpf!jtQ: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: We will not abandon the course on which we have embarked, Mr. Speaker, because it is the only sensible and responsible course to follow. We do not know and have not yet made a decision.

We have asked everybody involved to give, us their advice as to what they would have to do if they had no more money than this year. Now in respect of any agency, hospital, department, that may not be the case. In fact, they may have more morley, they may indeed have less, depending upon what conies out of the overall assessment. And we will make our decision in due course. But we have let everybody know a full five or six months in advance t h a t it is going to be an extremely difficult problem to deal with and we want the input from everybody involved. Now it is too bad, Mr.

Speaker, that the Opposition cannot find it possible to put the interest of the taxpayers of this Province ahead of their own narrow political interests and keep taking the course they do. All they are doing is making it more difficult for the taxpayers to cope with this problem. Mr. jpeaker: The hon. the Member for, Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This will be my final supplementary to the Premier. How can the Premier justify causing all the health care institution workers in the Province to continue to worry, perhaps needlessly? Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Premier, Premier Wells: What about the people in the Department of Labour, the Department of Finance, the Department of Works, Services and Transportati6n, the Department of Justice, what about all those people? An_Hon. Member.: (Inaudible). Eremier Wells: So in other words, just go and spend like drunken sailors and have no sense of responsibility for the Province. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). ?rem.cr_Wells: Okay. So it is just do it and tell them now, Just do it. Now the proposition, Mr.

Speaker, let us answer that proposition, too. n..Jtgm_Member: (Inaudible). Mr._Speaker: Order, please! Premier Wells: If we followed that course and came in here and said here is what is going to happen next year, the Opposition would be standing in the House and saying: you did not even have the decency to consult and ask people what they could do to help solve this problem. You think you know everything. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! r LJ 16 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R6

. . re el: Well they cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. MrK4eo_L,t: (Inaudible). PremierWells: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should bear in mind the significant role that he has in this Province and that kind of impertinent and irresponsible behaviour in the House really does not add to helping to solve the problems of the Province. Some_Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Rideout: (Inaudible) go down to the courtroom, boy, what a fool and a sook, The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr, Simms: Thank you, Mr. Speaker Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr.

Simm .s: I have a question for , the Premier on another topic. The November 10 edition of The Evening Telegram carried a story and a photo of Beaton Tulk presenting a picture to the captain of the M.V. Atlantic Commander - •ftn._Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: he is well aware of it, Now Mr. Tulk is identified in the photo - this is not important - but as the MHA for Gander. But we all know he is the former Liberal MHA for Fogo, and now a senior ci vi 1 ser v ant, assist a it deputy minister in the Department of Social Services. Now my question to the Premier is this: Since Mr.

Tulk is a senior civi.l servant in the Department of Social Services can the Premier tell us if he is aware of a n y connection between the work of the Department of Social Services and the M. V. Atlantic Commander? For example: did the Department provide any financial assistance for the construction of the vessel? Did the Department buy the photograph and frame it and all those kinds of things? Is there any connection at. all between the Department of Social Services and the MV, Atlantic Commander? Mr._fler: The hon. the Premier. Er..!mierWells: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is I do not know.

I never heard of it. The reliability of it .- as it says he is the MHA for Gander -- the reliability of the story is immediately put in doubt, to say the least. I will undertake to determine Some Hon._Members: Oh, oh! Premier Wells : - whether or, not Mr. Tulk is a member of the Atlantic Commander Historic Society or some such thing as that. I have no idea what Mr. Tulk was doing. I have not seen nor, heard of him for months . I will check and find out what it is all about.

But I must say I have somewhat reduced confidence in the reliability of the story designating the man as the MHA For Gander, when the President of Treasury Board is sitting right next to me. the MHA for Gander r._Simms: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Mr. _peaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a supplementary. Mr. Simms : I ask the Premier to take a close look at the story and he will see that Mr. Tulk was 17 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R7

representing the Minister of Social Services. That is the point. And, I want to ask, since the captain of the Atlantic Commander actually resides, and is a resident and constituent of the Minister, in his electoral district of Port de Grave - An Hon. Member: Which Minister? Mr. Simms: The Minister of Social Services Mr.

Simms: Is it not obvious now that the Minister really used a senior civil servant to perform a purely political responsibility, If that is so, and if that is obvious, if the Premier laughs it off that is fine, but I am asking him seriously, does he not think that is an abuse, overuse, and misuse of the senior civil service? Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They are really at the bottom of the barrel now. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Premier_Wells: I have no idea how this arose but I wi.11l undertake to check it and see how it arose, and see why a Minister might ask a deputy, or an assistant deputy, to stand in for him. I have done that on a number of occasions myself. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will find out what it is all about, and I will confirm to the House who the real Member for Gander is and what this was all about. Mr. SReaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier may find it amusing and continue to laugh it off but from my perspective it is a misuse of a senior public servant to perform a political duty, that is my point. Therefore, since the Premier has already publicly admonished this Minister in the past for interfering in the public service, if you will recall, can I ask the Premier if he will now take that Minister, and Mr. Tulk, out in the backyard somewhere, out in the woodshed, give him a good tongue—lashing, or at the very least give him a real good darn licking, because that is what he deserves. Will he do that? Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia Nest. Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier a question in the House about amalgamation and he said that Cabinet would not he forcing amalgamation on municipalities but the House of Assembly may be asked to do so. I ask the Premier, if he would agree that whether it is Cabinet or the House, it is still forced ama 1 g a mat i.o n? Mr.Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Maybe the hon. Member does not know it, but this House, within its constitutional jurisdiction, is the supreme law of•••the land .

When you are going to do something, when you are going to take an action that may be against the expressed wishes of a gr6up of people, particularly a significant group in a municipality, we, on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, believe that it is wrong to hide in the secrecy of the Cabinet room and hide away from the public, and make these kinds of decisions that . LB November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R8

'C -C C] . a C are of significance. If it is right that it should be done it is wrong to hide away in that room and not bring it before this public and lay it out and justify to this House, representing the people of the Province, the basis for it. An Hon.Member: It is still force (inaudible) Premier Wells: Well, of course, it is. Every law we pass enforces its provisions against the people of this Province and requires all of the people to comply. Maybe the hon. member does not unders tand what statutes really are. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier is somewhat difficult to understand because every day he has a different story. Some Hon._Members: Hear, hear! r.....J_q.P1fl: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier, then, based on what he said on August 6, 1989 - the Premier said that when all the information from public hearings has been gathered, if communities are not agreeable to amalgamation and cannot he persuaded to amalgamate, then there will not be amalgamation - how does he square that comrrrtment with what he said today? Mr. Spe: The hon. the Premier Premier Wells: All I will do, Mr.

Speaker, is go back and get evpry comment I have ever made in the House and outside, where I have spelled it out time and time and time again, and everybody knows and remembers that. It is exactly what I said yesterday, it is exactly what I said several months ago, and several months before that. I have no trouble with the consistency of the position, it has b e e n so from the beginning, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we have copies of what the Premier has said. Let me say to the Premier, Mr.

Speaker, that when he spoke to a group of people on the West Coast of the Province, in his own District as a matter of fact, he said, 'We live in a democracy, so amalgamation is not going to be forced on anyone who does not want it. ' Now let me ask the Premier, will he not cause amalgamation to be forced and let democracy work, or is he going to admit that democracy has failed a n d amalgamation will be forced? What is it? Come clean. r.peakt: The hon. the Premier. EraIier_Wells: Mr, Speaker, I am going to take the position, not what the hon member reads from some newspaper report. Mr.

Tobin: Oh, you think they are wrong too, do you? Premier Wells: Well, look, newspapers write about one -fifth of what people say. And if they do not write it all,. that is okay. I understand they have limited column or space. Yesterday I answered questions for the media for fifteen minutes on abortion. Last night, on the news, I saw twenty seconds. Hon. That is right. Premier Wells : I unders tand the No. 77 R9 L9 November15, 1990 vol XLI

. limitations of the media; but they sure did not get my full position out on the question I can tell you that. But I understand they have limitations and they work within those limitations. So if the hon. member wants to hold inc to what I said, quote fully what I said, not a reserved excerpt, not a restrained and partial statement of the position: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House, you, Your Honour, perhaps in particular, will remember, my standing in this House on a number of occasions and stating the position quite clearly and there were howls from the Opposition then.

They howled then and they are howling now, but they are howling for a different reason. They have to be consistent. If they howled about that position then, why are they denying that it was said. There is little inconsistency there. Mr.Speaker: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia Nest. Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, ii: the newspapers are wrong, what about his letters to a council which say, 'I assure you that if the majority of residents of your town are opposed to being amalgamated with any surrounding municipality, then there are no plans to force the issue,' Is that the news media, Mr. Premier?

Mr.Simrns: That is his own letter Mr. Matthews: That is your letter. You have it signed. Mr. Saaker: The hon. the Premier PremierWells: I would like to have the letter. Because, you see, I don't see any inconsistency with it. Just remember now what the hon. Member read . And in respect of any particular municipality there may not be any plans to force the issue, There are no plans to force the issue in respect to that municipality, and I have no idea which one it was. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Premier Wells: I can only say that that is the truth. There are no plans to enforce the issue. Some Hon.

Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! The hon. the Member for Fogo Mr. Winsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. In last year's Budget some $4 million was announced for design for a new ferry with icebreaking capabilities for the Fogo Island run. Has the design work for that boat now been completed? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation. Mr.Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the amount that was announced in the Budget for the new ferry for Fogo Island - the plans are proceeding according to schedule.

I might say to the Member that the Ferry Committee on Fogo Island are quite happy with the situation, the operation of the ferry down there, the one they have, and they are looking forward with great anticipation to when they get the new icebreaking ferry. As a matter of fact, I have a letter here' from Wayne Cull, the Chairman of the Fogo Island Development Association. He says: we LJ C L1O November 15, 1990 vol xti No. 77 RiO

. . a . sincerely thank you for your understanding and co-operation in making the Fogo Island ferry service better and meeting the demands of the area,. And that is since we made the changes there. Some Hon. Members: Hear hear Mr._Speaker: Order, please! The hon. the Member for Fogo. Mr.kJinsor: Mr. Speaker, my question was, was the design work being completed? I did not get an answer, so I will ask the Minister, is the design work completed?

And, furthermore, in view of announced budgetary cutbacks and freezes, is it the intention of your Department to continue the construction of the vessel in the next fiscal year? Mr. Spaker: The hon. the Minister, for Works, Services and Transportation. Mr_cJflQr..t: Mr. Speaker, yes. And I would assume we will be carrying on, the thing is in progress. Mr. S,aker: Question Period has expired Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given Mr. p.!aer :• The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportatio.n. Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Member for Menihek asked me a question concerning the closure of the Wahush motor registration office. He asked about the prol cc ted savings salaries $63,000; operational costs $20,000 for a total of $83,000. I will table this. Petitions Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a petition of Memorial University students.

The prayer of t h e petition is: Your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse its change of policy and continue to permit social assistance recipients to retain a substantial portion of maintenance and child support payments as well as regular social assistance. Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from a single mother who is attenqing the Memorial University Grenfell College campus . The letter is as follows: 'So, this is a luxury. At least [am told that student life is a breeze. If this is true ljhe.n I must be standing downwind of the outhouse. It all began innocently enough.

The Wells Government announced an increase in provincial grants to married students and single parents, but I am old a n d wise enough to know better. First it was Mr. Elford who decided to cut social services allowances to those receiving child maintenance payments. Then Mr. Warren decides to enforce a hidden policy that cuts grants to students enrolled with less than four courses. So much for progressive governments. What is next gentlemen? Would you like to have my first-born child No. 77 Rh Lii November 15, 1990 Vol XLI

as ransom? You seem to target women and children when you need that little extra to fill the coffer. There must he a research project hidden somewhere to discover a way to extract blood from turnips. Perhaps you would like me to learn a foreign language and carry' - Mr. Order, pleasel I just want to remind hon. members that there are too many conversations going on now and the Chair is having great difficulty following the petition. The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 'Perhaps you would like me to learn a foreign language and carry a foreign passport.

Lould I be eligible then for the benefits that are supposedly available to Canadian citizens? Yours truly, Colleen R. French. Mr. Speaker, last week in the House of Assembly during Question Period and during discussion of a similar petition the Premier promised that he would meet representatives of the Single Mothers Against Poverty. Friday morning the staff at that organization got a message on their recording machine indicating 'that the Premier and the Minister of Social Services would meet with their representatives Tuesday afternoon at 3:00.

They went to the Premier's office on the eighth floor of this building only to be told that the Premier did not know anything about such a meeting. Now I would like to press the Premier to honour his commitment and have the meeting with repre.sentati.ve.s of Single Mothers Against Poverty, because perhaps hearing from them directly face to face he may gain some appreciation of their plight. The Premier is excusing this regressive policy change as being fair. I say to him, there is nothing fair, consistent or liberal, small '1' liberal certainly, about this change.

It has hurt thousands of individuals single mothers and children, in the Province and there is nothing equal about it. It is penalizing children of social assistance recipients who separate or divorce. Children of parents on social assistance can benefit from the fathers earnings because those earnings are treated as allowable income. If the father separates they cannot benefit because now, illegally, the Department of Social Services is treating child support paid by an absent father out of his job earnings as non—allowable income.. This has resulted in a drop oF income of up to $115 a month.

Furthermore, the policy destroys the incentive for single mothers to seek child support and it removes all the res ponsihility From absent fathers to contribute to the support of their children. Terribly regressive, no defense. And I am hoping that if the Premier talks one on one with single mothers affected that he may begin to see that this change cannot be contained in his neat little dogmatic ideological boy oF fairness and balance. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. An Hon._Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Ef .pq: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This gentleman can speak for himself anytime, anywhere. . .

L12 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R12

. . Make no mistake about that. Mr. Speaker, a couple of comments about the petition, again, that the hon. Member for Humber East is still presenting to the House of Assembly, still out knocking on doors, still telephoning in the nighttime trying to drum up a few supporters to sign a petition. I suspect she has just about everybody now driven to there wits end in order to get the names on the petitions. One thing I will make clear. I did meet with the single Mows against poverty, the single parents last week. The hon.

Member should no it because after I finished meeting with them, she met with them in the corridor, and I happened to pass by while she was trying to get some inFormation from them about the meeting we had held. In fact it was only yesterday I talked again with the people involved in the association, we will meet anytime they wish to meet. The Premier has agreed, at anytime, night or day that they wish to meet and we have - MsVer'ge: (Inaudible) Mr. Efford: No, you have your information wrong again. You have your information wrong as you always do.

You are trying to play political football with something that is not even an issue, it is just that you want to try to enhance your name politically. Somebody mentioned to me in the foyer yesterday that your name is continually in the news, and it is not because you believe in a particular cause, it is just that you are trying to promote -your own political image. It is as I said before, Mr.

Speaker, if I had heard one Member of the Opposition get. up sometime over the last eighteen months and speak about the other single parents in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are not receiving this amount of money and they should receive more, I would probably feel more supportive of what the hon. Member for Humber East is saying. Did you attend the New Beginnings graduation of thirty-two single parents on Monday past of this week, where thirty-two single parents attended a training programme and fourteen of the thirty-two are no longer on social assistance, but now have full-time permanent jobs?

That is the type of programmes that this Goyernment and this Administration is trying to put forward for single parents, to get them away from dependence on social assistance, get them into the work force and get them to become independent. You can speak all the political rhetoric you please and you can do it 'til doomsday. The new initiatives which we are going to give the single parents are what is best for the individuals and not what is best for the Opposition. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! r: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia west. Mr_ Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this petition.

Let me say to the Minister that if his assistant deputy minister, Mr. Tulk, was doing the work of the Department rather than delivering pictures on h i s' behalf . to the districts, this might not necessarily happen. That is what .13 November 15, 1990 Vol xti No, 77 R13

Li] is going on here Mr. Speaker. Mje: He was not qualified for the job in the first place. Mr. Tobin: If the assistant deputy minister of Social Services responsible for child welfare was doing the work of the Department instead of delivering pictures for you, it may not happen. That is what is going on in the Department of Social Services. Let us not lose sight of what has happened, whether it was thirty—two or 102 or 1,000 single parents went to work, that is one issue. That has nothing to do with what has taken place in the cutbacks.

What has happened is, the Department of Social Services has changed maintenance payments from allowable income to non—allowable, income. It is not that they have done anything in terms of people making more money or loss money, it is, they have made maintenance payments that were always allowable income now non—allowable income, so if a person made up to a certain amount, they were - not as the Premier said one day, if someone gets $2,000 maintenance payments, they should not get social assistance.

Under the system which was in place they would not get social assistance, nor if they made a $1,000 they would not get social assistance, it depended on how much money they made and if someone got one hundred dollars a month, that was considered non—allowable income and would not be deducted from the amount they got from social assistance. So that is what has taken place, the Minis ter, and the Department have changed the maintenance payments from allowable income to non—allowable income and that is done as part of the cutbacks of this Government.

This Government has cutback on the most vulnerable people in our society. They have attacked the single parents under the maintenance program which was always in place and was - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it was always considered allowable income, always considered allowable income and this Minister here is the person who changed it from allowable income to non—allowable income, never before, never before was it called non—allowable income. Mr.

Speaker, he c a n show us all that he 1-ikes , everything that the former Minister said we agree with and support, but that has nothing to do, nothing to do with changing it from allowable income to non—allowable income, that is what did it. You are the Minister who will go down in history as being the person who attacked the single mothers of this Province, the most vulnerable people in our society. Also, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, who is not here, who attacked the sick children in the hospitals by taking away teachers from them. That is what is taking place in this Province.

When the Minister of Finance, and this Government, have to balance their books on the backs of single mothers in this Province I think we live in a desperate society, created by the incompetence of the Minister of Finance. He is incompetent beyond any doubt. He stood in this House and predicted a surplus, but he now comes back crying with a $120 million deficit a n d asks the single mothers and . . Lii November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R14

. .4 the fatherless children in this Province to pay the debts. That is what is taking place, and the Minister of Social Services stood by and supported it, and let it happen. That is tAJhat has taken place as it relates to these maintenance payments, and the program that was there The Minister of Social Services carried it further than that. He did not necessarily stop in his Department by attacking the single mothers and the young children. Hon. (Inaudible) Mr. Tobi.n: If the Member for St.

John's_ South has some contribution to make let him stand up and make it, and if he is not going to stand up and make it, let him stay quiet, because this issue is too big for you, Sir, to make fun at, or poke fun at. Mr. Murpfly: It is a lot of foolishness. Lir_Tobin: It is not foolish, Mr. Speaker. The single mothers in this Province today need assistance, and they need someone to support them. If the Member for St. John's South thinks it is foolish why did he not go. down in the lobby of Confederation Building last week and tell them it was foolih. It is sensible, serious stuff, that is what it is.

It is serious, Mr. Speaker, when the people are getting their social assistance cheques cut. I do not think it is foolish and I think the Member should be ashamed of himself to suggest that it is. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Tobin: When I was Minister OF Social Services it was never changed From allowable income to non-allowable income, nor was there a Minister with a conscience, whether it he in Social Services or Finance, that ever changed it from allowable to non-allowable income. Never before in history have vulnerable people been attacked like they have been by this Minister and this Government. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Tobin: We have talked about a lot of things you have cut back. Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's time is up. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Menihek Mr. A. Snow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to a petition signed by residents of Labrador City and Wabush concerning the proposed health care cuts.

The prayer of the petition is: it is the petition of the undersigned residents of Wabush and Labrador City that we protest the proposal of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to cut back the funding of the Salvation Army Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in 1991-92. Your petitioners urge the Government to reconsider this proposal which will have the effect of, reducing the level of health care service in our communities .

The petition is signed by 282 people who are very concerned about these cuts that have to be made in the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Western Labrador, They have to be made because the Minister of Health suggested to them in meetings that they would have to operate the hospital at a 12 per No. 77 RiB .15 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI

cent reduction in money of what they had last year. They were instructed to do up a proposed budget for next year on what effect this 12 per cent cut, or freeze, would have on the operation of the hospital in Western Labrador. If they were to go ahead, indeed, and have to operate this hospital with these proposed cuts it would have drastic effects on the delivery and the quality of health care in Western Labrador. They would have to cut approximately $789,000 from their budget. That would be approximately 12 per cent.

These are figures compiled by the Board of Directors of the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital.

The effect this would have on the employment level, if you will, in the hospital, would be twelve to thirteen people laid off and while that is a concern of mine and is, I am sure, a concern of those twelve or thirteen people who may lose their jobs, it is a direct concern of theirs and it does cause stress and anxiety with these individuals who do not need any more stress and anxiety in the particular roles they fill in delivering health care to patients The Board of Directors have suggested that if they have to live with these cuts, if they have to live with this freeze in health care in Western Labrador, they would have to cut approximately 51 per cent of the proposed cuts, $781,000, that they would takeit out of non—patient care areas, and this would be in engineering, environmental services, nursing administration and dietary.

They would save approximately $418,000 there if they had to go through with this cut and, of course, that is going to lower the quality of health care in Western Labrador. In the patient care areas they feel they would have to cut about $390,000, and they feel this would cause the most damage, if you will, to the quality of health care in Western Labrador. Because in this area they feel that they would have to shutdown beds in the hospitals - eight beds would have to close - and they would cut down on the elective surgery being performed.

Now the problem with this, of course, if we do cut back on elective surgery in the hospital in Labrador West, is it could have a devastating effect on the actual quality of health care in Labrador West. Because of that cutback in elective surgery, we could lose our one single surgeon we now presently have. Of course, that would be devastating to an area such as Labrador Nest, to lose the only surgeon we have.

And he is suggesting that he may leave if there are cutbacks, because he does not have the personal fulfillment or development opportunities if the surgery h a s to be cut back by, I believe, a 30 per cent reduction. Of course, I am not even sure how effective this is going to he, and neither are the hospital administrators, in beirg cost effective. Because if you cannot do the surgery in Labrador Nest they will have to fly the a i r ambulance in, and it would probably cost $5,000 or $6,000 a trip, I would suspect, to charter the air ambulance flight in and out for people who have to come in.

But forgetting the cost effectiveness, it is the anxiety, that that is causing the people, the residents of Western Labrador if there is not a surgeon. The largest industrial complex in this U . 116 November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 77 RiG

. . r Province is in Western Labrador. Quite often, because of the nature of the employment out there, working around heavy equipment and moving machinery, we do have industrial accidents. The fact that we would not have a surgeon in the area - Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The hon. members time is up. Mr. A. Snow: Could I just have one second, by leave, to clue up? Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have leave? Some Hon._Members: By leave. .Mr Speaker: By leave. ML• A. Snow: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

That factor alone, I would hope, would influence this particular Government to reconsider not having the Captain William Jackinan Memorial Hospital implement these cuts, because it would have a drastic effect on the delivery of health care in Labrador West. Thank you very much. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! The hon. the Member for Huniber East, Msuerye: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to support the petition so well presented by the Member for Menihek.

There is terrible uncertainty among people in health care institutions and other citizens of the Province about what is going to happen in hospitals and nursing homes. The uncertainty may well be much worse than the reality, bn it is only the Government that can dispel the uncertainty by giving some greater certainty by laying out some parameters that will guide them in the preparation of next year's Budget. All that people in the health care institutions and others have to go by now is the communications from the Minister of Health and his officials to the health care institutions administrators.

The Minister of Health has asked all of them to provide statements of the impact on their operations of a Budget freeze. He directed that those impact statements be provided by October 31. He and his officials have had those assessments for about three weeks now, and surely the Government is in a position to say, Sorry, there is no way that we can implement a freeze on the operating budgets of nursing homes and hospitals, the consequences the a din in is t rat or s have laid out for us are unacceptable.

We as a Government, as a Government claiming to he liberal, just could not live with the devastating implications of budget freezes for the health care institutions. No, we cannot give you absolute decisions about funding for next year, final budget decisions have to wait until the winter, when we have all the information about revenue and spending for all Departments. But at least we can let you know that we are not going to proceed with freezing health care institution budgets . There will be reasonable increases. You will be able to carry on your essential services.

That kind of clarification would relieve much of the apprehension and fear. And, as Members opposite should appreciate, when workers are scared of losing their jobs there is a terribly negative impact on their work: morale .17 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R17

. suffers, the quality of work goes down, people become preoccupied with worrying about their own futures, people look elsewhere for employment. Right now in this Province junior health care workers - physicians, nurses, graduating nurses - are applying for jobs outside the Province. Maybe there is no need for that. But all they have to go by is what the Minister of Health has told the hospital and nursing home administrators And in this climate of uncertainty and worry and apprehension, people are holding back on spending. We just heard a report of the retail trade leading up to Christmas. Spending is way down.

So the economy is being hurt needlessly. I appeal to the Minister of Health and the Premier and the President of Treasury' Board, who seems to be a compassionate individual, to lay out some parameters for people, give them some greater certainty, rule out, for heavens sake, the spectre of freezes of health care institution operating budgets that would result in a $60 million to $65 million shortfall and necessitate the elimination of about 1,500 jobs. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr, Baker: Thank You Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take time for a couple of comments concerning the petition and concerning, generally, what is happening with this parti cular issue. If I understand the Members opposite correctly what they are saying is that at this point in time Government should end all the uncertainty that is out there. I am not sure I understand how they suggest we do that. Perhaps that we make our decisions now and announce them. Maybe that is a way out. That would certainly do away with the uncertainty.

Or that we make a decision that there will be no budget freezes at all, which is something that at this point in time is impossible to do. So I do not know specifically what solution they are suggesting. Let me deal with both the alternatives.

First of all, at this point in time saying that there is going to be no frozen budget, that we are not in a time of restraint, that we do not need restraint at this point in time and that we will go ahead the way we have been going, now that would be fine if at some point two or three months down the road somebody were to tell us that they were going to give us an extra couple of hundred million dollars. That wou]d be very fine. However, we suspect that is not going to happen.

Because of that we have to be honest and straightforward about the whole process and indicate that we are going through difficult times, and that is the decision we have made.

Now we also made a second decision which causes problems for the Opposition because they say it creates uncertainty, and that second decision was that we would go to the institutions and go to the unions and so on, the labour movement, lay out the problem for them, and try to elicit suggestions from them to, first of all, indicate what effect a frozen budget would have on each system, and to elicit from them suggestions as to ways in which we can cope with the financial crisis that we are in. This, I believe, is in the spirit is . LiB November 15, 1990 vol XLI No, 77 R18

11 . . of openness and co-operation and honesty and consultation, and that is why we chose to do it this way. If we were to simply to make the decisions ourselves we would risk two things, we would risk the wrath of the Opposition, and we are not particularly afraid of that, I might add, but we would risk the wrath of the Opposition - Mr.

Simms That is why you are bringing in closure all (inaudible) - because they would then say, you know, you are not consulting, you are being dictatorial, you are at bunch of dictators, making decisions yourselves, not consulting with the unions, not consulting with the hospital boards, not consulting with the hospital administrators, not consulting, but making all the decisions yourself. So that is one thing to be faced with, But, Mr. Speaker, something far worse than that we would be faced with if we did that, and that is the possibility, the very real possibility we would make serious errors.

Because we do not know the systems like the people out there who are in the systems. That is the real danger. Sd we are going through this process. I know there is some uncertainty out there, and I understand -exactly what the members of the Opposition are saying. There is some uncertainty out there.

But I would suggest to the Opposition that rather than trying to feed on that uncertainty and rather than urge it along, and rather than to continually make exaggerated statements and so on, rather than do that it would be a bit more responsible if they were to explain to the people who come to them that this is a process, that decisions are going to be made.

And when the decisions are made they will be announced, and if at that point in time there are some disastrous things having to be done to the health care system or the educational system or any other system we haue, then that point in time is the point to come to Government and say, as an Opposition, Look, you did not do this properly, here is something you should have done instead. Or, indeed, come up with your iuggestions now. I think that is a far more responsible way, Mr.

Speaker, to deal with the problem than spreading fear, feeding on rumours , and feeding on the uncertainty that is out there in the systems. Orders of the Day Mr. Baker; Motion 4, Mr. Speaker. Mr._peaker: Motion 4. I would like to tell hon. members that before we do Motion 4 the procedure is we vote on it, then the House Leader or somebody will move that we move into Committee. The first procedure is to vote on the closure.

I can read part of the Motion so that hon. members will know what we are voting on: 'To move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the debate or fur tier consideration on Mo t i 01 No. 3, respecting certain Resolutions for the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty (Bill No. 6) standing in the name of the Honourable Minister of Finance be now voted upon', and that means, of course, we are into the closure debate. L19 November 15,1990 vol XLI No. 77 R19

S All those people in favour of the Motion, please say "Aye"? Some Hon. Members: Aye. Mr._Speaker: Those against "Nay". Some Hon. Members: Nay. Mr._SaLaker: Carried, Mr.Baker: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The motion is that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker leFt the Chair. Committee of the Whole on Supply Chairman: Order, please! Bill No. 66. lr.Lobin: We are debating the gag order, are we? Mr.

Simms: Is the Government House Leader going to explain his reason invoking For closure, or what? Some Hon. Members Oh, oh! Mr.Chairman Order, please! Order, please! Bill No. 66, Mr. Simms: A point of order, Mr Chairman. Some Hon. Members: Question Question. Nr_chaira..n: Question. L20 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Simms: No, I am raising a point of order. r. Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order. Mr. Simms: This is the weirdest kind of experience I have ever seen in this Legislature. It is had enough to he bringing in closure, Mr.

Chairman, but here you have a Government invoking closure and nobody from the Government side, particularly the Minister, or the Government Leader in the House, who proposed the motion, is even prepared to stand and explain why. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible), Mr. Simms: Nell, this is the appropriate time to do it. Surely the Government House Leader or the Premier or somebody is going to get up and attack us and explain why they are bringing in closure, are they not? I mean this is really unusual. Strange. Pretty strange. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Government House Leader. Mr. Baker: To that point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I believe, in two separate speeches in the last few days, there were two ten minute segments where I explained in great detail the reason for introducing the closure motion. I pointed out, at that point in time, to members of the House that we have a number of pieces of legislation that we need to get through. Mr. Simms: Is this to the point of order now? Mr.Baker: Yes, this is to the point of order. I am just No. 77 R2O U

4111 explaining what I had said to the An!on. Member: (Inau(hble) point of order. . . •Mr. Simms: (Inaudible) time. Mr. Baker: Well, I am answering your point of order by pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that I explained in great detail in the last Few days, there Was one ten minute segment, and another ten minute segment, where I explained in great detail the reason for closure. I was sort of outlying to Your Honour what I had said so you could make a judgement on the point of order.

I had simply said that I had many indications, indications in newspapers, and in interviews that the Leader of the Opposition did, that it was the intent of the Opposition to continue and hold up all money items, I believe he referred to. This is precisely what we are on now, and, Mr. Chairman, as you know, according to the rules of the House, in Committee stage the Opposition can keep this going for three months, or three years. There is no way to close it up oLher than to use the proper parliamentary procedure of closure. So, Mr.

Chairman, I took twenty minutes to explain in great detail why it was that closure was being introduced, and I thought it would probably be unnecessary at this point, in the beginning. I may a little later on tjet up and make some comments. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order. Mr...........is: I think we can agree in advance that it is not really a true point of order but I think we will use the occasion, or an opportunity of a point of order to try to somehow Mr.

Simms: But like the Premier always says, we are being Frank and open with the Chairman so he will not have to wrestle with this question. I want to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I was not in the House on Tuesday, or whenever it was the Minister spoke. I certainly, for one, would like to hear it, and I am sure there are others who were not in the House. I certainly dd not see anything reported to any great extent in the news media, and I think the public have a right to know. I think the Chairman almost agrees with me. I cannot tell, but by his smile, you would almost be led to believe that. Mr.

Chairman, in all seriousness, here we have a situation where the Governrrient is invoking closure for an unprecedented third time in the last six or seven months, unprecedented in our history, in our Legislature. Here you have the Government, the Leader of' the Government, or anybody from the Government, who is not even prepared to get up and explain at the outset of this draconian measure and this debate, to explain once again to the public why they are making this move after two or three days at the maximum, of debate on a $30 million supply bill. Now, that is absolutely outrageous as far as I am concerned, Mr.

Chairrrian. I think the Government House Leader should reconsider. I think he owes it to the public, to the people of the Province, to at least introduce the debate and explain his reasoning, even if he has to repeat what he said two or three days ago, why we are proc ee d i rig in this par [ i c u 1 a r manner. It is unbelievable. Mr_Chairman: Order, please! .21 November 15. 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R21

. The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order. The Committee is considering Bill 66 and all members have the opportunity to rise and speak whenever they want to for twenty minutes. They can speak only once, so the Chair is not going to provoke or ask anybody to speak. It is entirely up to hon. members if they want to speak on the issue. There is no point of order. Mr. Simms: Nobody is going to speak in the debate on closure, can you believe that? Mr. Chairman: Are we ready for the question? Mr.Simms: I suspect we will provoke them sometime.

The Premier is sitting around hoping to attack the Leader of the Opposition, no doubt. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Mr. Chairman, obviously, and in all conscience, we cannot let this particular Bill, under the rules of closure now I remind the Committee, to pass just yet. I agree with my colleague for Grand Falls .

I thought it would have been appropriate that the Government House Leader, at least, or some Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, would have attempted to explain to the House why it is that after, I believe, it is three days, I believe it was last Thursday or so that we started debate on this particular Bill, three or four days anyway, why it is that aFter three or four days the Government finds it necessary For the third time in six months, finds in necessary for the second time in two weeks, to invoke closure, to cut off debate, to force members to finish debating a public bill, a bill that will enable the Government to spend an additional $30 million of taxpayers money?

Now, why is it that on the last two money bills we have attempted, not: to an unusual length of time in my view, I mean the Loan Bill was $325 million and we debated it For four, five, or six days. That is not an unusual length of time in my view. This particular Bill calls for an additional expenditure of something in excess of $30 million and to debate it for three, four, or five days is not an unusual length of time, in my view. But why would we do that, Mr. Chairman? Well Mr.

Chairman, the fact of the matter is, and everybody in this Province knows, that this Government in its March budget projected a $10 mill ion surplus. And then by September or October of this year that $10 million surplus had I totally disappeared and become a $120 million deficit. SomeHon.Members: (Inaudible). Mr.Rideout: Well, it begs the question. Has it really disappeared? And Mr. Chairman-, the Minis ter of Finance in particular had been very tight-lipped on two money bills now in providing this House with any up to date financial information on the financial affairs of the Province.

The- finance critic for the official Opposition and a number of us from t i m e to t i m e have asked the Minis Ler pointed direct questions about his revenue expectations for the rest of this year, the balance of this fiscal year. We have asked pointed direct questions . L22 November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 77 R22

-C . C . about the expenditure expectations for the rest of this fiscal year, where the Minister expects to he above or below his most revised projections. Because in order to be able to tell this House and the people of this Province that the Government was facing $120 million deficit, Mr. Chairman, the Minister must have had some revised prolections. He had to. Other than that he just pulled them out of a hat, and I would not assume that the Minister did that. I would assume there were revised projections provided by his officials. But yet, Mr.

Chairman, day after day in debate and in Question Period we ask for that information but we never get it in any detail. The Minister will throw out a bit of information every now and then that Provincial revenue might be down as much as $30 million, Provincial expenditure is up a little bit over what it is estimated. What is it? And that is why we have been using, Mr. Chairman, the two money bills that have been before this House, to try to elicit from the Ministtr some appropriate and up to date as possible information. But the Minister is stonewalling. He will not do it.

He says the next lot of information I am going to give you is when the fiscal year is over or when we bring in a new Budget. Now, Mr.

Speaker, for a Province whose financial affairs turned around so quickly from a $10 million surplus to a $120 million deficit projected, I say that is not good enough for the Minister of Finance, The Minister of Finance should have been, particularly during the debate on those two loan bills, more forthcoming in providing up to date fiscal information as best he could, realizing that at the best of times they are guesstimates, they are estimates, they can not be definitive, we know that, we understand that.

But be forthcoming enough to provide as best he could the most up to date information that he could to the House. Now Mr. Speaker if that were to be done we would still take what we consider to be a reasonable amount of time to debate a money bill. No money bill, in my experience, has gone through the House just on a - very seldom will you see it go through in a one day sitting. Very seldom. You night take two or three or four days on a money bill. This is serious business. But if we had gotten some information then I think we could have felt comfortable in allowing those money bills to go through. But, Mr.

Chairman, no, the Government's attitude is to stonewall, to give a little hit of information every now and then. You might get the Minister out of his seat, or the President of Treasury Board out of his seat, over the course of a three or four day debate, once or twice, for two ten minute sessions. That has been about the norm with this Cove r n me nt and t ho s e pa r t i c iii a r Ministers over the last number of weeks. Mr. Chairman. And we say that that is just: not good enough. Th6 people deserve better than that.

And we have a responsibility to try to elicit froin the Ministry the best information that they now have on the fiscal position of the Province. But no, that has not worked. So here we are again, Mr. Chairman, for the second time in two weeks in this House facing a closure motion. L23 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 P23

4 I believe I told the House during the last time I spoke on a closure debate that it was, as best as I could ascertain from having researched the records of the House, that closure was used in this legislature from 1949 up until the time this Government took over, I believe it was on three occasions. Once by the Smallwood Government and twice by the Peckford Government. Three occasions, from 1949 to 1989. This Government used it three times in a six—month period and twice now in two weeks for a total of four times this Government has used closure in the last eighteen months Mr.

Chairman, it is unprecedented, and you cannot just slough it off because of an obstructionist Opposition; how can you call four or five days on a money Bill, obstruction, Mr. Chairman, with the state of our Budget as it is today, with the state of our fiscal affairs as it is today, how can you call four or five days obstruction? Mr.

Chairman, how can you call it obstruction when those money Bills have been on the Order Paper since last May, I believe, how can you call it obstruction when a lot of other pieces of legislation have not even been tested on the floor of the House and the Government is saying we have to use closure to get off those, because we have to get on to others whole House relatively smoothly, would think so, I do not have any reason to think otherwise.

If it went through committee. without any great hassle.., with consensus or unanimity, then one might expect that with the odd exception, or the odd observation that legislation would flow through this House relatively smoothly, I would expect that. But, Mr. .

Chairman, there are two or three other pieces OF legislation that is bad legislation which has to he debated thoroughly, and it is t h e responsibility of those of us on this side of the House; certainly, we take it as our responsibility as the official Opposition to point out bad legislation, and the people of this Province spoke loud and clear on the Crown Lands Act, for example, and that has to he reiterated in this House now, when that Bill comes before this House, because we have a majority and a minority report from that particular committee.

The people of this Province have expressed grave reservations on the Regional Services Board Bill, and we have a responsibility to make sure that is debated thoroughly, I believe there might be one other - oh yes, the Ombudsman, Mr. Chairman- ür Hon. Member: There is no doubt about that one. There are many pieces of legish'i:ion on the Order Paper that have gone through committee, that have gone through the committee system unanimously, as Far as I know, many pieces of legislation, and in the ordinary course of events that legislation, I suspect, will go through the Mr.

Rideout: No, not a bit of doubt about that one. If there is any doubt about that one, the Minister should read the latest report. An Hon. Member: A pack of nonsense. .* 1..24 November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 77 1 R24

. . Mr. Ride.out: A pack of nonsense? What is nonsense, Mr. Chairman, is that we will be the only legislature in a Western democracy to have instituted the Office of the Ombudsman and then repeal and abolish it, and this Minister and this Government are doing that. We are not going to allow ourselves to be voluntarily made fools of because this Government cannot see the error of their ways.

We are going to have to stand here, to a person, and we are going to have to fight the Government through every Parliamentary means available to us, to try to keep them from doing something no other freely elected legislature has ever done, as far as I know. You know that Office is an Office of this House, Mr. Chairman. It is not an Office of some Government Agency or Board, it is an Office of this House, and when we are taking away something from this House, we are taking away something from every member of this House and from every person who lives in this Province. That is how big it is.

It is too big for the Minister of Finance to understand, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. But, I tell you, it is something that we cannot allow to happen without an appropriate debate and the Government might as well know that. Now, those are the only three pieces of legislation, Mr. Chairman, that I believe there is very much difficulty with. So all of this nonsense of closure because we h a v e to get to our business on the Order Paper is just that, nonsense; absolute nonsense.

It is the dictatorial approach to Government; it is an approach that also indicates that 125 November 15, 1990 vol XLI Government cannot manage t h e affairs of this House in a competent and ordinary fashion. Why didn't Government call some legislation and see what would have happened to it? When there was a problem with the Hibernia legislation, did we stand in the way of it passing through this legislature, Mr. Chairman? No, and that we did not. When there was a problem with that legislation, the Government House Leader - do you know where the Government House Leader called me, Mr.

Chairman? rhe Opposition House Leader was not available at the time, and do you know where I returned the call to the Government House Leader from on the Hibernia legislation? From the International Airport in Toronto. Then it was to the Government House Leaders advantage to want to do some kind of a deal to make sure that the Hibernia amendments were not hung up, and he was able to find either me or the House Leader, and he found me. He got a message to me in the International Airport in Toronto, where I was on my way to British Columbia to bring my Mother out there for the winter.

I called him back from the International Airport in Toronto and I said take the legislation and send it down to our policy advisor. I will talk to that person tomorrow and if it is as you say, just consequential amendments. I will tel.l you over the phone that yes, we will put it through, we will put i L - -through all stages if you want to. Now how more co—operative can you be than that, Mr. Chairman? So I think we have proven on a number of occasions in this House that when the Government has a timetable that it has to meet, then we are prepared to he No. 77 . R25

. co—operative in meeting that timetable. Nobody came to us on this particular bill and said they h a d to have this authority by a certain amount of time. I have heard rumors floating through the press gallery and other places around this building that the Government must have this bill by tomorrow. That is the rumor I have heard, but nobody from the ministry - the President of Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance - have indicated that to me or to anybody else over here, as far as I know. So we cannot operate on rumor. The principle here, Mr.

Chairman, is that the Government has decided to close off, to choke off debate. That is the principle. And the bottom line is that they have given up on trying to answer any questions. They have given up and they are going to sit back now with the bunker mentality and take it for the next, I do not know, how ever many hours it might be until there must be a vote on this bill. Mr. Chairman, it is unprecedented that for the second time in two weeks this House would be debating a closure motion. It is unprecedented that for the third time in six months this House would be debating a closure motion.

It is unprecedented that for the third time in eighteen months this House would be debating a closure motion. All those debates, Mr. Chairman, are unprecedented, So I think it shows a clear picture of what this Government is all about. The Government Aflll make the determination how long a debate should go on. The Government will nake the determination.

If they think that two hours, three hours or two days or four days is L26 November 15, 1990 vol XLI enough, if they think that is enough debate, then they are prepared to •move in a now, I think, dictatorial fashion to invoke closure, How is it that previous governments got legislation through this House, budgets, loan bills and everything, without using closure this frequently, this often? How is it? Because there was proper management of the House, Mr.

Chairman, and we just sat there as a Government and took it, defended it when we felt it necessary, but we let debate take its flow on all occasions except two over a fifteen or a sixteen year period. But not this Government, Mr. Chairman. This Government has made up its mind that it alone will dictate how long this House is going to debate a bill from now on. And, Mr. Chairman, if that is the way it is going to be, there is nothing we can do about it. We are not going to co—operate with the Government, and cave in to the Government, and give in to the Government. We have no intentions of doing that.

But at the end of the process, when everybody over here has spoken, then the Government will have its dictatorial way and the question will be put. All we can do, Mr. Chairman, is point out to the people oft his Province that this particular procedure is being used on more o c c a s i o n s than it h a s ever been used in the past in t h i s House. It is being used without necessity.

Because we have proven to this Government time and time again, as I was s a y i n g in the absence of the PresidEnt oF Treasury Board, when they wanted legislation approved f o r a good reason and there was no difficulty (Mi th it, we co—operated. And we No. 77 R26 C

. . can stand on our reputation on that, Mr. Chairman. Nobody has said to (is, or said to no at least, that this had to be approved today. And the final thing, Mr. Chairman, is if the Minister of Finance would only become co-operative and over the course of a three or four or five day debate try to rise on a half a dozen occasions and provide reasonable, up-to-date information to the House, then, perhaps, we could get somewhere. My recollection is the minister probably spoke twice in the whole time that this debate was on on this Supplementary Supply Sf1.1.

He provided a bit of information once on the bonds - I do not think he convinced many people that it was necessary to move on this immediately - and he provided some information on the additional $705,000 that is required for the Economic Recovery Commission. An lion. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Rideout: I do not know where the member was, but that is the point I have been making. Nobody has told us that. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Rideout: I said I have heard rumours of that around the press gallery and elsewhere, that tomorrow is the deadline. But nobody has told me 'that.

And I do not know if anybody else over here h a s been told. I cannot find anybody who has been told. Mr_ian: Not told today. Never told Mr. Rideout: But the Government should know, Mr. Chairman, from dealing with us h e r e in the official Opposition that if there L27 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI is something necessary like that, then we have always co-operated. I said it before in debate on a money bill that we would be prepared to do it again. But, you know, that is - an Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr.

Rideout: No, what I said and I just repeated, and I iill not take all the time I have left to repeat it again, was that there are certain bills on the Order Paper and we have a responsibility on behalf of the people of this Province to ensure that they are debated as thoroughly as the parliamentary process will allow, and I named them for the minister - I named them.

That horrendous Crown Lands Act has got to be debated thoroughly, as thoroughly as parliamentary procedure will allow, because there are thousands and thousands and thousands of people in this Province upset about it and they are looking to us to make sure that it lust does not slip through the parliamentary process nH.Qa:P_r: (Inaudible). Mr.Rideout: Yes, I have. Oh, I have seen your new amendments All they do is make the whole situation worse, Mr. Chairman, according to the people who have to live under the Act. But that is another debate, and we will get into that at another time.

But on other occasions, including this one, Mr. Chairman, we have always attempted to be co-operative . But the Government does not want co-operation. This Government wants confrontation. They only want co-operation when they think it is to their advantage, and they do not think there are °any Brownie points for No. 77 R27

. them in co-operating on getting a bill like this through. They do An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) an obstructionist. Mr. Rideout: The what? An Hon. Member: Obstructionist. Mr. Rideout: Mr. Chairman, how anybody can say that two or thrc.e or four days debate is obstruction is beyond the bounds of imagination. Mr.Matthews: How could you say that? t!L _Rideout: You cannot say it, because nobody will accept it, nobody will believe it. What people are believing is that this Government does not want co-operation, its wants confrontation.

This Government is not interested in working out co-operatively some kind of timetable on bills they say they must have, this Government is prepared to use the guillotine, this Government is prepared to use closure. They have already used it twice in two weeks, three times in six months, three times over the last eighteen months; more times than any other Government since Confederation. Now, if that is not proof, Mr. Chairman, of what this Government is up to, then I do not, know what is.

And I understand the media in the Province have been told that they are quite willing, and will in fact, use it on several more occasions this session, this Fall. That is what we are told, Mr. Chairman, n. ...1itthews : Dictators Dictators. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Sirnms: I was expecting to see somebody from the other side. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reason I was slow getting to my feet is because I understood this was to be a debate. That is what a parliament and a legislature is for.

That is why I was slow getting to my feet, I was anti cipating somebody from the other side getting up and speaking in this debate. Obviously, t h e y have made a determined decision to try to let the clock run out - let them get up and •speak, speak out the clock, and eventually at six, seven or eight o'clock, or one o'clock tomorrow morning, we will have the vote and it will be all done. That is their approach. Now, that is some approach to a debate, that is some approach for a parliamentarian to take, Parliamentarians on the other side of this House have consistently refused to participate in debate.

The backbenchers are not even allowed to get up and speak in debate unless they get special permission. Mr. Hogan: Lies. Lies. Mr. Matthews: Mr. Chairman, unparliamentary. . He called out 'lies , Mr. Chairman. Mr. Simms: He is asking you to withdraw. Mr. Hogan: I do not know if it is unparliamentary or not. I said that what the member was saying, that we were not permitted to stand and speak in this debate, was lies Mr Chairman: That kind of language cannot be used in the Parli*ament, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw. . . L28 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 . R28

. .Mr.. _Hogan: I withdraw the word 'lies' Mr. Chairman, It is just untrue Mr. Simrns: Once again, Mr. Chairman, not only do we see the backbenchers in Government not even willing to participate in debate like good parliamentarians, now we see them being ordered by the Chair to withdraw the use of unparliamentary language. So it is typical of the backbenchers and it is typical of the Ministers. Mr. Chairman, it is not only in this debate that Ministers and backbenchers are afraid to get up and debate. Mn. Hogan: Lies. Lies. Mr. Simms: Now, Mr. Chairman, please!

I mean, that cannot be permitted, The member must be asked to leave or something. I assume the Chairman heard him. Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Chair did hear, again, some remarks which he considers to be unparliamentary coming from down therc.. I cannot identify the member who said it, but I ask that the hon member refrain from uttering those unparliamentary words Mr.Hqga .n: I said it was lies that we were afraid to stand, Mr. Chairman, and I withdraw the word lies. It is untrue and cowardly to say it, Mr. . Simms: That is unparliamentary ' cowardly Mr.

Chairman: I ask the hon. member again to withdraw without qualiFication the unparliamentary words. Mr. Simms : Without qualification Mr. Hogan: I withdraw, unqualified. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So here we see it again. Now, not only did the member do it once, but the member, after being called to order by the Chair and asked to withdraw unparliamentary language, categorically said the same thing again, right in the face of the Chair's ruling. Now, Mr. Chairman, that cannot be permitted.

If that hon. member is not able to control himselF then the best thing he could do is go out in his Common Room, have a cup of coffee, and get out of the House if he can '.t take the heat. Or better still let him get up and participate in the debate despite the fact that nobody over there is going to allow anybody to get up. Despite that fact let him get up in the debate. And then he can say what he wants to say, hopefully using parliamentary language, language that is acceptable, not unparliamentary language. Some Hon. Members: - (Inaudible) Mr. Simms: And by the way, Mr.

Chairman, I do not mind saying that that kind of language coming from that Member is very unbecoming of that Member, he is not noted For that, and I hope he is not being goaded into it by anybody sitting around him or anything of that nature. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me get back to the dictatorial approach of this particular Government. We have a supplementary supply Bill here worth $30,935,800 which the Government forgot to budget for .29 November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 77 R29

- six months ago. Now y o u talk about mismanagement, $30 million they forgot to budget for. Six months later they are bringing in a bill asking the Legislature, Mr. Chairman, to approve this $30 million supplementary supply Bill, with little debate, no participation from the Government side or very little, and asking and expecting the Opposition who are duly elected and have as the Premier would say: we as an Opposition have a constitutional responsibility to stand in this House, to say in this House, and to ask questions, and to debate. Some lion._Members: (Inaudible) Mr.

Simms: And the Members opposite can make fools of themselves all day and try to interrupt, but it is not going to bother me one little iota. I will say what I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and so will other Members . And the more Members do that then I can assure them the lengthier this debate will be. I can gi'e him all that assurance if that is what he is looking for. .a.tJin._Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, as I said, first point, this is not a debate. How many hours have been used in this debate?

How many hours would one think, before closure has been called by the Government, how many hours and how many days do you think would have been included in the debate? You would think there is several - Some c.n ....Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: No, you do not bring in closure after two or three days debate. The Member knows that, the President of Treasury Board knows that. Mr. Chairman it is kind of difficult to shout above - Mr.Chairman: Order please! Mr. Simms: - the animals over there on the left—hand side Mr. Speaker: Order please! Order please! Mr. Simms: I withdraw that. Mr. Speaker: Order please!

I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw that statement. Mr. Reid: Point of order, Mr. Chairman! Mr. Chairman: Order please! Order please! An Hon. Member: Withdraw that! Mr. Simms: And Mr. Chairman, as I was saying - Mr. Reid: Point of order, Mr. Chairman! Mr. Chairman: Order please! The hon. Member for Carbonear on a point of ordei'. Mr. Reid: I could not hear Your Honour's ruling. Did you ask for that remark to be wi thdrawn? Mr. Simrns: That's a point of order (inaudible)? Mn Reid: May we hear , it, Mr. Chairman, please? Mr. Chairman: Order please! Mr. Simms: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

To the point of order. If the hon. Member wasn't yelling and bawling down there he L30 November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 77 R30

. would have heard that I already withdrew it, So wake up and smell the roses. £r_Speaker: Order please! An Hon. Memb ?r: You're a good man! Mr. Chairman Order please! No point of order. The hon. Member has withdrawn his statement. Mr. Simms: No point of order again! You see, Mr., Chairman, again, you see their tactics? Mr. Chairman: Order please! The hon. Opposition House Leader. Simms: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Anyway, Mr. Chairman - Some Hon.Members: (Inaudible). Ir. Chairma: Order please! Order please! Mr. Simrns: Now, Mr.

Chdirinan, I wish the television cameras were here and focused down on that corner, I really do. I really do. 9i!1Qfl_.L: (Inaudible) Mr. Simrns: So their constituents can see the contribution they are making to the debate over a $30 ill ion s u pp 1cm e it a r y s u pp 1 y bill. I bet you they would be shocked, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have had in this debate from the Government's side eight speakers as far as I can tell. Seven, as a matter of fact, seven only. ,ØnHon.Member: . Who are they? Who are they? Mr.Simms: I will give you their names. Kitchen, Baker, Dumaresque, Efford, Decker, Walsh and Ramsay .

That is who spoke in the supplementary supply bill., the $30 million supplementary supply debate. And along with the numerous Members here opposite - this is the information I got from the Clerk at the Table, by the way, so if any Member opposite has a problem with it check with the Clerk at the Table. The other point is, Mr. Chairman, along with all of those who have spoken on this side Hon._Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Chairman: Order please! Mr. Simms: This is unbelievable. Mr. _Chairman: Order please! An H?n. Member: Gone, gone! Mr.....Chairman: Order please! The hon. the Opposition H o u s e Leader, Mr.

Simms: Now, Mr. Chairman, this is unbelievable. If Members opposite are going to continue to interrupt like that what is the. point in trying to continue the debate and trying to make your points? It is not acceptable. Bad enough to be bringing in closure but t h e n for the Government House L e a d e r to allow that kind of interruption to go on, I think that is unacceptable really, •Mr. Chairman. Now Mr. Chairman as I was saying, the debate has lasted - AnHon. Member: (Inaudible) Simms : And yes the Deputy House Leader should probably jump in there. As I was saying, the debate on this. particular .

L31 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R31

[] supplementary Supply Bill has also only lasted now, for ten hours and thirty-eight minutes; ten hours and thirty—eight minutes - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. S±mms: - yes, and that includes the night sitting. But when the notice of closure was given, the •night sitting had not occurred and it was given earlier in the day before the afternoon session had begun, so up until the time the notice was given, it was approximately somewhere in the area of five to six hours only spent on debating a $30 million supplementary Supply 8±11. Now I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that is not a reasonable practice, but it obviously is the approach that this Government is going to take from here on in, I suppose. They are simply going to rule with an iron fist. They are going to be dictatorial and when they need to bring in closure to get on with the next item, they will bring in closure. If that is the way they want to do it, then, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you the people of the Province will be the ones who will finally determine whether or not that has been an acceptable way to run a Pan lament.

Whether or not it is acceptable, whether or not it is acceptable to put the kibpsh to those who wish to speak and those who wish to debate and those who wish to ask questions, whether or not it is acceptable to stifle debate and discussion, whether or not it is acceptable to cut oFF the right of an individual who has been duly elected by constituents to stand in this House and express their concerns over a particular piece of legislation, And, Mr. Chairman, I personally did not have a chahce to speak in the debate. I. personally did not have a chance to speak in the debate on Supplementary Supply yet.

The first day our critic did it and t h e n the second day some other members spoke and I believe on Tuesday I was not in the House as I was in my constituency, so I never even had a chance and I feel there are other members, I am sure, that For different reasons did not have an opportunity. I can say to the Government House Leader, that I quite legitimately had a number of questions I wanted to raise. I know that the Finance critic, the Member for Mount Pearl, raised numerous questions An Hon. Member: Good ones, too. Mr.

Simrns: - particularly on the first two items - the first two items, the bonds, ti'te bonds issue. I had some questions I wanted to raise on the Economic Recovery Commission. A considerable amount of debate should be allocated to d i s c u s s that particular item for a number of reasons, not the least of which are those that have alrady been addressed. The considerable amount of money that is going to be spent on new furnishings for the Enterprise.

Newfoundland Crown Corporation offices all around the Province, a considerable amount of money being spent on that, at a time when every afternoon we hear Ministers opposite standing up and preaching restraint and cutbacks and all this kind of thing, but, Mr. Chairman, we are not even allowed to get into a debate on it, we are not even allowed to ask ques Lions on it, because by the time you ask questions on everything else, , . L32 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R32

C . beFore you get to all the questions, the Government brings in closure and says, no more debate. We do not want to hear any more questions being put by Members opposite because they are giving us the willy-nillies, they are making life difficult for us, they are making life unbearable. We have to stop this - An Hon, Member: Why don't you asic a question? Mr.Simms: We asked the Minister of T inance. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Simms: I will say this, Mr. Chairman, the Member For Mount Pearl asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance spoke •once in answer. Look at the answers.

Read the answers An Hon. Member: One more time Mr. Simms: Read the answers, Mr. Chairman, read the answers. PrKitc: I answered every question he asked, and no one else asked a question afterwards. Mr.Simms: I see, I see Mr. Chairman, we are now debating a closure motion. The Minister of Finance does not even understand what we are debat ing, that is how stunned he is. That is how stunned he is. &I.Mon.Member: Unparliamentary. Mr. Simms: That is not unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman. .n Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr...__Sirnms: Now that might be true, that might be true. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I want to also a d d r e s s this. I want to address the approach that the Government is taking and the question that was put by the leader of the Opposition: why is it we find ourselves in this difficult situation, why have we had closure once again, after having it just two weeks ago, was it, or maybe not even that long ago, on the I..oan Bill, not to mention the one that we had back in April on Meech Lake. Why is it we are not progressing with legislation? fia_.ftgn._Member: No co—operation. Mr. Simms: Government opposite, will argue that we are not co—operating.

Well, we shall soon see that not to be true. We shall soon see that not to be true, Mr. Chairman, as the Government House Leader well knows . We are quite prepared to co—operate and always have been, but, when the Leader of the Government in the House, who is responsible for planning the legislative programme, introduces, after the House has been closed for four or five mobths, the first item, a Loan Bill, for which there is no urgency at the moment at that time required, he brought in a loan bill, and he knows full well that people can debate all kinds of items in a loan bill..

He brought in the first item, a loan bill. Then what did he bring in? He brought in another very controversial Bill, the Regional Services Board, knowing full well there was going to be a considerable a m o u n t of debate on that. He had to move away from the Regional Services Bill because he knew what was happening. And then he brings in a supplementary supply bill, another finance bill, L33 November 15, 1990 Vol. XLI No. 77 . R33

For which people are entitled and Mr. Simrns: Mr, Chairman, I would quite prepared on this side at like to get you to remove the least, to debate and ask questions Member for Lapoile because quite about. frankly - no, I won't say it. I won't say it. So that is the approach of the Government House Leader. Now make no wonder he can't get through any legislation. All he had to do was bring in legislation that would receive reasonable debate, and as usual he and I could have talked about it and arranged for that to occur, in fact we already have done it for tomorrow.

But it could have been done three weeks ago as he well knows. But no he deliberately provoked what has happened in the House over the last few weeks by bringing in these kinds of legislation. Now I say to him if he wanted legislation approved, all he had to do was properly manage his legislative programme and he would have gotten the cooperation necessary. An _fl,_Member: No co—operation. Mr.Simms: Alright, we will see tomorrow if there is cooperation, Mr. Chairman. Now, Mr. Chairman, I should also remind Members of course that we have another supplementary supply bill, as the Minister of Finance would know.

There is another supplementary supply bill on the order paper that has been there since last June. Now let us see what the urgency is on that one when the time comes. It has been sitting on the order paper since last June. Another supplementary supply bill worth $41 million. Now if it is so urgent, how come they have not called that one? That's what? How many months ago now? Five months ago. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Anyway Mr. Chairman, $41 million on the Order Paper already now since last June Another supplementary supply bill. And the Member is soon g oing to have to call that one. Some Hon.

Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I can say, I can understand quite clearly why that Member is not sfEting over there with his colleagues. I know exactly why. Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible) Mr. Simms: No, no, that is not the reason either. Now I could tell members why but I will not. An Hon. Member: He wants to join us Mr. Simms: I could tell Members why. Now, either that, either because of his well known views on a number of matters or his good wife is in the gallery, whom I saw today at lunch. Now I do not know if she is here or not.

But I thought he might have been over here because he wanted to make an impression. Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Simrns: Anyway, Mr. Chairirian, look Mr. Chairman - Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: Mr. Chairman, members opposite have successfully interrupted me for the last fifteen or twenty minutes. Successfully. And that is an . No. 77 R34 134 November 15, 1990 vol XLI

. . S example of exactly why closure should not: be brought in. Because Members in this House should have the right to speak without interruption as we have seen here in the last twenty minutes. And this is not being provided to members of the Opposition in particular who are elected by the people to serve as an Opposition, to penetrate, to ask questions, to debate - An Hon. Member: What? Mr. Sinims: To debate. An Hon.Member: Oh. £Lr. _ Simms: And Members opposite of course do not see their role and duty as a Parliamentarian in the same light. Because they obviously do not intend to debate'.

They intend to sit back and heckle and interrupt and come over and make foolish looking faces sitting next to a Member speaking - things like that. All those silly little gaines, when we are in this House, Mr,Chairman, to debate a $30 million supplementary supply.bill. It is enough to make your stomach turn, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verg,: Thank you.

Chairperson Chairperson, invoking closure for the third time in six months and resdrting, to closure on a supplementary supply bill worth over $30 million after only three to four hours of debate, are marks of an authoritarian and elitist Government. Frankly this really does not surprise me because I have known the present Premier longer than most people in this Assembly. Some Hon, Members: You worked for him. Ms verge: T h e r e have been a number of indicators of an authoritarian approach.

We have seen the arbitrary reduction in student aid for university students, always classified as full time, who are doing four courses or three courses a semester. A change instituted without notice to the students affected or to t h e student representatives on the Education Minister's Student Aid Advisory Committee.

We have s e e n the shocking reduction in social assistance for single mothers receiving maintenance or child support, instituted by the Minister of Social Services on October 1, without the benefit of legal authorization and in the absence of advance notice to the families affected so they could adjust their plans to tighten their belts for a reduction in the famil.y income of as much as 20 per cent.

We have seen the slash, I say, to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the slash in fund in g For subs ti. t u t e Leach e r s instituted by the Government in September with effect retroactively to April 1, which. has caused school boards to reserve substitute days remaining for sick leave, and has forced the cancellation or reduction of professional development programmes which in many cases had been planned for months ahead, and which the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would know better than most people, are absolutely essential if teachers are to keep abreast of developments in pedagogy or to adapt to changing curriculum. 135 November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 77 R 3 5

. We have seen the Government's dictatorjal approach to municipal amalgamation, with the Premier playing with words, using his slick legal skills to bamboozle and to confuse people, but with no doubt having been left here today that the Premier is prepared to use the Government's majority in this House as opposed to the Cabinet, a technical; fine decision nevertheless to use force to impose municipal amalgamation against the expressed wishes of communities affected.

The Economic Recovery Commission, which is one or the subjects of this Supplementary Supply Bill, is another indicator of the authoritarian elitest approach of this Premier, and since the Government is the Premier's one-man show, is typical of the Government as a whole. The Economic Recovery Commission is constituted to perform vital functions of the Provincial Government, namely, the, expansion of our economy. - Now to remove this responsibility from the Cabinet and from the public service and to assign it to an unelected and unaccountable commission, is against all of the traditions of our democracy.

It reflects the Premier's lack of regard and respect for the elected members of his own caucus. Obviously, the Premier thinks so little of the Minister of Development and all the other members opposite, he would prefer to assign perhaps the most i in port ant public r as p on sib i lit y within provincial jurisdiction to an outside, unelectedgroup, I was talking to a businessperson in the Maritimes the other day who is looking at investment opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador. and this individual sa:i.d to me, who are House and Humphries? I really did not know what he was talking about.

He said, House a n d Humphries, the people with all the influence in the Provincial Government over Economic Development. And finally it dawned on. me that this individual was talking about Dr. Doug House and Mr. Wayne Humphries, two of the members of the Premier's Economic Recovery Commission. So, Mr.

Chairman, closure on this Supplementary Supply Bill, closure for the third time in six months, student aid reduction, social assistance slash, substitute teacher retroactive cut, and municipal amalgamation as well as the Economic Recovery Commission, are all indicators of the elitest attitude of the Premier and the authoritarian approach of the Premier's one-man show Government. Chairperson, the Economic Recovery Commission is one of the subjects of this Supplementary Supply Bill. The Bill provides authorization for extra money for the Economic Recovery Commission.

Now we in the Opposition have been asking questions about the Economic Recovery Commission, We stated our fundamental opposition to the entity called the Economic Re covery Commis sion but, given that it exists, and given that it is going hither and yon purporting to discharge, to use the Premier's favourite verb - to discharge -- perhaps the most iniporEant responsibility of the Provincial Government, we have to ask what exactly are they doing and why do they need more money? Why does the Government want to give them more money?

What has the Economic Recovery Commission accomplished to date? . . .36 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R36

ED I, . (4 . The first day, I believe it was, one of the first days of this fail sitting of the Assembly, the Finance critic, the Meinber for Mount Pearl, asked the Premier how many jobs the Economic Recovery Commission has created so far? Now, we are still waiting for that answer, I say to the Member for Placentia. If he recalls, the Premier said then he estimated about 1,500 jobs; he was not sure, he would check and supply the details. We are still waiting for those details. He said perhaps the most significant accomplishment of the Recovery Commission was the revival of the Twillingate fish plant.

And while the Minister of Fisheries sat stoney faced and red faced, the Premier made a show of crediting Dr. Doug House with the revival of the Twillingate fish plant and said pointedly that the Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Twillingate District, had little or nothing to do with it. Now what an insult? What a lack of regard for one of the Premier's Cabinet? But again not surprising, given the Premier's mentality and the way he treats other people.

So, in answer to the Minister OF Finance, a question that we have asked and that we a r e still awaiting an answer for is how many jobs has the Economy Recovery Commission contributed to creating, and what are those lobs? Let us have a list of those jobs. The Twillingate fish plant revival, the Premier cited. So what has the Economic Recovery Commission accomplished so far? How is it justified to give them more money? There has certainly been no evidence presented by members opposite to convince me that I should vote For this Bill to fuel the Economic Recovery Commission further.

We keep hearing about plans of the Government to retrench, to reduce spending, to slash spending on social and educational programs. We have seen evidence of that already - I have cited examples So why should we tolerate a reduction in student aid or a cut in income for single parent families on social assistance and acquiesce in or agree with providing more money to the Economic Recovery Commission? Now the Commission is a strange entity.

I have mentioned already that it defies the usual British parliamentary and even Newfoundland governmental traditions, in that it is an unelected, unaccountable commission given a mandate of economic development, a responsibility which should be performed by the Cabinet and the prof e s s ion a 1 per rn a no ii t pu b 1 i c service The Economic Recovery Corruiission also doubles as the Board OF Directors for one of Newfoundland's business financing agencies, the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation.

And the Government has a grandiose scheme of creating Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, w h i c h is proposed to be an amalgamation - the Government seems to get ofF on amalgamating . Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador is envisaged as another grand merger of Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, the former Regional Development offices which were part of the permanent public service, the former Rural Development Division of the Department of whatever it was, I think most recently Development, again another part of L37 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R37

C the permanent public service, yet none of this has jelled. We have not even seen a bill creating this new monstrosity, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Ms Verge: Now, the Member for St. Georget s says it is coming. Well, it sure takes the Government a long time. If the Government is so good at planning, how is it that seventeen months after they assumed office they have not even finalized the organization of one of their first commitments?

The Premier promised this Economic Disaster Recovery Commission when he was campaigning for election and said that it would be set up within thirty days of his taking office. Well, here we are seventeen months later and the commission structure is not even in place yet; individuals have been shuffled around from one organization to another without any certainty of where they will end up.

Individual public servants with the Department of Development have been assigned to Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador with no assurance of seniority or other earned benefits being carried forward, and they are being left dangling, waiting for legislation that may materialize this sitting, or may not be seen here until next Spring. So we have major concerns about the Economic Recovery Commission. We have asked pointed questions and we are still waiting for answers. The Premier still has not told us what the Economic Recovery Commission has produced so far.

He estimated off the top of his head 1,500 jobs, citing the jobs at the revived Twillingate fish plant, but never did provide the list that he promised. Is there any wonder that there are doubters? Is there any wonder the Member for Pleasantville is still squeamish about the Economic Recovery Commission? So why, I ask, should any of us over here rush to vote more money for this Economic Disaster Commission? Chairperson, I have talked a b o u t the lack of planning on the part of Government, and the fact that they are here looking for an extra thirty—odd million dollars is typical of the lack of planning.

The Minister of Finance is. a disaster in that position: He bungled the Budget badly, his revenue estimates were exaggerated the Provincial Revenue Estimates were completely out off whack with economic indicators last Winter and Spring, he exaggerated the professional forecast of retail sales tax revenue, he was way off the mark on his revenue projections, but the more serious negative variances, we are led to believe, are on the expenditure side of the Budget. Well, obviously the real change administration lost control of public service bargaining.

They en t e red i n to a r r a n gene ii t s For health care sector employee collective agreements and set a standard, built expectations, a n d now they are not prepared to live with the consequences; they are telling hospital and nursing home administrators that they have to find the extra costs of their payrolls out of fixed budgets for this year, and they are being threatened with frozen budgets for next year. Freezing health care institution budgets in any circumstances would cause serious problems, but•to do it when the Government itself has agreed to L38 November 15, 1990 Vol XLI No. 77 R38

. C El major salary increases and the implementation of pay equity, would be, to use another one of the Premier's favorite words, unconscionable. The Government has lurched from one decision to the next with no apparent planning. There seems to be a dearth of research, there seems to be a lack of consultation and co—ordination.

We are left to believe that last Winter and Spring, while the Premier was crusading across Canada on the Constitution, when the cat was away the mice played, or maybe the problem is that since the Premier is so authoritarian and has so little regard for the members of his Cabinet, for the elected members of his Cabinet, that no decisions were even attempted in his absence. Everything had to he put on hold until his return from his Constitutional crusade.

Maybe that is part of the explanation for the chaos, but whatever the reason, Chairperson, it is clear that the Liberal administration has made a mess out of managing the public service. Morale has never been worse, they have created a disaster out of budgeting, and they are not owning up to the state of affairs they have created. They have not explained where the Budget for this year stands. They have estimated that they are now looking at a $120 million current account deficit, but they have not told us how they calculate that. They have not told us what the revised figures are for revenue, or for expenditure.

They have not said what the revised spending is for the Department of Health, for the Department of Education, or for the Department of Social Services. Why can we not have Depart iii e n t by Depart me n t breakdowns OF the revised Budget? I say to the Minister of Finance, if only he would table revised estimates for each Department so we could see at least by broad categories where are the variances that have resulted in a plunge from a $10 million current account surplus to $120 million current deficit, then maybe we, and the people we represent - Mr._Chairman: Order, please! The hon.

Member's time is up. •Ms Verge: Could I finish my sentence, Chairperson? —maybe we would understand better t h e kind of situation we are facing. Thank you, Chairperson. Mr.Chairman: The hon. the Member for Port au Port. An Hon. Member: (Ihaudible). Mr.Hodder: Obviously, the member has not been here if that is what he is saying. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to find myself on my feet debating another closure motion. This is the second time in the last two or three weeks that we h a v e had a closure motion, As has been pointed out before, I think there have been three closure motions in the last six months. Mr.

Chairman, what is a closure motion? A closure motion is when t h e Government c a n n o t take the heat and they decide to choke ofF debate. What amazes me most of all is that members opposite do not defend the closure motion. It surprised me that the Government House Leader did not stand to give reasons as to why this closure L 3 9 November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 77 R39

S motion should come in. There were no reasons for his actions, Mr. Chairman. Why is it that Government is trying to choke off debate in this House? Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Hodder: Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard in silence. I only have a few words to say. I happen to be suffering from the flu and I do not know if my voice is going to last very long, or not, but I would just like to be able to say what I have to say, and I have the right to say that here in this House whether the Minister of Social Services likes it or not. Mr. Tobin: You have the right to speak in silence, too. Mr. Hodder: Mr.

Chairman, I would ask you for silence, and enough comments from the peanut gallery opposite Why is it that Government is choking off debate? An Hon._Member: (Inaudible). Mr.Hodder: Mr. Chairman, if I may he allowed to speak without the Member for Placentia interrupting. Mr. Chairman: The hon. Member for Port au Port requests silence. Mr. Hodder: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask why the Government is choking off, and I will say it again, debate? The reason, Mr. Speaker, is because closure is the Government's hobnailed boot which causes the House of Assembly to turn its attention to other bills Now, Mr.

Chairman, I saw a list of the bills that are supposed to 1-40 November 15, 1990 vol XLI come to this H o u s e beFore Christmas. As a matter of fact I have them here on my desk. Mr. Chairman, we are willing to pass those bills, if the House Leader opposite wants to bring, in those bills, we will debate them a n d many of them, Mr. Chairman, we will pass in very little time. But, Mr. Chairman - AnHon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Hodder: Mr, Chairman, I asked to be heard in silence. Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The hon. Member requested silence. Mr. Hodder: Mr.

Chairman, not only does the Government have contempt for the people of the Province, but the Minister of Social Service has contempt for the people of the Province and has contempt for the people who he is suppose to serve, the social service recipients of this Province. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! r. Chairman: Order, please! Order, please! The hon. Member requested silence. Mr. Hodder: Now, Mr, Chairman, I had not intended to get into this particular tone of voice. But, I do not understand why when a member stands in this House to make a speech, that he is not allowed to do it.

Why - Government members, who have not stood since this closure motion was brought in, not one, and if they followed what they did during the last closure motion, to speak tonight, why it is that they will not let members on this side say what they have to say. Mr. Chairman, I am No. 77 RIO . S

. . asking for the opportunity to say what I have to say. Mr.Efford: (Inaudible) i.r...._Chairm.n: Order, please! I remind the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. Member for Port au Port has requested silence. An Hon. Member: Name him! Name him! Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Member for Port au Port. Mr. Hodder: Mr. Chairman, I happen to represent the District of Port au Port, and during that election campaign the Premier caine to the District on three occasions, And on each occasion, Mr. Chairman, he promised the people of Port au Port that they would he given a better deal.

As a matter of fact he left Port au Port and - he c'ame down to Carhonear, the day after o n e of his meetings, he told the people of Carbonear that the people of Port au Port were going to get a better deal under his adininistration. An Hon._Member: They have. Mr. Hodder: Well, Mr. Chairman - Mr. Tobin: What does that have to do with it. Mr. Hodder: r'Jouj, Mr. Chairman, Port au Port just happens to be one of the Districts in this Province which has a very high unemployment figure. Mr.

Chairman, the Chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission is quoted and reported as saying that in hard times we should be spending money on education. And, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to do anything in this Province, if we are going to change the direction of this Province, tften certainly education is very important. Now, Mr. Chairman, hon. members might know that for some twelve years I was a teacher, and I was principal of perhaps one of the most modern schools in this Province. The school which I was principal of was opened in 1973. I was the first principal of it. But not only that, Mr.

Chairman, it was designed by the teachers It won an award across Canada for its excellence and the model of the school was displayed at the CNE Exhibition in Toronto. Mr. Chairman, I spent some five years of my life working w i t h teachers as their principal. And, Mr. Chairman, when I hear members on the other side who stand and say that teachers have the summer off, that teachers should do things on the weekends, and let the teachers do it at other times, Mr. Chairman, these - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Hodder: Mr.

Chairman, it was certainly said by the Premier, it has been said by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island. r. Winsor: The Minister of Finance. Mr. Hodder: Mr. Chairman, that shows an abysmal ignorance as to what goes on in the schools. It shows ignorance of what is happening in the schools. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Tobin: Mr. Chairman, he asked to be heard in silence, L41 November 15, 1990 vol XLI No. 77 RI-i

there is no need of that. Mr. Speaker . Mr. Hodder: No, Mr. Chairman, let him rave on, he does not really bother me. But. Mr. Chairman - Mr. Tobin: If I was in the Chair, he would be quiet, I tell you that. Mr. Hodder: Mr. Chairman, you have teachers in the teaching system at the present time, who, perhaps have been teachers for twelve, fifteen perhaps twenty years. And, Mr. Speaker, in-service training is one of the most important, innovative things that can happen. Changes are taking place in education all the time. Mr. S