May 3,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 42

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding with the routine business I would like to

make a ruling on a point of privilege made yesterday, in the event that it could

have some bearing on proceedings today, and I would not want to keep it too

long. I am going to make a definitive decision on one point of privilege and a

partial decision on another, awaiting further research.

As I have said so often, a point of privilege is a serious

matter and ought to be raised very occasionally in the House, as said by all of

the thousands of Speakers who have preceded me in all countries right throughout

the British Commonwealth. First of all I want to comment on the first point of

privilege, the one raised by the Minister of Health whose point of privilege was

on the propriety of the types of questions - or the appropriateness, I should

say, rather than propriety of the types of questions - raised by the Member for

Kilbride insomuch as that they divulged confidentiality with respect to medical

reports.

First of all I want to say that when a Member gets into this

kind of thing, of confidentiality, we are more into the law if there is any

substance at all, rather then dealing with the House. And hon. Members should

know that the - I think it is stated so many times by the authorities - that a

Member, with respect to the law, is not placed on any higher plane than the

average citizen and the access the average citizen has in terms of the courts of

the land, so does an MHA or a politician. So I read the Maingot and I apologize

that I do not have anything written, other than lots of research and I have

tried to put these together.

Maingot, page 13, is the first appropriate one I would like

to read. And in addressing privilege Maingot says: "Because of its nature, a

true question of privilege should arise in the House only infrequently. To

constitute 'privilege' generally there must be some improper obstruction to the

member in performing his parliamentary work in either a direct or constructive

way, as opposed to mere expression of public opinion or of criticisms of the

activities of the member (for example, threatening a member for what he said in

debate, contemptuous reflections on members, allegations of improper conduct

during a proceeding in Parliament, or allegations that a chairman was biased)."

I do not need, I do not think, to read other quotations for

hon. Members which talk about what a point of privilege is and that it should

show that the Member was obstructed in part of the performance of his

parliamentary duty.

I think maybe I should read one more for hon. Members.

Maingot, Page 200 which says, 'In other words, it must be shown that a Member

was obstructed in his work relating to a proceeding in Parliament and not simply

while he was performing his representative duties in his constituency or in

other myriad areas, nor simply in his private capacity.' So, I simply rule that

there was not a prima facie case established on that particular point.

With respect to the other one raised by the hon. Member for

Grand Falls, the Opposition House Leader, this is the one where I am making a

partial decision insomuch as I have not been able to find a lot of information

so far. I am only in this one flying by the seat of my pants insomuch as my

experience in the House where I know that one must be very careful about making

threats, and I certainly caution hon. Members about that. I have in the past

couple of months picked up things told me by members of the public and by

commissionaires of things going on in the House that can be considered to be

treats. Hon. Members should certainly be cautious in these matters. They have

not been serious things, but they have been things perceived by the public not

to look good in terms of things that Members were doing. I have meant to mention

this at some other time but now is the appropriate time, so I caution Members

with respect to these things. We know the rules - we are not suppose to threaten

Members.

Most of the rules in Beauchesne refer to the protection of

Members being threatened by people outside and this kind of thing. I think

Members are protected by their own rules. What protects a Member in making

certain accusations is the immunity of the House, the same things protects

Members in debate, but there are some serious considerations with respect to

threatening Members. I know that in this House on many occasions the threat of,

'Say it outside the House', has been made on several occasions. That does not

make it right to say so, what a Member is saying, of course is: if you were

saying it outside the House then I would take you to the courts, which is the

right, of course. But I want to do a little further research. My own instinct is

that it has never been a point of privilege in this House, but as I said, that

does not make it right in that sense. It has never been made a point of

privilege, but I want to be able to do a little research because I do want my

rulings to stand up to future scrutiny and to be able to be used by future

Speakers. I want to be very careful of the ruling I am making and I want to make

sure that it is, as I said, supported by the various authorities.

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with

Section 3 (2) of the

Government- Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited Agreements Act, I now table the

first amending Agreement to the Put Agreement. This amending Agreement was

executed on May 01, 1991. The purpose of this Agreement is to give Corner Brook

Pulp and Paper Limited a one year extension on the completion date for their new

bark fired boiler, from June 30, 1992 to June 30, 1993.

Hon. Members will recall that on April 8, 1991, my hon.

colleague, the Minister of Environment and Lands, informed this House that a

decision to grant this extension to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited had been

approved by Government. At that time the House was informed that an amendment to

the Put Agreement would be tabled at the appropriate time.

In tabling this Agreement, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

extend on behalf of Government our appreciation of the efforts being made by

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited to carry on with the environmental capital

expenditure

schedule in these difficult economic times.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Put Agreement is

a fancy type of financial backing on the part of the Provincial Government to

allow the paper company in Corner Brook to complete pollution control devices.

The Government has granted the paper company a third deadline extension, to end

the sooty particle emissions that are marring town site in the district of

Humber East.

Last spring, the House of Assembly passed legislation

providing the financial backing for the company to carry out that project, as

well as other environmental projects, and in speaking to the legislation at the

time the Premier promised that the Government would see to it that the air

pollution was ended just as soon as possible. Well now, this will be the fourth

deadline and people in Corner Brook, who of course value the role of the mill as

the most important industry and the largest employer, believe that the

Provincial Government has to ensure that the company carries out its business in

a way that is not detrimental to our environment and people are becoming

increasingly cynical, this is the fourth deadline after all, and, what assurance

do people have that the Government will enforce this deadline any more than they

enforced the last three deadlines?

Oral Questions

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for

the Minister of Health. Yesterday in answering some questions about lab and X

ray services to this Province, the Minister certainly gave some very conflicting

advice to persons in the Province who may want to have lab and X ray work done.

I believe it is important that we clarify what process actually is in place in

this Province.

Yesterday, early in Question Period when the Minister was

very dogmatic about the process used in western Newfoundland, and I quote him

when he says, 'if a person wants to get an X ray in Corner Brook, all he has to

do is walk in. No appointment is necessary.' Could the Minister please tell the

people of this Province if, in effect, the process that he described so

correctly for Corner Brook is, in fact, the process that is in place for all

this Province, that X ray work and lab work is a walk in, first come, first

serve no appointment type of services?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for his

question because it gives me the opportunity to explain some of the things which

transpired over the last little while. I will try to put this whole thing in

perspective for hon. Members on the Opposition and for the people.

On April 25th, I had an appointment with my general

practitioner - doctor. The doctor prescribed some tests for me; he prescribed

some blood work, an EKG, and if hon. Members really want to know, he prescribed

a urine analysis, Mr. Speaker. He gave me a requisition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: The doctor gave me a requisition, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Hon. Members cannot dictate what the answer will be any more

than hon. Members to my left can dictate what the questions will be. They have

to extend the courtesy of giving the Minister some time to move into the answer.

It is very difficult to know what the Member is getting at when he is in the

first three or four phrases of his answer. So I would ask the hon. Members to my

right to please bear with me as I am trying to listen to the Minister of Health

and see what are the circumstances and the way that he decides to get to the

question. I see somebody indicating short answers, and that is so. I have not

timed it, but the Minister has not been into the question longer than 20

seconds.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that

the intent here has nothing to do with getting at the facts.

The doctor gave me a requisition for these tests and ordered

that I would fast sixteen hours before going in. Later in that same day I called

Sister Elizabeth Davis who is the administrator at St. Clare's Mercy Hospital in

this City. I have known Sister Elizabeth, Mr. Speaker, for many years, long

before I became the Minister of Health. In fact, she was the only person I knew

at St. Clare's. Now I called her as much out of courtesy, because after all

whether people like it or not I am the Minister of Health of this Province and I

did not feel it necessary to barge in, but I advised her I would be coming to

her hospital. I assumed that appointments were required to get -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think what the hon. Minister is now getting into would be

more appropriately dealt with in a Ministerial Statement. I would ask the hon.

Minister please to - I cannot tell him to answer the question any more than I

can, as I have said, tell hon. Members what questions to ask, but I think the

hon. Minister is now getting into some detail that could be more appropriately

done within a Ministerial Statement. So I ask the hon. Minister to try and come

to his conclusion with respect to the question.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am leading up to

the answer to the question, but I want to fill in the background. As I was

trying to point out, I am the Minister of Health and before I visit any

hospital, even to visit a patient, I would, as a courtesy, notify the

administrator that I am visiting. I assumed that appointments were required, Mr.

Speaker, and indeed I have since learned that appointments are required at the

St. Clare's Hospital, which is the question he is asking, for EKGs, Mr. Speaker,

and one of my tests was an EKG. I assumed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I assumed, Mr. Speaker, that appointments

were required for blood work. I had the same work done five years ago and

appointments were made. Now the hon. Member asked about appointments in this

Province, and up until a few days ago, I assumed that appointments were

necessary in Corner Brook. That is why when I answered the question I was amazed

to learn that there was a walk-in service. I understand that throughout the

Province -

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

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is an absolute abuse of

Question Period. The Member for Ferryland asked a very simple question, what is

the process around the Province for lab and X ray work. That was the question,

and this Minister now - Question Period started 9:17, six minutes ago. He has

abused four to five minutes of this Question Period talking about his personal

situation which was not the question, and the Member should be called to order.

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

that point of order.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know

that the Opposition House Leader does not want to hear the truth and he is

trying to interfere with the truth. The truth of the matter is -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: He does not even want to hear my submission,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: No, he does not want to hear your submission,

(inaudible) hear the Minister abuse the House (inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to

please restrain himself. The courtesy was extended to the Opposition House

Leader, he made a point of order. The same courtesy must be extended to the

Government House Leader to respond.

The Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has on occasions in this House made reference to

the fact that after a ruling is made and he is seated in his place that some

hon. Member makes some comment. I do not know what the comment is, but quite

obviously it appears to be a reflection on the Chair, and I tell hon. Members

this Chair will not tolerate that and will take the appropriate action.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the question was

asked. Now many times in this House, if we go back through Hansard - and I

invite Your Honour to check back through - you will find that the questions have

gone on for two or three minutes. Not only answers but questions. Your Honour

will also recognize that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Your Honour will also recognize that in trying

to answer the question the Minister was interrupted numerous times and had to

repeat and had to sit down and so on, and that killed an awful lot of time. If

Members opposite are refusing to let him answer - the truth of the matter is -

the question -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I will repeat it again, Mr. Speaker. Members

opposite do not want to hear the answer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members opposite do

not want to hear the answer, obviously. I would like to point out to Your Honour

that the question was asked in relation to the Minister's own personal problem

that was brought up in this House yesterday. And, Mr. Speaker, everybody in this

House knows it, everybody in the press gallery knows it. Everybody who was in

this House yesterday knows that the question was asked in relation to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: - the incident that was brought up yesterday

and the Minister was giving an answer to the question.

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

I want to remind hon. Members that one of the reasons for not

raising points of order in Question Period is, for the reasons that are now

developing. We are proceeding on in Question Period just on a point of order and

that should not be. I want to remind hon. Members that with respect to - and

this has come up many times - with respect to the length of answers, if hon.

Members want me to go by precedent, I can tell them with respect to the length

of answers that I can bring in documents here that will flabbergast hon.

Members, but I do not want to go by that; I am trying to establish short answers

and I have been achieving that fairly well.

This morning we are into a complicated area. I have asked the

Minister to try and clue up as fast as possible. I ask for co-operation, I have

said before it seems to me some of the things the Minister was into could have

been dealt with in a Ministerial Statement, so I will give him a few seconds to

clue up his answers so I can get to other questions.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, since Your Honour has not ruled

on the point of order, I will want to make a submission under that point of

order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He has.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the object here, on the part of

the Opposition, is not to get at the truth for the people of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - the object here (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask hon. Members please, to co-operate, not to turn

the Question Period into some kind of charade. I think when I made the ruling, I

probably did not say precisely that I was ruling on the point of order, but I

think the remarks were related thereto - if the hon. Member wants me to - what I

was trying to do was, close up the point of order so we could get on with the

Questions, there is no point of order, so I will give the Minister a few seconds

to clue up his answer.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, assuming that appointment was in

order, I called Sister Elizabeth and asked her would she assist me with my - to

notify her I was coming, as a courtesy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want hon. Members to also know that the rulings of the

Speaker are not debatable and I am just giving the Minister fifteen to twenty

seconds to see whether he has clued up his answer; if he has not, then the Chair

will sit him down.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: A bunch of dictators over there

(inaudible) Speaker (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw, withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, please, to

withdraw that remark that the Speaker is being ruled by anybody.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, in order to try to end the

charade that was started here by the Government today, I will withdraw, but with

reluctance, I assure this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: That is not acceptable to the Speaker. There

should be an unconditional withdrawal.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, as I understood what I just

said, I will check Hansard; I believe I withdrew.

MR. SPEAKER: That satisfies the Speaker, if the Member

says he withdrew.

I would ask the Minister please to clue up in fifteen

seconds.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On reflection, Mr.

Speaker, I would indeed have phoned the administrator again; but maybe I should

not have mentioned my personal appointments. I did it though, I did it

innocently, and I accept responsibility for it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: I will simplify it. We did not ask the

Minister one question about his personal behaviour. If we want to ask that

question, we will ask it; the Minister is trying very hard to cover up his, as

the Premier said, less than good judgement.

The question I asked, which I would like the Minister to

answer, and we are after the truth which is very difficult to get from the

Members opposite. What is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: - simple question, simple question, simple

question. What is the process in this Province to get lab and X ray work done,

is it an appointment service or is it a walk-in, first come first served,

service? That is the question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this has nothing

to do with getting at the truth, the intend of this is to try to drag someone

through the mud. That is the intend, Mr. Speaker. This has nothing to do with

the truth. Mr. Speaker, the policy throughout the Province varies from hospital

to hospital and I would have to get in touch with all the hospitals to find out

what their policy is. Over the past few days I learned, quite surprisingly, that

in Corner Brook it is a walk-in service. Over the last few days I have learned

that blood work, not EKGs, but blood work is a walk-in service at St. Clare's. I

have checked, and it is also a walk-in service at the Grace Hospital. The first

time I was aware of that was when it was brought to my attention by Lynn Burry

of NTV during the scrum yesterday. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I think in view of

what has happened over the last few days, and this was brought to my attention,

I might indeed be talking to some of the hospitals because it would seem to me

to make a lot of sense to have appointments for blood work. People are required

to fast overnight and I do not see anything wrong with setting up an

appointment. You have an appointment to get a haircut, you have an appointment

to see a doctor, and it would make sense to have an appointment for blood work,

Mr. Speaker. In answer to the question the practice varies from hospital to

hospital. I will have officials from my Department get in touch with all the

hospitals throughout the Province to see just what the practice is.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the Minister of

Health does not know the systems in place in this Province for lab and X ray. We

have in this House for the last month or so on health care cuts, and

particularly in the last week or so on lab and X ray, before his own personal

problems arose, asked questions about line ups in lab and X ray and we have not

been able to get a straight answer that there is a problem. Obviously, the

Minister is not aware of the problems about line ups because he does not have to

join the lineup.

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary, yesterday in this House,

yesterday on the news networks of this Province, the Minister said that anybody

who wants to get an appointment for blood work in this Province should call the

administrator, not the lab and X ray department, but the administrator of the

hospitals concerned. What does someone do if they listen to the Minster of

Health today? A trawler man who comes in for a couple of days, a taxi driver who

works sixteen or eighteen hours a day, how does that person get blood work done

at St. Clare's or at any other hospital? Do they call the administrator and make

an appointment, or is it a walk-in service, first come, first served? Which one

is it for all the people?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, since supplementary questions

are (inaudible)

preambles I want to be afforded the right to address the

preamble.

MR. POWER: My

preamble is not very long, boy.

MR. DECKER: The hon. Member talks about the line ups for

X ray and lab work. I have to tell the hon. Member, in referring to his

preamble

which he was allowed to have, that until yesterday I was of the opinion, I

thought that appointments were necessary for blood work, as appointments are

necessary for EKGs. That is why yesterday, when the question was raised, I was

surprised to learn that you could just walk into Corner Brook.

MR. POWER: You said yesterday in Corner Brook you can

walk in, your comments.

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question -

MR. POWER: (Inaudible) walk in. That is the question.

MR. DECKER: In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, I

would suggest that when a person goes to his doctor and gets a requisition for

whatever has to be done, it is according to the policy of the hospital that

person wishes to go to. I do know for a fact now that if he needs blood work

done and if he goes to St. Clare's he can walk in and wait. If he needs an EKG

done at St. Clare's he has to phone the hospital for an appointment. Maybe it

would not be necessary for him, as a courtesy, to phone the administrator and

say, I am going to visit your hospital, but I am sure if anyone phones the

administrator that person would put the patient onto the appropriate channels to

have the appointment set up.

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

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

I also have a question for the Minister of Health. Yesterday,

when I asked the Minister who he called to make his appointment he was rather

reluctant, actually he refused to tell us who he did actually call, but today he

has admitted that he called the administrator of the hospital to arrange an

appointment for blood work, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister was looking to have

some blood work done does he not think that it would be logical for him to phone

the lab to set up an appointment, if he believed that there were appointments

necessary, rather than phone the administrator of the hospital? Would it not be

more appropriate to phone the lab where he would have to go to get the

appointment to get the work done?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is quite right,

I was reluctant yesterday to mention Sister Elizabeth Davis by name. In this

process where people are dragged through the mud, people who are not in

politics, I do not consider it appropriate to mention their names until I have

had the opportunity of talking to them. After Question Period yesterday, and

after the scrum, the first opportunity I got I phoned Sister Elizabeth Davis and

explained to her just what had transpired in the House, and asked for her

permission to give her name, so that explains why I did. As I said people

outside the political process do not often understand those smear campaigns when

they are put in place.

Now, the next question I think I already touched on it for

the hon. Member. Would I not think it is logical to phone the lab? Mr. Speaker,

I have already addressed that. I believe it was perfectly logical and proper for

the Minister of Health, whoever that happens to be, to phone the administrator

of a hospital to say I am going to be taking advantage of your services on such

and such a day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Whether or not it was logical to phone the

lab, Mr. Speaker, and if there had been only one test I could have phoned the

lab, but there were several tests. I was talking to Sister Elizabeth and I

thought it would be appropriate to have her set up all the tests for me, and

that was done.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the

logic, the logic the Minister is using, that because he is Minister of Health he

phoned the administrator to tell her he was going. I guess the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture will not be lining up in grocery stores any more. He

will just phone the grocery department and tell them he is coming, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance will not be lining up at the bank any more because he

will phone the bank manager and say he is coming. The Minister of Tourism will

not be lining up any more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: When you are not a Liberal.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister called the administrator because after checking on the policy of the

hospitals and finding out, as he admitted yesterday, that there was a walk-in

service, you come and take a number and wait your time, he knew that if he

phoned the lab, phoned the director of the lab where he would be getting the

tests done, he would be told that you cannot get an appointment, so he tried to

use his influence and phoned the administrator so she would set up an

appointment? What influence did the Minister use for St. Clare's hospital to

break their own policy on appointments for blood work?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as much as the hon. Members want

me to answer questions the way they want them answered -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I again remind hon. Members to my right that when a question

is asked that one should let the question be answered and not keep asking

questions. That is the idea of supplementary questions and it makes it very

difficult for the Chair to concentrate on the answers.

The hon. the Minister of Health, please.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the answer that

the Opposition wants me to give. I want to give the truth of the matter, just

what the answer is. The hon. Member says it was not logical for me to call the

administrator. Well, that was my judgement and I stand by that judgement. When I

visit any hospital in this Province I believe it would be proper to notify the

administrator that I am visiting the hospital, because after all I happen to

fill this position today and somebody else might fill it some other time, but in

my judgement it was a perfectly courteous thing to do. I think the other

questions addressed by the hon. Member have already been answered several,

several times and I would suggest he refer to Hansard.

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

MS. VERGE: I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday

in the House of Assembly the Premier said he saw nothing wrong with the Minister

operating efficiently, working day and night for the people of the Province,

getting an appointment for a blood test at a hospital. Last night on NTV News

he was even more blatant. He said there was absolutely nothing unusual about the

Minister of Health getting special treatment. After all, the Premier said, he is

the Minister of Health. Does the Minister really believe that Ministers of the

Crown and other VIPs should receive special treatment from hospitals? Is the

Premier saying there is a two-tier system of health care in the Province, one

for Ministers and the elite, and another for the ordinary people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the Member for Grand Bank wants to

answer the question, or the Member for Humber East wants to ask the question of

the Member for Grand Bank, I will sit down. If they want my answer I will answer

it, Mr. Speaker. The House can have whichever they prefer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, either the Member for Humber East or

NTV has misled the people of this Province, I do not know which.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring in the tapes!

PREMIER WELLS: Because - there is no trouble, I will

bring in the tapes, and play everything I said in a scrum lasting some ten

minutes. She may have heard ten seconds on NTV or wherever she heard it. But I

stated very clearly - and the Member for Ferryland quoted me this morning - that

it was less than good judgement in doing that kind of thing. I would not take

that course of action. And the Minister has said that to me himself, and I do

not disagree with his conclusion in that respect.

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister did anything

reprehensible. He has explained to this House what he did. As a matter of

courtesy he also called the administrator and in the process he had an

appointment made for him to have his EKG and blood work or whatever other

analysis he wanted done.

Now the Minister has satisfied me that he did not do that or

take that action to gain any preferential treatment for himself. Now, what NTV

did not do, or the Member for Humber East did not say, was that when the

Minister called and he was offered an appointment either the next day or the day

following, he said: no, I am not in any hurry, I can wait until next week. So he

did not do it to gain any particular benefit for himself. And I am satisfied

that he did not hurt anybody. No harm was done to anybody. I am not aware that

any harm was done to anybody.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in these circumstances to hear this kind of

picayune nonsense coming from the Opposition is almost sickening. It disgusts

the people of this Province to see that kind of behaviour. And no wonder the

people of the Province think of the Opposition what they do.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that he can

fool some of the people some of the time, but he cannot fool all of the people

all of the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, there are many situations in

which the Premier and Ministers of the Crown can use their positions to acquire

privileges and favours. Not all of them monetary, not all of them governed by

the Criminal Code. Many are subtle. And we have seen one example of the Minister

of Health throwing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary -

MS. VERGE: - around his weight to get a benefit -

MR. SPEAKER: - I am waiting for it.

MS. VERGE: - for himself. Is that the standard the

Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry.

MS. VERGE: - espouses and now finds acceptable for his

Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know whether the Member is deaf

or deliberately closes her mind to what has been said. I said yesterday that no,

it was not the right thing for the Minister - the Minister himself has said

that. So I do not know if she wants it in writing or in print so she can look at

it and stare at it and understand it, or why she keeps repeating it. The

position has been made known yesterday, it has been reaffirmed by the Minister,

it is reaffirmed by me this morning. I do not recommend that course of action.

But I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister did not do it for the purpose

of gaining preferential treatment for him as an individual, and that the

Minister in whatever he did did not cause anybody in this Province any harm. In

those circumstance I can only reiterate the disgust at the picayune minds that

produce this kind of discussion.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier and his

Government's cuts to hospital budgets have gravely hurt hundreds of people in

this Province already. At Western Memorial Regional Hospital, which serves the

Premier's own district, eleven staff have been laid off and the hospital has to

serve a greater case load. People are waiting three and four hours to get simple

blood tests. Now how can people expect the Premier or the Minister to understand

people's suffering and inconvenience when the Ministers do not have to share the

weights or suffer the pain because they get preferential treatment? They skip

the lines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, just look at the lack of

logic in that proposition. The Minister not only did not seek preferential

treatment for himself to get in ahead of others, he voluntarily waited a week.

Now what else? How can they claim that the Minister got a blood test or an EKG

ahead of anybody else? But their objective is not to look after the interest of

the public of this Province. Their objective is, as it has always been ever

since I have seen them on the opposite side of this House, to promote their own

political interest without regard to, and in fact, in spite of the fact that it

may be detrimental to the public interest of the Province.

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

for a short question.

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

Premier. I just want to tie up a couple of loose ends from last month. In

respect to allegations that competition questions were obtained from the Public

Service Commission and given to a perspective candidate for a job interview by

the Minister of Social Service's office, the Public Service Commission undertook

an enquiry into the matter. Is this enquiry complete, and when will we hear the

results of this enquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I operate on the assumption

that it is not complete because I have not been advised of it, but I will check

and see whether or not it is complete. I am assuming that it has not because I

have not been advised of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

I just want to make a comment on Question Period to remind

hon. Members again that the Speaker's decisions, with respect to Question

Period, are final and not debatable, and hon. Members should know that, that is

long tradition of parliament. I also want to remind hon. Members on both sides

about questions being brief, and answers being brief. It is amazing sometimes

the kinds of logic we get. Of course the question should be brief, the answer

should be brief, and in the meantime, the gravity of the question or the

shortness of the question has no relationship to the answer. In the meantime,

hon. Ministers should keep in mind that they ought to be brief. Hon. Members to

my right, keep it in mind that their questions ought to be brief. If that is

done, then Question Period should operate very smoothly. With respect to

supplementaries, I have noticed more and more that hon. Members are getting into

preambles, and hon. Members know that on supplementaries no

preamble is

necessary, and they should get directly into the question.

Before moving on to the routine orders, I would like to

welcome some students because sometimes they leave. On behalf of hon. Members I

would like to welcome to the public galleries of the House of Assembly today

thirty Grade IX students from St. Paul's school here in St. John's, accompanied

by their teacher, Mr. Carroll.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

West.

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

present a petition on behalf of seventy-two residents of the communities of

Petit Forte, South East Bight and other parts of the District of Burin -

Placentia West, particularly Red Harbour, Parkers Cove, Rushoon and Baine

Harbour.

The prayer of the petition is that the petition of the

undersigned Friends of MUN Extension states that

whereas MUN Extension has

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

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

whereas no other agency is capable of providing

that service, MUN Extension should be reinstated. Your petitioners respectfully

request that the hon. House take such action as may be necessary to ensure that

Memorial University reinstates its Extension Services, and that it be funded and

equipped to provide the services it has traditionally provided. That is signed

by seventy-two people particularly from the north part of Placentia Bay. If

there is any group of people in this Province that has been the beneficiaries of

the MUN Extension Services over the past few years, it has been the people in

these isolated communities in Placentia Bay, Petit Forte and South East Bight,

people who do not have a road system, and people, Mr. Speaker, who do not have

any way of connection other than by boat or air. And for many years the

employees, the workers of Mun Extension Services have spent time in Placentia

Bay helping people organize. As a matter of fact it as Mun Extension in Petit

Forte that got the people organized and with assistance from ourselves to go out

and lobby Government for road construction. And that, Mr. Speaker, despite the

present Government has been successful, and it has been successful because of

the commitments of Mr. Crosbie and the Federal Government, and it has been

successful because of the efforts of the previous administration. Despite the

fact that this Premier and this Government has tried to scuttle the dreams and

aspirations of isolated Newfoundland and tried to ensure that they remained in

isolation forever.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a group of individuals, as I said,

who have benefited from Mun Extension Services, and this Government does not

seem to have money for health care, does not seem to have money for Mun

Extension, but seems to have money for anything, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier

Office and a few other places. Whenever the Premier wants security, Mr. Speaker,

if they want to put retired constabulary members up on the 8th Floor so people

can get in, if they want to have policemen lined in every hotel entrance in this

Province there is no stop for money. When the Premier has to be chauffeured in a

limousine there is no stop for a driver or a chauffeur, but yet there is no way

to find money for Mun Extension to help out isolated rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That is where the sham is, Mr. Speaker. There

are policemen everywhere, there are limousines everywhere, there are chauffeurs

everywhere for the Premier and his Ministers, but there is nothing for the poor

people in this Province. And it is time that stopped.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: It is time that people in Petit Forte and

people in South East Bight and other parts of rural Newfoundland had fair access

to the organizational skills that Mun Extension possessed and the type of

assistance that they offered. Why is there money for everything else? Why is

there money, Mr. Speaker, for PR specialists, about $50,000 each year? Why is

there $100,000 for the chief of staff in the Premier's Office? Why is there

money for retired constables on the Premier's Floor? Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: Double dipping.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. Why is there money for all of that and

nothing for the poor people who work in rural Newfoundland and for Mun

Extension? That is the question that has to be answered. Why is there money and

raises and increases for the senior public servants, four or five deputy

ministers on the other side of $100,000, when people in rural Newfoundland have

no access, Mr. Speaker, to Mun Extension and other benefits that they have had

for years? That is the question that has to be answered. The Province of

Newfoundland operated since 1949 as a Member of Confederation with dedicated and

committed people serving Mun Extension, and, Mr. Speaker, they never made

$100,000 or received the $10,000 and $15,000 increase that the Premier has given

members of his staff in the past couple of years. And I believe and I believe

very sincerely that the people of rural Newfoundland and particularly the people

of isolated rural Newfoundland such as Petit Forte and South East Bight have a

right to these types of services that they have taken for granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. gentleman's time is

up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave! By leave!

MR. TOBIN: I will clue it up for you, Mr. Speaker, I

present the petition. It has my total support. And I ask this Government to come

to their senses, and for god sake re-instate something that has been of benefit

to the people of South East Bight and Petit Forte.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further petitions?

Orders, of the Day.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

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

MS. VERGE: Are we still on petitions?

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly asked the question: Are there

further petitions? Nobody rose then I went to Orders of the Day.

MS. VERGE: Okay I was waiting for one of the Ministers

opposite to respond to the petition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not going to get into the semantics of - I asked

for further petitions, an hon. Member will then stand and say they are speaking

to the other petitions, and nobody stood. I was into Orders of the Day. But if

Members want to revert to petitions, that is fine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair can only move when people are standing, the Chair

does not invite people to stand and the hon. Member, having been a Speaker,

obviously would know that. I do not invite people to stand and there was nobody

standing. I called for further petitions, nobody stood, and obviously the next

thing to do was to call for Orders of the Day. And that is the decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

Orders of the Day

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

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I presented a petition on behalf

of the people of South East Bight. My colleague stood in this House, whether you

saw her (Inaudible) and I do not question, obviously the Speaker did not see her

at the appropriate time. But she did stand to speak to speak to the petition.

Much to my disgust not a Minister opposite stood to speak to a petition on

behalf of rural Newfoundland. I submit, Your Honour, that my colleague did

indeed stand and it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. Member knows I saw the

hon. Member when the hon. Member stood and it was after I called Orders of the

Day. The decision is final.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: And the Member had called -

The Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker, Estimates of

the Executive Council.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday in

examining the estimates of the Executive Council there were two speakers from

the Opposition, and I attempted in a couple of minutes to respond to some of the

comments that they made. The Member for Grand Falls, I did not really deal with

what he had to say because he spent his ten minutes singing the praises of the

Minister. He does not fool me though because I know what comes next. I know when

the hon. Member for Grand Falls takes ten minutes to praise up a Minister on

this side then we know what is going to come in his next ten minutes. So

whereas

I thank him, I am not lulled into a false sense of security by any means.

I was dealing with some of the comments from the Member for

Humber East who made a number of comments. She showed that she did not

understand some of the figures that were there and I straightened her out on

that. And then she made some mention in her presentation of the Women's Policy

Office and the Advisory Council of the Status of Women. And I would like to

respond to some of the implied questions in her comments, because as I indicated

she did not really ask a single question. But I will respond to it anyway.

In terms of the office of Status of Women and the Women's

Policy Office and the Advisory Council, it is our belief as Government that the

problems that women experience in society have to be dealt with in a number of

ways. First of all, we have to react to the emergencies and situations that

exist. In other words, we have to respond to the symptoms and try to treat the

symptoms of a problem. And we do that. And we have to provide better legal aid,

more shelters and so on, that is without a doubt.

But that does not address the problem. And in order to

address the real problem we have to do some active research and analysis into

aspects of the problems that women experience in our society. And to get at the

root of the problem, which is essentially an attitude problem, we have to embark

on an educational campaign, and we have to work through our educational system

and day-care centres and so on, and attempt to change attitudes concerning the

place of women in our society.

I would like to point out some of the things that have been

done in the last year, that have been worked on and either have been completed

or in the process of being worked on to address all three aspects, the re-acting

to the emergencies, the analysis of the problem and the educational aspect, and

I would say, Mr. Chairman, at the outset, that with a very small expenditure of

money, the Women's Policy Office has been amazingly active and remarkably

effective in the last couple of years.

First of all I will do it in sections. In terms of Education

and Training, which is a crucial segment of the response, there are a number of

projects which have been initiated in the Province; the support for the WISE

programme, The Women Interested In Successful Employment, that WISE programme,

there are several WISE programmes and funding has been provided through the

Department of Employment and Labour Relations for the WISE programme.

The programme is delivered by a non-profit women's

organization, designed to meet the career exploration and personal development

needs of women who are re-entering the work force for one or, entering for the

first time, in some cases. I know some of them with whom I have talked, were

entering the work force for the first time and an integral part of that

programme is to change the self- opinion or self-attitude that exists and to say

to women, and to have them in the programmes and to say to them: look, you

deserve what the society has to offer, that there should be equality in society

and do not believe the attitudes which you have been faced with over the last

few years; so part of the WISE programme is a change in attitude to the women

involved.

The programme was operating in St. John's at first and seemed

to be very successful, then we provided some base funding last year to expand

outside St. John's and the programme was expanded to Grand Falls, and the point

has to be made, that we believe the programme should be expanded further than

that and should be expanded to Western Newfoundland and Labrador, but going from

St. John's, the big jump was to Central and it was done in Grand Falls, so that

is one aspect of the activity of the Women's Policy Office during the last year

or so.

We have produced posters for use amongst pre-school, primary

and elementary school children, school students on sex role stereotyping. This

programme, the posters depict women, men, boys and girls participating in a wide

range of activities in the work place, at home and at play and the posters have

been distributed to day care centres, pre-school programmes, primary and

elementary schools.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that may seem like something that is very

simple and minor to do up six posters, a very simple thing; certainly it did not

cost a lot of money, the cost was minimal, however, Mr. Chairman, the effect of

these things goes far beyond the small cost it takes to produce them because

this gets at the root of the problem of women in our society, it gets at the

root of the problem which is, the basic attitudes that have been developed and

it is going to take a long time to change these basic attitudes, but you have to

start somewhere, and effort has to be put into making that attitude change now,

so that, ten, fifteen twenty or fifty years down the road, that it may in fact

happen in our society and, Mr. Chairman, there is no guarantee that, that will

happen either.

The Women's Policy Office, in conjunction with the Career

Support Services Divisions in the Department of Employment and Labour Relations,

with funding from youth strategy have conducted a pilot monitoring project that

involves role modelling, role modelling - and the project matches high school

students and students in post-secondary institutions with women who are already

employed in non-traditional occupations, and a very small attempt, Mr. Chairman,

but a real attempt, to enforce in the minds of women that there really is no

need for this role stereotyping, and that all occupations are open to males and

females, and that they themselves should put some effort into getting into these

non-traditional occupations. The Department of Education is encouraging school

boards to develop employment equity plans and the Women's Educational Services

Consultant has been conducting workshops on employment equity for school boards

throughout the Province, one of the activities where we have people go around

the Provinces to conduct workshops in terms of employment equity within the

Province. The Department of Education and Women's Policy Office have provided

funding to the community group Women in Science and Engineering to produce a

video to encourage young women to enter scientific and technological

occupations. There is a teacher's guide that goes along with this video and it

is designed for use in high schools as a teaching instrument. It is an

exceptionally good video and we hope it will have some effect again on

attitudes. In this case it is attitudes of young women who are in high school.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. BAKER: It should, yes.

The Women's Policy Office in conjunction with the Cabinet

Secretariat has developed guidelines for assessing proposed policies, program

changes, and new initiatives for their impact on the ability of Newfoundland

workers to balance work and family responsibilities. The guidelines were

developed for the internal use of Departments within the Provincial Government,

and that is something that normally never gets known about because it is kind of

an internal working set of guidelines which, again, we do not go around boasting

about the things we do. This is one of the things that has been done that is not

commonly known. An awful lot of the work we do has to be done in conjunction

with the Women's Policy Office in conjunction with Education, Employment and

Labour Relations, as well as the Department of Social Services and Justice which

are two other Departments that we work closely with. We hired a consultant to

conduct research on employment policies of private employers in the Province

that have an impact on the integration of work and family responsibilities. The

researcher is also collecting information on employers knowledge of, and

attitudes towards employment policies that will allow workers to balance work

and family responsibility. This is a big area because we have gotten to the

point in our society where not only is it desirable that in the workforce men

and women be looked upon equally, not only is that desirable, but right now it

is almost essential because in many cases in order to survive both husband and

wife have to work. It is one of the realities of our society. Not only is it

desirable from a philosophical point of view but it is necessary from an income

point of view. Mr. Speaker, the integration of work and family responsibilities

is a very big issue that needs a lot of research and needs a lot of

understanding on the part of employers, certainly, throughout, not only

Government but other private sector employers throughout the country. The

Women's Policy Office is developing an information booklet for employers and

this is really in conjunction with the research project.

It is titled, When Work and Family Collide, a health book for

employers. This is not completed yet but hopefully by the Fall we will be able

to have that book finished and then start distributing that particular booklet.

In terms of the -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is

up.

MR. BAKER: Okay, I will come back and finish up. I have

quite a list here, Mr. Speaker, and I have not even touched one quarter of it

yet. I will go through the whole thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am curious the

Premier is not here to defend his Estimates. We are talking about Executive

Council which -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you yesterday?

MR. WINDSOR: Where was I yesterday? I was here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am well aware of that. But it is also

unusual that the Premier is not here in the House to defend his Estimates.

MR. BAKER: No, no. It is usual.

MR. WINDSOR: It is very unusual. Very, very unusual, Mr.

Chairman. I realize the President of Treasury Board as the President of the

Executive Council, is responsible for the Estimates. The Premier is also

responsible for his Department and this is the opportunity in discussing these

Estimates to drill the Premier on his own conduct and the conduct of his staff

and the running of his office. And he should be here, not slough it off on the

President of Treasury Board to try to do the cover up job for him, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: We may not get the answers we want, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well maybe the President of Treasury Board

would answer then, there is that $20,000 in the Premier's Office for allowances

and assistance that was not in the Budget last year, but it was in the Revised

Budget, and it is in the Budget this year. Is that the $20,000 for the Premier's

housekeeper?

MR. BAKER: I will get up and answer that. That is a

question. That is good.

MR. WINDSOR: I asked it six weeks ago of the Premier and

the Premier undertook to give me the answer and he still has not given me the

answer.

MR. BAKER: I will give you the answer. It is not true

what you are saying.

MR. WINDSOR: No, but it is true.

MR. SIMMS: Do not be interrupting the Member when he is

speaking.

MR. WINDSOR: It is true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The Premier, Mr. Chairman, when he took

office made a great deal to do about the number of staff in the Premier's

Office. Yet we look at last year's Budget and he has estimated $53,800 for

Salaries, Administration for the Premier's Office. Yet in the Revised Budget the

figure had risen to $78,700, almost a 50 per cent increase. I am curious, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. BAKER: What page is that?

MR. SIMMS: Open up the book and look at it.

MR. WINDSOR: I have to read the Budget to the Executive

Assistant now, page 15 of the Budget Estimates, this red document marked

Estimates 1990-91.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: How stunned, boy! Resign!

MR. WINDSOR: It is titled Premier's Office, you see that,

on the right-hand page, under 2.1.03 - Administration; .01 -Salaries.

MR. BAKER: Okay, thank you.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, it is curious when a Premier

that indicated that he was going to cut back on the staff of the Premier's

Office, reduce the cost of operating the Premier's Office, and the overall cost

of Government and in view of all of the cutbacks that we have seen in various

other areas, particularly the social programs over the past couple of years

salaries have increased from $53,800 in the Budget of 1990-91; $78,700 in the

Revised; and up again this year to $82,300. Interesting, Mr. Chairman. Very

interesting indeed.

The President of Executive Council, Mr. Chairman. Last year

he budgeted $27,000, in total, for the Office of the President of the Executive

Council, and he only spent $800 last year. Maybe the President would like to

tell us why he is going to spend $14,000 this year versus the $800 he spent last

year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, the President is listening. It is under

President of the Executive Council 2.2.01.

MR. BAKER: That is where we used to have (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Budgeted $27,000. Spent $800 last year. He

is now budgeting $14,000 this year. Maybe the President would like to explain

what is happening there. Why, first of all, did he only spend $800 last year? He

cannot tell me because we had one President of Treasury Board and one President

of Executive Council, they were one and the same the year before. They are

talking about their own Budget of 1990-91. Maybe he would like to explain that

for us.

It is interesting to note that under Resource and Social

Policy Committees of Cabinet, Mr. Chairman, Transportation and Communications

that is 2.2.02.03 - Transportation and Communications, budgeted last year

$35,000, spent $1,600; budgeting $10,700 for this year.

Would he like to also explain that to us. I assume from that,

that the Resource and Social Policy Committees of Cabinet are not doing very

much travelling around the Province and are not getting out. They should do

more, and I say this not to be critical at all, a bit of constructive criticism

from my own experience of eleven years in Cabinet that I found one of the most

productive things that we did as a Cabinet was get out of this building, get out

there with the people, and we made a point of travelling with the full Cabinet

and then latterly with two Resource Committees, Social and Resource Policy,

separately, to go to various communities in the Province and spend a day or two

looking at major industries, major issues in the area, meeting with the people

and listening to the people. And I will tell the House, I will give the House

one example of a Cabinet meeting that we held, I believe it was in Stephenville

Crossing. You may recall that we had generally two days of meetings. We had a

full Cabinet meeting usually a very full agenda, it probably took better than

half a day, and we normally spent at least a full day of having briefings or

hearing presentations from citizens or groups of individuals all pre-scheduled

and arranged, twenty minutes generally we gave them to come in and make a

presentation, written, oral, the twenty minutes was theirs. We asked them to

leave us at least some time to ask and answer some questions afterward. We found

that very productive.

I will just give one example in Stephenville where a farmer

from the Codroy Valley came in very, very frustrated with the system. He was

having a problem with the Department of Rural, Agricultural and Northern

Development, I think it was called at the time. He came in and he had his

opportunity to explain his case to the whole Cabinet, he had a very good case,

and he was right. My colleague for Humber Valley probably was there at the time,

I think she was in Cabinet, will recall. He was right. He came in with his

coveralls and his boots, you know, his boots were covered with what normally is

on the floor of the barn, and he came in before full Cabinet and the Premier and

made his case. We said, you know, he is absolutely right. He has a good

argument. Before he was finished, the Minister of Agriculture had made a phone

call to his office and had arranged to have his problem corrected. He had a

legitimate case. The point I wanted to make and the reason that I cite this

example is what a tremendous opportunity for individuals who are really

aggrieved. I do not want to spoil what I am saying by making a political

comment, that they no longer have an Ombudsman to go to, but they do not. This

is the greatest Ombudsman of all, to have an opportunity, be it only twenty

minutes, to sit down with the Premier and Cabinet and be heard. They may not

accept what you are saying, they may disagree, they may tell you that you are

wrong. In most cases I have to say that we learned a great deal. We learned a

heck of a lot more from the people who came to speak with us than they learned

from us. In fact, they did 90 per cent of the talking, but there was a great

deal of information gained, a great deal of feeling for what was going on out

there gained by all Members of Cabinet.

In latter years we sent Resource and Social Policies

Committees out rather than the whole Cabinet because it is rather expensive to

sent a full Cabinet to a community for a couple of days. There was always a

reception for dignitaries and, you know, a public function there that was part

of it, and it became somewhat expensive. In order to reduce those costs and

reduce travel costs and hotel costs and all the rest of it, and time, we found

that it was just as effective to send the various Resource Policy Committee to

deal with resource questions, and a Social Policy Committee to deal with those.

So I am disappointed. I am disappointed here to see the transportation vote for

the Social and Resource Policy Committees have been reduced. I would encourage

the Chairmen of those two Committees, whoever they may be, to take the

Committees on the road and to make themselves available to listen to the people

of the Province. They may be surprised with what they are hearing, but it is

good therapy for the House.

Mr. Chairman, executive support under the Cabinet

secretariat, and note that has gone from $100,000 actually spent last year,

$131,000 budgeted, to $210,000 this year.

Executive support professional services: Maybe the President

of Treasury Board would tell us why that figure is doubling this year in the

Executive Council and Cabinet Secretariat.

Now there are a number of questions. We look at, under

Treasury Board Secretariat: Meech Lake Accord, of course, $150,000 was spent

last year. We know why $150,000 was spent last year. I think it bears mentioning

again though that we are not at all pleased that we spent that $150,000, sending

Members all over the Province to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Time's expired? Ah, we will have another

kick at you.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank

the Member for Mount Pearl. There are some questions there, I am taking note of

them and I will eventually get to them, but I really want to finish off the

topic I was into a little earlier, with the Member for Humber East.

I was talking about the need for studies and so on. There are

three - I should mention this point - studies that are currently under way that

the Member would be interested in. One is a study on teenage parenting. The

study will assess the impact of parenthood on the lives of teens. Teen mothers,

and where possible teen fathers, have been interviewed. Information gathered

includes the impact of parenthood on education and training; the availability of

services, pre-and post-pregnancy; the impact of parenthood on the social lives

of both teen mothers and teen fathers. And the data collection is complete. The

analysis is not quite finished yet but should be done in the next couple of

months and then a report will be done. So again, by the fall we should have a

report on this study of teen parenting. It has become a particularly important

topic in recent years and there has been very little work done on it, we have

found. So it is important that we study this particular problem. And we are

doing so.

Another one that is - I really cannot overestimate the

importance of the next study, and the Member for Humber East would appreciate it

particularly and would be very supportive of it - and that is an evaluation - we

are trying to get some analysis of the automatic charging policy - the RNC and

the RCMP, their policies regarding laying of charges in cases of domestic

violence and the ramifications of what is happening now or exactly what is

happening now and how it filters through the system. And the topic of automatic

charging and - if somebody breaks into your house for instance and they are

caught, you do have to press a charge, the police can go ahead and prosecute.

Whereas with family violence, it is not treated exactly the same and perhaps we

need changes in our law to ensure that family violence is prosecuted as

expeditiously as possible and dealt with in the legal system as a serious crime

and nothing but a serious crime.

Perhaps we need to consider things like, once the domestic

violence is reported or discovered some way or another, that the person doing

the violence is immediately taken out of the situation, put in a lockup

overnight, and appears before a judge the next morning, kind of thing, to

guarantee that this appearance before a judge will come immediately and will be

dealt with quickly. Maybe we need that kind of thing. So, the changing of the

laws with regards to the charging policy, particularly with regards to battered

women and children, is a very important thing that has to be done and we are

currently researching this. We also obviously are working with the Department of

Justice on this particular issue. The results of the research will not be ready

until early 1992, unfortunately.

There is another research project being conducted by an

external consultant on behalf of the Women's Policy Office. The focus of the

project is on women who are employed as fishers or plant workers. The primary

focus will be on any differential impact there may be for women workers as a

result of the current problems in the fishery, and issues that need to be taken

into account when planning adjustment or economic diversification policies or

programmes.

That one will be completed some time in the Fall, so these

are three very important studies that are currently under way. In terms of the

violence issue we have this year provided extra funding to open up one new

shelter, Cara House in Gander. The next one that should be done is somewhere on

the Burin Peninsula. We are trying to have Province-wide coverage and trying to

develop shelters for women and children who are experiencing a violent life at

home, some place they can go to get some respite from their problems and where

they can be helped by other people. We now have five of these shelters and we

have put an extra quarter of a million dollars in this year's Budget, in spite

of the tough times, to open up the fifth one, and we would like to, as well, go

to work on the sixth one, and we are currently looking into it.

Funding has been provided through the Department of Justice

in the coming fiscal year for the development of a Victim Witness Assistance

Program which has been commented on before, and which is an important thing to

have done. The program is going to be community based requiring full

co-operation from police, courts, and community groups. There will be pilot

projects in three places, Corner Brook, Gander, and Goose Bay. Proposals will be

invited from community groups in the Province to offer similar projects in St.

John's. Co-ordinators will be hired in the three communities outside St. John's

and there will be strong emphasis on volunteer community participation

supervised by the co-ordinators. The Victim Witness Assistance Program is an

important program that we are working on.

We have published a brochure on Dating Violence. This

particular brochure was done with the co-operation of the Department of

Education and made available to educators and high school students throughout

the Province, and a more detailed package of materials has also been assembled

for educators and community groups who want to provide more information to raise

public awareness about dating violence. This is a topic that has been coming to

the fore more and more in recent years. I do not know if it is the result of

more dating violence or because the dating violence is now being reported more

often. There has been a tremendous increase, it seems on the surface, of

reported instances of dating violence and somehow we have to deal with it, and

one of the ways to deal with it, of course, is to point out that violence of any

form is not acceptable. The other thing is, and a very important thing, that

when a woman says, no, she means, no. No, means, no, and not, maybe. It is

important that this particular problem be dealt with, and beyond the courts and

information brochures, I suppose, there is not a great deal that can be done

right now. It involves a change in attitude, that is what it involves. The

Women's Policy Office is in the process of developing a brochure that will

provide information to the survivors of sexual assault and the brochure will be

available shortly.

Another brochure that was recently launched, and we were

partially responsible for, of course in conjunction with a lot of other people

including people from Justice, the Department of Health, and so on, the Women's

Policy office has published a manual for professionals on Women with Addictions.

Now, there really has not been a lot available for professional use and the

development of this manual comes out of the production of a previous brochure, I

believe it was on drinking, women and drinking. This was done for women. The

professionals really have nothing to go by so we have developed this manual for

use by professionals, indicating that perhaps alcoholism particularly should be

treated and would have different causes in women and perhaps should be treated a

little differently, or at least a difference in the cause should be recognized.

This manual was released March 27, very recently, and is being made available

with the assistance of the ADDC, the Alcohol and Drug Dependency Commission, to

professionals in the Province, and this is not for general consumption but only

for the professionals.

Also, Talbot House, the detox centre, is now being operated

by the Alcohol and Drug Dependency Commission. This institution was formerly

available only to men but now will be accepting women in this current year. In

addition, the in-patient programme at Humberwood in Corner Brook - and the

Member would I suppose be quite familiar with the tremendous work being done at

Humberwood; it is a model I guess for all of Canada - operated by the ADDC will

offer a women only programme for the first time beginning this month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, by leave!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I quite enjoyed

listening to the President of Treasury Board and the Minister responsible for

the Status of Women in his last two presentations. He did a very good job of

relaying to the House the briefing given him by his Women's Policy Office

outlining several of the very important and useful projects they are doing. And

listening to the Minister describe the purpose of some of those activities I

sense that he himself has some empathy for that work. And that is encouraging, I

say to the Minister.

But I have to ask: since this work is so necessary and since

the Minister personally seems to appreciate the value of it, why is he cutting

the budget of the Women's Policy Office by 12 per cent? Why is the Government

shrinking the resources available to the Women's Policy Office to carry on their

important work, to embark on other projects that are needed, when at the same

time we see on the same page of the Budget the Government is providing a

fivefold increase to the propaganda office, Newfoundland Information Service,

and a fourfold or fivefold increase to Protocol, for entertainment, banquets and

ceremonial occasions?

Since the Budget was presented on March 7 and I and others on

this side have had a chance to analyze it, we have found - and I have made this

point many times before - that one of the thrusts of the Budget in inflicting

reductions and cuts is to make those changes in a regressive way, in a way that

makes worse the disparities in income and well-being between different groups in

our Province. The effect of the Budget is to give to the rich and take from the

poor. The Budget makes worse, or exacerbates, the income gap between the poor -

for example, the people on social assistance - and the well-off. While the

Government is freezing the basic social assistance rate which anti-poverty

organizations have said is below the poverty line, the Government is providing

for large increases for the political staff of the Premier, executive and

management personnel of the Government.

We see now that there are several of these privileged

political aides and executives earning more than $100,000 a year. Who are being

paid 20 per cent plus more this year than they were last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: So the Government is making worse the

disparity in income and well-being -

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MS. VERGE: - the disparity in income and well-being -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you not tell the truth for a

change?

MS. VERGE: - in this Province. Secondly, the Government

through this Budget is worsening the disparity between women and men. Women are

suffering a disproportionate amount of the cuts dealt by this Budget. A

disproportionately high number of women are being laid off in the public

service. The hospitals and nursing homes of course are dominated by women,

numerically. Most rank and file hospital and nursing home workers are women. And

it is the health care institutions that are suffering most of the cutbacks, and

therefore women are numbering higher proportionately among the layoff casualties

than men.

Of course, we know that the Government is reneging on its

commitments to implement pay equity or equal pay for work of equal value to

benefit under paid women workers. And in doing so it is wiping out more then

three years of negotiated pay equity adjustments. Now, Chairperson, that is

costing women in the health care sector alone, according to the union's

estimates $27 million, according to the Minister's calculations $24 million.

An aspect of that unjust reneging has to do with pensions for

women who have retired recently or who are being forced out through the layoffs.

Women hospital cleaners leaving now having all along been paid less than men

janitors for doing work of equal value, a fact that has been acknowledged by the

Government after objective job analysis, will for the rest of their lives get

pension payments based on the unjustly low wages. Now if those women cleaners

had gotten their due pay equity adjustments retroactive to April 1, 1988, their

pension payments now and for the rest of their lives would be higher since they

are based on the average of the last and best three years earnings.

Finally, Chairperson, the Budget has the effect of

exaggerating or making worse the gaps or disparities in affluence between the

rural and urban areas of the Province. The Budget is removing the life supports

from some of the rural parts of our Province, closing hospitals, downgrading

other hospitals, cutting down other Government services, closing Government

offices. It is a more subtle variation of the brutal Smallwood resettlement

program.

Now, Chairperson, just the same as the Minister of Health

skipped the line up for hospital, lab and X ray work, Government executives and

managers, the public service elite, beat the wage freeze. They got their

whopping pay increases last year. So we see now in Executive Council, in the

Department for which the Minister responsible for the Status of Women is

responsible, that the Budget analysts get an average salary increase last year

to this year of 27.9 per cent. What are the women working at the transition

houses getting, I wonder? Can the Minister responsible for the Status of Women

assure us that the workers at Iris Kirby House in St. John's are getting 27.9

per cent more this year than last year? He is not even looking at me now because

he is embarrassed to have to admit that the Iris Kirby House transition workers

are getting only a tiny increase this year over last year.

And further he might be embarrassed to admit that the

Government grant to the transition house in St. John's and the transition house

in Corner Brook did not even allow for inflation, the Government is predicting a

5.7 per cent rise in the cost of living from last year to this year, yet froze

the grants to transition houses. The result is that the Iris Kirby House in St.

John's and the transition house in Gander, to cite two examples, have to get a

substantial part of their budgets for their salary bills, for their payroll

costs from community fundraising.

Now, Chairperson, what else do we see here? The Minister

responsible for the status of women talked about some of the useful studies -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: - that the Women's Policy Office has done.

Thank you, Chairperson.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have spent the last

twenty minutes going through some of the initiatives that the Women's Policy

Office has taken. I must say that I did not pay much attention to the Member for

Humber East during her last eight or nine minutes and there is a very good

reason for that; that if she wants to be sensible, I am willing to listen to

her, if she wants to say things that are not true and try to exaggerate and

everything else, then I will stop listening, I do not even know what she said

for the last eight minutes, because she got up in the beginning and talked about

all those executive people, who had those big raises this year, over 20 per cent

and all this kind of thing and it is simply not true, and once she starts

getting on with that nonsense, that foolishness, the political foolishness,

which she knows is not true, then I stop listening. So, I do not even know what

she said for the last eight minutes and I do not even care what she said.

Because obviously, if she is going to start off with foolishness like that and

untruths and without backing it up with facts and figures that she knows are not

there, then I am going to stop listening.

I was talking about the initiatives that the Women's Policy

Office has been taking and before I stopped listening and before she got on with

her nonsense, she did ask one question that I thought was fairly sensible and

that was: why are we cutting the budget if the work is so important, and I think

that was the question.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me find the numbers in here. Mr.

Chairman, last year's budget on the Women's Policy Office was $401,200 and it

has been reduced to $375,300. It probably is a greater reduction because the

revised in 1990-1991 was $422,000, it has been reduced to $375,000, so that is a

reduction of $45,000 which is around 12 per cent, so I recognize the Member for

Humber East, in this particular instance, and I was listening then, and as long

as she is telling the truth, I will listen to her, she told the truth and I was

listening to her and that is why I respond.

She does not always tell the truth, Mr. Chairman, because she

talked about all of those executives and management - I was writing it all down

until she gave the numbers for executive and management and political people in

Government, all of them who were getting these big over 20 per cent increases

from last year to this year, that is simply not true; it is simply not true,

that is simply not true.

Everybody in the public service last year, whether they were

executives, management, workers, political staff received increases that were

relatively similar; there were some exceptions, nurses had a larger increase

than everybody else, but by and large, everybody received his normal step

progression that everybody gets anyway and they got 6 per cent. Now that is the

salary increase that everybody received, not 20 odd per cent.

Some of them had step increases which would add another 2 per

cent or 2.2 per cent or whatever it is to the 6 per cent, but nobody had huge

increases. The Member Opposite said it is so, it is not so, she is in dreamland,

she must be living in some other Province or some other part of the world,

because it simply did not happen and I mean, I stake my reputation and my job on

it; it did not happen. Will she stake her job on the accuracy of her statements,

would she stake her job on the accuracy of her statements, I ask her, Mr.

Chairman, and you know yourself that, that would be only fair, if the Member is

proven to be false, will she then resign and forget about the leadership of the

Tory Party which she is obviously going for and from what I hear she has got a

pretty good shot at it by the way. She is obviously going for the leadership of

the Tory Party. But if she is doing that I would like just to give a little bit

of advice for her, get away from exaggerations, get away from making statements

that are not true simply because she figures it might catch a little bit of

press or something, get away from that and be sensible. Tell the truth. Present

herself, as she is, and I am sure she will do extremely well. As I say, I

understand she has a leg up on everybody else, she is ahead of everybody else in

the race and the dark horse, I understand, is the Member for Ferryland.

MR. POWER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Oh, I did not realize that you were there. The

dark horse is the Member for Ferryland, now maybe coming up from behind. He has

indicated he is not interested, that he is quite willing to support the Member

for Humber East. Now that is my understanding that he supports the Member for

Humber East.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman,

whereas -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. POWER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Now it is good to be in a dark horse position,

you know.

So, Mr. Chairman, there have been no big increases in the

salaries that the Member talks about. And I stopped listening at that point. But

there was a decrease in the money in the Women's Policy Office, and I would like

to point out where it is. There is a reduction in salary. Well actually the

salaries are about the same as they were in the Budget of last year, it was

budgeted $264,000 and it is up to $265,000, well it is about the same in terms

of salary. I would like -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Pardon?

MS. VERGE: You spent $281,000.

MR. BAKER: Yes, we spent $280,000. It so happens that two

individuals in the Women's Policy Office are pregnant this year, therefore, the

Salary estimate is lower than what is actually going to happen, like the period

of time they are out on pregnancy leave obviously will reduce the salary amount

here. In actual fact if that were annualize at $265,000, and did not include the

maternity leave then that would be above the $280,000 or around $280,000.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) temporary relief?

MR. BAKER: No.

MS. VERGE: No?

MR. BAKER: No. Well I better not say that because the

Director of the Women' Policy Office is primarily responsible for living within

that Budget and she may indeed be getting help from elsewhere in some of the

research projects that are underway. But I would have to check, there is no

replacement of salary due to the maternity leave is the point I am trying to

make. Now if she is getting help somewhere else in terms of research projects

that might very well be.

Transportation and Communications is down from $41,000 to

$32,000. Professional Services are down. So the biggest drop, I think,

percentage-wise you will find that Transportation and Communications and

Professional Services, percentage-wise that is a tremendous drop. Simply we are

not going to use as many outside services as we did last year. So there is a

drop. Even if we spent as much on Professional Services as we did before, even

if there was the extra $20,000 added on to Salaries, I would suggest to the

Member for Humber East that even that perhaps is not quite enough, you know.

The Women's Policy Office with very few resources is doing a

tremendous job. They are -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I do not know. I have never quite looked at it

that way. It has never struck me as being that. But I know in this case, it

obviously is. They have done a tremendous job and with very few resources. It is

unfortunate, in fact, what we did, we froze their budget, but because of less

demand for Professional Services and because of the two maternity leaves, it is

down a bit. It is in essence, a frozen budget, which I do not like and I wish

there was a bit more money in there. There is some extra in Protocol in terms of

- but that does not show up under this heading for the Minister's meeting, there

is a Minister's Status of Women's meeting here during the summer, so there is

extra money there. I do not know if some of that could be used somehow, but that

is under Protocol.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is essentially a frozen budget, and I am

not happy with it, not at all. All I can say is that the office, I am sure will

operate up to my expectations which are rather high in this regard, and I am

sure that we will get through this year, and as the money loosens up a bit I can

guarantee the Member for Humber East that is one of the areas that we are going

to loosen up a little bit of money for as the money loosens up.

So there are a number of other things, Mr. Chairman, that I

could mention in here in terms of what we have done. I really want to spend some

time on pay equity, but I think I will wait until I have a ten minute

section

and deal with pay equity as a separate issue. I am sure the Member for Humber

East wants to deal with pay equity. I would ask her, though, again to be honest

when she deals with it. The number of licenced child care spaces, although it

has been increased, has not been increasing nearly enough, and the Member for

Humber East quite correctly points out that we did change the two tier system,

and again I would like to spend some time talking about that, the fact that we

increased the minimum wage and changed the two tier system. That is having an

effect and creating, perhaps, a need for more organized day- care spaces that we

somehow have to meet. I will deal with it a little later as a section, and if

Members opposite have something to say for ten minutes, fine. I will get up

again. I will deal with these issues in ten minute segments, there is no

problem.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. The President of

Treasury Board does not seem to want to acknowledge, and I can understand why,

that executives of the Government in political aides, especially in the

Premier's office, will be paid in this budget year, in the 91-92 budget year,

significantly more than they were paid last year. Now that is not because

increases are being granted from April 1st, 1991 on. No, technically from April

1st they are frozen the same as everyone else, but they beat the freeze - the

government allowed them to beat the freeze by giving them whopping increases

last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MS. VERGE: Well, I say to the President of Treasury

Board, I have a list here of positions for which he is responsible. Budget

Analyst, the position of Budget Analyst.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that.

MS. VERGE: It is in the Executive Council. Last year

there were three positions at an average salary of $40,000, and this year there

are five positions. Now I suggest that the government hired more Budget Analysts

because there is more work to be done in hiding some of the facts, in

camouflaging some of the regressive measures, so the government added two Budget

Analysts. Now there are five Budget Analysts and I do not have the salaries of

each individual analyst, but the average salary has gone up to $52,000, a 27.9

per cent for Budget Analysts on average. Now perhaps one or two of the Budget

Analysts got increases of 30 or 40 per cent from last year to this year. The

average salary increase for the Budget Analysts has gone up by 27.9 per cent.

Now, Director of Constitutional Policy, a position held by

Deborah Coyne, last year, $44,790, this year $64,350. That is a 43.7 per cent

increase. Director of Resource Programs: Last year that director got $47,812.

This year the Director of Resource Programs will get a 20.7 per cent increase,

$57,693. The Director of Social and Economic policy, last year, $47,811, this

year up 27.3 per cent to $60,863.

Collective bargaining: the director and staff specialists,

five positions, average salary last year: $49, 236; average salary this year: 21

per cent more, $59,586. Now, Chairperson, these are the people responsible for

negotiating with the former colleagues of the Member for Exploits, the teachers,

these are the people responsible for bargaining with all the public service

unions; what do these people insist for the rank and file workers? Freeze. What

do they take for themselves, the 21 per cent increase from last year just in one

year, in a twelve month period, these people got for themselves of course,

thanks to their political masters, with their elitist outlook on life, 21 per

cent increase.

Now, Chairperson, contrasting these large increases for the

political aids and the executives with the rank and file public service workers

is one thing, but comparing them to what the Government provided for the poorest

of the poor, the people on social assistance or the women working in the

Transition Houses is quite another. The social assistance recipients who all

along were getting rates that left them below the poverty line, they were

frozen; the basic social assistance rate was frozen, despite the Government's

prediction that the cost of living is going up by 5.7 per cent.

The workers at the Transition Houses get minuscule pay

increases and not all of the Transition payroll costs are even funded by the

Provincial Government; a significant portion of the salary costs have to be

raised through community appeals, through charitable donations. Now,

Chairperson, this is not a new situation, but the Government has made it worse.

The Transition House in Corner Brook has been having an

increase in its occupancy rate, more and more battered women and children are

having to flee their homes and go into the Transition House in Corner Brook. I

talked to the administrator of the Corner Brook Transition House two nights ago

and she told me that their occupancy rate has increased significantly over the

last few months.

The occupancy rate now is higher than it was last year, yet

the Government froze the operating grant to the Transition House compounding

their difficulties; they are using a house that is probably - I am guessing now

- but it is probably thirty years old, twenty-five, thirty years old; it is a

very good structure, it has been operated as a transition house for about ten

years now and the building is in need of some maintenance and repairs, if the

structure is to be kept sound and if major renovation costs are to be avoided in

the future, there has to be a regular ongoing programme of maintenance and

upgrading, yet the Government has not provided any Capital funding or for that

matter operating funding for repairs to allow that regular programme of building

upgrading.

This approach by the Government is ultimately going to cost

the people of the Province more, because if there is not regular building

upkeep, then there is going to have to be major work done down the road. Last

year I raised this concern with the Minister of Social Services and he in his

partisan way told me that the Transition House had not applied, so when I

relayed that information, they promptly sent in an application for funding for

specific repair jobs and now, this week, I find out they never got any money.

MR. SIMMS: Which one is it?

MS. VERGE: This is the Corner Brook transition house.

Just to review they have been operating in the same house for the last ten

years. It is a structure originally owned by the Catholic Church and used as a

priest's house, a very good building but now it is probably twenty or thirty

years old and, as the Minister might imagine, after this many years of its life,

and after ten years of fairly great wear and tear through the transition house

operation and the extensive use by families taking refuge there, it is in need

of some major repairs and maintenance. Of course, every year that goes on

without repairs being done the worse the problems become. The little leak in the

roof becomes a major problem if it is neglected. Now, of course we have lived

through that here in Confederation on the fifth floor.

MR. FUREY: Who have?

MS. VERGE: Well, I say to the Minister of Development I

realize that he and his colleagues in Opposition suffered the leaks on the fifth

floor, but I tell you the leaks this Winter were the worst ever, but thankfully

it now seems -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: She is talking about the Cabinet leaks.

MS. VERGE: We should have fixed it five years ago and you

should have fixed it two years ago. We certainly had to suffer for our own

neglect as well as your neglect. Our inconvenience is nothing compared to the

inconvenience of the transition house staff in residence. I say to the Minister

responsible for the Status of Women I think he is genuinely interested in the

plight of victims of family violence and I commend him for his initiative in

getting Cara House off the ground in Gander, and I call on him to persuade his

Premier to provide an adequate level of funding to operate all the transition

houses. I call on the President of Treasury Board and the Minister responsible

for the Status of Women to try to use more of his considerable influence with

his Premier to improve the Government's allocation for operation of transition

houses and for regular maintenance and repairs of the transition house

buildings.

Mr. Chairperson, I have a few more questions here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few brief comments, and then I am sure the

Opposition House Leader will have lots of time to get up before we finish today.

First of all the Member for Humber East keeps referring to huge salary increases

and I finally goaded her into reading out what she had in front of her, and it

did not surprise me at all. Mr. Chairman, she is talking about two things here,

some positions that perhaps were funded for half a year, and one year, and that

perhaps show up as a small amount, and the next year when the funding is

annualized it shows up as a large amount. That is not a salary increase.

Sometimes you have to hire extra people and so on, and sometimes you have to let

people go, sometimes you have to reduce your numbers, and in doing so you change

the average salary. If we have an ADM, for instance, or somebody working

somewhere in the public service, let us say a director or somebody getting

$70,000 a year and that person has an assistant getting $30,000, then the

average salary for that place is $70,000 plus $30,000, divided by two, or

$50,000. There is no press listening but maybe there should be, so the average

salary then in that heading would be $50,000. Now, suppose we had to reduce and

in one year we had to do away with the assistant's position, then all of a

sudden next year it shows up one position $70,000, and Members opposite say, ah,

a $20,000 a year salary increase. The average salary is now $70,000 instead of

the $50,000 the year before. Mr. Speaker, what balderdash! What nonsense! What

foolishness the Member opposite it getting on with!

AN HON. MEMBER: Pure childishness!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: They know that it does not make sense. They

are embarrassed for doing it. I suppose they have to try and find some way to

criticize this Government and that is the only way to do it is by making up and

inventing little things like this. Mr. Chairman, to hammer it home even more the

Member for Mount Pearl, as well as the Member for Humber East, and I am sure the

Member for Grand Falls is eventually going to mention it, they talk about the

Premier's Office, and the huge amounts of money spent in the Premier's Office

and how we are out there squandering all kinds of extra money. We have all heard

it. They have gone to the press about it. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you

the truth now about the Premier's Office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Then again there is no press around, maybe I

will go to the press afterwards -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, yes.

MR. BAKER: - and ask for a press conference or a scrum or

something. Maybe what I will do is go and ask them to tell you the truth about

the Premier's Office.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, 1988 (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Let us deal with three headings, one is

directly the Premier, another, the Executive, and the other, the Administration.

Let us deal with them under three headings.

MR. SIMMS: 1985.

MR. BAKER: No, I am going back to 1988-89 -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, we could, very well. We will go back to

1988-89. In 1988-89 on the direct Premier's Office, $274,600 was spent; on the

Executive in the Premier's Office, there was over $1 million spent; $1,014,700;

and on the Administration side there was $172,600. So that is a fairly large

amount. So now we took over the next year, and we started on a program of

squandering money. We started on this deliberate program of squandering money.

The first thing we had to do when we took over is pay severance pay to all these

hacks who were in the Premier's Office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory hacks. The Member for Green Bay was

MR. BAKER: We had to pay severance pay. That cost us some

money. But in spite of the severance pay, in spite of all this we had to pay in

that first year, directly in the Premier's part of it, there was $123,500, that

is a change from $274,000; in the Executive part of it, there was $657,000 that

is down from $1 million. And in the Administration $112,400 down from $172,000.

We saved that year, in our first year in Government, we saved $568,000 in the

Premier's Office alone. Now what a program of squandering money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: But maybe the Opposition will say, well we

just did not get around to squandering anything that year. Ah, maybe we needed

six months to get into our wasteful practices.

The next year, directly in the Premier's Office, $108,900;

the Executive, $581,600; the Administration, $78,700; and lo and behold that

total, the total the previous year was $893,000 total, in 1990-91 it was only

$769,000, we cut it even further. Now, Mr. Chairman, is that squandering money?

Well I would not like to take any the credit for actually cutting back in

1990-91, although it looks as if we spent a lot less. In 1989-90, I will remind

you again we had to pay a lot of severance pay.

MR. DECKER: To the Member from Green Bay.

MR. BAKER: So it looks as if we cut more,

whereas in

actual fact we were holding the line. What a squandering of money. So in that

year, Mr. Chairman, compared to 1988-89, the last full year the Members opposite

were in we saved close to $700,000. We cut the cost of the Premier's Office in

half. Now then in the Budget for 1991-92, the third Budget, the total amount in

the Premier's Office is gone up a little bit, the expenditure is gone up from

$769,000 to $791,000. What waste! What extravagance! What squandering of public

money!

Mr. Chairman, as opposed to the $692,000 we saved last year,

this year we are only going to save $670,000. What squandering of money in the

Premier's Office!

Over the three years -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well whether it will wash or not, fortunately

does not depend on the Opposition House Leader, who does not even understand

what he is hearing anyway.

Over the three years compared to 1988-89 - now I really have

to remind Members opposite, I have to remind our Members, I have to remind the

press who are hanging on to my every word that in these years there were salary

increases, there was inflation and everything else, right. Inflation over a four

year period.

Mr. Chairman, in the two years that we have been in plus next

year, we will have saved in the Premier's office a total of $1,931,500.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: And if you were to include the inflationary

factor, if you were to do that in 1988 or 89 in dollars, you would find that is

probably around $2.2 million that we have saved in the Premier's office alone.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the cigarettes (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: - how does that square with what the Members

opposite have been saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the cigarettes and the booze,

you never asked us.

MR. BAKER: There is an awful lot of this, Mr. Speaker,

and we have been through some of it. We have changed an awful lot of practices.

Part of what we have done is staff reduction. Members opposite had a staff of

twenty-five in the Premier's office. We have reduced it to eighteen, so there is

a staff reduction involved there, but there is more than a staff reduction.

There is much more than the staff reduction. We have eliminated the private

dining room.

AN HON. MEMBER: The private dining room is gone.

MR. BAKER: We have eliminated the private dining room,

that is one thing. Mr. Chairman, that private dining room is an expensive

proposition. We have eliminated that. The Members opposite did not know that, I

suppose, they did not realize that. We have eliminated that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the standing orders.

MR. BAKER: Well, I do not have the figures with me.

Understand that when we took over we had to cancel some standing orders that

were in existence. One of them was there was a $20,000 standing order for liquor

and so on. There was another $5,000 for cigars and cigarettes, and another

$8,000 or $10,000 for specialty fish products like shrimp, caviar and that kind

of thing, and we had to cancel all that because we no longer have that luxury.

As a matter of fact, Members opposite do know. hey know regardless of what they

say, they know

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Members time has elapsed.

MR. BAKER: - regardless of what they say, they know that

we have cancelled that because that is where they have their caucus meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: We have seen a really interesting example of

what you do when you get cornered. You immediately try to use some statistics

and numbers and try to cloud and cover up the real and proper issue, and the

issue is the issue of the salary in the Premier's office. What he conveniently

did, of course, is he took the numbers from the year 88-89, the last year before

the government changed, a year in which there were two changes in administration

and where severance pay was provided to employees in the office provided for

under contracts and everything else. So that year of 88-89 -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. SIMMS: - was not a normal year, 1988-89 was not a

normal year, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate some protection from the Member

for Exploits. Let him get up and participate in the debate. The point is, Mr.

Chairman, 88-89 is not the normal year, that is the point, and the hon. Member

for Exploits knows it. The reason that they are trying to use this information

is because it is information that the Member for Exploits as the lackey for the

Premier, the man who carries his bags and his suitcases, has got to somehow try

to provide some information to attack the Opposition. But, Mr. Chairman, if you

look at a proper comparison, look at the salary figures for the Premier's office

in 1985, look at the salary figures for the year '86, look at the salary numbers

for the year '87 - I have them and they are on the way down - and then compare

it to the numbers in 89-90, 90-91.

Have a look at these numbers, and you will see that the

salary expenditures in the Premier's office have exceeded considerably what they

were in those years, two or three years ago. Now that is a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring it in!

MR. SIMMS: That is a fact. I will bring it in. We have

it, we have the information, it is quite clear, and that is what we will bring

in and provide to the press.

So that little argument is not going to wash. They can keep

trying it and that is what they will keep flicking back. And of course it is a

great way to try to cover up the real questions that are being asked, cover up

providing the answers. They will not provide the answers, they have not got the

answers, they cannot provide the answers. They are more interested in trying to

camouflage the answers by attacking the Opposition.

Now he talks about back in 1988-1989 too, talked about

twenty-five in the Premier's office. And the Member for Exploits, as he often is

wont to do, is picky about it. He says: now, it is really twenty-six when you

count the Premier. Okay, so it is twenty-six. But today, after two years in

office, already you have the number up to nineteen. So you are only down from

twenty-six after ten years or after seventeen years, so you are down by six or

seven positions, but you are only in office two years. There were twenty-six

there you said in the Premier's office before, after seventeen years. So let's

see how many will be there next year and let's see how many will be there the

year after.

Now let's also look at some tricky little things that the

Government has done to do some further camouflaging. Let's look at what has

happened to the Director of Constitutional Affairs, for example. Now the

Director of Constitutional Affairs as we understood it during the Meech Lake

debate when it was in full swing was brought in on a temporary basis,

contractual, to provide the Premier with some expert advice on constitutional

matters. She is listed in the salary details last year in the Premier's office.

This year of course what they have done very conveniently and sneakily, they

have transferred it over to the IGA, so there is one position right there for

example that they have conveniently covered up.

So who do you think you are fooling by doing all these kinds

of things? Let me ask him this. Since the Member for Exploits wants to answer

questions, let him get up and answer this one. The position - in the details

this year she is listed as a permanent employee. Can he tell us when he stands

why the salary budgeted for that position - Director of Constitutional Affairs -

was increased from last year, $44,790, to $64,350 this year, an increase of 45

per cent for one Deborah Coyne in one year? Now maybe if he is so anxious to

answer questions let him get up and answer that one, we would appreciate an

answer to that one. And do not forget to point out, she was part of the

Premier's office last year, this year she has very sneakily been moved over to

another divisions. So that is one position that you are not counting in the

Premier's office.

Now, further to this issue by the way, I should say that the

President of Treasury Board during the estimates last year on Executive Council,

May 7 1990, page 84, he said and I quote. I asked him about the amount budgeted

for salaries. And he said: 'it includes the salary of Deborah Coyne, and it is

not $70,000 or anything like that.' We had suggested that it might be $70,000.

He said: 'it is not even $60,000, it is in the 'fifties.' He said: 'next year it

will be $58,000.' Next year being 1991-1992, this fiscal year.

So, the fact is the salary was $44,790 in 1990-1991, this

year it is $64,350. An increase of 45 per cent for one Deborah Coyne, who last

year was in the Premier's office, this year has been shifted over to some other

division, in IGA, so as to hide the fact that she is no longer associated with

the Premier's office. Now what kind of trickery is that? Is that a fact or is

that not a fact? Perhaps the Member for Exploits can tell us. We would like to

ask him the question.

Now, the Member for Exploits asked if I could provide the

salary information for the years 1985, 1986, 1987, and so on. Well, let me give

it to him since he asked me. In 1985-1986, office of the Premier, total - this

includes office of the Premier, executive support and administration, okay?

Total: $657,500, twenty-three employees, 1985-1986. These are the revised

figures now, not the Budgeted figures, this is another little trick that they

play; they flick out the budgeted figures but forget to mention what was spent,

these are the revised then.

1986-1987, $730,000, twenty-four employees; 1987-1988 revised

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) exact (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: -$730,900. In 1987-1988 $782,200, twenty-six

employees, okay? Now, -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: 1986-1987? Twenty-four.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-three, twenty-four and twenty-six?

MR. SIMMS: Right and you have three amounts of the

expenditure total, right? Now, 1988-1989 is the one that the President of the

Treasury Board has referred to where the severance was paid to two groups of

employees, so let me just exclude the 1988-1989 one because you have it and you

know the number and we all know it was over $1.4 million or something I think in

total, but then we come back to 1989-1990, the revised figure and the beginning

of the mandate I guess of the present Government.

The total expenditure in 1989-1990 was $893,300, $893,300,

twenty employees, okay, do Members have that? 1991, revised $769,200, nineteen

employees and 1991-1992, estimated $791,719. Now, excluding 1988-1989, which is

the unusual year that we talked about for severance, the comparative figures are

very, very reasonable, the comparison in numbers is not unreasonable at all,

but, six years later, here is what has happened, six years later, $657,000 was

the total, now this year, $791,000, four less employees, so the people who are

up there are being paid considerably more as we have already identified by

exposing the salary of Edsel Bonnell, for example at $95,000 compared to the

days when, who was it up there in those days, Alvin or Frank, Frank Petten or

somebody, were being torn apart and torn asunder for making about $25,000 or

$30,000 less than he is making these days, so, Mr. Chairman, my whole point is

that for the Government, in trying to defend what is occurring, is making a very

weak case by simply trying to compare it to what happened five or six years ago,

that, they are missing the point totally.

We know that it takes a considerable number of staff to

operate a Premier's office, and if it was twenty-three in 1985-1986 and it is

going to be nineteen this year, I mean that is four, a difference of four, I

mean that is not a really, really big deal, that is not a really big deal we all

know it takes a slew of people to run the Premier's Office, we know how busy a

Premier's office is, but the point is, the Government Members constantly try to

give the impression that they have somehow or other cut it all in half, cut it

all out and really pared it down, when in reality, Mr. Chairman, they have not

and they cannot, it is very difficult, they cut -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: -the numbers down by four in six years, but

they have increased the salaries by $140,000 in six years; so, I will get back

at them, Mr. Chairman (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh my God, not Friday morning, no

(inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Just a couple of things, Mr. Chairman. Just a

couple of things in reference to the figures again and I am glad that the hon.

Member for Grand Falls and the Opposition House Leader brought in the figures

for those previous years because it shows exactly what we have been talking

about all along; the considerable savings that have been made and the lack of

squandering of money. Because, if you take the 1985-1986 figures which are now

six years ago, six Budgets ago, when he admits that at that time there were

twenty-three staff in the Premier's Office which grew to twenty-four for some

reason and then grew to twenty-six for some other reason of which nobody seems

to be aware off has now been reduced to eighteen and the Premier, nineteen if

you count the Premier. If you look at the kind of staffing and the kind of

monies that were paid, the normal inflationary growth and the normal step

progressions and increases, there is no doubt that, that number of $657,500 of

1985-86 which grew to $730,900 and grew again to $782,200 in their last full

year would now be, if they were still in office and still operating in their

same style, just to project, it would show that this year their numbers with

their staff the way they ran the office would be pretty close to $1 million.

Even with the most modern estimates, with their staff with three more years of

increases, you would be well over $1 million on an annual basis to run the

Premier's office in the style they were accustomed to, and there is no arguing

with those numbers. We have shown that, in fact, in the third Budget year for

which this administration is responsible our numbers still will not reach

$800,000, so even by the very narrowest of margins you can show that we are

saving people in real terms back to 1985, at least $200,000 per year compared to

their style of operation. The staff has been reduced from their high in leaving

office of twenty-six to a number now of eighteen. In the Estimates, if you look

at the salary details, it says a total staff of nineteen because that includes

the Premier. The Premier is there, so we have eighteen and the Premier. In the

last years the former administration were in office there were twenty-five and

the Premier for a total of twenty-six, so you can see that the staff component

has been cut by seven positions realizing an annualized saving at this point in

time, when you compare our numbers with their numbers, six Budgets later, of

$200,000 a year at least in terms of the money that is realistically being

saved.

The hon. Member for Mount Pearl brought this issue to the

floor of the Legislature today, Mr. Chairman, by saying: what about all these

savings that the Premier promised, the cutbacks and so on, how come all of a

sudden he is squandering money? He very selectively looked at one component of

the salary Estimates in the Premier's office and said that for last year under

administration in the Premier's office there was $78,700, and this year it was

going all the way up to $82,300, and instead of saving money the Premier's

office was squandering money. How selective can you get over a few numbers? In

fact it shows that the totals for the whole office are going from $769,200 to

$791,700 and that will accommodate for step prog