April 3,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House of

an additional appointment to the Round Table on Environment and Economy and to

give a brief status report on the organization.

I am pleased to announce that Mr. Bill Parsons has been

appointed to the Round Table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Parsons is well known for his

involvement and strong leadership in the labour movement, Provincially and

nationally, including ten years as president of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour. His appointment brings the Round Table membership to

nineteen.

It has been our desire from the beginning to ensure that the

views of labour are well represented at the Round Table. Unfortunately, Mr.

Parsons was unable to accept appointment when the Round Table was first

announced last fall. I am very pleased that he now finds himself in a position

to accept.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to announce that the Round

Table will be holding its first meeting April 12th and 13th here in St. John's.

It has taken some time to get the first meeting organized primarily because

secretariat support for the Round Table is being provided by my Department and

we were unable to devote the resources necessary until the new fiscal year.

Planning has been ongoing between the Round Table Chairman, Dr. Noel Murphy, and

Department staff. We now look forward to the initiation of deliberations by the

full Round Table and to seeing the benefit of its work and advice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the Minister has sent a

copy over to our colleague's office. Anyway, we welcome the appointment of Bill

Parsons to the Round Table and trust that his expertise will be valuable in

whatever it is the Round Table is going to do. I do not know when it was the

Minister first made the announcement, seven or eight months ago, or whenever it

was, if it took them seven or eight months to get their first meeting in place I

hope it does not take them as long to make some progress in whatever it is they

are going to do. We wish them luck and all the best in the world.

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

If he is speaking to the Ministerial Statement I cannot

recognize him because the House has ruled against that, unless it is by leave.

No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Yesterday the Minister met with a

delegation, representatives of the St. Lawrence Town Council and the

Steelworkers Union of St. Lawrence Fluorspar. I am wondering if the Minister

could inform the House of the actual situation now as it pertains to St.

Lawrence Fluorspar and the future outlook.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The situation at

this time, Mr. Speaker, is that as of the deadline for bids, which I think was

the 22nd., there were no acceptable bids received. Since that time my officials

have met with the receiver, and yesterday I met with the town council members

and union members and the receiver was present. At this time the receiver is

going to continue to have discussions with some interested companies, but we

cannot be sure whether or not there will be anything positive come out of it. I

am hopeful there will be, so I wish the receiver well in that.

But relative to all the circumstances the receiver has

decided - the bank really which put the receiver in place - that they have to

reduce their cost, so they have decided to stop pumping the water out and, I

guess, have started to remove the pumps at this time.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to

the Minister. In view of the fact that there were no proposals tendered even

after the deadline was extended by two weeks I believe it was, to March 22nd,

does the Minister realistically expect that we will see proposals coming forward

from interested operators for St. Lawrence Fluorspar? And does the Minister feel

that by allowing the pumps to be shut off yesterday or today and the mine

flooded that indeed this is the first step in seeing the assets of St. Lawrence

Fluorspar being liquidated?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am the last one to want to

see liquidation occur. I certainly hope we never reach that stage. I am hoping

that the receiver in consultation with the companies which still have some

interest in the property will be able to work out an arrangement with someone

that will be a company that is a reputable mining company and will be able to

make St. Lawrence a long-term venture. The resource is there in the ground at

St. Lawrence and it could be mined for many, many years. Unfortunately, at this

time the market situation is not good. So immediately in the next few weeks and

months I do not expect the operation to start up again. But I do have some hope

that the receiver may get a good company to come in there.

So as I said I do not want liquidation to occur. Relative to

the pumping, the fact that the water is going to be allowed to flood the mine at

this time is not a negative, in my opinion. The pumping could be done quickly,

within a very few weeks after another company is found to operate it, if we can

find one. And I certainly hope we can find one.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am wondering if the Minister could inform

the House and the people of St. Lawrence that if the receiver and Government is

successful in attracting a good proposal, a good bid to reactivate St. Lawrence

fluorspar, can the Minister inform the residents of St. Lawrence whether or not

Government will consider becoming financially involved in the reactivation

process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, in the past both levels of

Government were very involved in putting the present mill in place at St.

Lawrence, and when the operation went bankrupt there was a $3.3 million loan

guarantee from the Government in place. As to what we might do in the future, I

would say we will have to wait and see what proposals do come forward. I do not

want to speculate on it at this time, but we certainly do want to see the mine

get in operation and continue for many years.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minster

responsible for Forestry and Agriculture. According to the task force report

that was released yesterday it states this Province was close to implementing a

school milk program prior to 1989; it was partially to be financed by the dairy

producers, I think at half cent a litre the report says. Two years later that

program is still not in place. Can the Minister inform us why he has not

proceeded to implement the school milk program, especially since we are the only

Province in Canada which does not have it?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in the first place there was no

school milk program in place prior to this Government taking office. There was a

commitment made during an election, that if I am elected, I will see to it that

there is a school milk program. I might tell the hon. Member that the dairy

industry itself intends to implement a school milk program and is now making

arrangements. I think they are looking at up to $300,000. The task force report

recommends as he well knows that the Government would look at supporting a

school milk program. Of course when we have a chance to see exactly how the task

force is recommending we do that and when we look at the fiscal implications,

then when I am ready and my staff have given me the advice I need, I will be

making a recommendation one way or the other to Government.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if two years is

long enough but I will ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary. Earlier this

year the Minister of Finance imposed a 12 per cent retail sales tax on single

serving portions of ice cream and milk throughout the Province. Exactly how much

revenue does the Minister expect to receive as a result of this tax on milk and

ice cream?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Speaking from memory, Mr. Speaker - yes, it

is quite dangerous, I agree with you, particularly in your case -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: But, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we harmonized on the basic

grocery side there in January. The total revenue we got by that: we gained some

and we lost some depending on the items, and I think the total gain was

something between $3 million and $4 million, in that vicinity any way. But the

amount on milk - I do not recall the amount on a single serving of milk, it is

not a great deal.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister

obviously does not know. How can he say he harmonized when he left some things

out of the tax. But anyway, since the Hulan report recommends the establishment

of a school milk program so all children can purchase fresh milk regardless of

where they live in Newfoundland, at reduced prices, will the Minister

immediately remove retail sales tax on single serving portions of milk and

ice-cream in all schools in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Environment. I would like to ask the Minister what process the

Government is using to make a decision on the request from Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper Limited or Kruger, for a third time extension for another year's delay in

installing a new boiler to end the particle air pollution from the mill in

Corner Brook. Whom is the Minister and the Government consulting and what

factors are they taking into account in making the decision?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: I think the first part of the question, I

did not hear it clearly, Mr. Speaker, was to do with the process - Corner Brook

Pulp and Paper, made application to our Department, the Environment Department,

to consider their request for an extension to their compliance

schedule which

had been extended to the end of June 1992 and they want it extended to June

They made that request formal and it was considered in our

Department from a purely environmental point of view. The hon. Member who asked

the question now sent me a note last week and asked when she could expect to

hear a decision, and I sent a note back saying: hopefully within the next couple

of weeks. I could not give a specific time, that still stands.

We consulted with the companies; we consulted within our own

environmental expertise, we consulted with Government. In the event, Mr.

Speaker, that an extension to the compliance

schedule was granted, there would

be some financial implications so we would have to consider that as well.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

the Minister whether he or his officials have or will be consulting the

Government's Round Table on the Environment, the Humber Environment Action group

or citizens of Corner Brook before making this decision?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the point we are now in our

process, we consulted with all applicable individuals. There would be some time

before the actual Round Table gets into swing. As I mentioned here earlier in a

statement, they are not having their first meeting until the 12th or 13th, and I

have already told the Member twice now that we expect to make a decision known

within the next couple of weeks, hopefully, so the time frame would not be there

to add the Round Table to that particular process.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand

from the Minister of Environment and Lands that he is going to make a decision

on this request for a third time extension, consulting, outside of Government,

only the company, and ignoring private groups such as the Humber Environment

Action group, the Newfoundland Lung Association, and indeed the Governments own

new Round Table on the environment?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: I am not certain as to the direction it is

heading, Mr. Speaker. It sounds to me like the hon. Member is arguing for the

closing of the mill until a compliance

schedule can be met. Now if that is the

case, she is having a very serious affect on many of the constituents she

represents. We have followed a process that we have been open to all kinds of

input from the general public. The schedule, as the hon. Member knows, was long

in place before we became the Government. We have granted an extension or two

and we are considering another extension, but there are financial implications.

No one is barred from having input to Government in these decisions.

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

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

a question here for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, was the Government's decision to terminate

optometric claims under MCP, a cost saving measure, or was this decision made as

a result of pressure from ophthalmologists or other medical practitioners?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly not made

because of pressure from any particular group in this Province. The hon. Member

will know, as a result of the mismanagement of this economy by the previous

administration we had to try to rationalize the whole health care system. And we

tried to do it in matters that would not hurt our people too severely.

So we looked at the optometry programme which - the average

person requires an eye examination every two years, certain groups require it

every year and the cost of that eye examination is somewhere in the vicinity of

thirty dollars. So we felt it was better to take that $3 million plus and put

that into nurses, into operating rooms, into intensive care units. We thought

that the overall good of the people would be served better, when we only had so

much money to spend, it would be better to keep extra nurses on and lay off less

staff, than it would be to continue this programme.

However, Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, if we had not been

left with this massive debt which the previous government left us, if we had not

been left with that, we would like to have expanded on the optometry programme,

actually.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious

that the Minister of Health is going to take this out on people with poor

eyesight and the poor people. But now that the Minister has suggested that this

is totally a cost saving measure, does he intend to terminate the MCP claims for

optometric diagnostic examinations performed by ophthalmologists, who are

referred from general practitioners?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I believe the term is

'refractions.' Refractions will not be paid for whether they are done by an

optometrist, an ophthalmologist, a general practitioner, a surgeon or a

mechanic. Refractions are not being paid for, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not

consider that this short term gain that he is going to make by saving a few

measly dollars by cutting out the payments for refractions, does he not agree

with the ophthalmologist and the optometrist that this will lead to a much more

expensive eye care health cost in the future because early diagnosis of problems

will not be available?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that

anyone who requires an eye examination will be prevented from doing so because

of the thirty-odd dollars. That is highly unlikely. However, should there be

such a person in this Province who cannot find the thirty-something dollars, we

have added this year to the Minister of Social Services, an extra so many

hundred thousand dollars to pick up for the hardship cases who just cannot

afford it. I do not foresee this.

When the hon. Member asks such a question he is suggesting

that we had to close something else down in the health care system in order to

pay for this. So we had to make a judgement call: which was the most valuable

for the overall good of the people? Should we lay off a few more nurses? Should

we close down some hospital beds? And, Mr. Speaker, I believe the judgement that

we made, considering that we are paying $500 and some odd million in interest

payment on the debt that the hon. Members racked up, I believe we made a good

decision in this particular case.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation. The Minister is undoubtedly aware of the

importance of having a good transportation infrastructure in place to increase

economic activity in this Province. I wonder if he could tell me if his

Department will be plowing snow from the Trans-Labrador Highway from Wabush to

the Ossok this year, as it was done in previous years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Are we plowing snow to the Ossok?

AN HON. MEMBER: From the road.

MR. GILBERT: We will do the same as we did every other

year.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Last year you did not do it. Are you going

to do it this year? My question, Mr. Speaker, again back to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation - will he do as he did last year or will he

do it this year: remove the snow from the road close to Ossok?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, the Member indicated that we

ploughed the snow last year, and then he says no, we did not plough it. No, we

will not be ploughing it, we will be doing the same as we did last year.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. All

Members will be aware of the tragic death which occurred at Bull Arm, the first

fatality in the Hibernia project, and no doubt all have sympathy for the

individual and his family as a result of this death. My concern today to the

Minister of Energy is in connection with the safety regime in place for the

Hibernia project, and the fact that there are now a number of unanswered

questions about what exactly happened. Can the Minister tell the House what

special steps he is taking to inform himself and to ensure the people that the

safety regime is adequate and that it was not a failure of the regime which led

to this tragedy?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question is probably better addressed to me, and if, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. Member finds out that I did not quite give the information

that he wishes to hear perhaps then the Minister of Energy can fill in anything

that he knows from his particular perspective.

We have two, I guess, areas of main concern here, that is,

what work goes on on site, on land, and what work is carried on within the

Federal jurisdiction, which is off land. And it may very well be that the barges

and so on that are at work there now are covered by Federal regulations as

regards to occupational health and safety.

However, that does not stop us as a Province from being

concerned. We had from my Department an individual go out on Monday, an

occupational health and safety inspector to look over the situation and to make

notes. We have not as a Department questioned any of the individuals involved,

because I understand the RCMP is doing a very thorough investigation, and we

will have access to their records and so on as it pertains to the case. We are

not as yet sure of the details obviously of the accident, that is under

investigation. Whether or not it was work related or related to some other

incident, that of course time will tell.

As far as occupational health and safety is concerned on

land, at Bull Arm, we have now received one plan from the people involved there

which we were not satisfied with and have asked for a second report on

occupational health and safety practices to be submitted to us. That will either

have been in our hands this week or is shortly to be in our hands for further

assessment. But it has been an area that has been addressed, Mr. Speaker, since

the beginning of Bull Arm and indeed prior to.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the

Minister seems to have told the House that there is an unsatisfactory plan for

occupational health and safety at the Bull Arm site, how can she leave the

investigation of this up to someone else? And how can she allow them to continue

with an unsatisfactory safety plan in place?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: That indeed is not what I said, Mr. Speaker,

all the gentleman is doing is putting words into my mouth and I do not find that

very tasteful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: The Occupational Health and Safety Program

that we have in place pertains to onshore. I think I made that perfectly clear.

However, while it is being established, whether or not this is a Federal

jurisdiction or a Provincial, we have taken every precaution by surveying the

place where the accident took place. We will be making recommendations. We do

not sit on the backs of people out there instructing them how to undertake

occupational health and safety. There is some responsibility by the employer. We

certainly make every attempt to keep on top of it. But we are not there watching

every moment. Our concern is for the safety of workers in this Province and if

the gentleman is trying to imply anything else he has not only misled himself,

he is attempting to mislead the public of this Province, and I find that very,

very difficult in such a serious issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was responding to

what the Minister said in this House. The Minister will know as the Minister of

Justice will know, that despite the fact that there may well be a federal

responsibility to undertake an investigation it is also a provincial

responsibility. Is the Minister conversing with the Minister of Justice to

determine whether or not there ought to be a provincial investigation, or are we

waiting now until everybody else finishes their job to see whether there is

something we should have done now and not waited six months from now?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Again, the question I find very distasteful,

Mr. Speaker. Of course conversations are going on between the officials of my

Department and Justice as they do in every case where we have an accident in the

Province. It is just routine, it is sensible, we do it all the time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Ministers of

Health and Education have stated on many occasions in this House and outside

that the downsizing of our health and post-secondary education system is partly

necessary because of cutbacks in established programme financing; they have said

it will all end by the year 2004. The Ministers also know, of course, that this

matter is a matter of cash transfers and tax points. I want to ask the Minister

of Finance, have his officials done an analysis of this situation and would he

please inform us what they are telling him as to the position for the next

twenty years?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under

advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, certain members of the

Government have indicated that it will all run out come 2004. Surely the

Minister knows there are two components, cash transfers and tax points. Can he

give us absolutely no information as to whether or not this will all run out

come 2004?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will take that under

advisement. There is no doubt that the cash transfers are declining year by

year, but there is a corresponding increase in the tax points toward the

provinces. I can give him a more comprehensive answer, giving facts and figures,

later.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: A final supplementary to the Minister. Is

the Minister of Finance indicating that other Ministers have been sort of

playing games with the numbers and that while certain cash transfers are

dropping, certain tax points might be going up, that the situation is not

entirely as bad as they are making out, that they are blaming the Federal

Government for more than their share of the blame?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not quarrelling with

Members. There is a serious situation occurs - what Members have been saying and

quite properly is that the cash transfers will have disappeared, which means the

Province will be on its own in financing health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on. On our own.

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

Capes.

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

Minister of Education. Will the Minister tell us how many people have been laid

off at the school board level throughout the Province?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. Member

wants to know how many teachers or how many persons - people. I do not have the

data on the total number. The school boards have a budget. They budget, they

decide whom they employ and how many they will lay off, if any. I did indicate

to the House that about 133 teachers and administrators would be laid off

throughout the Province during the next year.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister did

indicate that. In fact, it was part of the Government's overall layoff of 3,000

- or 2,000 they mentioned. What the Minister did not indicate was how many would

be laid off because of cutbacks to school boards which we pointed out, asking

now how many people, support staff will lose their jobs because of the

Minister's severe cuts to the budgets of school boards throughout the Province?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. The hon. Member must

know as a former Minister that a Minister is in no position to know precisely

how many people are employed by school boards. With respect to his question

about cuts, I have informed the House that we have frozen this year the

operational grants, per pupil grants to school boards for 1991-1992 at the 1991

level. However, I think he must also be aware that school boards acquire

revenues from other sources. And one school board that recently laid off a

number of workers, that school board will get from school taxes and from

operational grants 5 per cent to 6 per cent more funds for 1991-1992 than they

had last year. But, no, I do not have any details on precisely how many. I

suppose I could read in the paper what happens, or I could ask the school boards

later to send me, and I am sure they will inform me of, the precise number that

will be affected by our fiscal restraints this year, certainly.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Will the Minister tell us of his concern then

about the number of people that seem to be laid off by school boards due to the

fact that he has slashed their budgets?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this slashing the Budget - the

hon. Member must be aware of what happened in elementary and secondary education

this year. I do not have to go through it again, this slashing the Budget. There

are some expenditure controls in place. When it comes to school board operation,

Mr. Speaker, grants to school boards totally, including transportation grants

and grants for other purposes, will be increased slightly. Of course the school

boards will have a freeze on salaries to their employees other than teachers, so

there is no slashing of the amounts of money.

Mr. Speaker, as I get further information about the numbers

of persons affected I will pass it on to the hon. Member, but the Minister is

not in a position to know precisely how many employees in each school board will

be affected as a result of any reduction in the funds to school boards.

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

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

Premier. In December of 1989 the Premier announced in the Legislature he will

recall the closedown of the Number 6 paper machine at Abitibi-Price in Grand

Falls, and at the same time he indicated publicly that the company would be

proceeding with a multi-million dollar hydro project. Can the Premier tell the

House when that project is expected to begin? I believe the original anticipated

date was sometime this year, 1991. Is it still on

schedule as far as he

understands?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government will be having

more discussions, and have in the last few weeks had discussions with company

officials about that project. Exactly when it will be begin and the manner in

which it will be conducted we will not be in a position to determine with

certainty for perhaps another few weeks yet. The anticipation is that it would

likely begin this year. That is what is anticipated, although I cannot say it is

a certainty at this stage.

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for a quick supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: A quick supplementary to the Minister of

Environment and Lands, Mr. Speaker, if I could on the same topic. Can the

Minister of Environment indicate whether or not there are any delays with

respect to the environmental assessment process pertaining to that particular

hydro development? Is he aware of any?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: I would have to check that to find out if

there are any specific delays. I can get back to you, though, tomorrow, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I have the answers to questions

by the hon. the Member for Kilbride on March 11, when he asked a series of

questions concerning the transportation budget for last year. It is rather

detailed, and this is why it has taken us a couple of weeks to compile it. It

was $99 million worth of work he asked for details on, and here it is right

here.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for Mount

Pearl asked a couple of questions having to do with the payroll tax, questions

which he had asked last week and which I had answered, and which I answered in

his original question yesterday. But in a supplementary he was so insistent that

I thought I had better check out my figures, which I did, and I am right. But I

noticed that the media has today, one of the papers, reported what the Member

had said and for that reason, rather than just table the answer I think I would

like to say a word or two about it, if that is appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Very briefly.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes. His question was in two parts. The

first question was, `How can we project $42.5 million this year when we only

raised $28.6 million last year?' The reason for that is that last year there

were eight months and this year there are twelve; twelve is 50 per cent more

than eight, therefore 42 is 50 per cent more than 28. And the other question

that he raised -

AN HON. MEMBER: That was not the (inaudible). You cannot

even read Hansard right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: The other question he raised, Mr. Speaker,

was `Why was the forecast in last year's Budget Speech for $15 million last year

and $25 million this year,

whereas in our estimates this year we are saying we

are going to get $42.5 million and that we got $28.6 last year?' The reason is

the Province also pays the payroll tax to itself. So both sets of figures are

correct. One is net and one is gross, and the difference is what the Province

pays to itself. Mr. Speaker, I would like to table this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take pleasure in

presenting a petition of residents of Corner Brook and the Bay of Islands,

people who live in the electoral Districts of Humber East, Humber West and Bay

of Islands. The prayer of the petition is, `The petition of the undersigned, the

friends of MUN extension, states that

whereas MUN extension has provided and

continues to provide an essential service to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador; and

whereas no other agency is capable of providing that service, MUN

extension should be reinstated. Your petitioners respectfully request that the

hon. house take such action as may be necessary to ensure that Memorial

University reinstates its extension service and that it be funded and equipped

to provide the services it has traditionally provided.'

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this petition I wish to express my

support. I have presented several others worded the same from other groups in

the district I represent, as well as in other parts of the Province.

Grenfell College of Memorial University is in Corner Brook,

and at that campus there has been an office of MUN Extension staffed by a

co-ordinator and two full-time secretaries. Those three University personnel

have co-ordinated a variety of programmes for people in the region as well as

visitors, programmes that operate year long. The revenue generated from those

programmes is actually more than the cost of operating the office. Evidently,

the Extension office at Grenfell College is administered within the university,

separately from MUN Extension headquartered in St. John's, and at the moment it

appears as though the operation in Corner Brook will not be totally cut. The

people involved understand that they will be recategorized, with the

co-ordinator and one support staff continuing. Although if they are not able to

retain the three personnel there will be a loss of service, and that reduction

would not make any sense, since the programme administered by the personnel, as

I said before, generates more income or more revenue than the cost of operating

the office.

But the petitioners in signing this petition were not only

thinking of Extension Service at Grenfell College, they were also mindful of

Extension Service's operations throughout the Province. Extension Service has

operated with a feminist philosophy and it has been oriented around the needs of

people in rural parts of our Province. Now most of our Province is of a rural

character. Really, we only have in the way of urban centres St. John's; and

perhaps you can say Corner Brook is an urban centre, but by and large

Newfoundland and Labrador is a rural Province.

Ironically, the same week as the University announced its

decision to cut Memorial Extension, there was news of a national award being

given to Extension Service, the National University Continuing Education

Association award for creative programming in the division of Programmes for

Women. And when this Washington, DC-based international organization bestowed

this honour on MUN Extension Service, the Association was singling out for

praise Extension Service's Rural Women's Learning Project. That is a programme

that has been enhancing and promoting women's participation in community

leadership in rural communities.

Examples of the Women's Learning Project programmes are: a

workshop on effective lobbying, held with the Cape Shore Development

Association; an assertiveness training session held at Main Brook with the

Status of Women Council there, a session on brief writing that was given at Port

Hope Simpson at the Women's Centre there, a session in public speaking for the

Goose Head Farm Women's Association, and sessions on conducting effective

meetings that were given at Dunville with the Anglican church women. Now, most

of the recipients of these workshops -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, with leave I will just round out

my thought.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no leave. The hon. Member has no

leave.

MS. VERGE: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I will have another chance.

Thank you.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and support the petition presented by my

colleague for Humber East. I notice the Minister of Education has again not

responded to the petition. He waits for both of our Members to respond and then

he gets up to try to defend the indefensible. The Minister of Education has

constantly, every time he got to his feet, tried to defend the cutbacks to MUN

Extension: no, that is the university, we give them a budget and the university

decides on how it is going to spend its money, yet yesterday the Minister said:

certainly the Government does not expect an institution to cut programmes when

students are half way through without providing an opportunity for students to

complete their program. Certainly, we would reject that as a Government. So, he

indicated yesterday that he would be quite willing, and he should interfere in

the cutting of second year programmes. But what it is, is the Administration

becoming involved in the running of an institution. Now, the question is why

cannot the Minister get involved in the running of the University if he can do

it at Cabot, as he indicated yesterday he would do? It is one or the other. The

Minister is going to leave it alone, at arm's length as he said, or he is going

to be involved. Now, we support his involvement at Cabot because we think he

should not cut the programs. We would also like his intervention at MUN

Extension and see that that program is not slashed. Now, if he has the power and

the authority to do it on one hand he should have it on the other hand. I want

to address the prayer of the petition, that the residents of Newfoundland and

the Minister, obviously, has I guess put on some kind of earplugs or earmuffs,

or something to drown out the noise that is coming from all over Newfoundland as

one group after the other is calling on the Minister to reinstate the programs

that were offered by MUN Extension. Now, unless the Minister does not read

papers, I am sure he heard in spades on 'A Lunch with Phil' at which I am sure

we got roasted properly, what the people of Newfoundland think about it. I am

sure Mr. Bartlett, if he can remember, talked about the vital role that MUN

Extension has played in the fisheries movement along the Northeast Coast. If the

Minister cannot acknowledge that that is not a contribution then the Minister

has earplugs on twenty-four hours a day. He does not listen to anything in the

House of Assembly, he just listens to himself talk. I ask the Minister now to be

fair to residents of Newfoundland, particularly in rural Newfoundland where MUN

Extension was so important, that he would reconsider and do as he said

yesterday: certainly we would reject that as a Government, and the Government

would now intervene and direct Memorial University to reinstate MUN Extension or

find some $1.4 million that we lost on a contract in Labrador, to reinstate that

project or MUN Extension so they can get on with their work.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one of these days I will

take some time to try to explain to the hon. gentleman how universities operate

in this world and how post-secondary institutions operate. I regret that he does

not have an understanding of 'arm's length' relationships and so on. I will not

waste the time of the House because I need to state it in very simple terms so

that he can understand it once and for all. Mr. Speaker, all I can say - I have

said everything about Extension that I can. I have said it provided a very

important service, I have said that the University had made its decisions. We

will not be providing additional funds to Memorial University in these very

difficult times. And I am not sure what else I can add, other than to advise the

Member to send his comments to Dr. May and to the University, and I am sure they

will consider them in due course.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to

the House of Assembly from nine students attending the Port aux Basques

Community College. The prayer is as follows: The Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Students, Port aux Basques Community College Students' Council,

students of Port aux Basques Community College, protest the possibility of

financial cutbacks to the Port aux Basques community college. These cutbacks

will result in loss of courses, reduced staff, increased tuition, user fees and

possibly the closure of the institution. We the undersigned request the

Provincial Government to reconsider the proposals to impose any financial

constraints on the operating budget of any post-secondary institutions in our

Province.

Now, as I indicated this was signed by nine students

attending the community college in the Liberal district containing the town of

Port aux Basques.

MR. BAKER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have the

petition checked to see if in fact it is a petition?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

Yes, it is roughly in the form of a petition, not exactly,

but it is roughly in the form.

MR. HEWLETT: I take it I have Your Honour's leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was working for

the previous Administration when the educational system of the Province was

restructured and certain labour training and employment initiatives were put

into a new department with certain post-secondary institutions, a department

that ended up becoming called Career Development and Advanced Studies. I

personally know about it because I was given the task - probably two hours - of

coming up with a succinct name for the department. And did come up with the

name, Career Development. But the University decided that the name was not

sufficiently encompassing and word came down from the University that it had to

be expanded, and eventually Cabinet decided on my Career Development and added

Advanced Studies in order to come up with the name of that particular

department.

Now we have a Minister from out of the University, goes to

work in his new portfolio, is sort of undoing what we did in separating these

functions, really losing the career development aspect of our post-secondary

institutions in the larger Department of Education, which includes kindergarten

to Grade XII. The Minister, when he was in University, did many studies and made

many speeches with regard to education and was always considered to be a big

spender in the field of education. Yet here we see the Minister from MUN is

really, you know, the big spender no more. The big spender only has time to

spend sympathizing with students. He is not doing us any favours in the

post-secondary situation in this Province whatsoever.

I support the prayer of this petition, and ask that it be

tabled and sent to the Department to which it relates.

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

Capes.

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

support of the petition as presented by my colleague, one of many that are

coming in from all the post-secondary institutions from students who are

extremely concerned about the effects of the drastic cuts given them by the

Minister of Education.

The Minister today in talking about school boards said: no

cuts in grants to school boards. The Budget will show that grants to school

boards were cut. The transportation grant was increased a bit because of public

tender, he could not do anything about it, direct grants to school boards were

cut. Direct grants to post-secondary institutions have been cut, not frozen as

the Minister talks about, cut, c-u-t, cut. Less money, fewer dollars this year

than they have had in the past.

So the drastic measures taken by the Department are having an

effect. We are starting to see layoffs by school boards of support staff. We are

going to see the same thing at the post-secondary institutions. A number of

people, above and beyond numbers dictated by Government, will be affected and

laid off, and the cuts in the Budget are playing havoc with the working people

of the Province. But the main effect here is the effect it is having on the

education of our young people.

I realize it is 3:00 p.m., Mr. Speaker, and being Private

Member's Day, I think we are on to other business.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the Minister if he speaks has about

forty seconds.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, a little bit of good news to end

up today's Question Period for the hon. Member for Green Bay. In the news

release from the Western Community College they described the campus in Port aux

Basques as one of the most successful small campus operations in the Province,

they are booming this year, very few reductions in programmes to students, and

we are delighted with that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is 3:00 p.m.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling Private Member's Day, we

would like to welcome to the galleries today the Mayor of the Town of Grand

Falls/Windsor, His Worship Walwyn Blackmore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This is Private Member's Day and I believe

it is the private member's resolution of the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with considerable anger that I stand here today trying

to represent the women of this Province, the women who make up the majority of

the citizens of this Province, to move that this House of Assembly oppose

Provincial Government Budget restraint measures that discriminate against women.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to people throughout the Province

that the Wells Administration's March 7th Budget contained terribly regressive

measures that are going to exacerbate or make worse the inequities faced by

women in this Province. I will recite the most flagrant examples of the Wells

Administration's Budget restraint measures that discriminate against women.

The pay equity rollback, the Bill 16 contract stripping that

takes from men throughout the public service one year's worth of contractual

obligations for pay and benefit increases, but which stripped from women public

employees not only one year's worth of negotiated pay and benefit increases, but

more than three years worth of pay equity adjustments, a stripping that will

cost women in the health care sector alone up to this point an estimated $27

million. A stripping that will deny forever, to women who are retiring now or

who retired last year, the year before or any time since April of 1988, any

adjustment to recognize that while they were working for this Provincial

Government or its agencies, they were paid less than men for doing work of equal

value. So the pay equity rollback, Mr. Speaker, is the most flagrant example of

this Administration's discrimination against women.

A second example is the layoffs. A disproportionate number of

women are going to be laid off by this Administration. The Government has chosen

the health care sector for the greatest proportion of the cuts, the health care

sector is bearing the brunt of this Administration's cost cutting measures, and

as people should realize the vast majority of workers in the health care sector

are women. Therefore, a disproportionately or unfair number of the layoff

casualties will be women.

A third example affect of the Budget in terms of hardship to

women is the effect of the deterioration in public services. The reduction of

spending on health care will lead to more sick people having to stay home and it

will be the mothers, the daughters, and the sisters at home, as usual, who will

have to bear most of the burden of home health care.

Social assistance, Mr. Speaker: More women than men are on

social assistance. Mother lead single parent families form a significant portion

of the social assistance case load. Therefore, the freeze in the basic social

assistance rate, in the face of a Government projected 5.7 per cent rise in the

cost of living, is going to have a harsher effect on women than men.

Now the new $55 a month supplement for quote "eligible"

single parents with dependent children is a good move. I do not know how

eligibility will be defined, but I am expecting a generous

interpretation.

However, that $55 a month supplement does not offset the terrible loss suffered

by single mothers on social assistance.

Last October 1st when the Government suddenly and without any

warning to the women affected, reclassified income from maintenance and child

support as non-allowable income, that change cost social assistance recipients

getting maintenance up to $115 a month. That measure was discriminatory because

it provided for a different treatment of income from a partner in the household,

derived from that partners job, than it provided for when the partner separated

or deserted and was paying the same contribution in the form of maintenance or

child support. In the former case when the partner remained part of the

household the income being contributed to the family was, and still is,

categorized as allowable income and the family is able to benefit up to $115 a

month. In the latter case, when the partner is outside the household after the

partner has deserted, the contribution, which then becomes maintenance or child

support, is treated differently and the single mother and children are no longer

able to benefit at all from the absent parents contributions. That is

discriminatory.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: What I promoted when I was Minister of Justice

and what I achieved was the establishment of the Province wide support

enforcement agency, which is a division of the Department of Justice. That

agency has been extremely successful in improving the enforcement of court

orders for family support. And just as the program was working well after a year

and a half of operation the Government made this terrible change in social

assistance policy and denied the benefit of the support enforcement program to

the poorest of the beneficiaries. In other words, the beneficiaries no longer

benefit. In fact, some of these people are now victims of the system, a system

which enticed them to go to court to get an order for child support or

maintenance with the expectation that they would gain - not much mind you, only

up to a maximum of $115 a month - and which then took away that incentive and

that benefit but has the support enforcement agency acting like a police force

and continuing to extract the money from the absent partner and antagonizing

relations between the two partners, the two parents.

Mr. Speaker, this budget continues that terribly regressive

change in social assistance policy. So while I welcome the new $55 a month

supplement, I have to point out that because of the freeze in the basic rate,

when the cost of living is going up by 6 per cent, and because of the loss that

was suffered by single parent families getting maintenance as of last October

1st there is still discrimination.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Government's Budget reduced or cut

in absolute terms the budgets of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status

of Women and the Women's Policy Office. Now the Government may come back and

say: Well they weren't alone. Lots of other offices had budget cuts too. Those

two offices happen to be divisions of Executive Council, a Department of

Government, presided over by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.

My colleague for Kilbride went through every heading in Executive Council the

other evening and pointed out that the vast majority of divisions of Executive

Council got increases this year. On the page opposite the Women's Policy Office

vote, there is Protocol which has a massive increase. Protocol has gone up over

a half million dollars we are told because Princess Anne is coming to visit. The

Government invited Princess Anne, and evidently the Government places a higher

priority on having Princess Anne come to visit and lavishing on her a state

banquet and festivities than it places on operating its own Women's Policy

Office.

The Women's Policy Office budget was cut by 4 per cent from

what the office spent last year - I am sorry, it was cut by 12 per cent. A 12

per cent cut for the Women's Policy Office and - what is it? -a doubling or

trebling of Protocol; I do not have the numbers here in front of me now. On the

same page as the Women's Policy Office that is being dealt a 12 per cent cut is

the Government's propaganda office, Newfoundland Information Service. That has

been increased four-fold in the last year.

The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women budget

was reduced by 4 per cent, so, Mr. Speaker, examples of flagrant Government

Budget measures that discriminate against women are first and foremost: the pay

equity rollback, the disproportionately high number of women who are being laid

off, the increased burden put on women as opposed to men because of the

reduction in public services, particularly the deterioration of health care, the

freeze in social assistance rates and the budget reductions for the Women's

Policy Office and the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am the first one to say that we have

never - we have never - seen equality for women and men throughout my lifetime

and throughout the lives of generations before; there has been discrimination

against women; there has been inequities between women and men. Women have been

disadvantaged by having a smaller say in decision-making, by having a much

smaller amount of income; women have had less control over their lives than men

have had over theirs, so there has always been discrimination. But the real

question is are we improving? I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that there was some

progress made during the 1980s. We were narrowing the gap in some respects, but

now, as a result of this Budget and measures of other governments, the gap is

widening. I have called this Budget regressive because it discriminates against

women, because it discriminates against people in rural areas, and because most

of all it discriminates against poor people, against people with low incomes.

Mr. Speaker, I have wondered how the Liberals opposite who

are responsible for the Budget with these measures will vote, and I am

predicting that these Government Ministers who are so adept at sophistry will

vote for the motion. I predict they will claim that their budget does not have

any measures that discriminate against women. That is what I am predicting.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have done some research and checked on

what the Liberals opposite said when they were campaigning for election two

short years ago. I found first a letter from Clyde K. Wells, Leader of the

Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador dated February 11, 1989. It is too

bad the Premier is not in his seat to be reminded of what he said then. He said,

`The Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador is dedicated to the principles

of fairness and balance in all sectors of our society, political, economic and

social.' He went on to say, `The most glaring examples of imbalance and

unfairness are in the areas of women's issues and the participation of women in

the political process.' Then he uses a familiar word, `It is unconscionable that

women be treated differently than men in the workplace when dealing with wage

rates and job opportunities.' `The recent revelation' - this was recent for him

- `the recent revelation that even in such an enlightened environment as our

university pay scales are lower for women than for men is unacceptable in our

modern society.' I wonder what happened to him in the last two years.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when the campaign started the Liberals

published a manifesto, a forty-odd page document which all their candidates had,

it was their bible. They had in it just at the end a

section on women, and in

that

section was a paragraph saying `a Liberal Government will introduce and

enforce pay equity legislation. Not only must women and men receive equal pay

for doing the same work, but jobs traditionally held by women must not be

ghettoized at lower pay scales if they are of equal value with jobs held by men.

And then, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals distributed to every household in the

Province this slick, glossy brochure, with full colour photographs of the

Premier, summarizing their election platform, and there is not one but two

commitments for pay equity legislation.

Under the heading of Labour, it is too bad the Minister of

Labour is not here, `a Liberal Government will develop progressive and fair

legislation to deal with pay equity.' Now I don't think that meant a Bill 16.

Then under the heading of women, `a Liberal Government will introduce and

enforce pay equity legislation.' Well, Mr. Speaker, just before the Budget came

down, when there were rumours that the Liberals might do the unthinkable and cut

pay equity, I asked the Premier in Question Period about his intentions and the

Premier said - I have it here, the official transcript - `the Government

commitment to pay equity remains as it was.' That is what he said on March 4th.

When I asked him when he was going to introduce the promised pay equity

legislation the Premier said, `I am not quite sure what the hon. Member is

talking about, the promised pay equity legislation.' I guess he forgot he

promised it twice in his brochure, once in his manifesto and he wrote such an

eloquent letter as Liberal Leader back in February of 1989. I guess he forgot

that. Convenient! Then three days later, on March 7th, we get the news in the

Premier's Budget that he is going to roll back pay equity, he is going to

tolerate wage discrimination against women.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wrote the Premier as soon as I got a copy

of Bill 16 and I told the Premier as a lawyer I believed the legislation, the

Bill 16 rollback legislation is unconstitutional. I told one of the country's

leading constitutional legal authorities that his legislation is flawed

constitutionally. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is an integral part

of the Constitution of Canada, says that all the equality rights guaranteed

apply without discrimination, particularly without discrimination on the basis

of sex. Mr. Speaker, that means that no legislation of any provincial

legislature or the Federal Parliament may violate equality rights guaranteed by

the Charter.

Now there is a way out, and that is the infamous

notwithstanding clause. The Premier last year repeatedly expressed his

opposition in principle to the use of the notwithstanding clause. He did not

like Quebec's use of that to uphold the sign language law, so I asked him in my

letter if he would promise now not to use the notwithstanding clause in the

event that the courts strike down his Bill 16.

The main request I made in the letter was for the Government

to take the initiative to refer Bill 16 to our Supreme Court Court of Appeal for

a ruling on its constitutional validity before proceeding any further. I am

still waiting for a response. It seems that this Premier is totally inconsistent

and hypocritical, and he is quite prepared to discriminate against women in

favour of pumping additional money into his pet project, the Economic Recovery

Commission which has a $44 million budget, in favour of giving interest free

loans to his businessmen friends, in favour of increasing the votes of

Ministers' offices.

There are alternatives for the Government, and the

alternatives include treating women and men in a way that is fair, including

measures -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: - that narrow the gap between women and men.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to

this resolution. I had hoped that I could give a very short, sensible commentary

on the resolution, but it is very difficult. After the display of half-truths

and sheer hypocrisy coming from opposite, it is very difficult to do that. I

will try to deal with the issues and try to stay away from the politics the hon.

Member plays with, issues she should not play politics with.

First of all, in terms of the Budget there are no budget

restraint measures that discriminate against women. I would like to deal with

the issues that the hon. Member raised.

First of all, in terms of Bill 16, Bill 16 is something that

was done of necessity, and I am talking now about the wage restraint part of

Bill 16. The wage restraint was done of necessity. There were no other choices

at this point in time. We do not have a triple A credit rating. Members opposite

squandered money and threw away money so freely that we can no longer go to the

markets and have freedom in our borrowing. They ran us out of credit, Mr.

Speaker; they ran the credit cards beyond the limit and left us with a real

mess. So we had no choices. We had to do the wage restraint legislation.

The reasons for having to do that are well known: the lack of

increase in money from Ottawa, the downturn in the economy that happened

recently. The hon. Member argues that the freeze coupled with the layoffs

somehow discriminate against women. She is stretching a point, desperately

grasping at straws. In terms of the positions that are lost in the public

service there will be no disproportionate number of women laid off - there will

be no disproportionate number laid off. If in a

section of Government there are,

let us say, three times as many men as women, then obviously if the layoffs are

done fairly, there will be three times as many women as men get laid off. I

mean, the proportion remains the same. In areas where there are 75 per cent men

and 25 per cent women, if the thing is done fairly then there will be

approximately 75 per cent men laid off and 25 per cent women. The thing will be

done proportionately. There will be no discrimination against women.

The hon. Member thinks, I suppose, that if one single woman

is laid off, then somehow that constitutes a case for discrimination. The only

thing I can say about that, Mr, Speaker, is that it speaks volumes about her

ability as a lawyer.

With regard to the pay equity

section of the legislation, Mr.

Speaker, there is no pay equity in the public service at this present time;

there has not been for the last five years; there has not been for the last four

hundred years, or whatever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: There is no pay equity, number one. Number

two, a group is studying pay equity in a small segment of the public service.

Not in the whole public service, a small segment, the hospital segment and

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The study has been ongoing for three years, so

one segment of the public service has been studied. Alright? Now, then, that

segment of the public service was treated very favourably by Members opposite

when they agreed that once conclusions had been reached, pay equity would be

retroactive. In other words, Members opposite discriminated against women in the

whole of the rest of the public service. That is what they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Now, then, I want to point out the silliness

of the arguments opposite. We found ourselves in a financial bind. The Member

opposite says that the layoffs are disproportionate, there are more women being

laid off than men. Let us for one moment assume, just assume, that she is

correct. She is not, but let us assume she is correct. Then we had a choice to

make with that $24 million: layoff another 900 or 1,000 people or not do the pay

equity retroactively. We chose rather than all those layoffs, which the Member

opposite says would have discriminated against women anyway, we chose to

eliminate the retroactivity. Not roll back pay equity - there is no pay equity -

but eliminate the retroactivity.

So had we not eliminated the retroactivity she would have

said we were discriminating against women because we did not. Now that we

eliminated it she says we are discriminating against women because we eliminated

it. Now you cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Exactly.

MR. BAKER: You should understand that. Mr. Speaker, pay

equity will be implemented in the public service of this Province, it will be

implemented by this Government. I suspect that within the next month the first

segment of the public service will be receiving pay equity adjustments, within a

month or so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: That will happen and it will happen as quickly

as possible in the rest of the public service, and we will eliminate, Mr.

Speaker, the discrimination against women that has existed for years. We will

eliminate it. That is what we mean by our commitment to the pay equity. We will

eliminate it. The Member for Humber East seemed to be concerned about only one

group of women in the public service, one section, the hospitals and

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That is all she is concerned about. She does

not see the rest of it. We will introduce pay equity in the whole of the public

service in this Province, make no mistake about it. And it will be done as

quickly as possible and we will not wait another three years to do it.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution does not make much sense because

there is no discrimination in the Budget restraint measures we have taken. We

have been very careful to ensure that whatever we have to do the pain is equally

shared all around this Province. She makes the point that there are somethings

happening to rural Newfoundland, and somehow in the back of her mind she says

that anything that happens in rural Newfoundland, that is discrimination against

women. I mean, those strange little associations the Member for Humber East has

are amazing.

Mr. Speaker, there is no discrimination. The resolution

simply makes no sense at all. I regret the Member for Humber East spent most of

her speech waving around political documents and becoming very political with an

issue that should be treated seriously.

I am very familiar, and have become very familiar over the

last couple of years, with the Member for Humber East and her grandstanding and

her shallow and hollow arguments, that are produced simply for the purpose of

grandstanding. She has been using this one issue, the women's issue, to try to

create a reputation, and perhaps help her out in some of her immediate political

ambitions. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the place to be doing that. We

have experienced this a couple of times from the hon. Member.

The resolution is simple, 'Be it resolved that the House of

Assembly oppose provincial government budget restraint measures that

discriminate against women.' Mr. Speaker, there are no budget restraint measures

that discriminate against women. We would not bring in any such measures. We

would have nothing to do with any such measures, so the resolution, Mr. Speaker,

simply does not make sense.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it could be said that the subject matter we are

discussing here today has to deal with the status of women in our society, and,

I guess, according to the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights,

males and females are technically equal. We know that reality is something else

altogether. Efforts are being made at many levels in our society to redress some

of the inequities that have existed literally for generations, if not thousands

of years, but I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that under this particular

Administration such efforts are grinding to a halt and probably rolling a bit

backwards. If we look back at our society in Newfoundland prior to

Confederation, in those days, certainly where I come from on the Northeast

Coast, a man is probably gone all Summer fishing on the Labrador, gone all

Winter in the lumber woods, and working under conditions that can best be

described as some form of serfdom in those days. Meanwhile the woman of the

house was usually left with the business of rearing upwards of a dozen kids,

quite literally, well, fifteen in a family was not uncommon. During the Summer

it was her job to make sure that the sheep and goats were looked after, that

sufficient vegetables were set, grown, and weeded, which was the most difficult

task of all, in rural Newfoundland in the Summer, while the man was away on the

Labrador Coast during the Summer, that was the work of the women. Drying

sufficient caplin and locally caught inshore cod for a Winter's supply quite

often was the role of the woman and the older children because, as I indicated,

the man was away. It is not surprising that in generations past men often had

two or three wives. My grandfather on my father's side had two wives. My

grandfather on my mother's side outlived his third wife by a good dozen or more

years, and in those days, Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that the status

of women was not even close to what it is today and in those days I think it is

safe to say that women in our society were literally worked to death. I am

pleased to say that with the coming of Confederation and certain social

programs, etc., that things have improved considerably.

My own mother in particular became a Canadian citizen at an

age where I think she qualified for one baby bonus cheque and then she reached

the age whereby she was too old to qualify. But that was the beginning of some

modern times for Newfoundland women and escape, I would say, from the serfdom

that their husbands found themselves in prior to Confederation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to work for the

Peckford administration for ten years and during that particular time -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) severance pay (Inaudible), a

$100,000 severance package (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: - Mr. Peckford made it a matter of policy in

his administration to advance the cause of the status of women in society. He,

when running for the leadership, committed to establish a Status of Women

Council, and he so did. He was responsible during his tenure in office for the

establishment and evolution of the Women's Policy Office which right now answers

to the hon. President of the Treasury Board.

When I was in charge of the Premier's office I made some

changes myself that I feel personally proud of. There were a number of

secretarial staff who, I guess by the nature of the times and when they went to

school, they did not get university degrees. They ended up going to stenographer

school, that sort of thing. But I identified among the secretarial staff a

number of people who had potential far above their own expectations of

themselves. And I promoted them during my tenure to executive positions. And

they performed admirably. I can only regret that they had not been born probably

ten years later. In the case of those two or three particular individuals they

probably would have had a college education and would have automatically been

considered for executive roles in any senior office.

But the Wells administration put forward a platform to the

people of the Province, a liberal, small 'l', platform. Many people in the

labour movement, many people in support of what might be called 'left wing

causes' during the last election decided, and it was certainly their choice, to

support the Wells' administration because it portrayed to the people of the

Province a progressive, small 'l' liberal image. It put forward a progressive,

small 'l' liberal party platform.

However, since coming to office we see that this particular

administration has changed like a chameleon. The social side of this Government,

the social conscience of this Government, is not a priority with this

Government. And you see very little pro-activity in areas such as women's

issues, environment, recreation, culture, et cetera.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Apart from Meech Lake just what is this

Government famous for? The hon. Minister for Social Services who should be one

of the more pro-active, small 'l' liberal Ministers of this Administration,

spends most of his time in this hon. Assembly, at least when I am on my feet,

arguing about the Sprung Greenhouse and my own particular severance package when

I left the government.

MR. EFFORD: How much was it?

MR. HEWLETT: That is all that gentleman tends to do. That

gentleman would do well to attend to the duties of being a pro-active Minister

in a social department. But unfortunately his job in this hon. House appears to

be official heckler for the other side.

MR. EFFORD: Did your secretaries get $100,000 severance

pay when they were laid off? You got it. They do not get it? (inaudible.)

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker -

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, the hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: This is a serious motion. Our time is limited.

And the nattering and heckling of the Minister of Social Services, who is not

even sitting in his own seat, is becoming tiresome. I am having trouble -

MR. EFFORD: You are not interest in hearing the truth.

MS. VERGE: - even hearing my colleague. Whether the

Minister is telling the truth or not is irrelevant. If he wants to talk I would

suggest you invite him to leave the Chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member request silence?

MR. HEWLETT: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, many of

the people in this Government who have been laid off are female and I would

submit that probably a disproportionately high number are female. When we look

at the health care sector alone where 900 people were predicted in the Budget to

be laid off, a full 300 of them were nurses and I have been in many hospitals

and I have not seen too many male nurses; I would say the vast majority probably

90 per cent or more of the nursing profession are female.

Then, when you get into other categories of health care

employees, janitorial, food service; a lot of people in the health care system

are female and I think a lot of females in the health care system will be laid

off. I have a personal friend of mine who worked at Memorial University, a

single mother with a child, because of the actions of this Government was bumped

and is now having to search for work, in this particular society, not an easy

task.

A good friend of mine whose wife was a nurse was one of the

300 casualties I mentioned earlier; everywhere I turn in my life of late, you

meet someone who has fallen victim to this particular Government's Budget and

more often than not, more than 50 per cent of the time, the casualty is female.

I think, Mr. Speaker, a lot of this has to do with the Premier's outlook on life

and Government and what his role is in this particular Province. I think the

Premier, having come from a corporate background, having been in politics twenty

long years or so ago, having come from a corporate background tends to run this

Government like a business and I do not think you can run a family like a

business and neither can you run a government like a business.

A family consists of a home and the government is of a

province and a province is a home. A family unit is just several individuals but

the province is a home in this particular case, for more than a half million

people and you cannot run a home like a business. We have a Premier who is

running this Province like a business and unfortunately it is the public

servants and the people at large who are feeling the brunt of his style of

administration.

This particular Government appears to be wielding an axe in

meeting certain budgetary bottom lines rather than using a scalpel. No one

disputes the fact that we are in difficult times, but the way the Government has

approached the cutbacks, has been somewhat crude, rude and arbitrary; it has

really almost destroyed the faith of people in rural Newfoundland, that they can

remain there, earn a living there, raise a family there. My colleague from

Humber East talked about how women in rural Newfoundland will suffer as a result

of this; rural Newfoundland today, where I come from, often means a husband in

the woods or in a fishing boat and a wife in a fish plant, but that wife's

responsibility usually involves something to do with the children as well, and

because of this Budget right now, when a child gets sick, you cannot run to the

nearby hospital, it is a sixty to ninety mile drive in my district depending on

where you live to seek medical attention. That means a day's wages, that means a

shift gone for that wife and that family income at the fish plant, it means

dragging your youngster for an hour and a half in a car to receive basic medical

services. It means a young woman in rural Newfoundland getting married can not

count on having her child anywhere near where she lives.

I know of one particular young woman in Springdale who for

medical reasons had to go to Grand Falls to have a child delivered by caesarean

section and that was an exceptional case. But now, Mr. Speaker - that was a

surgical case - we have a situation where, by virtue of this Government, all

young expectant mothers will have to travel disproportionately large distances,

probably take out hotel room or boarding house space in a larger regional

hospital centre, in order to wait your time for delivery. It is amazing that

they say that women in rural Newfoundland are not going to be negatively

affected by this Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Springdale Hospital

(Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, Springdale Hospital delivered

sufficient number of babies every year to receive accreditation as a maternity

centre. It continued to deliver babies right up until it got the word from this

particular Administration that the women of Green Bay, be they from Brighton, or

Harry's Harbour or Jackson's Cove or Triton - Jackson's Cove, which voted

Liberal, King's Point which voted Liberal - which sent 500 names on petitions

into this Assembly to save its hospital, because the people of King's Point did

not want to see their young women have to go all the way to Grand Falls or

Corner Brook to have their children delivered - have grandparents drive an hour

or two to come visit the newborn.

Mr. Speaker, that these people would say that this Budget

does not discriminate, does not cause damage, does not increase hardship on

females in rural Newfoundland, is incorrect, because it causes tremendous harm

to persons in rural Newfoundland and females are persons.

I might add that I think it was only sometime earlier in this

century that some court in this country actually ruled that females were

persons.

MS. VERGE: Privy Council, in London, England.

MR. HEWLETT: What time, what date?

MS. VERGE: Nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.

MR. HEWLETT: Nineteen twenty-eight. Up until 1928 females

were not persons in this country. Persons in rural Newfoundland are suffering

from this Budget, female persons I think are suffering from this Budget more

than male persons.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, is a man from a different age, and

is a man who regards his position in this Chamber as a transition place to a

greater Chamber a couple of thousand miles to the west of here, called the House

of Commons in Ottawa. However, the Premier would do well to be mindful of the

fact that he has his place in this Chamber with the support of 47 per cent of

the voting population of the Province. I would indicate that the female

percentage of this Province, of the population generally, is 52 per cent. And I

would indicate that this Government had better watch out. This 47 per cent

Government had better beware of a 52 per cent solution.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we will hear it, let's hear it.

MS. COWAN: First of all, I want to make a comment, Mr.

Speaker, on the fact that a woman feels obliged to speak in a debate such as

this. And I was just even further pushed forward to make a comment on it by the

Member for St. John's East over there saying: let's hear it now. And somehow or

other putting the burden on me to defend and protect womanhood in this Province.

I would say I find that objectionable. I found it quite objectionable on several

occasions when the Opposition has seemed to think - and my colleagues find it

objectionable. That is the most important part. What I feel is not that

important. Because we share the responsibility for women in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: Now the hon. Member for Kilbride made a few

points yesterday and I will tell you right now, he revealed far more than he

ever intended to when he stood up.

My heart goes out to the Member for Humber East, because I

knew at that time what she had to tolerate when she was in that particular

Cabinet. It was her particular responsibility apparently to bring the men around

every time and to bring them to heel, sort of, when it came to women's issues.

Now when I was contemplating on whether I would go into

politics, I sort of debated whether I wanted to go into an all-male forum again.

I have operated in all male-forums a lot of my life and I found it pretty

frustrating I will have to admit, and I just did not know whether, when I was

sort of reaching peaceful middle age, if I wanted to really take it on again.

And lo and behold I found it quite refreshing to be in the presence of men who

share many of my feelings about the advancement of women.

I am not beating my head against a brick wall in Cabinet, I

am fighting for a chance to speak on behalf of women in Cabinet because so many

of my Cabinet colleagues are trying to get in a good word themselves. So I think

we should set that argument to rest once and for all now, that somehow or other

I am over here carrying a torch for women in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not forget your caucus buddies, now.

MS. COWAN: My caucus buddies are excellent, as well, and

I certainly include those gentlemen in my discussions. Do not worry about that

at all.

Now, when I think of the wastefulness of the past government,

it is going to be very hard to refrain from going over the time period that I

have been allotted today. And I happen to know that the wastefulness of the past

government would have built a few rape crisis centres in the Province, which we

needed. They might have seen to bringing about the Victim Assistance Programme,

which my Government has seen fit to put in place, they might have been able to

build more homes for battered women. But they chose that they would rather party

than do those things, rather party than address themselves to the needs of the

people of this Province.

I decided today that I would just jot down a few things that

we had done as a Government for women since we took office, and I must say that

we have done very well. The list is quite impressive, and I will just name a few

of the things. Of course, the one thing that I am particularly proud about as

Minister of Labour is the fact that we saw fit to remove one of the most blatant

forms of discrimination against women, and that was allowing domestics to be

paid less than other workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: That not only put down women, it also showed

what the society and what the Progressive Conservative government felt about

children. Children, they suggested by that action, are not worth being well paid

for when it comes to their care. And I find that appalling.

I am particularly pleased, too, that a large part of the

Budget for the employment programmes in my Department go towards advancing

women. We have the WISE Programme, which I have had the opportunity to speak

about before in this House. We are funding that and trying to see it spread

throughout the Province to help women get back into the work force. And

extremely successful programme, and one that is being looked at now by other

groups from across Canada, hoping to emulate, hoping to adapt it to their

particular need.

The Job Bridges Programme, bringing women from traditional

into non-traditional work. I actually was able to with this fine Cabinet,

supported by an excellent Government Members' group, have a feminist counsellor

engaged in my Department who can consult, counsel, assist women who are having

trouble adapting to the non-traditional workplace, or whose employer is having

difficulty.

Now how many Ministers, how many Cabinets, how many

governments in Canada would actually let somebody hire a feminist counsellor?

Most people find the word `feminist' frightening. But, no, we have a feminist

counsellor in my Department attending to the needs of women.

Furthermore, outside my Department I noted a few other things

that have been taking place, and excuse me any of my colleagues in the various

Ministries if I have missed something from your particular Department. We have

in Justice, for example, the Victim Assistance Programme which, of course, is

going to address women and children who have particular needs when they have

been sexually or physically abused or whatever, and may find the whole court

process intimidating. We have the Women's Policy Office and the Provincial

Advisory Office. Now we could have very easily said, and I have heard these

sorts of arguments in my day, why do we need two? Let us get rid of one of them,

and so on. We did not do that. We readily realized they both fulfil a different

function and there they sit, both today. In spite of the fact that we had to

take some sharp measures in other areas, those two groups have been left intact.

We have, in spite of the financial situation, decided that we

will treat the first child as an adult in single parent families. I think that

is a remarkably progressive step. Battered women are given first choice

to get into public housing. Again I think that is an advance forward, that is

excellent.

We have been able to change health services in this city so

that we will have one hospital which will eventually come to have state of the

art facilities for obstetrics and gynaecology, which again will provide a great

service for women. I could go on about this really, Mr. Speaker, for some time,

and it makes me feel good. It really does. As a women and as a Member of

Government that shares the responsibility for women in this Province, I think we

can be pleased with what we have accomplished. We certainly are not going to sit

back on our behinds and let everything go on now and just think we have done a

good job. We will be looking for other ways to advance women and children, a

very, very important part and very, very important to our society. For many,

many years women have been discriminated against. It did not just start when we

took office. I mean, the suggestions that come from other there, you would think

discrimination had never existed until we came to power.

AN HON. MEMBER: It started in 1989.

MS. COWAN: It strikes me as a very strange approach to

take, a hiding-the-head-in-the-sand approach, and one that I would be very

ashamed of.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) deputy ministers (inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Yes, indeed. That is another good point. Three

Deputy Ministers now are women, and my department is flourishing, of course,

with a female as the Minister, the Deputy Minister, and two ADMs. So we are

setting a fine example for Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand today to

make these comments and to promise the men and women of this Province that we

will continue in a progressive way when it comes to dealing with the needs of

women and with children. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a

few words to say in support of this resolution moved by my colleague, the Member

for Humber East. I am somewhat surprised with the tenor and tone of the debate,

at least coming from the other side, particularly the Minister responsible for

the Status of Women who was the official lead speaker for the Government on this

resolution and who spoke, I think, for 10 minutes and that was it. Then we just

heard from the Minister of Labour and, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, quite

frankly, that it was a very pitiful contribution to the debate, and I will tell

you why. The resolution reads: `Be it resolved that the House of Assembly oppose

provincial government budget restraint measures that discriminate against

women.'

Now the Member who just spoke did not address that resolution

once, did not mention it once. She did not mention pay equity. She did not

mention any of the other discriminatory actions that had been taken by this

Government in the Budget. That is the resolution. What she talked about, Mr.

Speaker, she commended -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what you did.

MR. SIMMS: If hon. Members can keep their mouths shut I

will do just that. I will do just that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak from your own seat, too.

MR. SIMMS: Particularly Members not even seated in their

places.

She commended the Government on initiatives they have

undertaken and things they have done. And she -

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the

Minister once.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You are yapping.

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will try once again. The

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations talked about the things -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: This will give you an indication, Mr. Speaker,

of the interest in this issue of Members on the other side, I can tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations talks about the wonderful things her Government has done. Now we have

no problem with her touting the wonderful policies they have brought in over the

last two years which have been beneficial to women. That is fine. We support her

Government. We commend her Government on bringing in improvements dealing with

the domestic wage issue. We commend the Government for that, and we commend the

Government for whatever other initiatives they have undertaken. But, Mr.

Speaker, she should not try to give the impression that nothing was done ever

before this Government came to power with respect to women's issues. Mr.

Speaker, we have as a previous Administration much to be proud of in the

advancement of issues dealing with women and improvements in enhancing things

for women in this society in Newfoundland and Labrador. We did a considerable

number of things. Not as many things as we would have liked to have done maybe,

not as many things as people would have wanted us to do, but, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. SIMMS: Name one? Well, Mr. Speaker, what

Administration do you think brought in the matrimonial property legislation? a

major, major advancement. What Administration brought that in I wonder? It was

the Conservative Administration under Premier Peckford which brought that in.

What Administration founded and funded and brought in the Advisory Council on

the Status of Women I wonder?

MS. VERGE: And appointed an outspoken feminist.

MR. SIMMS: And appointed an outspoken feminist to serve

on that council, and appointed an outspoken feminist, I might add, to be

president of that council for a long number of years? It was the previous

Conservative Administration. And what Administration appointed and set up and

established a Women's Policy Office within Government? It was the previous

Conservative Administration. And let me tell you, as the President of Treasury

Board well knows, when I was Minister responsible there were women in that

Policy Office who are feminists I can assure you. And that was to deal with

internal issues within Government, and the President of Council knows what I am

talking about. So who did that? The previous Administration did it, Mr. Speaker.

Who provided the initial funding for transition homes? Who

provided that initial funding, Mr. Speaker, to help people who suffer from

family violence? Who provided the initial funding and got that started? It was

the previous Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: And who brought in other significant policies?

MS. VERGE: The support enforcement agencies?

MR. SIMMS: The support enforcement agencies, that was

done by the previous Administration, Mr. Speaker. There are other things that we

have done, but that is not the issue we are dealing with here today. That is not

what people are here to hear, people who may be in the galleries who have an

interest in this issue. But both Members who have spoken on the Government side

that is all they talked about, what they have done. That is not the issue, Mr.

Speaker. And by the way, I will say just to respond to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations who made the sarcastic remark about the Member

for Humber East having difficulty and having to be the one to lead the charge

around the Cabinet Table and make the decisions, that that is not accurate at

all. Obviously I can tell you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, if the hon. Member will stop yapping, I

will try to answer again. These Members are extremely sensitive, as far as I can

tell. The point I was trying to make, Mr. Speaker, if Members opposite would

give somebody the courtesy of trying to make a point, is that the Member for

Humber East was not solely responsible for it. But I will tell you she did one

hell of a good job. But do not forget there were twenty around the Cabinet table

in those days, nineteen or twenty, and they supported it.

MS. VERGE: And you led pay equity.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I will get to that. They supported it,

Mr. Speaker. They supported anything the Member for Humber East was promoting

and advocating and had no difficulty doing it. We brought in some major, major

reforms and we are quite proud of these reforms.

Now there is one other reform we brought in, and I am proud

to say it was not the Member for Humber East but the Member for Grand Falls who

did it, and that is the pay equity legislation, the pay equity agreement. The

reason I want to deal with it is because the Government in an attempt to explain

away what they have done with their budgetary measures in terms of

discrimination against women, in terms of the pay equity issue, they are trying

to perpetrate this myth out there in the public that there was no pay equity, no

such thing as pay equity. They are totally misleading the people of the

Province, because the fact of the matter is there was pay equity established in

1988. It was established, it was agreed on in a collective agreement signed and

agreed to by all parties with all parties giving their word.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much money did you put in?

MR. SIMMS: The Member says, how much money did you put

in? Well if the Member understood the process at all he would know you could not

put the money in until the program had been thoroughly analyzed and studied by

all parties, including Government, including unions and so on. That is what was

put in place. But the commitment was also given that once the analysis was done

and the positions had been analyzed and the assessments made and it was found

that this position here required 5 per cent extra to bring it equal, or it

required 6 per cent to make it an equal position, once all of that was done, and

we knew it was going to take quite some time to do it, everybody knew that, but

once it was done then the commitment was - back in 1988 - that discrimination

against women was recognized then and it would be payable effective in 1988. In

fact, effective April 1, 1988 whenever the study was completed and compounded.

It is about to be finished in a month or so the President of

Treasury Board tells us, but the Government has backed off from a firm

commitment, a commitment in a collective agreement signed by both parties in

faith. They have breached a very basic premise of collective bargaining, that

basic premise being faith and trust. They have breached it, and all those women

who were discriminated against for years beyond that I agree, but all those who

were recognized effective April 1, 1988, who would no longer be discriminated

against, would receive the appropriate pay increase back to April 1, 1988. Now

what has happened of course is that this Government, because of the budget

action it has taken, is now saying that the money you were entitled to - the

money you were entitled to - for the last two years, the last three years now,

you will not get. Now in the Budget that is the only retroactive discrimination

I guess, and it affects who? The working women in the public service, at least

in the sectors that were identified at the time, health care and... I think

hydro was the other area. Mr. Speaker, I do not need Members opposite to try to

play down the fact that there was a pay equity agreement reached, because there

was. And no amount of - I had better choose my words carefully -clouding the

issue will change that fact. It is, Mr. Speaker, that pay equity agreement was

reached, it was recognized that there was discrimination and now that has been

taken away. Now, Mr. Speaker, what other areas of discrimination are there in

the Provincial Budget? Well, first of all, I guess it has been acknowledged by

most parties that in the public service, the sector which will have a wage

rollback applied to it, in most of the areas the majority of those affected will

be women. I do not hear too many people arguing - I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not true.

MR. SIMMS: It is not true. Well, let me tell the

President of Treasury Board then, what the largest public service union in our

Province told me today.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know.

MR. SIMMS: I do not know, but I have to take the word of

the groups involved. NAPE says 18,314 members will be affected by the wage

freeze, is that true? In excess of 53 per cent are women, that is a fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I thought you said I did not know! Well

the President of Treasury Board could tell me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they not glad they have jobs?

MR. SIMMS: That is not the issue. The Minister said I did

not know what I was talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well he said are they not glad they have

jobs.

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes. CUPE: 5,767 members who will be

affected by the wage freeze, close to 55 per cent will be women, so the majority

of people who are affected by the wage freeze are women. Nurses, nurses, nurses:

3,800 members, 98 per cent of them are women and they will be affected

negatively by this wage freeze and the NTA again is in the area of 54 per cent

roughly out of their 10,000 members, so first we mentioned the discrimination

with respect to pay equity; now we mention the discrimination with respect to

the wage rollback that has been implemented, Mr. Speaker, and clearly women are

the ones who are going to be most profoundly affected.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. SIMMS: Lab and X-ray workers, the vast, vast majority

of them are women.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read your figures again, read your

figures again because you (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the nurses union: 98 per cent of

them are women, so do not tell us that the majority of those discriminated

against because of the wage freeze are not going to be women, because it is a

fact. Members Opposite can babble and yabble and gaffle and interrupt all they

want, but it is a fact. And what other ways, what other ways, Mr. Speaker, are

women going to be discriminated against as a result of this Budget, and that is

what the resolution is, that is what the resolution is about.

How about the layoffs, how about the layoffs, can the

President of Treasury Board tell us that the vast majority of those affected by

the 900 layoffs in the health care sector are men, can he tell us that? The

Minister of Social Services laughs, can he tell us, can he tell us that? Of the

900 layoffs in the health care sector announced by this Minister of Finance in

the Budget, what percentage does he think will be women, what percentage, any

idea?

MS. VERGE: He did not think about it.

MR. SIMMS: No, of course - Mr. Speaker, you know why they

cannot answer the question, because they did not give it any thought, that is

exactly the reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: They did not care.

MR. SIMMS: But we are told close to 80 per cent of those

laid off in the health care sector will be women, Mr. Speaker. And then there

are the other issues. Issues such as the care that people who are elderly and

infirm, are going to require as a result of other actions and initiatives

undertaken in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, with the hospital beds closing that my

colleague, the Member for Green Bay mentioned. In some cases hospitals

themselves actually closing, I guess, or being changed to clinics or whatever,

that more of those chronically ill people, older people in particular, are going

to have to stay home. And who is it, as a result of those initiatives, who is

it, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is fine. Let him babble on. Let him

babble on and interrupt. There is no problem there, Mr. Speaker. But who is it

is going to have to look after those chronically ill and infirmed elderly people

in particular as a result of these Budget initiatives and the hospital bed close

downs? Can anybody answer that question, Mr. Speaker? Can anybody answer the

question, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, who is going to have to

look after those elderly people. It is going to be the wives; it is going to be

the daughters, and those people who are at home. That is who is going to be

responsible for looking after and providing this additional care. So the

cutbacks in the Budget with respect to hospital beds and hospitals themselves

are going to, again, discriminate against women. There are all kinds of examples

in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, all kinds of examples. Social assistance: Maybe the

Minister can tell us.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. How many people are receiving social

assistance in the Province today?

MS. VERGE: Individuals.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, how many people are receiving social

assistance?

MS. VERGE: How many individuals?

MR. EFFORD: Twenty-five thousand, five hundred and fifty.

MR. SIMMS: Twenty-five thousand, five hundred and

fifty-two. Is that what he said?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty.

MR. SIMMS: Fifty. Twenty-five thousand, five hundred and

fifty. Could he tell us what proportion of those 25,550 are female and male?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) 9,900 single parents.

MR. SIMMS: I can thank the Minister, Mr. Speaker, because

he has just given effect to the point I am trying to make, that when this

Government undertook the nasty Budget cutbacks in their Budget they did not give

consideration to whether or not they were discriminating against women. He does

not even know what proportion of the 25,000 receiving social assistance are

women. He just admitted it. He just confessed it here in this House, and that,

Mr. Speaker, is precisely our point.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution, and I hope Members

opposite who still have some time will be able to get up and defend these

accusations. I would like to hear them do it rather than sitting there cat

calling and interjecting, before my colleague, the Member for Humber East,

concludes the debate. I would challenge them to get up and respond to all of

these issues and items that I have addressed. We will be supporting the

resolution mostly because the resolution itself, I suppose, could be said to be

motherhood, if that is an appropriate word, an acceptable term:

Be it resolved

that the House oppose Provincial Government Budget restraint measures that

discriminate against women. Now I cannot see Members opposite voting against

that, and I have a funny feeling they will not vote against it. I suspect they

are going to vote for it anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, but their strategy has been to get up in

the debate, try to deflect any accusations that might come from over here, try

to argue there are no discriminatory measures that have been taken in the

Budget. That is what they will try to argue. But in the end, having done all of

that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Your old colleague, what did he say?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

It is badly needed against the Minister of Social Services who is well known for

his antics in the House of Assembly.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will try to conclude by simply saying

we will be supporting the resolution on this side of the House, and I trust

Members opposite will also voice their support and make sure they vote in the

right way.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

like to begin my comments by thanking the Member for Humber East for putting

this resolution on the Order Paper to give us an opportunity to debate it. I

must say in listening to the speakers for the other side I am delighted to see

that the Member for Humber East has spoken and will close debate, and that the

hon. Member for Grand Falls, the Opposition House Leader, participated as well

because I will be making reference to a letter to the editor in the Western Star

in a few minutes which talks about the performance of both the hon. Members.

By way of introduction, the hon. Member for Humber East

indicated that as she rose in her place and stood to begin the debate it was

with considerable anger, and to hear that coming from her causes in me nothing

but considerable disbelieve because I am sure that she also indicated that she

expected speakers on this side to rise and say that the Budget measures

introduced did not discriminate, that she looked in her crystal ball and

expected that would be the predictable approach that Members speaking on behalf

of the Government would use in this debate. You would have to be brilliant to do

that because she knew herself, in her own heart of hearts, in her own soul, as

she wrote the resolution, that that was in fact the truth, and that she is up to

her games again of trying to play politics with very serious matters, and is

looking for some kind of other cause that she can try to be the champion of for

a day or two. In fact if she were really serious about it she would not get into

the political rhetoric, but would deal much more seriously with the issue at

hand. She indicated as well that she and her colleagues were very serious about

the debate and it showed that as she gave her introductory remarks - there were

two of her colleagues who stayed in their place to listen and show support for

the concerns she was expressing. That is how serious they were about the debate,

and still are, so there is no seriousness. It has nothing whatsoever to do,

particularly with this debate, but a telling comment that she did make which

belies everything, I guess, that she and other Members opposite do, she

indicated at one point in responding to one of the interjections, in rising to a

point of order, Mr. Speaker, she said: the truth is irrelevant. That is what she

said.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. GRIMES: The truth is irrelevant. She admitted that

what the Member was saying probably was true, but then went on to say, do not

bother to deal with that, that is irrelevant. You can see in some of the

thinking and some of the actions the kinds of things that occur. I think the

politics of the debate today, Mr. Speaker, gives a lot of credence to a letter

to the editor in the Western Star dated April 2, 1991, a paper that the hon.

Member for Humber East takes great pride in quoting on occasion, because there

has been some fair criticism of the Government of the day from time to time in

that paper, editorial comment and otherwise. Just yesterday a person writing to

the editor in the Western Star said: Mr. Editor, while I am at it please allow

me to say that I am sick to my stomach of the sheer hypocrisy, and the

sanctimonious selfrighteousness of Len Simms or Lynn Verge picking up the

gauntlet for the labour movement. And I might add today, in this case, for the

women's movement because any bandwagon at the time will do. It goes on to say:

people like these have the audacity to propose that he or his cronies, or she or

her cronies, are anything other than union bashers who love the rich, and abide

the poor and the middle class, as something to be seen and not heard, and of

course pay taxes. All of a sudden now there is a completely different slant from

anything they have ever done. What a transition in going from being in power,

being an Administration governing the Province, to being in Opposition. The road

to Damascus is still alive and well. It goes on to indicate, from that one

writer: that they see through the hypocrisy and the deceit. In fact the unions

who now are pleading their case in the best way possible, because having

involvement in the union movement and understanding fully that one of their main

roles is to try to the very best of their ability to protect the best interest

of their membership, and they will take whatever measures they deem appropriate

to try and protect their own membership. Then again Members of the Opposition,

who have a track record of their own that they can be anything but proud of in

terms of labour relations over their seventeen years in office, are now seen to

be the great champions of the union movement, and that we would never consider

any of these things that these dastardly people on this side of the House have

now perpetrated upon unions. It is very convenient, all of a sudden, to be a

friend of unions.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there is one other telling comment in

debate earlier today that I just want to touch on briefly before my other few

remarks. The hon. Member for Green Bay, speaking with great pride of his days in

the Premier's office, his phrase was 'when I ran the Premier's office' - I do

not know if that is true or not but he said it, his days in the Premier's

Office, when he purported to have some influence on the direction taken and some

of the thoughts and some of the things that happened and occurred while the hon.

Brian Peckford was Premier of the Province.

He indicated again when making those few comments and talking

about his own District a very telling point, and that was that he knows down to

the very community how people voted in the last election. And the telling point

in that, Mr. Speaker, is that that is how they ran this Province for seventeen

years. Nothing mattered about fairness or equal treatment or anything else. The

one thing that happened was that on the wall in the hon. the Member for Green

Bay's office, when he was a staff member with the Premier of the day, was a map

marked with some red and some blue. And when a decision was about to be made,

one of the critical factors admitted to repeatedly by this Member was, where

were the blue parts of that map and where were the red. And the story is well

known in this House that for the whole seventeen years, woe be unto you if there

was a bit of red on the map next to your community, because you were finished.

It did not matter if you deserved it or not, you were getting nothing. Now as we

try to correct that kind of unbalanced inequitable treatment that went on for

the whole seventeen years, we will be accused by that same hon. group of taking

part in patronage, of doing things only for Liberals and things of that nature.

Unbelievable! No wonder a letter to the editor talks about `what deceit, what

hypocrisy', and words of that nature.

With reference to the motion at hand, Mr. Speaker, I would

just like to point out again, as the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations indicated in her comments, that the most telling statement of the day

in the last two days was the hon. the Member for Kilbride yesterday. They have

tried to weasel out of that today, but he stood in his place as a person who sat

around the Cabinet Table and declared - as a matter of fact, I was kind of proud

of him - said to this House that things were in good hands for the women of the

Province when we were in power, because any time an issue came up, we would just

lean over to the Member for Humber East and say, is there anything that should

have been done about that for women? They did not know. He admitted it. He said,

I did not know. He said, how should I know? How would I know? Those were the

phrases. I mean, we should get Hansard out and see what the man said. Then he

condemned his colleagues, because he said the rest of my Cabinet colleagues were

the same way. We did not know. We did not know what we should be doing. And the

indication was that if the Member for Humber East did not come forward and rise

to the occasion and browbeat the twenty-two other men around the Table into

seeing the light, it would have been a total disaster altogether for the women

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now that is the kind of group we had to deal with. And I am

delighted to see our poor, lone female Minister, because as she has indicated

she has been in male dominated fora - `plural of forum' -for most of her life,

and now in again. I have seen her with the struggles she has carried on before,

and it is nice to see that she can stand and say that with this group she has

been very pleasantly surprised to see that she does not have to preach and rant

and rave with this bunch over here, because they came to the positions with some

clear understanding from their previous experiences of the kinds of things that

are of immediate and pressing concern to the women of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, they talked about the wage freeze and pay

equity. Just let me talk for a second about twisted logic. The hon. the Member

for Grand Falls, the Opposition House Leader, he indicated that with the largest

public service union, with NAPE, 53 per cent females in the work force, 53 per

cent of the layoffs would probably be women, therefore that is discrimination.

Now where the logic is in that, to take those two statements and conclude

discrimination, it absolutely defies logic. I do not know but it is an absolute

twisting of it to try and come up with a desired result for none other than some

kind of political rhetorical purpose. That is all it can be.

He mentioned the nurses, 98 per cent female, employed in the

nursing profession in Newfoundland. And he would have us believe that if 98 per

cent of the layoffs happen to be female, that is discrimination. That is what he

tried to say to this House a little while ago, that because that would probably

happen in the nursing profession, there are measures in this Budget that

discriminate against women. Now I just cannot follow that for one little minute.

One of the things I have tried to pride myself with is that

through university and so on, and probably from being a math teacher and trying

to inculcate in all my students the necessity of some logic prevailing in an

argument, that one and one should add up to two or something like that, that you

should have some logical basis for your argument and your conclusion should flow

directly out of whatever you used for some

preamble, then this absolutely defies

logic. Ninety-eight per cent female in the group, if there are layoffs 98 per

cent of them will probably be female, therefore that is discrimination. Now if

that is the kind of logic that prevailed in the other group, then again I can

understand the problems we have and why they would bring forth a motion such as

this to try to suggest that this particular Budget has specific, particular

items in it that are discriminatory against women.

On this side of the House we are very serious about things

such as barrier removal. All we have to do is look in this Chamber and recognize

that there have to be some reasons - maybe we do not know what they all are -

why there are two women sitting in this Chamber and fifty men. Now you do not

have to brilliant to understand that in society where that comes from there is

something amiss somewhere. And there probably are cle