Province of Newfoundland FORTY - FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Volume XLI Second Session Number 67 •1 VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush Tuesday [Preliminary Transcript] 30 October 1990

. I The House met at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker (Lush): Order, please! Before proceeding to routine business, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to extend a warm welcome to Ms Audrey McLaughlin, the Member of Parliament for the Yukon and Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Statements by Ministers Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the statement made in this Mouse recently by my colleague, the hon. Hubert Kitchen, Minister of Finance, I would, like now to advise you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon.

Members of the actions which are being taken by my Department to meet the overall expenditure reductions as outlined in Dr. Kitchen's statement. I will note, firstly, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is, by its very nature, a Service Department. My Department provides highway construction and maintenance service, marine ferry services, air services, and programs and services under the Motor Registration Division, to mention a few. These are people oriented services, affecting the day to day lives of all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Because we are a service Department, we are always in the public eye, and, Mr. Speaker, any changes which are made in the services- which we provide have an immediate impact on people.. Obviously, if these changes represent curtailments, they will be met with resistance, and they will not be welcome. As Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I fully realize this and understand it. But, Mr.

Speaker, as the Government of this Province, and given the present state of the Province's economic position, we are now obligated to implement certain actions which, while unpleasant now, are absolutely essential if we are to ensure our future growth and development. The Premier, in his statement of September 19, 1990, said that with the options it has, Government must place emphasis on expenditure restraint, and where areas of restraint can be identified, Ministers will announce appropriate reductions in their Departments. To comply with these directives, Mr.

Speaker, my Department has recently completed a review of departmental expenditure plans. I now wish to advise this Mouse that my Department is proposing the following expenditure reductions under current account: (1) closure of the Clarenville Motor Registration Division office and the weigh scale operation at Coobies; and the closure of the Motor Registration Division office in Wabush. Some Hon. Members: Shame! shame! Ll October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 El

Mr. Gilbert: Closure of the Clarenville Motor Registration office and the weigh scale operation at Goobies will save $86,000 in the current fiscal year and $247,000 in 1991-92. Eight employee positions will be affected in the closedown of these two operations. Mr. Gilbert: This measure will result in a savings of $187,000 this year, and next year the savings will be $450,000. I want to make it clear that this change does not reduce the number of crossings per day for either community. . Closure of the Wabush Motor Registration office will save $21,000 this year and $83,000 next year.

This closedown will result in the elimination of two employee positions. The combined effect of the closure will result in a total savings of $383,000. The Beaumont Mantel will continue to overnight at Fogo Island. Should an emergency situation arise on Change Islands, the vessel will be dispatched immediately and should arrive at the ferry terminal at the south end of Change Islands at approximately the same time as the patient who has to travel from the community of Change Islands. These measures, Mr. Speaker, will mean a loss of service for the people in the areas concerned.

However, people requiring licence renewals and other services offered by the Motor Registration Division can use the regular postal service or use the offices in other centres of the Province. Licehce renewals received by mail are generally processed by return mail. Other initiatives such as using chartered banks for the processing of licence renewal is being considered. Legislation for this purpose will be presented to the Mouse very soon. Another initiative, Mr.

Speaker, is: 2) the Change Islands Ferry Service will revert to a single-ferry service for nine months of the year, using the Beaumont Hamel, and a two-ferry service for the other three months of the year. This is similar to the service that was in place from December 1988 to June 1989. Some Hon. Members: Shame! Shame! Also, the helicopter pad constructed at Change Islands for the emergency medical service will continue to be utilized. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, another expenditure reduction measure by my department involves the payment of overtime compensation.

The Department of Works, Services and Transportation will change its policy for compensating supervisory position employees who work overtime. These employees will now come under the management overtime policy, rather than the previous policy where they were compensated in a similar manner to union positions. It is estimated, Mr. Speaker, that this will save a total of $550,000 this year. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the people of Newfoundland, through this hon. House, that the expenditure reductions I have p . L2 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R2

a outlined were made only after very careful thought. We fully realize the effects these measures will have, but, in reaching our decisions, we took into account all possible money-saving options and we chose those which would affect the least number of people. And I am not minimizing these effects, Mr. Speaker, I am saying simply that we had to make some very hard and very difficult choices and we made them as carefully and as fairly as we could under the circumstances. We are in difficult times, Mr. Speaker, and economic problems are not unique to Newfoundland.

Many provinces are experiencing serious difficulties. We are all faced with a period of restraint and retrenchment until the financial situation improves. We are facing difficult times in the immediate future, but the measures I have outlii ied today will be subject to frequent review, as conditions change. Thank you. Mr. Winsor: The same level of service we had last year you said. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Kilbride. - Mr. R. Aylward: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I am shocked that today the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in this Province can stand and, on the first page of his statement, give all the reasons why this should never be done and then go along and gut the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to save somewhere in the vicinity of $1 million, just about the amount of money he wasted on the Ossokmanuan Bridge contract, when he gave the largest contractor in this Province a gift of $1.6 million or $1.5 million. He does not save that much money in this statement, Mr. Speaker. An Hon. Member: On the backs of the poor people. Mr.

R. Aylward: Clarenville again has been hit. Last week it was hit by the Minister of Finance, who saved $50,000 by destroying four or five jobs in a rural area of our Province. Mr. Speaker, Clarenville will again lose in this statement to save very little amounts of money.

Actually, the amounts of money saved by closing the clarenville office and disrupting the service for the Dunn Peninsula, the Bonavista Peninsula and all the area around Clarenville, which had some service with Motor Registration, will be just about two years car allowance for the Ministers - the $8,000 allowance they receive is what they are saving here with this closure. So they can have their new cars and drive around, while the people on the Dunn Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula have to suffer. It costs extra expense for them to come in here.

I do not understand for the life of me why they would close the weigh scale operation in the Goobies area. That is very important. That will cost them money. They will not save money. Truck drivers who now overload if they wish because there is no one checking them, they can overload with anything they want, cucumbers included, except that you closed the place down. That will cause damage to our highways, it will increase maintenance to our L3 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 61 R3

highways. It is shameful! But the worst - the worst - cutback in this statement is the way that overtime is being paid to supervisors in Transportation. The people in those positions are people who are out all hours of the day and night during the winter, and they ensure that snow clearing operations are put in place so that the safety of children riding on early buses, going to school, will be ensured. Now, Mr. Speaker, we will probably have, and I hope not - but maybe this is not as important as it seems.

With the way the Minister of Education is cutting back on teachers positions in this Province, maybe we will not have so many schools open, maybe there will not be a need for school buses in a year or so, Mr. Speaker. They are going to cut the buses, and now the highways will not be safe for them anyway. Mr. R. Aylward: He is probably up in B.C., in Fantasy Land with Vander Zalm again, is it? Mr. Speaker, this Premier is the Premier who said he would decentralize Government in this Province, but since he has come to power he has centralized every service in this Province. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. R.

Aylward: The rural areas of this Province are under attack from this Government, and with the cutbacks which have come out of this Cabinet over the last little while, and will continue to come over the next little while, I say to the children of this Province, Christmas is in jeopardy. Because they are going to cut that back, too, if they can! Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Oral Questions S 0 Mr. Speaker, the change in the Change Islands ferry service was tried before. We tried it. I will admit that we tried it when we were there. It does not work.

The people in the area will tell you it does not work, your own departmental staff will tell you it does not work. Mr. Speaker, you are decreasing services to people in -parts of our Province who can least afford it, the isolated areas. I note the statement was made while the Premier was not here, and that might be intentional, because all the bad news is supposed to come out when the Meech Lake hero is out of the Province. - Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Mr.

Speaker, as a result of the announcements that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation brought before this House today, and other announcements that I suspect are coming over the next number of days, it will only be the rich people who will be able to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador1 Mr. Speaker. The poor will not have a chance to survive here at all. An Hon. Member: Right on. Mr. Simms: Hear, hear! Mr. Rideout: Now Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for Fogo S L4 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R4

I . asked that same Minister about the ferry service to Change Islands and Fogo. And the Minister told him that nothing was happening except to revert to the winter schedule. Mr. Speaker, how can that Minister today stand in the House, having deceived this House yesterday, having been deceitful to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and want us to believe that he did not know that answer, or did not know that that decision was made yesterday? How can the Minister be so dishonest and so deceitful, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Simms: That was yesterday. Mr. Rideout: That was yesterday. Mr.

Gilbert: That is not a question - Mr. Speaker: Order please! The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: That is not a question, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Fogo asked me about why the service was changed yesterday. I told him and I told him that I would get him. the other answers later on. Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible). Mr. Sims: You talk about deception. Mr. Rideout: Mr Speaker - Mr. Speaker: Order please! Order please! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Now Mr.

Speaker, there is a prime example of arrogance - a Government that is in office less than eighteen months. Well, if that was not deceitful, let me ask the Minister this: How could the Minister this morning at ten o'clock have a group of his officials travel to Fogo Island to talk about transportation matters with the citizens of Fogo Island, knowing full well that at 2:00 p.m. today he was coming into this House to announce that there was a downgrading of the service, Mr. Speaker? An Hon. Member: Good question. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Mr.

Speaker, that is a very easy question to answer because of the fact that we wanted to make sure that any of the changes that we were going to make - as I said in the first part of my statement, as the Member comented on - I talked about the fact that we are a service Department, and that there were going to be people affected by the changes.

So rather than for me to make any statements in the House until such time as all the people that were affected - because my people are on Fogo Island and Change Islands today, they are in Clarenville and they are in Wabush, talking to the people who are going to be affected by this. Believe me, this was not a decision, as I said, that we went into easily or callously. This was a very serious decision. It was one that was dictated to us by the fact that we are into tough economic times, not only here in Newfoundland but the country.

A depression that I would say is induced by his colleagues in Ottawa - L5 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 RS

Some Hon. Members: Hear hear! Mr. Gilbert: - and we had to do it. But we believe that the people of this Province who are going to be affected should have known, before those people over there had a chance to make political gains out of it. not know the answer to that, that would be supposition by me. And certainly, no, we have no intention, we intend to provide as good a service as was ever there, Mr. Speaker. Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible). S Mr. Simms: (Inaudible) he's got to blame us. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main. Mr. Rideoüt: Supplementary, Mr Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary. Mr. Rideout: Mr. Speaker, what we have here today and in this Province today is a made- in-Newf ound land deficit, that is what we have. If the Minister, Mr. Speaker, had any fortitude at all, it would be him today who would be in Change Islands and Clarenville and Wabush, passing out the pink slips, Mr. Speaker. That is who would be out there.

But now let me ask the Minister this question: In view of the fact that he is going to change the overtime policy for management personnel in his Department, is the Minister now going to leave a situation in Newfoundland where school buses are going to leave before dark, get on icy roads, be out in ditches with school children's lives at stake? Is that the legacy that this Minister and this Government want to leave to Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I do Mr. Doyle: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The Marine Institute students will soon be the principal victims of the labour dispute that is going on between Government and the instructors bargaining unit. About 25 per cent of the students have their tuition and their living expenses paid by Canada Employment Immigration Commission. We were told by the Student Union late yesterday evening that continuation of the CEIC sponsorship will be reviewed by the end of the week.

Now if that sponsorship is cancelled on Friday 200 or more students will be out of the institute and they are going to be out of their careers as well. I want to ask the Minister has she raised the issue with CEIC? And if not, will she do so to secure the continuation of the CEIC funding for the duration of that strike? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Ms Cowan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I have not raised that issue with that particular group, at this point I have not seen a need to.

Conciliation officers are in touch with both sides, and we hope that it will be resolved before there is any undue harm to C TA October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R6

I I students. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main. Mr. Doyle: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister that conciliation has very little to do with CEIC. And the Minister, having met with the Federal Minister yesterday evening, I would have thought that she would have raised that issue with the Federal Minister. Some Hon. Members: Meat, hear! Mr. Doyle: Now, that strike is over a week old. It is ten days old almost. And the fall term is going to end in about a six week period.

Is the Minister aware the courses taken in this institute this fall are not going to be available during the winter semester which means the courses that will have to be taken in September of 1991, they will not be able to take these courses this winter? That is going to have a tremendous impact upon the students at the Marine Institute. Now the Minister has appointed a conciliation officer. The Student Union is saying that the instructors are willing to talk and want to talk. The Government is saying it is ready to talk and want to talk.

Now if both sides are ready to talk can the Minister indicate to me why there are no talks ongoing? Is the conciliator willing to talk? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Ms Cowan: I find that a most unusual question. The conciliators that are involved in resolving the Marine Institute are also the conciliators who have been involved in resolving a number of disputes involving educational institutions around the Province, and have made very good headway. It is a very tricky business in conciliation to know when parties are ready to come back to the table.

Very often they will say they are ready when, in fact, the conciliator knows because of his or her understanding of the case that indeed they are not ready to come back, and by coming back they may further entrench their positions and be at loggerheads for an even further time. Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Harbour Main. Mr. Doyle: As usual, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to get any information out of this Minister.

Let me put it this way to her; given the fact that the Employment Immigration people could cancel this funding at any time, and have said that they will review it on Friday, and given the fact that the students now have their lives placed on hold, and given the fact that the situation is a serious one and requires a little bit more of an effort than the usual token effort from the Minister, will the Minister have both these sides brought together immediately, before the students are caught in a bind they cannot get out of? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of EmployMent and Labour Relations. Ms Cowan: Mr.

Speaker, I guess I ani going to have to give another lesson on what it is that the role of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is all about. It is not my position, and I have found students very understanding of this. They seem to have a L7 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 Ri

greater knowledge of labour relations than the Opposition does. It is not my position to get the two sides back together again. of the negotiations, and can he give us an indication of when he expects this dispute to resolved, so that those who are suffering as innocent, third-party victims can get back to class? S Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Ms Cowan: It is not. I recall the past Government was often criticized very harshly because of the fact that their then Minister did become involved and in that way jeopardize the neutrality of the office. I do not intend to do that.

I have a great deal of confidence in my conciliation officers. They will know the time and they will move when that time is right. They have nothing to gain or lose by resolving the situation. They are looking at it with a very impartial eye, and they will be ready to move when the time is right. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to reiterate a comment made by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations as to the role of the Department of Labour in such situations.

The Department of Labour is supposed to be the intermediary and is not supposed to be on either one side or the other. It is supposed to facilitate discussions, and that is what they have been doing. The collective bargaining aspect comes under Treasury Board. S Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Sinims: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pose a question to the Province's chief negotiator, the President of Treasury Board. The instructor's strike at the Marine Institute, as we have just heard, gives every indication that it could continue for an extremely long time.

We understand from public comments that job security is an issue, which the Minister refers to as a philosophical issue, which makes one wonder why a philosophical issue would allow such a strike to occur. Whoever heard of the like? We understand wages have not been discussed, we understand there other issues are still unresolved, and no one, as we have just heard from the Minister of Labour, seems to be talking. Can the President of Treasury Board tell the House the current status An Hon. Member: What have you been doing? Mr.

Baker: If the member would hold on for a minute, and listen for a minute, I will tell him. I will answer his question if he is patient. I, just this morning as a matter of fact, had a full briefing on all of the intricate details of that particular dispute. I have had discussions with all parties involved. It is a three-party kind of situation: there is the workers and the union, and then there is the Marine Institute ranagement and then there is Treasury Board. So we got together today.

I can say to the member at this time that, first of all, we are very concerned that there may be some serious effects from this strike if it carries on very much longer. I have expressed this view to the parties involved, and . LB October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R8

I . indicated that I would like to see the bargaining process get started again, within the next couple of days, as soon as possible. So contacts hopefully will be made with the conciliator very quickly, with a view to getting the talks started within a couple of days. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: I was waiting for an answer, Mr. Speaker. I did not really get much of an answer. I asked him when he expected the dispute to be resolved? He does not give us any indication of that. May I ask him another question about another dispute.

On Thursday night in this Legislature the Minister of Education, speaking in debate, gave the House every impression that a solution to the student assistants strike was just hours away. Five days later, the strike continues. Can I ask the President of Treasury Board, then, what is the current status with that particular dispute? Can he tell us if a settlement is about to be reached, or when we may expect one? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very concerned that the member is dissatisfied with my previous answer.

I cannot answer the question, when will it be solved? When will it be over? If I were to suggest that and give a time when it is going to be over, I would be accused of being dictatorial and trampling all over the collective bargaining process. All I can say to the hon. member is that the collective bargaining process will get back into operation in the very near future, and beyond that, hopefully, quickly a resolution can come. But I am not going to dictate to anybody wheh that resolution will come. Now with regard to the student assistants, Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right in some of his statements.

The dispute, at this point in time, should not be going on. My information says all of the 410 workers - there has been a resolution of all the situations. I understand there were meetings all through the night last night, and I am hoping that something will happen very, very soon. Unfortunately, we had reached a collective agreement after the school year had started and there were some problems with the implementation. The collective agreement itself, although ratified by the union, has not been signed, because we are getting copies done up and this happened between the ratification and the signing.

The question then becomes, is a contract in place? If a contract is in place, then the union should go back to work and resolve the two or three problems that may remain out of the 410 workers through the grievance process which is in the collective agreement. So, in

summary, there is no reason for these people to be out on the streets right now, and we hope they will go back immediately. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely unbelievable. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations does not seem to want to take any action, and the President L9 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R9

of Treasury Board seems content to sit back and assess the situation and think about it. But there are innocent third parties, as I have mentioned, the students at the Marine Institute and these handicapped students, who are at risk. Their futures are at risk. There is no question about it, their education has been placed in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker: Question, please Question. Mr. Simms: They are innocent, third-party victims, Mr.Speaker. Can I ask the Minister this? Will the Minister, the President of treasury Board, take his responsibility seriously as the chief negotiator for the Province?

Will he not take a personal interest or initiative in trying to get both these disputes back to the table so that you can get the matter resolved before things get worse than they are even now? Will he take a personal interest as the Province's chief negotiator? He has the ability to do that. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, none are so deaf as those that will not hear. I just finished explaining that within the last hour or so t did take a personal interest, and now the Member says, will he take a personal interest? Mr. Sims: A personal interest! Mr.

Baker: Why don't you listen? Mr. Simms: Call the union in! Mr. Baker: Why don't you listen? Mr. Sims: Call the union in! Do that. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Baker: We have made sure that the process will now start. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! The question has been asked and I am sure that hon. members want to hear the answer. The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the answer and deciding when an answer has been satisfactorily made. The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will ensure that the process will proceed, and I am hoping that a resolution will come soon. In terms of the student assistants, there is nothing at this point that can be done. Government negotiated a first collective agreement for a group of workers, the agreement was ratified by these workers, we agreed with the agreement, and the conditions of the agreement have been met. There is nothing more that can be done. At some point in time the workers have to go back to work. Some Hon. Members: You broke the agreement. You broke the agreement. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr.

Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education who should be showing some leadership in these disputes, not S [.10 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 RiO

just sitting on the fence. Maybe he is too busy fending off substitute teachers because of his remarks yesterday. The Minister said yesterday cuts were made because of the difficult financial position of the Province. The fact is, cuts were made last March in the Budget. Will' the Minister finally come clean and tell us the real reason he made the cuts? Dr. Warren: How they tried in negotiation after negotiation. The Government position was to reduce the amount of money for substitutes. I can tell the public how they wanted to do it, but that is irrelevant. Mr. Sims: But they didn't do it, did they? Dr.

Warren: Let me answer the question. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Education. Dr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, we, in the past, have been trying to run this Government in a financially responsible way - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Dr. Warren: - since day one. Some Hon. Members: They (inaudible) do it. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Dr. Warren: They wanted to do it, they tried to do it. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! a Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Dr. Warren: We are always looking at ways to make more effective use of the monies that Government makes available for all services.

In the area of education, we thought this year that Government could reduce very slightly the amount of funding for substitute teachers. We thought, as a goal, as I said yesterday, we would reduce it from about $14 million to $12.8 million. If hon. Members want the answer to the question, then we are going to have to afford Ministers the courtesy. We cannot debate the answer. The question is asked and hon. Members should hear the question, and in view of the confusion that was caused, - I assume that hon. Members do not want to hear the answer and I will go to the Member for another question.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Speaker, I have here the report of what happened in 1984. If the hon. Member wants to hear how the government tried to act in 1984 to reduce substitute teachers, I can read what the government said about it. But I will not. That is irrelevant; maybe, at this point in time. Mr. Ream: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says we tried in negotiation. That is the place to try to get gains, not arbitrarily, as the Minister is now doing. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! A question. • An Hon. Member: It didn't happen, Mr. Heamn: Let me ask the though, did it?

Minister: since he said all he was Lll October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 Ru

asking was teachers to give up one day, realizing that 80 per cent of the leaves are non-discretionary due to sick leave and compassionate leave and so on, teachers have very few days, probably two days for in-service and professional development, is the Minister asking them to give up half of their in-service and professional development days? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Education. Dr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, we did ask last year as a goal, the school boards to reduce one teacher substitute day per teacher.

Teachers on the average use about eleven substitute days a year for all purposes, 57 per cent of which is for sick leave, which is not an unreasonable amount of sick leave I might say, Mr. Speaker, that is not an unreasonable amount. We made some comparisons. Teachers do not abuse these leaves, but we thought, this year, with the difficult times the Government is having and with the needs for computers and all the things that we put additional money into, we could reduce substitute teachers by about 8 per cent. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please!

There are some Members talking across the floor and it is making it very difficult for the Chair to listen. We are into difficult questions and the Chair wants to be able to assess when the Minister has satisfactorily answered the questions. With these noises back and forth, the Chair cannot hear. The hon. the Minister of Education Dr. Warren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that so I will not have to shout. I prefer not to shout in the House, Mr. Speaker. We tried to reduce it slightly by about 8 per cent, it is our hope that it will not all come out of substitutes for in-service.

We believe in in-service education and as I said in the Mouse yesterday, teachers give up weekends, in the past they gave up evenings for substitutes, they give up time for in-service and the teachers in this Province have contributed greatly to the in-service and we do not want to hurt what they do. As a result, Mr. Speaker, we are asking school boards to try to save that $1.2 million from all leaves and we hope that they can meet that goal this year, so that we have the money to spend on other things in education. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister knows full well that he is destroying professional development by eliminating half the professional leave, they, as teachers have. I ask him, was he serious yesterday when he said teachers should give up their evenings and Saturdays for professional development, knowing full well that teachers are involved in all kinds of extra curricular activities on weekends and during the evenings. Does he want these services to the students cut out also? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Education. S S . L12 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R12

I . Dr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct that. I said yesterday, teachers in the past have given extra time and once this dispute is over with the teachers right now, they have been advised right now, not to give any extra time to in-service. I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that as real professionals in this Province, once this dispute is over, teachers will go back to giving their time because teachers are interested in the welfare of students in this Province. They want to do what is best for education and they will not do anything to devastate in-service education, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the President of Treasury Board. I know the Treasury Board President has recognized what the Premier refused to see, namely that there will be a reduction in health care services and programs as a result of the Government's freeze of hospital and nursing home budgets.

However, yesterday the President of Treasury Board said that the Hospital and Nursing Home Association projections of layoffs and bed closures are incorrect, that they are exaggerated because the Government is going to absorb certain costs, including pay equity. My first question is: Can the Minister confirm that the cost of pay equity for the hospitals and nursing homes will now be absorbed by the Government? Number two: was this the original position of the Government, communicated to the hospitals and nursing homes?

And number three: what will be the cost of implementing the principle of pay equity for employees of hospitals and nursing homes? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was a rather long

preamble. There are a lot of things that perhaps I should respond to about me recognizing certain things that I have not recognized. The situation very basically is this, I did not say that about the estimates by the Hospital And Nursing- Homes Association and refer to them at all.

I said that the individual hospitals, when they are doing up their estimates, and individual institutions including nursing homes, when they do up their estimates are perhaps, and I said I have not seen them all, are perhaps including things like the payroll tax, which we have announced publicly, and in practice have ensured that that is in and out and has no effect on budgeting at all, the payroll tax.

That there was an amount in this years budget for the eventuality of pay equity, so if the amount is in this years budget then obviously this is part of this years base budget and would not be an extra expense next year. And some of them may be considering, simply because the pay equity has not come in yet, they may be assuming that when it comes in it is an extra cost in their budget, but in fact it is not because we budgeted a universal figure for pay equity. So, my point was that the individual institutions may be, in L13 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R13

getting their figures, using information that ultimately will be seen to be not correct. I am not suggesting that they are doing it deliberately. I am suggesting that these figures are in there and the impact that we are getting from these statements by the individual administrators of institutions is, in fact, inflated because of that. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister referred to the estimate of the Association of Hospitals and Nursing Homes.

I would remind him and other Members that that forecast was that the Government's freeze in hospital and nursing home budgets will mean effectively $60 million less than those institutions require to carry on their present programs and services. The President of Treasury Board is saying that that is wrong (inaudible) - I say without equivocation that figure cannot be correct because nobody knows yet, nobody can estimate what it is that hospitals and nursing homes and so on would have ended up with in next year's Budget.

What they have been told is to have a look at your Budget and tell us what would be the effect of existing next year on this year's Budget. So figures, percentages can be thrown around, but not with any degree of certainty, and I can say that that $60 million figure is not accurate because there is no information on which to base such a figure. Now having dealt with that the direct question was - I missed one in her previous lot of questions about pay equity, the cost of pay equity, we do not know yet because the process has not been completed. We have $6.3 million in our Budget. However - Some Hon.

Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Baker: Do not get excited. n Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The hon. Member is up on a supplementary. She should get into the question. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board for his estimate, if $60 million is exaggerated, what is his estimate of the effective reduction? And what is his forecast of the number of jobs that will be lost in the health care sector and the number of hospital and nursing home beds that will have to close? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker - because the process has not been completed, the hon. Member knows that it could be more than that or it could be less. It might even be more. But we do not know what the ultimate figure is going to be. Everybody knows that there were $6.3 million in this year's Budget. An Hon. Member: One (inaudible) basically. Mr. Baker: No.

My estimate as to the number of people who would have to be laid off, the number of hospital beds that will close, we are going through this process to simply find out what effect there would be on the system if institutions had to survive on this year's L L14 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R14

r L a allocation. We are doing the same with all departments of Government and so on. The question is being asked, look, go through it, do it up on the basis of this year's allocation, what will be the effect? When we get the information back and analyze it, then and only then will any decisions be made. Once we go through that process we will very gladly inform the hon. Member as to our conclusions. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker My question now is to the Minister responsible for Historic Resources, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

I would like to ask if the Minister is aware that Hampshire Cottage in Harbour Grace, built in the 1820s and one of the few remaining early planter houses in Conception Bay, may soon be torn down? And does the Minister's department have any strategy for preventing the destruction and loss of such major elements of our architectural tieritage? An Hon. Member: A good question Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Gullage: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I am very familiar with the Hampshire Cottage and the problem we have with buildings such as this one throughout the Province that have historic value, and yet the cost of refurbishing and rebuilding these structures is exorbitant compared to the amount of dollars that are available. In this particular case we have a value of some $10,000 - the structure as it exists right now. It may cost upwards of $40,000, so I am told, to rehabilitate that structure to its original facade. So it is indeed a problem. It exists not just with Hampshire Cottage but other historic properties throughout the Province.

I am encouraging, wherever possible, that these historic societies would work with the city councils to try to access funds at the community level, and fund raise, because indeed, if we were to try to rehabilitate and restore all the historic properties we have throughout the Province, and in Labrador, the cost would be well beyond our reach, and indeed the Province is not capable of doing it. Mr. Speaker: Order, pleases Question Period has expired, if my use of new technology is correct. Before proceeding to other business I would like to, on behalf of hon.

Members, extend a warm welcome to a former Member of this House, Mr. Willie McNeil, and he is accompanied by the Mayor of Stephenville, Mr. Cecil Stein. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Notices of Motion Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Bellevue. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will request leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-69, "An Act To Amend Certain Statutes To Enable Restraint Of Government L15 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 1115

Expenditures". An Hon. Member: Mr. Speaker, we can't hear him down here. Mr. Simms: You will get a copy shortly. Mr. Speaker: Maybe the hon. Member can speak up. Or maybe the mikes are not on. The hon. the Member for Bellevue An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Bill C-69. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Barrett:

WHEREAS this Bill if passed will see a decrease in Federal funding of various social programs, including Medicare - and post-secondary education; and

WHEREAS these cutbacks will reduce Federal contributions to these programs to zero by the year 2004; and

WHEREAS Bill C-69 will move the financial responsibility to cover the cost of these programs to the provinces which can least afford it; and

WHEREAS the Federal Government has once again moved the welfare of the people of Canada to last place on its list of priorities;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House condemn the actions of the Federal Government in its attempt to relinquish its responsibility for the funding of social programs in this country; Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Petitions Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Menihek. Mr. A. Snow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a petition on behalf of 196 constituents who happen to be in the teaching profession in Labrador West. The prayer of the petition is: We, the teachers of the Labrador West branch of the NTA, strongly object to the action taken by Mr. Baker in his attempt to discredit our Association.

And we also strongly object to the Government's refusal to sit down and negotiate a collective agreement with the teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are concerned that the President of Treasury Board has written, to the teachers directly, attacking the credibility of the NTA and undermining the collective bargaining process. They are asking me to return the offending letters to the President. of Treasury Board, and I will do that. I have approximately 164 letters to return to the hon. President of Treasury Board on behalf of the teachers of western Labrador.

I did not get them all, they wanted to keep some of them to use as scrap paper in their classrooms as part of the budgetary cutbacks they will undergo in the classroom processes in education in western Labrador, which this great Liberal Government has put upon them. Of course, western Labrador, as probably known by most of you people in here and undoubtedly all the residents of western Labrador, is the best area to get an education for your children in this province, and that has largely been due, I believe, to S 11 L16 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 Rl6

. LJ the additional revenues that were put in there by the mining companies, by local generated revenues that were put there to establish the facilities, first of all, and to pay a little larger remuneration to the teachers who work and teach in the facilities in western Labrador. And to make a better use of in-service opportunities which would be made available to them, and more of them, in western Labrador, that was able to attract a better quality teacher in western Labrador, and we, as residents of Labrador, have been able to make use of that through sending our kids there.

That is, I believe, one of the reasons why we have the highest per capita number of students who attend post-secondary education of any area in this province, and I think that is largely due to the better quality teacher we have in western Labrador. Teachers have told me, when I meet them in the street in Labrador City and Wabush, that they are concerned that we are going to lose these better teachers, because they are tired of being attacked by this administration. They are tired of the cuts this administration is proposing upon their sector.

They are especially disappointed, and they wanted me to express this, about the lack of people speaking up, people with whom they had worked previously, people they had elected to their NTA executive, and who are now sitting in the House of Assembly of this Province and do not speak up for them. They have asked me to express their concern about this. They recognize that these individuals, the hon. Member for Exploits and the hon.

Member for Conception Bay South, have used the NTA offices as a profile to get elected, and it was also a platform they used in public to get the seats they presently hold, and the offices they presently hold in this Province. They moved from the classroom to the boardroom, and they forgot the concerns of the classroom in this Province. That is what the teachers are concerned about. These cuts in in-service are undoubtedly going to affect the quality of education, not just in western Labrador, of course, but in this whole Province, and they are very concerned about it.

Some of the letters, I have to admit, have some things written on them to the President of Treasury Board, and I will just make a few quotes, if I may, Mr. Speaker. They say, 'Dear Mr. Baker: I have been paying into a pension fund for over twenty years now, and as I near retirement, I am told that there is not enough money to sustain me in my old age. I wish to express my displeasure over the misuse of earlier pension money and the prospect of substantial gains in my contribution.

This, coupled with education and health cutbacks, convinces me that a Liberal Government is not the best Government to run our affairs in this Province.' Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The hon. member's time is up. Mr. A. Snow: May I just have one moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker? Some Hon. Members: No leave. No leave. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main. Lll October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 Rh

Mr. Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw Your Honour's attention to a copy of yesterday's Hansard, Page 10, in which the remarks of the Minister of Education yesterday are attributed to me. Mr. Speaker: Probably neither hon. member would want those set of circumstances to stand, so we will act accordingly. The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak to the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for Menihek. I do not know if the President of Treasury Board was listening to the contents of this particular petition. Mr. Murphy: Table that letter Mr.

Sims: I am just going to refer to it in debate. Mr. Murphy: (Inaudible). Mr. Sims: What is the hon. member talking about? Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. Member for St.

John's South is talking about, which is not unusual, but he will continue to make his interjections. the prayer of the petition - I did not think he heard it - essentially it is another situation where the teachers of Labrador West, represented by the Member for Menihek, have asked the Member for Menihek to present a petition in the House, signed by 196 people, teachers I presume, most of them at least, trying to point out to the Minister that they strongly object to the action taken by him in his attempt, in their words, to discredit their Association, and his refusal to sit down and negotiate a collective agreement with the teachers of Labrador West.

That is the purpose of the petition. In addition to that, they have asked my colleague, in presenting the petition, if he would return a bunch of letters, to the President of Treasury Board which they object to violently, and the object is also contained in the prayer of the petition signed by 196 teachers in Labrador West. I am not sure how many letters are here. There is a bunch of them, anyway. Most of them, many of them, have comments attached to them, as he is well aware, and I think for the record it would be appropriate to refer to some of them.

Some of them, by the way, I am not sure I would want to, but here is one, for example, which has writing all around it and it says to, Mr. Baker, I guess: 'Please define the definition of negotiations as you see it. Obviously, there must be a big difference in opinion. Also, you asked us to trust you, a politician, and not our elected union leader' - the President of the Nfl, they are referring to. 'I would think you knew better. 'Wake up and smell the coffee.' Now these are all comments which are attached. They would like a reply to this particular individual. I presume they have signed it? An Hon.

Member: Yes, they have. They have. Mr. Sinus: Many of these have their signatures attached, by the way, so you will be able to respond. Here is another one, an excerpt from a letter. This person took the time to write a letter, attached to the letter: . S L18 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 1118

a 'Dear Mr. Baker: As a second year teacher in this Province, I am not in immediate jeopardy with regards to the pension plan. As a responsible adult, however, I must plan for my future. As you stated in your letter, the Government has failed to meet its obligations in the past and who is to say - who is to say - that the same situation will not re-occur in the future.' These are the kinds of concerns. And seeing what this Government has been doing, this Liberal Government, I suspect they have all kinds of reasons for fear. Any others? 'The NTA is our bargaining unit.

Pension updates should come from the NTA, not from the President of Treasury Board.' And this one: 'How is your pension fund balanced?' - which is a very appropriate question, a very timely question. 'Where are all the honest people who were elected?' And on and on and on and on it goes, Mr. Speaker. 'Were you as big a disgrace in your former profession as you appear to be in your current one?' These are not very - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Simms: Well, they are coming from teachers. I expect that most teachers in the Province are quite intelligent, Mr. Speaker.

But the action by the President of Treasury Board, and this is the whole point, in writing directly to those teachers and referring to the action of the President of the Nfl has, he has to admit, and I am sure he has heard it from the Member for Exploits and the Minister of Labour, infuriated teachers around the Province, even though the Minister himself gets up from time to time in the House and talks about how rosy the picture is, things are going along dandy with teachers, and so on. So I trust the Minister will take the prayer of the petition to heart and will pay attention to what the teachers are saying.

One final one. I just had a phone cali in our office, before we caine up, from the Lewisporte Branch of the NTA. 'Please mention to the President of Treasury Board that the President of the Notre Dame Lewisporte Branch of the NTA called the Opposition office today to express her extreme disappointment in their Member, Mr. Penney.' Mr. Speaker, we promised them we would pass it on in the House of Assembly. Table all these? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address a few words to this particular petition, and to the representations which have been made by the two hon. Members who have just finished speaking. Mr. Speaker, the litany of condemnation read out by the hon. the Member for Grand Falls applies directly to the situation that was specifically created by the former Government when they sat in power,. An Hon. Member: Oh, no, by you and your (Inaudible). Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Premier Wells: They destroyed the pension fund of this Province. Mr. Matthews: (Inaudible) You! You! You! Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

L19 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 Rl9

Order, please! I shall have to remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that I am standing. Mr. Matthews: Sorry, Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: And I want to remind hon. Members that as far as I know, when the two hon. Members were presenting petitions, not a word was uttered from this side. There are only five minutes, and hon. Members should extend the same courtesy to the Premier. The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is truth that cuts so hard it puts them into an absolute frenzy. They cannot cope with it, because they are so totally unfamiliar with it. Now, Mr.

Speaker, here is the simple truth about the teachers' pension fund and what Governments, the former Government over there and the Government before that, the Liberal Government - Mr. Simms: That has nothing to do with the petition. Premier Wells: Yes, it has a lot to do with the petition. Mr. Simms: No, it does not. Not a thing to do with it. Premier Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will still like to speak. If the Members will not refrain from speaking, would you ask they be removed. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Again, I ask hon. Members, please, there are only five minutes.

The House only operates effectively with the co-operation of all hon. members. I remind the Premier and others that when we are speaking, of course, we must speak to the material allegations of the petition. One does not know many times if a member is speaking to the material allegations within the first few seconds, one has to hear the point being made. The hon. the Premier. Premier Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking specifically to the comments the hon. the Member for Grand Falls read out of the petition. I am speaking and addressing specifically the comments we were asked to address.

He sat there and he read these additional letters. Now answer this allegation. Here is what they are saying about you. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are answering them. They have such an aversion to facts and truth that they cannot sit quiet and hear it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask him just to sit quiet for a minute and hear the explanation, and the explanation is fairly simple. At one time, Mr.

Speaker, the former Liberal Government, instead of contributing an equal amount with teachers to the pension fund, they not only did not contribute, they took back out what the teachers contributed and used it as general revenue with the undertaking that the Province would pay the pensions. The former Conservative Government, headed by Mr. Moores, when it came into power, continued that for some significant period of time, until 1980, some nine years. Then, Mr.

Speaker, it was changed, in 1980, and from that time on they so mismanaged the fund that in addition to the problem that was already there of S S L20 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R20

I the shortfall, they so mismanaged pension and pension obligation, and so failed to provide adequately for it, that in addition to the shortfall that is already there, here is the situation today that• they have created. Mr. Speaker, the pension fund, when you assess it today, if you operate on the assumption that there would be no increases in the pension, the pension fund is at this moment one billion two hundred and some-odd million short of the funds it needs.

Of that one billion two hundred and some-odd million, $216 million relate to the failure of the former Liberal Government and the former Conservative Government to contribute. So if the Government today went to the market and borrowed the money necessary to repay to that pension fund every cent that was taken out, every cent that Government failed to put in, and every cent that those funds would have earned in interest in the meantime, it would take $216 million, and the pension fund would be still more than $1 billion short.

Now that is the truth of the situation, and somebody should tell the teachers of this Province the truth so they will know. Premier Wells: Our first and foremost obligation is to the teachers, and we intend to discharge it. Our second obligation is to the taxpayers of this Province. We could say forget it for now, it will not happen until about 1998 or 2000 and by then we might be ready to retire and maybe the other side might be having a crack at Government and leave it for them. Now that was the philosophy of the former Government. We are not prepared to do that to the taxpayers of this Province. An Hon.

Member: Why do you not tell the truth for a change. (Inaudible). Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Rideout: (Inaudible) the truth for a change. Premier Wells: Mr. Speaker, would you restrain the hon. member. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Rideout: You should be restrained. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Rideout: They know that Premier Wells: Now, Mr. Speaker, our commitment is to make sure that the teachers who have dedicated their lives to teaching the students of this Province, when the time comes for them to retire will have a secure pension.

That is our first and foremost obligation. I remind the hon. the Premier that his time is up, and he has asked the Leader of the Opposition to restraint himself. Premier Wells: If they would give me one more second I will finish. Some Hon. Members: No leave. Premier Wells: No leave. Mr. Speaker: No leave. I am Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! sorry. No. 67 R21 L21 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI

Premier Wells: Too bad. They have such an aversion to truth they cannot stand it. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! I will recognize the hon. member when we get some order. The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I wish to present a petition, and I hope that the Premier will respond to this petition. The petition is of several residents of the St. John's area. Many of these people are constituents of the Minister of Finance. I think a few are residents of the district of the Minister of Education. Others live in the district of St.

John's East where I nOtice the Liberal candidate is campaigning on a platform of improving the lot of single mothers and battered women. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is: Your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse its change in policy and continue to permit social assistance recipients to retain a substantial portion of maintenance and child support payments as well as regular social assistance. Mr.

Speaker, as I trust all the Members of the House of Assembly realize by now, on October 1st the Minister of Social Services and his department sneaked in a regressive change in social assistance regulations. A change that resulted in an instant decline in income for close to 1,000 single parent families throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. For many of those families that decline represented as much as twenty per cent of their total family income. Now, Mr. Speaker, astoundingly the Minister of Social Services has been defending this change.

The Minister responsible for the Status of Women has been silent as have many of his colleagues. The Premier has endorsed the conclusion of the Minister of Social Services that this change was done for the sake of - guess what - fairness and balance. Now, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier has failed, to explain is how was it fair to reduce the income of some of the poorest people in the Province? How was it fair to decrease the income of a single mother with three children from $650 a month to $550 a month?

How was it fair to negate the benefit of the support enforcement agency for the people who need it most, the people on social assistance? How was it fair to take away the incentive for single mothers to go to court and seek orders for child support? And how is it fair, how is it balanced, how is it consistent to allow children of social assistance recipients who are married and living together to benefit from the income of the father's earnings from a job, when denying those same children the benefit of the father's earnings should the father leave the children and separate from the mother? How is that fair?

Now, Mr. Speaker, for the last few days no Member of the Government has been rising to address this type of petition that I have presented. Every day that I have been here since this sitting began LI E L22 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R22

U I have presented a petition of people of the Province protesting the change. Initially the Minister of Social Services and the Premier responded. The Premier, on October 18th, acknowledged that he did not know the details of the change, but he did undertake to the House and the people of the Province that he would get the details, that he would investigate, and that if he saw a mistake was made he would announce it and correct the mistake. Sadly, the Premier did not deliver on his promise. He did not get all the details.

All he did was talk to the Minister and take the Minister's glib assurance that, oh yes, this really was done for the sake of fairness and balance. Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier has conducted a detailed investigation in the last day or so, and I await his response today. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. Mr. Efford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had not intended to rise again today and to speak on this particular petition because it seems it is an ongoing thing every day. And the more often we talk to the hon.

Member for Humber East, and the more we explain, the less she understands about what is actually taking place as far as maintenance income for single parents goes. And day after day in Question Period she will not ask a question but she will phone over to the officials of my department and ask questions, but she will not ask the Minister about the questions. So she is not really showing a true concern about the single parents in the Province, she is just trying to play politics. And I suggest to the hon.

Member, I suspect that she was on the phone last evening phoning the seven single parents that she is representing in St. John's East, because there are approximately 2,200 single parents in St. John's. You have a petition representing seven. So you made seven phone calls last night, or several phone calls, and that is the type of business you are trying to drum up. Because last week, or two weeks ago, she met with the single parents in the city, and she asked them to have a march on Confederation Building to try and get the Minister of Social Services to change his mind, and they said no.

In fact, most of the single parents who I have spoken to in meetings agree with the decision made by the Department of Social Services and the Government of today. I will explain. In fact the Member for Springdale sent the copy of Hansard out to one of the reporters in Western Newfoundland. That individual called me. And when I explained the decision we had made and what it was doing, that reporter said to me on the phone - who is, by the way, a single parent herself - what are they talking about? And I will quote: 'What in the name of. goodness is the Member talking about?

What is the Member for I-lumber East talking about?' It is absolutely stupid. Single parents want an opportunity to work. They do not want to stay on social services. They do not want to be dependent on social services. And it is very clear that the hon. Member for Humber East is not willing to listen to L23 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R23

the answers given by this side of the House. And I suggest - and if the hon. Member for Humber East would listen to my conclusion - if you really sat in your sit last Thursday evening for thirty minutes and listened to the explanation I had given, and you do not understand, then I will go up to Hansard, although it is not yet printed, and I will get an excerpt from Hansard of my speech.

And I will give it to you, and deliver it to you, so you can take it home, sit down in the quietness and peace of your home, read it and absorb it, so you will not get more confused than you already are, and you will feel as good as everybody else does in the Province in understanding the situation. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Hewlett: Okay. The hon. Minister indicates he would rather have single parents earn a living and not be on social services. That is very commendable. I have no argument whatsoever. The problem here Mr. Speaker, is we are talking about single parents who are on social services.

If the single parents concerned are earning a gainful wage in the regular work force then they are not on social services, they are not having anything deducted from their social services because they are not gaining any social services. There is nothing wrong. The Minister is to be commended for every person that he finds gainful employment for. S Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker: Order please! The hon. the Member for Green Bay Mr. Hewlett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of points.

Number one: As I understand from my colleague, the petition is not necessarily signed by single parents, it is a petition of people concerned about the matter. I understand - Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Hewlett: I understand it was a petition - Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order please! Order But I would like to go back to a point that my colleague made. If two parents are together and they have some earned income they are allowed to retain, I think, up to $115 a month of earned income. Earned income. Now Mr.

Speaker, if a family separates and a judge says to the absent spouse, you must pay x dollars a month to your absent family, then obviously that individual under the court order is earning some income. No individual on welfare is going to be made to make payments by a judge. If the individual is earning income the only thing that has changed is, number one: he has a court order requiring him to pay it, and number two: he is separated physically from his wife and children. S please! Mr. Hewlett: - publicly available at a local food store in the city of St. John's and signed by customers of that store.

When he is together with his wife and children they are allowed to be the beneficiary of up to $115 a month of that income. The fact that he is separated physically from his wife and children does not in any way lessen the L24 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R24

I entitlement of his children to monies from his earned income. And let us understand one thing here Mr. Speaker. We are talking about people who are on social assistance. If the hon. Minister through the good offices of his Department can provide these people with gainful employment so that they are no longer on social assistance then this is an academic matter. This does not apply to such people. The problem we have here is the reduction of a benefit to people who are on social assistance. And I would say to the hon.

Minister, fine, come up with all the programs you can to put people to work, provide these single parents with the necessary day care services so they can obtain gainful employment in our society, and what the petition was all about would be totally academic. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Orders of the Day Mr. Baker: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker flight? Premier Wells: The flight is at 5:50 or something and I have to go home and pack a bag and do a few other things. So I would just like to take a few minutes to address the questions. An Hon. Member: He wants to vote on the motion.

Premier Wells: I am sorry, am I altering the procedures of the House, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Simms: No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Sims: I do not mean to interrupt the Premier. No, I had talked to the Government House Leader and asked if we could perhaps have a five minute recess before we started and got into the debate simply because we were thinking it would not come probably until Thursday. So I just wanted to have five minutes, there are a couple of points about whether we will take a supper break and these kinds of things that I wanted to discuss. Mr.

Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Motion 4; The hon. the Premier. So we could do it now or if you want to go ahead and speak we could take our break after. Premier Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak briefly in this debate and I have to go to Labrador later this afternoon, so I wanted to take a few minutes now to address the question that is effected by Motion 4 which is, in fact, a closure motion, I assume we will debate the balance of the question now. An Hon. Member: What time is your Premier Wells: Okay, let us do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. members, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a great deal of confusion about what is motivating the Government and what the Government's objective and plan is in this connection. Before I do L25 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R25

and on an not unrelated subject because it deals with financial requirement over the next number of years, I just want to finish the last point I would have made on that comment I was making with respect to the petition on teachers pensions.

The last point that I wanted to make is, bearing in mind the background that I had just detailed, here is the alternative that is facing the Government at the moment; either we do nothing and let the plan go bankrupt and in 1998 here is the alternative open to the Government, the Legislature and the people of this Province - let the teachers who have worked and expected a pension have no pension, and that, Mr. Speaker, is unthinkable.

We have an obligation to those teachers who have dedicated their effort over the years in the belief that they would have a sound and reliable pension on which to rely when they retire. The other alternative is to leave it to the taxpayers to pay it. And the financial advisers tell us, Mr. Speaker, that if we leave it to the taxpayers and we do not take these steps now, it will cost on average $200 million a year for the ten years starting in 1998 and running to 2008. Now those are the alternatives.

Let the taxpayers take it on the chin for $200 million a year and still have nothing in the pension fund, or leave the teachers without a pension. Both of those alternatives are unacceptable to this Government and we intend to address the problem. Addressing the problem means addressing the question of the cost of the pension, and the entitlement that we are building up. So we have to put this thing forward for discussion and concern and consideration by all parties concerned.

And we have to make a commitment that the Government and people of this Province will make good for what the Government failed to do in the past. Now we are prepared to commit this Government, for as long as we are in power, to putting additional funds into the teachers' pension fund every year in order to make sure that we protect the teachers and we do not bankrupt the people of this Province ten years from now. Now we must do that in a responsible way, and that is all we are doing.

And all these political shenanigans of the Opposition to bring in and put together these petitions in this way, and all of the criticisms and comments of the members of the NTA cannot possibly alter those facts. They are the fundamental facts with which we are faced. We believe, Mr. Speaker, we are handling them in a responsible way. And if the Opposition and the teachers do not think we are, we are prepared to fight an election on the basis of which we are handling this - without question. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Premier Wells: We are prepared to go to the people of this Province and ask them if they think we are handling it in the right way. We will take the political heat for what we are doing but we cannot be railroaded by either the cries and screams of the Opposition, or the pressure efforts of the teachers. We must protect the interests of those dedicated teachers who put in that S S L L26 October 30,. 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R26

C 0 0 effort, but we must do so in a way that responsibly deals with the position of the taxpayers for the next ten, twenty, or thirty years. Now, Mr. Speaker, to deal more specifically with this particular motion the Government's original concern - well, I should say the officials became aware of it at least by the 3 April. I know that because that is when they tell me they got it. I do not know when the officials drew it to the attention of the Minister, but they treated this as normal every month advice and they don't draw this to our attention because it goes up and down.

Now, I cannot say when they drew it to the attention of the Minister of Finance, but I can say, from the best of my recollection, that I seem to have had the potential for it, or the indication that there was an estimate of a shortfall in the coming year of a substantial magnitude, perhaps sometime in June. I do not remember when it might have been and I cannot be any more specific than that. Then when looking at it, and looking at other indicators, we saw sometime by July that our own revenue from Provincial sources would be down as well.

In August, when we took a look at this and put it all together, the Minister of Finance, I believe, made a statement indicating that there was the possibility of a shortfall this year of as much as $65 million, and we could have a $55 million deficit, depending on how it was going. He indicated at that time that the trends in our own revenue collection were downward so there might be an increasing problem, and we were watching it. By September, I guess the Minister of Finance had a little bit more reliable information, and by then the economic recession had hit this country. And don't forget, Mr.

Speaker, that we in Canada are in a genuine recession and the consequences of that to the Province, which is not of our making, we did not cause it, but we suffer from the consequences, as all parts of the nation dO, and every other Province of this nation is facing this problem now, including the national Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson, who made his statement yesterday about the cuts he has to make. That is the position we are in, the whole nation is in it. We happened, Mr. Speaker, to have moved faster than anybody else. Not only were we not late in advising the House but we were ahead of any other Government.

Every other Provincial Government in this country had the same information that we did at the same time that we did and not one of them moved before we did. We were the first. How can they, with any credibility, criticize us for delaying it? It is totally unsupportable, Mr. Speaker. We moved quickly to deal with the problem and we are concerned about the extent of it, and how big it could be.

We looked at it, and with the potential for a $120 million problem for this current fiscal year we know that we cannot possibly make the kinds of reductions in governmental expenditures that will allow us to offset that effect, so we know we are going to have to greatly increase our borrowings for this year because of that. We know and accept that, but we hope to reduce it by as much as we can. We also admit, quite candidly, that we do not know whether it is going to be $120 million, $80 million, or $150 million. It may be up or down from the $120 million and there is no way of projecting it at this stage.

What we said, and if L27 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R27

anybody looks back at Hansard they will see me saying, if there is no further change, no further circumstances that causes change, or that result in change, it should be approximately $120 million. If Hibernia has a more positive impact, or if something happens on the national level that causes a lesser reduction in the equalization payments, then it will not be as bad, but if things happen in the other direction, if Ilibernia does not contribute as significantly as we hope it will, or if national circumstances are such that it results in a greater reduction, then, Mr.

Speaker, in those circumstances we could have a higher one. I do not apologize for the fact that we are not saying it is going to be $ 120,415,000, we do not know what it might be. We are taking responsible action now to deal with a matter that is of major concern and major proportion. Now, Mr. Speaker, for this year, that is a serious problem and we know we are going to have to borrow, but having had a net $10 million surplus last year, it is not so serious.

We know that we can confidently go to the market and say, look, last year we ended up with a $10 million surplus, after taking an extra 20 million and putting into the teachers pension fund, we still had a $70 million surplus, so our financial situation is not really serious, if we have to borrow an additional 70 or 80 or 90 of the 120 million we may be short this year, I am sure the market would be understanding and responsive. What they will not accept lying down, Mr.

Speaker, is for us then to follow on the heels of that with a Budget for next year that projects a $200 or $300 million deficit if we do not get our expenditures under control for the coming year, and the only way to do that for the coming year is to start to take the action now. Now, I can say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not know and there are two key reasons why I do not know what our financial situation will be in next year's Budget, and I cannot even make a very substantial guess, but I look at the national recession.

If that national recession persists, and Ontario performs steadily worse, as it has been recently, then the level of equalization is going to go down still further in this Province, so we are going to have substantial cuts again. If the recession continues, tax revenues in Newfoundland will also go down as they go down in other parts of the country, so our revenues from provincial sources will also be down, so there is a potential for having a very significant reduction in our revenue. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if Hibernia causes a different economic situation in Newfoundland, then it could offset that and our revenues could be up, but nobody, right at this moment can predict that situation with any degree of confidence or certainty.

So that leaves us in this situation and what do we do, do we gamble on being left in a situation where we may have to Budget for a $200 or $300 million deficit next year, or do we take responsible steps now to try and keep us within reasonable bounds, reduce our expenditure and if things turn out more positive we will have more money to spend and we can S 11 L28 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R28

r L I 0 re-introduce some of the proposals that we may have had to delay or defer or cut out, or rehire some people whom we may have had to lay off, but we do not know. We do, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime have an obligation to the taxpayers of this Province to act responsibly. We cannot act with absolute certainty because there are so many unpredictables, like the length of the recession, the depth of the recession, the extent of the impact of the recession, the extent of the impact of Hibernia and a variety of other factors.

We cannot risk threatening the financial security and stability of this Province, so we have to take action in a responsible way. And what did we do? We did not go to the hospitals or the different departments and say you are going to be cut this and that, you have to cut out 800 jobs, you have to do this or something else, we said, how is the best way to handle this. We do not know ourselves, the Ministers sitting around the Cabinet table do not know the best way to cut expenditures in individual departments or agencies of Government, so why don't we go and ask the people concerned.

Now if we asked• them how much can you cut, in every case where that is done, every year, and the hon. Members Opposite, I am sure, are very familiar with it, including the Leader of the Opposition, they will come back and say, oh, not only can we not cut, we have to have an increase. This is normal, that is the way the departments and the agencies function, so we said, we have to give some kind of guideline that will be fair to everybody. What will we do, what will we give them as a guideline to operate?

These are not decisions, these are guidelines which we have put in place and the guideline that we put in place was to cap the expenditure, the planned expenditure for next year on the basis of the amount expended this year. So what we said we will do, we will go to each of the departments and agencies and say to them, come back with a proposal and tell us what would be the impact of your planning next year's Budget on the basis of having no more money than you had this year.

How we will handle it, the extent to which we will implement it in any particular department, the extent to which it may be more severe than that in some departments, less severe in others, we do not yet know. And I say that with absolute honesty and certainty and conviction. We do not yet know. And that is what the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance and myself whenever we have spoken have been trying to say to people. What we are asking them to do is to give us some recommendations as to how we can deal with this Very serious problem.

And we are, in effect, consulting with the people who had to deliver the service. We are also consulting, Mr. Speaker, with other people, with the leaders of the unions, of the public service unions. The President of Treasury Board called in all the leaders and met with, so far as I know, all the leaders of the public service unions, explained to them what we were trying to do and what the Government's intention was and what we were trying to achieve and ask them to come back and have an input in the future. And once we L29 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R29

get this information in from the civil servants and from the heads of the different agencies of Government we intend to take the information and what it shows and we will talk again to the public service unions and say here is what we are thinking. Here is one possibility and here is another. What is your input? Now, you cannot do any more than that. What we cannot do and will not do is surrender to the heads of the public service union the right to make the decision. That is Government's and it can only be dealt with finally in this House, Mr. Speaker, affirmed or denied by the Members of this House.

So, while we are prepared to consult we will never, ever surrender the right to decide to any outside group. Government must take that and make that decision because that is its responsibility. And we will do so, but there is nothing wrong with the process that we are going through of consulting and seeking advice, and that is essentially the process that we are in now. Now, in the meantime, Mr.

Speaker, perhaps the process was fraught with a bit of a difficulty because it is perfectly understandable that when the head of a particular agency is faced with this and he knows that the effect of it may be a reduction in his or her ability to deliver the services of that agency, a reduction of employees, he gets his back up and raises the great spectre of a monster that is going to be created and puts this out to the public in order to pressure the Government not to cut so severely. So, I understand the tactic. I am not naive.

The Opposition sees it as a good political opportunity and they beat the devil out of the Government day after day in the House about what the Government is doing and failing to deliver on its conunitments and so on, and they get as much political mileage out of it as they can. And that is what we have seen in this debate. I am not entirely happy about it, but I have some understanding for it. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I want to remind the hon. the Premier that he has one minute left. Premier Wells: It will only take me a couple of minutes to clue it up. So, I understand that, Mr. Speaker.

But I suggest that we are unduly frightening the civil servants who are involved. We are unduly frightening people in the Province who will have to rely on medical and educational and other services. And I think that is unfair because I state categorically, nobody knows at this moment what will be the extent of it. The decisions are not made. We are merely canvassing all possible alternatives and we are asking for advice as to what the impact will be and we will make the decision when the time comes.

Now, that is what we have been saying from the beginning, and I wanted to have this opportunity to re-state it so that people will understand clearly that what we are seeking to do is manage the affairs of the Province in a responsible way and try and reduce the expenditure, because we do not know where this recession will lead and what kind of a financial burden it will put on the Province. ., S L30 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R30

I I Mr. Speaker, it is not our objective to cost jobs. It is our objective to have jobs created. We do not want to see a single job lost, but we still have to be responsible. What has happened over the last sixteen or seventeen year, Mr. Speaker, and I will pass this around so hon. Members can see it, I just got this this morning and I thought it spelled it out accurately. I am not putting this around, Mr. Speaker, to make political points and say, here is what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador during the sixteen years of Tory rule, I do not blame the former Government for this consequence.

I blame the former Government for failing to recognize the real problem and deal with it. But they did not cause this. I do not blame this on them. What I am handing around, Mr. Speaker, to all hon. Members, and I will ask the Page to do it now, is a chart I got this morning from the Economic Council of Canada. And what it shows in each of them is the differential between the unemployment rate in each province, over Ontario. So when you look at 1971, Newfoundland had an unemployment rate that was about 1.5 per cent higher than Ontario. In 1971. Then it shows it in 1981, then it shows it in 1986.

And it shows the same thing for every other province except PEI. Now Mr. Speaker, look at what has happened to Newfoundland. In the intervening sixteen years between 1971 and 1986, the unemployment, the differential between Newfoundland and Ontario, has climbed to be at least eight times what it was in 1971. Now it happens to coincide with the same period that those hon. Members governed this Province. I do.not,. for political reasons, attribute the responsibility for that to them.

That is a consequence of national policy - some of it by a former Liberal government, some of it by the current Conservative Government - it is not attributable solely to them. What I attribute to them is the failure to recognize the real problem and cause the real problem to be dealt with. That is the political responsibility that I think they will ultimately share. So when you look at this Mr. Speaker you will know that it is not our intention to cause any job loss in the civil service, in the private sector, or anywhere. Our objective is to build the jobs in this Province.

But here is what happened in terms of comparing Newfoundland with Ontario. But look also at New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, going in exactly the same direction. The other provinces are different. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? It is because of the benign patronizing way that national governments of all political stripes have treated the Atlantic Provinces in terms of dealing with economic disparity. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to put ourselves in a position to address this problem and these kinds of problems in an effective way.

Maintaining the financial viability of this Province and the financial stability is key to that. And if we do not address this budgetary problem that we have now in an effective way, Mr. Speaker, we will never be able to address this overall problem and correct this kind of disparity. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will have time L31 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R3l

to address this further on another occasion. But I do want to thank hon. Members for extending me the courtesies they have this afternoon, and I appreciate it very much, but I wanted to make these comments, because I want to stop irresponsibly creating concerns for our citizens and for our employees until we know the full measure and what the alternatives are. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Committee of the Whole I believe we were going to break for five minutes. To move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to discuss said bill, and that I do now leave the Chair.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to discuss said bill, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Mr. Speaker: Order please! For the benefit of hon. members and to ensure that we are proceeding the right way. Hon. Members will recall that when the President of Treasury Board had called the Orders of the Day, the Chair asked for the question. Because what was .supposed to happen is that we were supposed to vote on Motion 4. It is not debatable, we just vote on it, that we do what we are supposed to do, what motion 4 says. Then we are supposed to move into the Committee of the Whole.

But I then assume that we allowed the Premier to speak by agreement. So, if we would now go back to where we were, where the President of Treasury Board called Motion 4, which was "An Act To Authorize The Raising of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province", standing in the name of the Honourable the Minister of Finance, and any amendments to that Motion shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolutions, amendments. clauses, sections,

preambles, schedules, titles relating to Motion No. 1 shall not be further postponed. And I think also, the agreement was, that when we moved into the Committee of the Whole Mr. Chairman: Order please! The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Mr. Chairman, before we begin proceedings, and before the clerks start taking time, I had a brief discussion with the Government House Leader and I wonder if we might be able to have a short recess, five minutes, maybe ten maximum - we will alert the Chair, to give him time to ring the bells - just for a number of discussions.

One of the things we want to discuss, the normal procedure in this process would require that you carry on debate right through supper. But I think maybe by agreement we might be able to make some agreements on a break for supper. There are a couple of things like that, so I wonder if we might have agreement to have a short five, ten minute probably, maximum, recess? Mr. Baker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is fine. Mr. Chairman: Okay. The S L32 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R32

0 Committee recesses for ten minutes Recess Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) call for a vote. Mr. Sinuus: Could call the question, I suppose. An Hon. Member: And then a division? Mr. Sinuns: You had better get used to it. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I only have twenty minutes, as we all do, and I shall try to keep within the twenty minutes.

First of all, of course, I would be remiss in my responsibilities as Opposition House Leader if I did not make some reference to the procedure the Government is using, the tactics the Government is using now to once again use their majority, ram through legislation which has not been debated at least to the satisfaction of Members on this side of the House, nor, we believe, to the satisfaction of the people out there in the general public. We have lots of questions to ask, we have been asking lots of questions.

We have been asking questions in a labour relations area, about the problems the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Labour are facing in today's current situation. raising questions about the fire fighters who have been hard done by, fire fighters who have not seen the Minister of Municipal Affairs attempt to right a wrong that was put on to the fire fighters recently. We have seen all kinds of representations from teachers around the province because of the tactic used by the President of Treasury Board and so on. So we have raised all kinds of those questions in this particular debate.

We have raised time after time again, as evidenced by the press and the news media coverage, questions in the House during Question Period as well as during debate, about the Province's financial situation. Why it occurred, asking the Minister of Finance to explain to us this very complicated situation, which he tried to explain last night but, in my view, made it even more complicated and confusing. We asked the media how come they did not discuss that issue yesterday that was raised in Question Period. Most of them said it was because it sounded too complicated, very difficult to understand.

I say to the Minister of Finance. I am accurate in what I am saying. And, so, we are trying to raise questions. Now the Government is not satisfied to let us continue to ask the questions because the questions are putting pressure on them. And to avert the pressure, rather than answer the questions, they have decided to use what has now become a favourite tactic of theirs, and that is to invoke closure, which stymies and cuts off debate, and does not allow the Members of the House of Assembly, duly elected, to express the views of their constituents on a particular piece of legislation.

L33 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 61 R33

The Premier, of course, did not even mention the closure issue. I regret very much that the Government has chosen this tactic. But we see, as I said, from a Government only in power now for a year and a half, on the other hand a Government that will be starting its third year in office, six or so months from now. In a little less than six months or so, they will be starting the third year of their mandate, which is so hard to believe, and, Mr. Speaker, already they have used closure on at least a couple of occasions that I recollect just off the top of my head. Unheard of!

In our terms in office, closure was not used all that frequently - occasionally. The Government House Leader reminded me that they used filibuster tactics one time before in a closure debate that was imposed by this House, yet he gets up time after time and chastises us and accuses us of filibustering in this particular situation. It is not a filibuster. It is genuine concern on the part of Members elected to this side of the House to represent the views of their constituents by raising questions time and time again until they get answers.

Unfortunately, what has transpired is that we have not been able to get answers. Now the Government used all kinds of other little intimidation tactics. If we were going to continue to ask questions and pressure the Government, it was their intention to have night sittings. They will try to wear us out by bringing us back at night. Well, of course, the Government House Leader saw that that tactic did not work. We had no problem sitting at nights. We sat Thursday night, we sat last night, we are going to sit again tonight, obviously, and we would have been prepared to sit whatever nights would have been required.

But that was the first little intimidation tactic by the Government House Leader. Then he says, well, if we do not get through all this important legislation we have to get through, we may have to come back in January. He floated that out to me - may have to come back in January. That is the second little intimidation tactic. And now, of course, the ultimate tactic, closure. The gag order. The guillotine has been brought down on us. Not allowed to speak anymore. Then he gets up in the House last night and he says, it is all the Opposition House Leader's fault.

The first week or so, while I was away for a few days, lots of co-operation, the Opposition was ready to cooperate and ready to let the loan Bill go and all that stuff. There was never, I understand, any commitment given to that extent. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Hibernia bill only. Mr. Simms: The Hibernia bill was the one we promised we would let go through, not have a big debate on it.

But I can assure the House Leader now, just so he is aware, and I will say it in front of my colleagues here now in the caucus, that if I were to try to use my influence in caucus meetings to determine how debate in the House should proceed, I can assure him I would have about as much luck as he has, because I do not think he has a lot of luck in trying to use his influence. I advise the caucus as best I can on House . S L34 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R34

1' S procedure and the options the Government House Leader has. They are fully aware of the night sittings. They are fully aware of closure, and they are fully aware of the House maybe coming back in January. They are fully aware of all of that. But they were determined and committed, every last one of the members on this side of the House, they were determined and committed to raising questions in this Legislature, trying to get the Government to provide the answers to the people that we represent, to our constituents. That is the reason why we continued to debate the loan bill, Mr.

Chairman, and I want to make that perfectly clear. Now he made reference last night to all the important legislation we have to get through. 'We have a lot of stuff here, on the Order Paper, forty pieces of legislation - a lot of stuff we have to get through. So I took a quick glance today at some of these bills and tried to see what the amendments were and how detailed and complex these issues were. Order 10, "An Act Respecting The Department Of Education." Now that is a big heavy bill I will tell you. "An Act To Amend The Welfare Institutions Act". Have a look at that one. See how big and major that one is.

"An Act To Amend The Day Care and Home Services Act". Minor amendments, Mr. Chairman. "An Act Respecting The Department Of Social Services", Pretty heavy stuff. That is pretty heavy stuff, "An Act To Repeal Certain Obsolete And Spent Statutes". Now that one will probably go into closure too, I suspect. I dare say they will call closure on that, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Securities", Now I understand this is a complex bill, but the only one in the House who will have anything to say at any great length, I suspect, will be the Minister of Justice. "An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act".

Just get a copy of that and see how heavy that one is. "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act", "An Act To Amend The Western Memorial Hospital Corporation Act". I think it will do something with the board, change the number of the An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Sims: Yes. Now that is pretty heavy stuff. Mr. Rideout: We will take hours on that. Mr. Sims: Pretty heavy stuff. I bet you we will go into night sittings on that one, or maybe the Act To Amend The Amusement Rides. Maybe that one will - Ms Cowan: That is important. Mr. Simms: I know it is important. I did not say it wasn't important. Mr.

Rideout: How long is it going to take is the question. Mr. Sirraus: The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, who is not in her seat again and continuously tries to interrupt, should know better being a former teacher - not being in her seat, not practicing the parliamentary rules, interjecting. She should not be doing that, Mr. Chairman, as you know, and I call her to task on that. I did not say it was not important. I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, these are all important L35 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R35

items, but they are not items that the President of Treasury Board touted last night as being major, major, pieces of legislation that we have to get through. is people who were prepared to be responsible and have a discussion about how we would deal with it and maybe let it go. "An Act To Amend The

Summary Proceedings Act". I remember debating those in the past and, by God I will tell you, if it did not require a speech from every member in the House, there was something wrong. So there is pretty heavy stuff there, I agree with him. There is other important legislation, as well, that I know is controversial.

The Regional Services Board: We know full well and he knows full well that we are going to represent the views of the people who made representations at those public hearings around the Province, The Labour Relations Act, The Crown Lands Act, The Ombudsman's Office, he knows we are going to speak out on those issues. We would have expected him to call those bills, if he was so concerned about rushing them through and getting them through. With respect to the loan bill, he said himself last night, Now we are no panic. We do not need the loan bill.' An Hon. Member: Who said that? Mr.

Sims: Oh, the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Rideout: I offered it to them, if they had a problem. Mr. Sims: And the Leader bf the Opposition has said to them, I believe privately - Mr. Rideout: No, it was publicly, in the House last night. Mr. Sims: No, publicly - that if they had a problem and needed it urgently, then we were a group of But he said himself last night, there is no panic. We are not in a panic. We do not need The Loan Bill right away. Now we would like to have it, because if there is a chance that we might get some special interest rates or something, we would like to be able to go.

Well if that happened, all he had to do was tell us. The last thing in the world he needed to do, Mr. Chairman, was to bring in closure, to envoke closure, to cut of f the right of members I elected by their constituents to speak in this Legislature. I regret it, and I am sure he regrets it as well. Now, Mr. Chairman, since we only have a few minutes, I want to direct some questions to the Minister of Finance. We get chastised for not asking questions of the Minister of Finance, and here is the Minister of Finance absent from his seat. He is not even here in the Legislature.

He is out having a coffee, I suppose, or something like that. An Hon. Member: You are not even supposed to mention that. Mr. Sims: No. I did not say he was absent from the House, I said he is absent from the Legislature. he should be here, Mr. Chairman, he should be here in the House. Throughout this debate there are two or three issues which have arisen time and time again; they keep repeating themselves, I guess, and for good reason. I do S L36 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R36

I not- know if people out there are as confused as I am - Mr. Flight: No, they are not Mr. Simms: Members opposite say they aren't- I ask the Minister of Forestry then to go out to Central Newfoundland and explain to the people in his area and my area, when a freeze is not a cut. Would he go out to that area and explain that to the people in Central Newfoundland? And would other Members please go out and explain to their constituents when a freeze is not a cut? Now that is one of the most interesting observations I have made over the last few •days, listening to the debate back and forth in the House.

The Premier stood up in this House in response to questions in Question Period, and in response to debate others have said, a freeze is not a cut. And we see the President of Treasury Board getting up from time to time, and other Ministers, trying to explain when a freeze is not a cut. I have seen them wiggle, I have seen them squirm, I have seen them twist, I have seen them try to talk around the issue, I have seen them try to, in essence, cover it up, because that is all they are trying, trying to defend the defenceless. Everybody in the Province knows - An Hon. Member: The indefensible Mr.

Sinnus: No, the defenceless. Everybody in this Province knows that the Government has indicated publicly and, indeed, in writing in some cases, to hospital institutions and so on, that there will be a freeze next year of the Budget for those particular institutions. There will be a freeze, they will get the funding they have this year and that is all. That is what they will get next year to operate. Now, Mr.

Chairman, if I were to ask the hospital in Grand Falls what that meant to them, they would not necessarily have to try to calculate pay equity, they would not have to talk about the imposition of the payroll tax as being one of the main features for what they would assess a freeze to be, what they would •understand a freeze to be, they would say to me, it will mean anywhere from $2 to $3 million less that they will have next year, that they would need to simply keep up with inflation.

To keep up with the salary increases that have been awarded to nurses and other hospital workers, they would need $2 to $3 million extra. Now, the Government has said they are not going to get $2 or $3 million extra. The Government has said you will get what you got this year - a freeze. Now, how is it that freeze is not a cut? How is it that freeze does not mean that hospital is going to have to cut from its existing funding to make sure that they live within the Government's directive? It only means one thing to the hospital, Mr.

Chairman, it means there will beds closed, in their estimation it means there will be fifty job losses. That is their estimation, fifty job losses. By attrition, layoffs or whatever process they use, fifty jobs gone, beds closed for a significant portion of the time, and layoffs. There is no other way for them to get the $2 or $3 million they would need next year just to deal with inflation and to deal with 1.37 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R37

salary increases and those kinds of normal things. So a freeze is a cut! A freeze is a cut, is a cut, is a cut, and Ministers opposite try to get up for some strange reason and say - in fact the Premier said it categorically - a freeze is not a cut. Now that is one question that we have asked consistently throughout this debate to which we have not received an answer. Nobody can answer it, at least not to our satisfaction.

The second issue that has been prominent throughout this debate, is the exposure, I guess, by Members on this side of the House, the Finance critic and the Leader of the Opposition in particular, about the Government's knowledge of their own financial situation. The Government's knowledge, when they knew about this significant cutback, when they knew about this issue of transfer reduction, which is itself a debatable point, and we know now that they knew about it back when the Budget was tabled in March.

They certainly knew about it before the Budget debate got underway, and certainly knew about it before the Budget was concluded. They have admitted that. The Premier has admitted he was aware of that, and I think we had a letter - I was away for that day, but I believe there was a letter or something which indicated that was the fact. So, Mr. Chairman, you wonder why the people out there in Newfoundland and Labrador are saying to themselves, well, what kind of a god-awful mess have this crowd over there got us into?

They say they did not know what the situation was, yet it has become evident by comments in the House by the Minister of Finance and by the Premier himself that they, in •fact, did know the financial situation. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the comments by the Finance critic back in March or April, when he said this was a deceptive Budget, when he said this was a fraudulent document, were dead on. He was deadly accurate.

So our Finance critic, without the aid and assistance of all the public servants, senior officials in the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, knew back in March or April that this was a fraudulent document, that he was overestimating. We knew it back in April. We were able to predict it for Cod's sake and nobody else could, particularly on the other side. That is a major issue that has not yet been satisfactorily answered. All you have to do is take a taxi from here to Holiday Inn. A cab driver said to one of my colleagues today or yesterday, what kind of a mess?

Do you mean to tell me they knew all about this back in March or April? That is the question that is being asked by people around this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell members that that is the question, and they might as well face up to it instead of just sitting there trying to defend it. Mr. Chairman, I only have two or three minutes left so I want to address one other issue that has been prominent and for which we have not received satisfactory replies or answers, and it is the question of where has the rest of the money gone?

Where has the rest of the money gone, the $120 million deficit the Minister S L38 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R38

I refers to? He says it is because of a reduction in transfer payments. That is a question that is in dispute at this very moment, and we will pursue that through our questioning by other colleagues. However, if there was $60 million, if there was $6 million, whatever the amount was, it still leaves a sizable amount unexplained, $60 or $70 million if you gave them the $60 million, if we agreed with that, which we do not. Where has the $70 million reduction otherwise come from? What has caused that? Mr. Murphy: It is a shortfall on - million came from? That is my question. No, he does not know. Now, Mr.

Chairman, the Member F or St. John's South, a member of the Government does not even know where the $70 million came from. That is what he just said, he does not know. That is why we are asking the questions, despite being criticized and attacked. I only have a minute remaining, so surely the member can interrupt me after I am finished, can he not? Mr. Hewlett: He can speak for twenty minutes after you have finished. Mr. Chairman: -Order, please! L Mr. Sims: A shortfall on what? Mr. Murphy: On revenues. Mr. Sims: What revenues?

Can the Member for St John's South answer the question better than the Minister of Finance? I doubt it. Mr. Murphy: Tax revenues are down. Mr. Sims: Taxation? Tax revenues are down $70 million? Retail sales tax is down $70 million? At, Mr. Chairman, we have an answer from the Member for St. John's South, a member of the Government. I wonder if the Minister of Finance will confirm what the Member for St. John's South has just said. He said one of the main reasons for this deficit is because the retail sales tax estimation by this Government six months ago is down by $70 million. An Hon. Member: He never said that.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South. Mr. Murphy: The Opposition House Leader, Mr. Chairman, is continually referring to a $70 million. Mr. Sinnus: Yes. Mr. Murphy: Now, there is nowhere that that $70 million, in my recollection, here in the House has been said. Now, I think, really, that the hon. member is misleading the House by using a figure that Is nowhere - it is not printed, it is not in estimates, it is nowhere. Mr. Sinnus: It is. Mr. Murphy: So, where is he getting the $70 million? Mr.- Speaker: Order, please! There is no point of order. Mr. Simms: Oh, he did say that. Well, where did it come from?

Does the member know where the $70 Mr. Sims: -I think I only have a minute left, but I have to respond to that unfortunately. That is the third issue.. I say to the L39 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 6? R39

Member f or St. John's South, surely he got some education, surely he learned arithmetic, surely he knows how to subtract. Now, the Minister has said $60 million of the $130 million difference - Dr. Kitchen: $120 million. Mr. Sims: - $120 million deficit, but you projected a $10 million surplus and that is $130 million. Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Mr. Simms: And he said $60 million has come from transfers. That leaves $70 million. Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The hon. member's time is up. Mr. Sims: Just to clue up, I have been given leave, Mr. Chairman. An Hon. Member: No leave. Mr. Sims: No leave? Mr.

Chairman: Order, please! Mr. Simms: I would be happy to raise it on a point of order. Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Simms: Shame on you! Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Mr. Sims: The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island said no leave. Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that you are having difficulty in quieting some of the Members in the House, particularly the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island and the Member for St. John's South. But you finally accomplished it, Sir.

I think you did an excellent job. I am not pleased, but I avail of the opportunity to speak to this motion. A despicable, unforgettable motion that came to the floor of this House to restrict our getting out to the people what the truth is about this budget. You are impeding our rights as elected representatives to tell the people who we represent what is actually happening here in this House.

How this Minister of Finance, in conjunction with the Premier and other Members of Cabinet brought in a document that, there is no doubt in my mind and I am quite sure there is no doubt in very many of the minds across the floor, that this was a budget of lies. A budget of deception. A budget where you could not find, if you went through the entire budget, one segment of truth, because a budget explains where money is to be spent, where expenditures are to take place.

And because the Minister brought in the document in the first place and that document was a complete falsehood, then the rest of the budget was immaterial. What they did, the whole budget, the whole kit and caboodle is part of a fraudulent consortium of Ministers over there who thought to fool the Newfoundland and Labrador people. You know, Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I can see that comes out of this is finally they is S [1 1.40 October 30, 1990 Vol XLI No. 67 R40

I S realized, the hon. Members of Government realized that the truth was finally seeping through and getting to the public, because we all know the Premier is on a high. He was on a high, but the height is dwindling, and they could not, the Ministers and the Premier, could not have that. Bring in closure. Stop. Shut them up. At any cost, shut them up, because it was finally getting across to the people: this crowd, look at what they are doing, look at what they are doing. I had a call last night from an old friend, not with political alliance, not of my political stripe.

But he said to me, what are this tribe doing? I mean that is his exact statement, what are this tribe? He called you a tribe, I did not. He was a staunch Liberal. An Hon. Member: Oh, my poor man! Mr. Parsons: Yes. He said what are this tribe trying to do to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? And I said, I do not know, really I do not know. I am at a loss. But then I explained to him where this fraudulent document, this Budget came to the floor of the House, now we are trying to tell those hon. gentlemen to bring in a new Budget, revise it, tell the truth to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are pointing out the discrepancies in that document. We have been pointing them out day after day to every department Minister asking them: please talk to the Minister of Finance, talk to the Premier, and say bring in a Budget that is truthful. Bring in a Budget that explains the situation, as it was in March, and as it was known to this present Government. Mr. Chairman, I want to touch on a few items that have been controversial over this past few days. The Premier today was up espousing about the pensions. Mr.

Chairman, yes, there is no doubt at all about it that I have been elected for two terms and I saw when I became a member of the Government at that particular time, that there was a pension problem, to finance the pensions, there was no doubt at all about it. You have to be truthful and say yes. We realized it. But in saying that, Mr. Chairman, you have to realize as well how the pension scheme came into things. In 1949 when we became a Province of Canada - before that era there were very few pensions. In fact, almost nil.

I know what happened and I saw people retire from down on Water Street when they received a clock after twenty-five years, thirty years, fifty years service, well all that changed with the advent of Confederation. An Hon. Member: A clock? Mr. Parsons: That is right, a clock. That was for their service, in recognition for their perhaps fifty years of service. An Hon. Member: A gold watch. Mr. Parsons: When we joined Confederation the whole thing changed. A pension plan was brought into being.

And over the years no one worried about the pension plan, and the pension plan was poorly funded, and in some cases not funded at all, and it went into general revenue because no one realized that there was a day of reckoning. No one at that time were drawing pensions because they all just •started off. But twenty-five or thirty years later, now we realize in the late 19709 L41 October 30, 1990 vol XLI No. 67 R4l

and 1980s we realized that look, there is a problem taking place right now, we have to do something about it. And the previous Government addressed the situation, they addressed it by placing, I think it was $5 million into the pension fund at that particular time. And more money was going in gradually, I mean the money was not there then, no more than it is now to put in a great amount.

Now the $20 million that this Government speaks about; when we look back perhaps ten years when all this started then that $5 million at that particular time was equivalent moneywise, dollarwise, tangible as the $20 million that this Government speaks about in 1990. Mr. Chairman, the pension fund is a myth. Money has to be invested in it, and I believe it is a good investment. I say without qualification that the pension fund was not funded adequately. So what is new about that. We all know that, and we all know that someone had to put money into it