April 2,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 20

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

On behalf of all Members I would like to welcome to the

Speaker's Gallery today, John Slaney, that young man of hockey fame who made us

all proud earlier this winter and we would like to extend to him a warm welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased to be able to inform the hon. Members of the House of Assembly that this

morning at 11:30, I released the Agri-Foods Task Force report.

The Agri-Foods Task Force, Mr. Speaker, was established in

October of 1989 under the direction of Dr. Bud Hulan, and was set up to review

the current conditions and future direction of the Agri-Foods sector in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

This report is the result of over a one year study on

Agriculture and related food industries. The three task force members were

chosen from outside of Government in order to bring an independent perspective

to public policy.

Mr. Speaker, when you and other hon. Members of the House

have an opportunity to review this document, you will see that all facets of the

agriculture industry have been covered.

The report, Mr. Speaker, deals with nutrition, sustainable

agriculture, land base, leases versus grants, environmental management, safety

nets, agricultural financing, taxes and farm management, staff management

training and many other topics.

The report also looked at the import substitution,

comparative advantages, and regional development, food product development,

crafts and diversification.

It supports all of these areas, Mr. Speaker, by addressing

the basic components of adequate education, training and research, and other

support programs which are essential for the development of today's Agri-Foods

sector.

At present, officials of various Government Departments are

in the process of assessing the report and its many recommendations.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Dr. Hulan and

the entire task force staff for their dedication in the preparation of this

document.

Thank you.

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

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

guess the hon. Minister, or the Government, could not hide the report away any

longer. Bud Hulan finally convinced them that they should report it, unlike what

the Premier had promised the Chairman of the Commission he would do. The

Chairman of the Commission was supposed to release this report some time ago -

another commitment from the Premier that had been broken.

I just want to make a few comments on the report and thank

the Minister for providing me an advanced copy of his statement. I did attend

the news conference this morning and I must say the news media who attended -

several of them who talked to me - are extremely upset because we had a

statement given by the Minister and by the Chairman which had absolutely no

content in it. We had a 400 or 500 page report dropped on the media this morning

without any advance notice and they had no opportunity of reviewing it so they

could ask the pointed questions that are necessary with this report. There

should have been a lock-up for the media so that they could have some advance

knowledge. Mr. Speaker, my cursory report of the review of this report would

suggest that within the next three to five years we will have no hog industry in

this Province. It will be very doubtful if we will have a chicken industry in

this Province, and we will probably not have a Newfoundland Farm Products in

this Province. These are the first two or three implications that I see, Mr.

Speaker. Any chairman of any committee on agriculture in this country who says

that Newfoundland should start within the next three to five years to phase out

subsidies when our main competitors, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec are

increasing subsidies to their farmers, Mr. Speaker, the whole basis of the

report is wrong from the first page on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: All throughout the world, Canada and

other countries such as the United States, are trying to get subsidies taken

away from the European countries.

MR. SPEAKER: Time is up.

Oral Questions

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask some

questions of the Minister of Health. Yesterday, when I tried to get some answers

from the Minister about this improved health care system he is implementing in

the Province, and in particular some answers about the Placentia area health

care system, the Minister accused me of being almost dishonest -

`mischievousness', I think, was the word he used - that these rumours were

unmitigated, that there was no basis in fact and nothing had been communicated

to the Placentia Health Care Board.

Let me ask the Minister of Health today, Mr. Speaker, if he

will confirm that the Placentia Area Health Care Board has been authorized to

keep ten acute care beds open, even though these beds were closed as part of the

budgetary process, and further, contrary to the statements the Minister made to

the press yesterday, that additional funds of $35,000 per month have been made

available until such time as Government makes its final decision as to whether

or not they made a mistake about the Placentia area health care. Will the

Minister confirm if additional funds have been made available, and, in effect,

those ten beds which were slashed in the Budget are now reinstated?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member obviously does

not understand the process. When the Budget was announced that Budget was to

take effect as of April 1, the new Budget year. Hospital boards were given their

budgets then and told, in general terms, what they were supposed to do. In the

case of Placentia, we made the announcement that they would be keeping open four

to six acute care beds or holding beds, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Four? Four?

MR. DECKER: Between four and six acute care beds.

Now hon. Members are aware that the Placentia people were

very upset over that and they came back to Government and accused us of making a

wrong decision. Being an open Government, who listen to all our people, no

matter where they come from, we listened attentively to what the people in

Placentia said to us. They made a presentation to us. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was

very late in March, just before Good Friday, and we never had time to deal with

that presentation in any depth at all. So we found that we were nearing April 1,

the time when they were supposed to phase down. Now remember, they had not

phased down, beds had not yet been phased down. So we said to Placentia - there

were discussions back and forth between officials in the Department - we are

reviewing the presentation you made.

As of April 1, we will not have an answer. It might take to

the end of this week or the end of next week before we have an absolute yes or

no. In the interim, we do not want that board to throw anyone out on the street.

That is not the intention of Government, and there was some concern this might

happen. So we said, Look, bring her down to ten until you have your answer. Your

answer will be available next week. They then said, What about the money? We

said, If there is an extra cost, we will fund it at the rate of $35,000 a month.

But, Mr. Speaker, we will have the decision long before the month is up;

hopefully we will have the decision before the end of the week.

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

supplementary.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very obvious who

was mischievous yesterday and who was evading the truth at all cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, in a supplementary. In effect the

Minister has just confirmed that the budgetary decision to close the ten acute

care beds and go really to zero acute care beds at Placentia has been changed,

that at least they have bought some time in the interim, and this Opposition is

delighted that we have been able to impress upon the Minister to make that

change.

Could the Minister tell us in a truthful fashion if Port aux

Basques and Old Perlican have also received certain comfort letters allowing

them to spend monies which were not budgeted, and if they will be allowed to

maintain their services until such time as their assessment of a mistake has

been made by the Minister and by his colleagues?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to address yesterday

because the hon. Member is leaving the wrong impression in this House.

Yesterday the hon. Member from Ferryland was up stating that

this Government had changed our plan on Placentia, that we are going to allow

them to keep the ten acute care beds. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: You just said it was.

MR. DECKER: We have said to the hospital board of

Placentia, we are studying your presentation. And not being a callous,

unlistening Government, Mr. Speaker, for a few days more, while we are

reflecting on their presentation, we gave them a few days' grace and I do not

think that is wrong.

There is no decision made that we will be keeping ten beds

open. And I believe it is wrong for the hon. Member to suggest that, because he

is raising false hopes in the Placentia area. The plan we have for this

Province, I believe there is a place in it for Placentia. But I believe it is

unfair to try to raise false hopes in that area, because the plan was well

thought out, well researched, and I would suggest it is very unlikely we will

make any change.

The hon. Member in his question suggested that we had

instructed Placentia to go down to zero acute beds. That is not the case. We are

saying to Placentia, four to six acute beds. The reason we are saying four to

six: four to six acute care beds can be operated in a community health care

centre without necessitating hiring any extra staff other than the people who

run the community health care centre. That is why four to six is the important

figure.

Port aux Basques and Old Perlican people have met with the

Department of Health as well, Mr. Speaker, and the Port aux Basques people were

asked to make more substantial changes than the Placentia area is making. They

asked us early - just after the Budget in March - if they could have a month or

so to do their phasing down. And the money is built in for that. We do not

expect Port aux Basques to one minute be offering a certain service and the next

minute stop. Government recognizes that there has to be a phasing down period.

We have granted to Port aux Basques a phasing down period, and during that

phasing down period we are talking back and forth to see just where we are

going.

I have met with Old Perlican as well, and they are meeting

with us later on in the week for further discussions.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister reads Hansard

sometime after today to see what he just said. Because he is so evasive; he

tries to avoid the truth at all costs in a very serious situation with health

care in this Province. What I asked the Minister was: was there additional funds

allocated for Old Perlican and Port aux Basques? The Minister did not answer

that question. There is additional funds allocated in a letter from the

Assistant Deputy Minister of Health to the Placentia Health Care Board on March

28. It says $35,000 a month extra will be paid until such time as the decision

is made.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the question is, and the Premier can answer

it, or somebody on behalf of the Government who gives straight answers, we had

one large protest of 1,000 people in this lobby; we now have a situation where

Placentia gets extra money in the interim period. That is not the same as Port

aux Basques is getting, it is not the same as Old Perlican is getting. Now is

the Minister saying that really in this Province the health care system is based

upon how big a protest you can get, and if you get 1,000 people to protest you

get a month's delay, and if you get 500 you only get a week's postponement? What

is it going to be, a health care system or a political system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Member invited

me to answer it, I will. I say to the hon. Member opposite he is indeed being

mischievous, because the truth of the matter is very simple and very

straightforward.

Mr. Speaker, the Government announced its proposal with

respect to the Placentia hospital facility. The intention in the long-term is to

eliminate that existing facility altogether and to build adjacent to the

existing senior citizens home a facility that will accommodate up to ten acute

care beds and fifteen, I believe it is, for chronic care. Now that is

Government's long-term plan. With respect to the hospital it announced that it

would immediately reduce it to - I don't know whether it was four or six or four

to six acute care beds. The hospital in Placentia came to us and four aid, Look,

this cannot be right. You are planning to build a new facility that will

accommodate up to ten acute care, yet you are going to say go down to four or

six immediately. What about in the meantime? What are you going to do, cut us

down now to four and then go back up to ten when the new facility is built?' Now

that struck a chord in my mind. I said, Is there an explanation to this? So I

said, Okay, you seem to have raised a point that needs to be explored further,

and we agreed we would explore it further. Now that is the simple,

straightforward explanation of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: But there is no indication there is going

to be a change. We may still at the end of the assessment make exactly the same

decision, and operate on the basis of four to six acute care beds in Placentia.

If there is any reason to alter it or to increase it to ten, we will. We will

not fail to do it because of the shenanigans which are going on on that side of

the House now, we will do whatever is right in the circumstance. And that is all

Government is doing. Government is not sitting back and saying, No, we made our

decision. We will not talk to anybody. If we were doing that, you would be

criticizing us the other way. So we have taken entirely the right and sound

decision.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the

Premier.

Albeit what he says sounds wonderful and grandiose, but there

is a different set of rules in place today. Placentia is being treated

differently thank God, because it is getting what it deserves. Other places,

like Baie Verte and Springdale, are not getting fair treatment because they

cannot organize a protest to come to this Legislature.

Now all we ask is that Government treat everyone fairly. What

is in place today in this Province is a different set of rules and I would ask

the Premier to confirm on behalf of the Government, if the Minister may have

made a mistake in his new health care plan, that everyone who has a concern can

get fair treatment and will get those decisions postponed until such time as

they can be re-assessed.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government made its

decision to review this for the reasons that I have just given; it had nothing

to do with demonstrations. And the Member can organize demonstrations until he

is blue in the face, it will not make any difference, Mr. Speaker, and it will

not make any difference to what the Government's ultimate decision is. I believe

you heard the Minister say he looked at another hospital situation in Port aux

Basques and Old Perlican. I do not recall there being an Old Perlican

demonstration or a Port aux Basques demonstration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not yet.

PREMIER WELLS: Okay, not yet. It does not matter whether

there is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: It does not matter, Mr. Speaker, whether

there is protest or there is not protest, the Government is going to operate its

medical and hospital plan in this Province on the basis of a fair and proper

presentation of its plan: fairness for everybody. And we intend to maintain

that. And the mere fact that somebody organizes 1,000 people to come to St.

John's will not alter the decision one whit. Nor, Mr. Speaker, will we fail to

alter the decision if it is right that it be altered merely because Members

Opposite are going through this political charade they are going through now.

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

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

Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Since many

municipalities in this Province have had great difficulty in finalizing their

1991 budgets and we are now more than three months into their fiscal year, can

the Minister indicate how many municipalities have not yet finalized their

budgets and how many submitted budgets that were returned because they presented

deficit budgets?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the House an

exact number of budgets that have been submitted to the Department. I can say as

I said the other night, that I gave the councils extra time because of the phase

in of the grants program. Normally they would submit their budgets by the end of

the calendar year, but I said the end of March would be fine. Most of the

budgets are in I would think, some 90-odd per cent of them. What was the second

part? I think that was your question, in essence.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many deficit budgets?

MR. GULLAGE: One deficit budget was submitted and, as the

hon. Member knows, that budget was sent back. It has since been balanced. I am

not aware of any other budgets being submitted that were not balanced.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest

that the Minister check with the Town of Gambo to see what happened on their

budget. Will the Minister then explain how the financial situations of Corner

Brook and a couple of other municipalities were so radically different from the

other municipalities in this Province that he had to intervene months ago and

give them special considerations, while other municipalities in similar

financial situations have not gotten special consideration?

MR. POWER: Fairness and Balance. Do not forget!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, all municipalities were advised

that if there were special circumstances the Government should be aware of in

submitting their budget, special circumstances that would lead us to give

special consideration to a given municipality, they were to let the regional

offices know about that when they were doing their budgets, and in preparation

of their budgets, because there is an ongoing consultation back and forth

between the regional manager and the town or city involved. Municipalities have

been doing just that, Mr. Speaker, and if there is a circumstance in a given

municipality where special treatment is required, certainly we would consider

it, based on a recommendation received from the regional office.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Since the Minister was able to find some extra money for CBS

who were experiencing financial problems because of an audit of their 1990

fiscal year, can the Minister tell us if this audit is complete for all

municipalities in the Province, and how many more were like CBS and could find

themselves in a favourable position at the end so you could give them extra

grants?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, at the end of every fiscal year

the audited statements of municipalities are received by the Department and

those audited statements reflect adjustments in the grants and in other parts of

their budget, but specifically your question, I believe, is to the grants. In

the case of Conception Bay South the adjustment caused a favourable amount of

dollars, I think it was $91,000 that was available to CBS as a result of the

adjustment. This is not abnormal. Every year when the audited statements are

received from all municipalities we make adjustments in the grants, either

upwards or downwards, based on the actual figures reflecting the situation in

the town or city up to the end of the fiscal year. In CBS's case, and I would

suggest perhaps in others, there will be adjustments that are favourable and

would cause them to be helped with balancing their budgets.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister

of Finance a statement pertaining to the now infamous payroll tax, or his Health

and Education Tax, and he answered at the time that he thought I misunderstood.

Let me now quote to the Minister from Page 12 of his Budget document of last

year, 'This measure is expected to generate $15 million during 1990-91 and $25

million in 1991-92.' Mr. Speaker, would the Minister now tell us, since he

actually generated $28.6 million last year, versus the $15 million he had

estimated, and he is now predicting $42.5 million this year versus the $25

million he told us last year when he introduced the tax, would he now explain

the variance in this tax and the reason he was not able to predict more

accurately the impact of that tax?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I assume this is the difference

between the Government's internal accounting as opposed to the net amount, but I

will check into the facts of the case and get back to the Member.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, that has to be the weakest

answer I ever heard in this House of Assembly. Clearly the Minister of Finance

does not know what his tax is all about. If I were to tell the Minister that the

amount estimated from corporate income tax this year in his Budget document is

$54.6 million as compared to $42.5 million predicted from the payroll tax and

that I told him that is a 78 per cent increase in taxes on corporations in one

year by this Government, in view of this impact on business, Mr. Speaker, will

the Minister now produce his health and education tax to a tax at a rate of 0.85

per cent which would have the effect of generating the same amount of revenue as

he had asked for when he introduced that tax in the Budget last year.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no,

Mr. Speaker, we will not be reducing taxes.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister would not

consider that, would the Minister not confirm that this tax which is a tax on

payroll regardless of the efficiency of the business, regardless of whether or

not that business is making any money - it has no impact on the profitability of

that company, it is simply a penalty on that company for employing people -

would the Minister consider replacing that tax with another tax? Perhaps an

increase in the corporate income tax which would give him the same effect as a

46 per cent increase, which is what his $25 million he asked for would be? Would

he replace one tax with one that is a tax on businesses that can afford to pay,

not on those that are employing, whether they are making money or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Fisheries

Products International has announced that they will close the Trepassey fish

plant on September 27 1991, throwing over 600 people out of work. Will the

Premier tell the hon. House what plans Government has to offset this loss of

employment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of

initiatives under way. Whether any one, or several of them, may bear fruit, is

not yet known. As hon. Members will remember, Mr. Speaker, this came about as a

result of the way in which the Federal Government has mismanaged our fisheries

that caused the reduction in the total allowable catch and forced the closure of

several plants in the Province. One at Trepassey, one at Gaultois, one at Grand

Bank, and one at St. John's.

Now everybody agrees that the primary responsibility to deal

with the consequences of that decision rests with the Federal Government. But

fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Province has not simply sat back and done nothing.

We have put in place a number of efforts, working with the community, working

with the companies involved, and the ERC has been making substantial effort, and

there are a number of initiatives under way that Government is dealing with at

the moment. I do not know whether or not any of them will be realized.

Over the last year, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of

proposals, some of which the community was not enthusiastic about. There was one

proposal at least that had some resistance from the fish plant workers and from

the people in the community, and that has not proceeded. But there are others

under way at the moment.

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

Capes, supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier in making

the announcement about the extension of time to keep the plants alive, which we

appreciated, mentioned that they needed time to put diversification plans in

place. Will the Premier not admit that as far as Trepassey goes that his

Government has failed miserably to put anything at all in place? Because the

initiatives that have been taken so far are ones that have not been taken by the

Government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is

totally wrong in his suggestion.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I am answering the question of the hon.

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, and I do not really care very much about what

the hon. Opposition House Leader is saying. I will deal with the question of the

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, Mr. Speaker. And his question was: will the

Government admit that it has failed miserably?

No, Mr. Speaker, the Government was immediately successful by

putting up some $14 million to enable that fish plant and three other fish

plants to continue to operate for at least two further seasons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER WELLS: Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. The Government

was very successful in its endeavour by putting up $14 million to ensure that

the four fish plants affected could continue for a period of time that would

allow time for the Federal Government primarily to discharge its responsibility

for the consequences that it was causing, and for the Province to work jointly

with the Federal Government to try and achieve alternate economic opportunities

for the people affected.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have gotten very, very little

cooperation from the Federal Government. They seem to want to make sure that

whatever is done they get total credit for it. They want the Province to take

financial responsibility but they want all of the credit, so they keep insisting

on going their own way. Well, that is okay, we can't alter that. We will let the

Federal Government do that in whatever way it can. But in the meantime, Mr.

Speaker, the Provincial Government has carried out its own initiative through

the Economic Recovery Commission and through working with the community and with

the company, and we will continue to do so.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier

that he was the one who said they needed time to diversify, and they have not

provided any alternatives. I ask him, is this not really the work the Economic

Recovery Commission should do, providing alternatives for a place like

Trepassey? And will he now admit that the Economic Recovery Commission, the ERC,

instead of ERCing has really been jerking around the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member's childish

comment is hardly worthy of response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It really is hardly worthy of response. It

is so lacking in intelligence, Mr. Speaker, it is hardly worthy of response.

Mr. Speaker, the Economic Recovery Commission has been

working diligently to try and find solutions to the problems not alone of

Trepassey, but to the economic mess that the former Government put the Province

in, to the economic mess that we inherited because of their gross mismanagement

and their planning to buy jobs for people simply on a make-work basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: We have had to work diligently, and the

Economic Recovery Commission has been making a magnificent effort, Mr. Speaker.

And I have great confidence that given time, the Economic Recovery Commission

will make a significant contribution to the recovery of the economy of this

Province from the dismal mess the former Government left it in.

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

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in his capacity as the Minister

responsible for Culture. The Minister will know that the closure of Mun

Extension also involved the closure of Mun Extension Arts which provided

employment for those working artists whose incomes are abysmally low, and also a

high standard teaching facility, a major contribution, Mr. Speaker, to the

cultural identity of this Province. What plans does the Minister have to make up

this loss to the artistic and cultural community?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we do, of course, have a direct

connection with Extension Services that were provided through Memorial

University, with many of the facilities used by Extension Services being

available through the Arts and Culture Centre. We will continue, of course, to

co-operate with arts groups which have been affected and do what we can to help

them with providing the services they had provided in the past. Other than that,

Mr. Speaker, we do have a connection, but all we can do is just simply assist in

any way we can in their services in the future and we will continue to do that.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Mun Art Galley,

of course, which is operating as the Provincial Art Gallery has been cut back as

a result of this and working artists who had space to work out of and also a

meeting place - it is a place to work and it is a place to interact with members

of the public - have lost the space as well. Will the Minister, either himself

or through his colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

try to find and provide space artists can work out of and perhaps provide some

of the courses and work the Minister's Government's Budget has cut back on? Is

there something he can do in that area?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the new Director of Cultural

Affairs, Elizabeth Batstone, is currently reviewing the space allocations in all

the Arts and Cultural Centres throughout the Province. Within her mandate she

has been asked to look at the space being allocated to various arts groups, and

as much as possible we would like to see available space outside the main

theatres available to arts groups per se. Anyway we can help and assist in the

St. John's area and in other areas where we have Arts and Culture Centres and

space available, we will certainly do all we can.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the

absence of the Minister of Environment and Lands, to the same Minister, the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. This Government has put a lot of

emphasis on regionalization of public services and I understand a number of

municipalities in the St. John's Avalon region have put forward a proposal for a

study on some environmental matters, especially as they relate to the Robin Hood

Bay dump site. However, I am told their proposal has been turned down. I am

wondering if the Minister could explain why if the councils could come up with

their 40 per cent, he and his colleague, the Minister of Environment, could not

come up with their 60 per cent?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: A timely question, Mr. Speaker. I had

discussions with the Mayor of St. John's just a couple of days ago concerning

several studies that were proposed to be undertaken in this upcoming year. Yes,

it is quite true to say that those studies are not identified in the Budget per

se, but we are awaiting discussions which are taking place between the

Department of Environment and my own department concerning, specifically, Robin

Hood Bay, which is the most serious problem area in the Northeast Avalon right

now from an environmental standpoint, and the other five or six areas of concern

environmentally. So we are having ongoing discussions, Municipal Affairs with

the Department of Environment, and if further studies are necessary, we will

certainly look at cost sharing with the municipalities as we normally do, on a

regional basis.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a supplementary I

point out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that environmental investigations

got $2 million in this year's Budget, up 100 per cent. I would ask him to bring

this to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of Environment, because I

gather that Robin Hood Bay is so full up it may soon throw up.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: I am not sure if that is a question or a

statement, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure the hon. Member that the Minister of

Environment and myself are having ongoing discussions concerning the problems

with Robin Hood Bay. We understand the seriousness of it. The fact that it has

been used by some 17 municipalities, of course, compounds the problem, and we

will do all we can in working with the municipalities to resolve the problem on

a long-term basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before proceeding to the next item of business, on behalf of

hon. Members I would like to welcome a delegation from the town council of Bell

Island represented by their Mayor, His Worship Kevin McCarthy, Deputy Mayor

Charlie Bown, Councillors Gary Gosine, Albert Ash and Ambrose Rose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: This is a petition I wanted to present

yesterday, Your Honour. It is a petition of artists and arts administrators who

are terribly upset about the loss of MUN Extension Arts. The prayer of the

petition is as follows: `The petition of the undersigned, the friends of MUN

Extension, states that

whereas MUN Extension has provided and continues to

provide an essential service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

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

should be reinstated. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House

take such action as may be necessary to ensure that Memorial University

reinstates its extension service, and that it be funded and equipped to provide

the services it has traditionally provided.'

I support the petition, Mr. Speaker. MUN Extension sponsored

several programs. The one I would like to focus on in presenting this petition

is MUN Extension Arts, which operated in downtown St. John's and provided

courses in the Arts, workshops for professional artists and served as a focal

point for artists of all disciplines in the St. John's area.

Mr. Speaker, there is no apparent replacement or substitute

for MUN Extension Arts. I would like to quote from a letter written to me by

several visual artists. It says more eloquently than I can say just how profound

is the loss of MUN Extension Arts. `We, as visual artists, are devastated by the

Memorial University decision to close MUN Extension Arts. It is the only

multi-disciplinary home for Arts in the Province. Without Extension Arts the

cultural identity of Newfoundland and Labrador will disintegrate. It is not only

a meeting place and a rehearsing area, it is a high-standard teaching facility.'

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Member for St. John's East asked

questions about the loss of MUN Extension Arts to the Minister of Culture today.

I hope that the Minister of Culture is listening to my presentation of this

petition. And I am expecting him to speak to it when I sit down. I would like

the Minister of Culture to tell us his assessment of the loss of MUN Extension

Arts. What is his understanding of the role served by MUN Extension Arts? And

how can he, as the Minister responsible for culture, offer any hope to these

artists?

The largest concentration of artists in the Province is in

St. John's. MUN Extension Arts was their focal point. In western Newfoundland we

have the Memorial University Grenfell College Fine Arts School offering degree

programmes in visual and theatre arts. And at Western Community College in

Stephenville there is a two year diploma programme in visual arts. We have that

kind of nuclei in western Newfoundland.

In St. John's, which has the largest concentration of

artists, the focal point has now been lost. I would hope that the Minister of

Culture is working with the Minister of Education, responsible for the

University and the University cut of MUN Extension Arts, as well as his other

Cabinet colleagues to try to bring back MUN Extension Arts. Or if not, to

marshall other resources to allow the fine, creative programmes of MUN Extension

Arts to continue in some other form.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has in the past year received two

excellent reports on the significance of the arts to our Province: the

O'Flaherty committee report on Provincial arts policy, which was given to the

Minister of Culture a year ago; and recently the Economic Recovery Commission

commissioned report by Jay Barry. Both of those documents illustrate the

significant contribution of artists to our Province in terms of spiritual

enrichment as well as creation of wealth. Artists are important contributors to

our economy.

What is the Minister of Development going to do to assist in

the replacement of MUN Extension Arts? How can the Ministers opposite expect our

wonderful, professional artists in the St. John's area to continue to live here

and create and make their art, if they do not have the support of MUN Extension

Arts?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for

St. Mary's - The Capes, I wonder if he would mind if I just took time out to

welcome the council of the town of Grand Falls-Windsor. The delegation is

comprised of the following people: the Deputy Mayor, Stirling Thomas;

Councillors Walter Clarke and Pat Melvin; and the Town Manager, Mike Pinsent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of

the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Humber East.

The Memorial University Extension Service provides a service

well above and beyond what they probably have been mandated to do. Now I think

this is perhaps where Government has fallen down in relation to the full

understanding of the impact of Memorial University's services, especially on

rural Newfoundland.

If we look at the Budget that we are now discussing in the

hon. House we see that the areas of the Province that have been hit hardest are

the rural areas of the Province. And that shows a complete lack of knowledge and

appreciation for rural Newfoundland by the present Government. The elimination

of MUN Extension Service - I know they will blame it on the University, but the

lack of funding basically dictated what the University had to do - the

(inaudible) of this service and the lack of Government's intent to try to

convince or provide funding to reinstate the service shows a lack of commitment

to the rural parts of our Province.

The Minister of Development should be one who would be

concerned here, not only the Minister of Provincial and Municipal Affairs who

was directly involved in relation to the arts and artists and what have you, but

the Minister of Development and Tourism, because of the positive effects the MUN

Extension Service was having on the promotion of our culture and heritage around

the Province - and let me say to the Minister that in several parts of the

Province, a number of the festivals that have been held, a number of the

revivals that have occurred in relation to reviving the culture and the heritage

of people in different areas, and I am thinking about the French on the west

coast and the Irish in our own area, MUN Extension has been front and foremost

in promoting this. Might I say to the Minister even that a song that he enjoys

playing recently would not have been recorded except for MUN Extension; it was

because of the recording of a folk festival that certain song writers have come

into prominence and their works have been recorded and distributed and now

enjoyed by people like the Minister of Development.

So, MUN Extension has gone into the rural areas of

Newfoundland with ideas, not just promotion on the arts side. The incubator mall

concept in Pasadena I understand, was part of the work of MUN Extension, they

were heavily involved in that.

We have community channels that had been set up to promote

local knowledge of what is going on, to give people a chance to get involved to

look at themselves to discuss their own problems, it is a forum for the people

of local areas who have no direct contact with Governments, Federal/Provincial

Governments, to bring forth problems in their areas, but more importantly, Mr.

Speaker, it is a forum for the people who are directly involved to bring forth

solutions and anybody who has watched some of the forums, The Empty Nets along

with a number of other local forums set up by MUN Extension, in many cases

broadcasted over large areas through connections with the various cable

stations, we have seen local people identify problems, but then they have gone

on to offer solutions, something which governments grope for, trying to find

solutions in areas where they have no idea what solutions will work and we

always say that if governments listened more to the people who are directly

involved, then many of the problems would be solved.

We see a typical example of this here today with the

Placentia situation where, if Government had listened to the Member for the area

three weeks ago, they would have come up with the same solution they came up

with now, but governments do not listen, Mr. Speaker, and services such as MUN

Extension Service does provide an opportunity for people to have their voices

heard and positive things result, so certainly, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to

support the petition, I hope Government will look at the positive side of having

a service provided to rural Newfoundland and, to urban Newfoundland, because St.

John's certainly benefitted, as the presenter said from having MUN Extension;

the technical service they provided to the various groups has been invaluable,

the expertise that they have has been invaluable and overall the Province has

benefitted because we had Memorial University Extension Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the presenter of the petition

mentioned the O'Flaherty Report and the report commissioned by the Economic

Recovery Commission, O'Flaherty of course dealing with a review of the Arts in

the Province and the ERC commission report dealing with cultural industries in

identifying the importance of arts and culture as an industry per se in the

economic potential of focusing our efforts on our culture and on our history and

on our arts. I think there is no question that both reports have pointed out

that we can in fact do a lot more than we have in the past; we have enormous

potential for development per se and of course the Department of Development and

Tourism was mentioned in that light and I think we will be pursuing - I do not

think, I know we will be pursuing many of the initiatives identified in both

reports.

As a matter of fact we have already started as far as the

O'Flaherty report is concerned with initiating many of the suggestions in that

report. This year, of course, in the Budget, we increased the Arts Council

funding by some $100,000. That I think is a start in the right direction because

they were deficient in funding, finding it difficult to operate and fulfill a

difficult mandate which was given to them.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I have asked our

Director of Cultural Affairs to recommend a better use of our space in various

buildings throughout the Province. I guess specifically the Arts and Culture

Centres, but we have other buildings as well. But certainly in the Arts and

Cultural Centres we do have space outside of the main theatre area, office space

and other storage space and so on that can be made available to community

groups. We as a Government would like as much as possible that these Arts and

Cultural Centres focus entirely on arts and culture as opposed to other uses. We

have from time to time seen other uses prevalent in these buildings, and we are

not sure that is - as a matter of fact we are sure - she said, we are not sure -

we are sure that is not the right way for these centres to operate. And with the

pressure that we have been receiving, concerns expressed by the arts community,

and I guess, confirmed by the O'Flaherty and the Cultural Industries Report that

we do have to make the space we have available in arts facilities, more

available to arts and cultural groups. We will certainly do that wherever we

can, and that relates directly to the petition, of course, in that if we can

help in any way to ease the burden of the change, and the shift in priorities,

the difficult budget decision that the university had to make, if we can ease

that burden in any way, by way of assisting with space, if that space is

identified, we will certainly do that. And we have had some preliminary

discussions with some of the staff and people who have been impacted. And if

there is any way my Department, and I am sure I speak as well for other

departments which could be of assistance such as Development, we will do all we

can, Mr. Speaker, to assist in these difficult times and facilitate the

adjustment that has to be made by these groups in trying to carry on with their

programs given the change in their mandate.

Thank you.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition today on behalf of

twenty-seven or twenty-eight constituents of the District of Ferryland who are

attending the Cabot Institute who are very concerned about the cutbacks in

educational funding. In presenting this petition, Mr. Speaker, I want to say

that I fully support the petition and have signed it. I like everyone else is

very concerned in this Province at the educational cutbacks that are happening

in the post-secondary level which could have very drastic and serious affects on

many of the young residents of this Province.

Of course, this petition is asking to protest what might

happen in the event of cutbacks at Cabot. That is one of the interesting things

which has happened here since the Budget was announced on March 7, I have not

seen exactly what effect the cutbacks are going to have on Cabot. I am very

surprised that the Board of Directors at the Cabot Institute have not called a

public press conference to announce what their response will be to the reduce

funding amounts that they have at Cabot. I know we did have 500 or so students

here and teachers protesting one afternoon to say that they did not want any

substantial cutbacks at the Cabot Institute and that what they were doing was

very meaningful and very significant.

But somehow or other since the Budget they have not

announced, and I think it is time for the Institute themselves, the Board of

Directors over there, to announce their reaction to the educational cutbacks.

And I just wonder what it means for some of the community colleges or the Avalon

Community College itself what interaction there is going to be there and what

kind of programs are going to be cut. I wonder what is going to happen at the

old Vocational School Community College Campus at Bell Island, if that is going

to continue to stay open, if it is going to get any increased funding or if it

is going to be significantly reduced at a point that next year - and what I fear

for some of those old vocational school campuses which we spent a lot of time

trying to make into community colleges, and trying to do the provincial

institute system, that has very quickly got off the rails with this new

Government. They really did not have a chance to grow. The community colleges

never did really have a chance to prove their worth in a rural Province. The

provincial institutes, Cabot being one, the Marine Institute being the other in

St. John's, and, of course, the Fisher Institute in Corner Brook were meant to

be significantly different than a community college, were meant to be able to

deliver programs of a two and three year duration, very high tech courses which

will be fairly intensive in the equipment and the teacher requirements for those

kind of courses, and I wonder what is really happening at the Cabot Institute?

And it has not been announced yet. And there is a lot of concern amongst a lot

of the teaching staff there, amongst a lot of the students and parents of

students as to whether they are going to be able to continue on to their two and

three year diploma programs or whether they will be stopped in midstream sort of

and not be able to complete. I do not suspect they would be stupid enough to do

that, that they would allow some mechanism to make sure that any student could

complete their course. What really concerns me about this Government is the fact

that they seem to have attacked the post-secondary side of education in a very

significant way. The reductions in funding to community colleges and provincial

institutes is going to have a very drastic and dire effect on many of the future

job opportunities for many of our young students. Mr. Speaker, I can understand

that the Province does not have all the money it would like to have and if there

is a vocational school campus that has a very low occupancy rate I can see

reducing courses there, and I can see terminating some of the staff there, but

not when you have a place like the Cabot Institute where some of my constituents

have to fight and be on a waiting list for two or three years. Sometimes some of

my constituents have asked me for three or four years in a row to write a letter

to Cabot and to talk to the officers there to see if they can get in but it is

just not possible to do. The Cabot Institute is an integral part of the

vocational system of this Province, the same as Memorial University is to those

kind of students. Any significant reductions at Cabot will have a significant

impact on many residents in many parts of rural Newfoundland, particularly the

district of Ferryland, and I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, in tabling this

petition, that I am very, very supportive of both the Cabot Institute and our

post-secondary system. I wish it was a priority for this Government, and

somewhere along the way I am sure they will have to make it a priority if they

are ever going to attain the economic diversity that they keep talking about,

that educational opportunity is one of the first steps in economic development.

I just hope that the Cabot Institute is not severely hurt in this recent wave of

educational cutbacks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of the petition so ably

presented by the Member for Ferryland. I, too, have had similar petitions from

my constituents from Cabot, and I have to say that since my election I have not

had correspondence and representation from any group of people more so than the

students of Cabot who are quite rightly concerned, Mr. Speaker, as to what is

going to happen to the Cabot Institute as a result of Government measures. We

are dealing here with an institution, and Government cannot use any of the

excuses it comes up with, about under-utilization, giving people the wrong

courses, or nobody going to these courses. It was my understanding that there is

no course at the Cabot Institute that is under-subscribed. Every single course

has a waiting list for people to get in and in some cases, in fact, I understand

for the nursing assistants program there is a waiting list of five years to get

into the program. This is a vital institution for the post-secondary education

of our students. Many of the students who were concerned wrote me, Mr. Speaker,

and asked me to speak on their behalf. They were very concerned about the

consequences that might befall Cabot, particularly with respect to the business

education programs. This is an area where we have seen, not only this Government

but the previous Government, allow the public provision of post-secondary

education, particularly in this sector, fall away to the private education

system with, in some cases, disastrous results to students and particularly to

students who have had courses that never did finish and courses where they were

inadequately prepared, and courses which left them with huge expenses in student

aid and student loans that they are responsible for despite the fact that they

have not gotten the quality education. Mr. Speaker, the only way we can

guarantee quality education to students of this Province is if Government takes

its responsibility seriously and ensures that we have high standards and high

quality institutes such as the Cabot to be able to continue to provide the

programs and provide the level of service that our students need. Mr. Speaker, I

am quite concerned that it has taken some time for the Cabot Institute to react

to the Budget. I am concerned that the cause of that time is quite obvious, that

they are having a very, very difficult time trying to figure out how to cope

with this Government's apparently insensitive action with respect to the Budget.

We are seeing examples of this ever since the Budget Speech has come down, Mr.

Speaker.

This Government has made cuts based on their economic

projections and based on their financial decisions, and they are now leaving the

people of this Province to try and pick up the pieces. We have seen it in MUN

extension arts where the artists now have no place to work or to operate out of,

and the Minister of Culture says, 'Well we will do what we can.' Well that is

not good enough, Mr. Speaker. It is time for this Government to take its

responsibility to the people seriously and to do something to ensure that

institutions, particularly the culture and education institutions that this

Government does not seem to care about, are not left to wither in the wind by

the Government policies that don't take into account what is needed for these

people, but only take into account the budgetary implications for the choices

that it made based on its

interpretation of what the New York bond markets might

or might not do, Mr. Speaker. The Government has a responsibility to the people

of this Province and the students of this Province to make sure that these

programs are continued, and I support this petition wholeheartedly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with my hon.

friends that Cabot and many of the other institutions do outstanding work, not

only in helping individuals develop as human beings, scientists, and

technologists, but in terms of the development of the Province. They play a very

important role in the development of this Province and will continue to do so.

Unfortunately this year for a variety of reasons they have a difficult financial

situation. As my hon. friend from St. John's East knows the Federal Government

has cut - he hates to hear this, but it is a fact of life - the Federal

Government has cut dramatically the transfer payments and has made it difficult

for us to provide all the funding necessary.

So we have asked Cabot to look at all the options, and other

colleges. I am pleased to announce that many of the other colleges have

announced their decisions. They did it this week and they did it after a great

deal of consideration of all the options. Cabot is taking a little longer. It is

my hope that they will make their announcement shortly. We do know that Cabot is

looking at management, supervisory personnel first. As a set of guidelines we

asked all the colleges, before they cut programs that impacted negatively on

individual students, that they looked at management, supervisory positions, and

they are doing that. We asked them to look at any duplication of programs, and

if a program was offered in an adjacent campus we would eliminate these programs

and not others which are not available. We asked them to look at low enrollment

courses where small numbers of students were available. There are not many

courses at Cabot which have low enrollments because as the Member for Ferryland

indicated, Cabot has had a long list of applicants for various programs. But our

hope is that in any reductions that Cabot makes, as the other institutions have,

they will protect as far as possible individual students and student programs.

Certainly the Government does not expect an institution to cut programs when

students are halfway through without providing an opportunity for students to

complete their program - certainly we would reject that as a Government. I might

say that the people at Cabot are genuinely concerned about student welfare, they

are looking at all the options, and we hope that they will announce their

decision shortly. I understand the concerns of students, I understand the

concerns of faculty at this difficult time, but we ask them to bear with us for

a short time longer.

I would add one additional thing, Mr. Speaker. We are

delighted that this Government has announced that we are going ahead with a

centre for engineering technology. This will help this Province focus on

technology to prepare our people for the 21st century. We are delighted. We

announced that this year, and we are going to go ahead with that very shortly,

and this will expand the opportunities available for students so they can serve

this Province and so that this Province can develop as a real partner in the

Canadian Confederation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have

the opportunity to present this petition on behalf of constituents of mine who

are presently attending a post-secondary institution here on the island portion

of the Province.

The prayer of the petition is that: as a voter and one of the

many citizens who believes that Cabot Institute is vital to Newfoundland and

Labrador, I strongly oppose any move by Government to reduce programmes or cut

funding to the Cabot Institute. Thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

need Cabot Institute to ensure the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We want quality education and we deserve no less.

The prayer of that petition really says it all. I represent a

district, as I have often said in this House - and to some people on the other

side, it does not seem to have sunk in yet - that is the richest in this

Province. While it may also have the highest per capita income it also produces

the highest revenue of any electoral district to the coffers of this Province,

and one of the reasons, I suppose, it is one of the richest, is not just the

resource that is mined from the ground but the resource of the people.

The people in western Labrador, I would think, probably have

the highest level of education per capita in this whole Province, in secondary

and post-secondary education. Of course, what that does is give the two mining

companies operating in western Labrador a very well trained and educated work

force which makes them one of the most efficient mines in the whole world. They

understand the global economy, they participate in the global economy, and they

win in the global economy. Even with the high burden of local taxes - and when I

refer to local I mean local Provincial taxes, such as the infamous payroll tax,

even with these drawbacks and handicaps that are placed upon them they are able

to be very productive. And again, it is largely due to the efficiency of the

miners, the people working in the mines, and that efficiency is brought about

because of the training they have received.

Now, a lot of these people working in the mines have students

out here, their children are out here going to a post-secondary institution, and

they are afraid, as the Minister suggested earlier - I could not quite get it,

whether or not the Minister suggested that he was going to ensure - and I hope

the Minister of Education is listening to me - that he will guarantee that none

of the programmes that are presently in place that is either a two or a three

year programme is going to be cut in the middle, so that a person who is doing a

two year programme will not have the opportunity to attend a second year, to

complete that second year of that programme. There is a fear of a lot of the

students who are taking these programmes, on a two or three year programme, and

they are afraid that they may not have the opportunity to go ahead and complete

that programme in the second or the third year. And I hope that the Minister

hears that and will respond to it so that it can allay the fears of these

constituents, of these students.

Now it costs an individual from western Labrador

approximately $8,000 to attend a post-secondary institution here on the island

portion of the Province. Now that is a lot of money, because it costs a lot more

to send a student from western Labrador to a post-secondary institution here on

the island portion of the Province. A lot of it is due of course to the high

travel costs that they have to incur to get here. They also like to be able to

get home, get back to their families at Christmas or the March break. That is

part of it. The other one of course is the added burden of being so far away

from home and extra phone calls. These are all part of the attempt to get an

education for a child if you are living in western Labrador.

That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity to urge this

Government - we do not know yet what the cuts will be - I hope that it is not

going to be too drastic, I hope that it not going to be as great as the cuts in

the hospital that we had to take. Because in order for this Province to have any

future we have to invest. And I repeat, invest, in the future. And that

investment into the future is an investment in the children's education. And I

would urge the Government to consider and put health and education on their

priority.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the

petition presented by my colleague from Menihek in which he asks this Government

to take a second look at the possibility of cutbacks to programmes at Cabot.

Like my colleague from Menihek I also share the same concerns because several

students have come to me on several occasions quite concerned about their

programmes, particularly in the areas of Secretarial Science or Accounting or in

first or second year of the programme, and there is a real fear out there in the

community that this Administration, because of its cutbacks to Cabot, will not

allow Cabot to fulfil its obligation to students who had started programmes.

This is fundamentally wrong because, when these students

enrolled in that programme, it was their belief that the Cabot Institute would

be able to allow them to graduate from that programme. Now, because of budgetary

cutbacks, there are some implications that they might not be able to complete

them. Mr. Speaker, this sudden, I suppose de-emphasis on the value of education,

is an about face for this Administration where in 1990 in his Budget Speech the

Minister said that: this Budget was committed to improvements in three areas,

Health, Education and the Economy.

In 1991, what we find happening is: To Health there was

certainly no commitment. They slashed Education and they did not do anything in

1990 or 1991 for the Economy. Perhaps one of the areas they could help the

Economy most is by educating its people and that is where, as a Province we

failed quite considerably, in not having Education put on the plateau where it

should be.

Dr. Warren, in one of his famous themes at Memorial, always

said money spent on education is not money spent but money invested. Now, I

wonder why as a Minister of the Crown, he does not believe the same thing; he

does not believe this any more, he does not believe that money spent on

education is money invested; he now sees that education spending has to be

slashed, has to be drastically cut, and while the role of community colleges and

other post-secondary institutions in this Province continuously change and

evolve into something else, what we cannot afford to do is to curtail or cut the

programmes that these institutions have offered.

As society becomes increasingly more technological and

everything else, then it is increasingly important that these institutions

continue to fulfill the role they had in the past and indeed, instead of being

reduced in the level of courses they offer, it should be increased, so that

young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be able to avail of the

opportunities. We are going to, if we continue on the road that this

administration has started, we are going to find that not only is there a brain

drain from the Province because of a lack of opportunities here, but because you

failed to stimulate the economy we are going to find that the students are going

to go on to other schools elsewhere in the country, and the level of our

schooling will deteriorate.

Already, we cannot compete. Our best athletes go to

universities on the mainland because of scholarships. Our best people are

leaving the Province, many of them never to return. The programme this

Administration has embarked upon will only make the situation worse, so I call

on the Minister to take a second look at the programmes that he has in place and

assure the students of Cabot and the instructors that the present level of

programming will remain in place so students can continue and improve upon the

courses that they are presently taking.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Cabot Institute is

an institution which has been in existence for a long time in this Province and

it is located in the district that I represent, St. John's Centre, so we look

forward to having visit our district, people from all over the Province, to

participate in the valued programmes that we offer in St. John's Centre through

the Cabot Institute.

I too, have received letters from constituents concerning the

Cabot Institute, letters from students and others who are sometimes concerned

about what may or may not happen.

This is a concern that is genuine, and some of it, I think,

has been sponsored by fearmongering which people have been engendering. The very

many constituents, young students and other people consult as to whether they

should go to Cabot or Memorial or whatever, so there is a fair amount of advice

going on by Members in the city, certainly, and perhaps Members outside as well,

as to Cabot Institute and other things.

There is no doubt that we have to look at our budgetary

questions. We have to look very carefully in this Province at how we spend

money, and it is not just sufficient for people to get up and say: we should

spend money on this and money on that and particularly, I might point out, the

rather strange points that are being made across the way. When people say to me:

why do you not reduce the health and post-secondary education tax, which was

mentioned earlier, and at the same time they want us to spend more money on

health and post-secondary education - there is something incongruous.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: I do not want to get into a debate on this,

Mr. Speaker, because it is not the right forum. But I will point out that this

year's Budget contains an increase over last year's Budget for education, an

increase of 2.8 per cent. And included in that is several million dollars more

in the area of student aid.

The future of the Cabot Institute is going to be a very

glorious one, and some of the plans that have been revealed here by the Minister

of Education with respect to the future, with respect to the College of

Fisheries and the College of Trades and Memorial University, all this makes for

a tremendous, exciting era of post-secondary education in the Province.

The future for Cabot Institute and for the College of Marine

Technology and for Memorial University - these are great futures. What we have

to do now in the short term, is to look carefully at the way we manage these

institutions so that they are done very efficiently and that the solution is not

perceived as one where we just throw money at the problem, and hope that by

throwing money at the problem you will cure it. Because, Mr. Speaker, the money

just is not there to throw at the problem. We have to spend our money in a smart

fashion in education rather than just spend more money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be

able to present a petition of residents of the town of Pasadena in the district

I represent.

The prayer of the petition is as follows: the petition of the

undersigned, the friends of MUN Extension, states that

whereas MUN Extension has

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

Newfoundland and Labrador, and

whereas no other agency is capable of providing

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

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

Memorial University reinstates its Extension Service and that it be funded and

equipped to provide the services it has traditionally provided.

I support the petition and I have signed it, Mr. Speaker.

These petitioners for the most part are involved in economic

development in the Humber Valley area. And they have appreciated, and they know

their area has benefited from, the involvement in Humber Valley economic

development of Memorial University Extension Service. MUN Extension has had a

field worker based in Deer Lake serving the western region of the Province for

the past several years. Tom O'Keefe held that position for several years, and

since Mr. O'Keefe moved with MUN Extension to the Clarenville or Placentia area,

Brian White held the position, until of course the service was extinguished and

he lost his job.

The MUN Extension field worker at Deer Lake has been involved

quite effectively with municipalities, the Humber Valley Development

Association, the Pasadena Economic Development Committee, the Pasadena Venture

Centre, as well as business people and other citizens, in developing businesses

in the area, in particular, the agriculture and tourism industries.

Both agriculture and tourism have only been partly developed

in the Humber Valley area. There is tremendous untapped potential. The MUN

Extension field worker at Deer Lake was actively involved with the Humber Valley

Development Association in sponsoring the annual Strawberry Festival, an event

that capitalizes on both the farming activity and the tourist potential of the

Humber Valley region. The Strawberry Festival has been held each Summer for the

past several years and each year it gets better. For the past two years in the

Winter there has been a fairly intensive process of evaluating previous

festivals and developing a long-term strategy. Recently, I attended a full day

Saturday workshop on the Strawberry Festival and at that day-long meeting Mr.

Brian White for MUN Extension took a leadership role. Mr. Speaker, the Pasadena

Venture Centre was established with Federal funding a few years ago and it has

been operated with provincial subsidies and it has been a novel approach to

enticing business starts in our area. The MUN Extension field worker in Deer

Lake has worked hand in hand with the staff of the Venture Centre and the town

of Pasadena, in promoting the use of the Venture Centre. One of their most

creative projects has been their television production beamed by satellite

through most of North America. The second television broadcast included a link

with the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners have been involved in all this

business development activity and they feel keenly the loss of MUN Extension.

Now, these people and I, Mr. Speaker, strongly object to the Government pumping

all kinds of additional money, and new money, into Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador and the Economic Recovery Commission at the same time as they have

eliminated completely MUN Extension. There does not seem to be any logic in the

approach of the Government. People are, in increasing numbers, discovering that

this Government lacks a plan. The Premier does not have a vision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to support the petition presented by the Member for

Humber East. The petitioners have, along with many other people across this

Province, expressed their concern that the Government has seen fit to remove

budgetary funding that would make MUN Extension possible. The Member has given a

number of examples of how MUN Extension has been successful in working with

groups and organizations in the area of Pasadena, and these examples are

repeated all over the Province, Mr. Speaker. All over the Province MUN

Extension, through its particular skills and abilities in helping people work

together, have been able to generate economic activity, cultural activity,

activity which has important developmental value for this Province, as it has in

the rural area provided a vital development and a vital area of contribution. In

places like St. John's MUN Extension Arts have added to the cultural identity of

this Province. We have had petitions presented today, and questions today, to

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and what he says in response

is: we will do what we can. Mr. Speaker that is not good enough. If Government

is serious about what kinds of efforts, decisions, conclusions, and

accomplishments that have been made by MUN Extension, culturally through MUN

Extension Arts, developmentally through the Extension Services, all across this

Province, if they are serious about that they will not just say, well, we will

do what we can. Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador might pick this up. We

might find a bit of space in our Arts and Culture Centres to have a few works

shown. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. When are they going to take

seriously, for example, the contributions of artists alone in this Province?

When are they going to start seriously. They should not have to come to this

Government as supplicants, `please let us exist as artists. Please let us exist'

- they should be recognized by this Government for the contribution they are

making not only to the culture, but to the economy? How many of these artists

who have signed these letters and petitions are contributing to the economy of

this Province? How many paintings, how many wall hangings, how many of these

things are sold in Toronto and the rest of this country and to people from

around the world who come to Newfoundland and buy these things bringing dollars

to this Province? When are they going to take it seriously?

To suggest, Mr. Speaker, that putting $100,000 into the Arts

Council, which is so badly underfunded, yes that is fine, that was part of their

plan and it was badly needed. But when you do that on the one hand and take the

guts out of an institution that has provided the basis to encourage not only

artists themselves to continue to work and to share their knowledge with others

through education, to train new people, to train students how to be artists and

how to act as artists and to learn about it, all of those things are being

ripped out of the cultural community, ripped out of the culture of this Province

that has been part of for the last thirty years, MUN Extension. It cannot be

replaced by a business consultant from Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. We

are talking here about a culture which involves people like Tom O'Keefe and

other extension workers who have contacts in the community, who can work

together, who know how and have the experience to bring people together to work

together to create new things and to bring new ideas to fruition. That is what

is being lost with MUN extension, Mr. Speaker, and this Government fails to

recognize it. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 15, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting

Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province". (Bill No. 16).

MR. SPEAKER: The debate was adjourned by the hon. the

Member for Humber Valley, I believe.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

to have a few words on this Bill 16, or as we are debating now, actually, the

six month hoist. Mr. Speaker, I believe if this Government was a prudent

Government they would agree to delay the implementation of this Bill for six

months, as recommended or moved by the Member or Grand Falls, the Opposition

House Leader. Mr. Speaker, there is just one small reason why they should defer

it. The title of this Bill,

An Act Respecting Restraint Of Compensation In The

Public Sector Of The Province. Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a misnamed Bill,

if there was ever a bill with a name which did not completely represent what was

inside its cover, this bill is it. It would be more appropriate if this bill was

named a bill with respect to rolling back wages for public servants of this

Province. It would be a more correct name. If this bill was named a bill to take

away monetary gains by public sector employees, Mr. Speaker, it would be more

appropriately named. If this bill was named a bill to take away pay equity from

women who work in the public service of this Province, Mr. Speaker, it would be

more appropriately named. But it has not been named that way; this bill has been

named to give the impression that it will not have an effect on the public

servants of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, if this was not such a serious situation it

would be almost comical. This Government, especially the Premier of this

Province, the first piece of major labour legislation they have brouht before

this House of Assembly is Bill 59 all over again, and even worse. We were

castigated by the trade unions in this Province for many, many years because we

brought in Bill 59. What a draconian piece of legislation Bill 59 was. In

hindsight we probably should have done some things differently, although at the

time I was extremely supportive of Bill 59. I am not sure yet that it was

completely wrong.

But, Mr. Speaker, this Government was going to change it all;

this Government was going to improve labour relations in the Province - set an

example of improved labour relations I believe was what they said, and the first

piece of labour legislation this Government brings before this House of Assembly

is a bill to take away benefits from the public servants of this Province.

I would like to read a couple of comments here which were

given to me some time ago. It says, `In recent years economic development in

Newfoundland and Labrador has been impeded by unsettled labour climate' - I

wonder who said that? - `which has been a result largely of the failure of the

Tory Government to recognize the essential role of unions in our society.' So we

know now it was not a Tory who said it. It must have been someone else. `The

record of the Tory Government in dealing with labour has been dismal. The

adversarial approach has created some of the worst moments in this Province's

trade union history.' I wonder who said that. I wonder which group or which

party in this Province were touting only two years ago this type of political

rhetoric and tripe. `Here is what the Liberal Government will be determined to

create, an atmosphere of realistic co-operation' - that has to be the good one -

`in developing labour legislation and in dealing with the public service

unions.' Now that is what this Government was going to do when they were looking

for votes a few years ago.

When they were looking for votes they were going to create an

atmosphere of realistic co-operation. When they got the votes, when they got the

support of the Fraser March's of this world, when they fooled the Fraser March's

and the Leo Puddister's of this world and got their public support during the

last election, what do they do? They bring in Bill 16.

AN HON. MEMBER: Grow cucumbers!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Certainly they would be much better and

the unions would be much happier if they did grow cucumbers and threw Bill 16 in

the garbage, where it should be thrown. `The Liberal Party policy of fairness

and balance will be the basis of negotiations.' That has to be a statement that

will go down in history from this Government. The Liberal policy of fairness and

balance will be the basis of negotiations. And after negotiations are finished,

we will throw whatever was negotiated in the garbage, we will flush it down the

toilet. That is what the Liberal Government is saying.

`Mutual respect and genuine concern for the welfare and

interest of all sectors of society, employees, employers, and the public at

large, that is the Liberal policy on labour.' And this is the Liberal action on

labour, Bill 16. I cannot see the relationship here. I do not see how they jibe.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No. There is certainly no balance here,

one hand is much heavier... one is weighted a lot more for votes than the other.

That is what I would say. And the timing of this one here, which is weighted on

the side of the votes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. Good? Another Liberal Government in

Canada announced a wage freeze, and we have a Member across here who is

supporting a wage freeze in this Province. Now was the New Brunswick

announcement similar to the Quebec announcement, I wonder? The Quebec

announcement honours negotiated agreements, as you said you would do during the

last agreement. The Quebec agreement does not tear up what was negotiated

through their collective bargaining system. The Quebec agreement does not

abolish the collective bargaining system, jump in the middle of it and throw it

in the garbage. I wonder, is the New Brunswick wage freeze - we are not saying

anything about your wage freeze. I am not saying a word about your wage freeze,

because I was in support of bringing in a wage freeze. I supported the wage

freeze the Tory government brought in, yes. The two year wage freeze plus two

and two or two and three, I supported that wholeheartedly. But we did not tear

up any contracts when we did it. We did not break faith with the unions. We put

it to them up front that this was what was going to happen, and when their

contracts ran out, when all the benefits they negotiated and got ran out, what

did we do? We froze wages.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did not lay them off!

MR. R. AYLWARD: We did not throw 3,000 of them out on the

street. We did not do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you carried them all off and put them

in jail.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we

carried them all off and put them in jail either. I do not think we did. I think

there were a couple who went to jail. Union leaders mostly went for a while. I

do not think any of them spent too much time in jail. As far as I know, the ones

who did spend time in jail were getting paid negotiating pay, at time and a half

or double time. I would probably spend a few days in there myself if I were

getting that kind of money.

But when the Government put out this policy here, progressive

and fair legislation must be to deal with the issues of double-breasting. Is

that dealt with in this first major piece of legislation? I do not think so.

Industrial standards. I do not think there are any industrial standards in this

here except very low industrial standards, if you want. Progressive and fair

legislation will help to develop the minimum wage. Congratulations to the

Minister of Labour who yesterday, after two years, increased the minimum wage by

fifty cents an hour, twenty-five cents an hour, or something.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty cents.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Fifty cents and hour. Good! You did it.

The first thing in your labour policy you have done since you

have been elected, in two years - the very first thing. I have found one thing

on this page, where you increased the minimum wage from $4.25 to $4.75, or is it

from $4.00 to $4.50?

MS. COWAN: And changed the two tier system (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: And changed the two tier system.

Congratulations! I give you credit for that. I congratulate you for it. That is

a good move. That is one of the things you said on page 20 of the Liberal policy

manifesto that was touted around this Province as the real change in 1989. You

have accomplished one very small part of what you promised to do, and

congratulations to the Minister for doing it. It is not a major reform. It is

not something that is going to change labour relations in this Province, as you

said.

Here is what you said: `Progressive and fair legislation must

be developed to deal with such issues as pay equity.' Have you done that? Have

you dealt with pay equity fairly and developed fair and progressive legislation

to do that? Have you, to date, announced a fair, progressive way to deal with

pay equity in this Province, or have you delayed it? Or have you recognized a

legitimate, honest discrimination in this Province of ours? Have you recognized

that and then decided to ignore it? Is that what you have done? Or have you

brought in fair, honest legislation as you promised, as the Party you supported

promised in 1989 to fool the people into voting for you, to fool the people in

Conception Bay South to get you elected? Have you done that? Have the people in

Carbonear received fair and progressive legislation dealing with pay equity to

date? No, they have not. This is what you promised. The people in the hospitals

in Carbonear voted for fair -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I do not say they did, Mr. Speaker.

Because they were confident we had it all put in place and you could not change

it. I believe that is what happened with pay equity. But they certainly found

out different than that. But this piece of paper here was put out with

deliberately misleading statements on it to fool the people into voting for you.

MS. COWAN: Double-breasting?

MR. R. AYLWARD: To fool the people - yes, have you

brought legislation in here for double-breasting?

MS. COWAN: It is on the way.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh, I see. It is on its way, yes. But

have you brought it into this House?

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Has it passed this House of Assembly yet?

MS. COWAN: Not yet, but it will.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So we do not even know what the

legislation is. We do not know if it is good or bad legislation. How can you

tell -?

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know what I recommended. Did you accept

my recommendation?

MS. COWAN: I have not seen it yet.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh, I see. Well, you do not have it

before the House, we do not see the legislation, I do not know if you accepted

the recommendations we made, so how can I say you lived up to your promise? I do

not know. That legislation might be totally different than what we recommended.

Actually, our most important recommendation was to set up a task force or a

royal commission to study the labour legislation changes we need in this

Province. Now I do not know if you have done that with your legislation. If you

did that, you would not be bringing in legislation. That is what the unions

which came before us asked for; that is what employers who came before us asked

for; that is what some of the union lawyers who came before us asked for.

Now if that is what you are going to do, congratulations

again. You have actually completed two of your ten or fifteen promises you

started in -

MS. COWAN: A good Minister.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A good Minister if she did it. But she

did not do it. If she was a good Minister, if she was a Minister to stand up

especially for the women in her area, some of whom I know voted for her - they

were Tories, they were people who supported our party for a long time who voted

for that woman because she was one of the people if the Wells Government was

ever elected who was going to stand up for women's rights and women's issues.

That is why they voted for her. They were pleased. They thought she would do

this job better than the Conservative candidate, John Butt, who was a good

friend of mine. That is why, they told me, they voted for this person, this

Liberal candidate, because she would stand up for women's issues in this

Province moreso than the other two candidates would, Mr. Speaker, and she has

let them down badly.

And she has let them down badly. Because I have spoken to

them since, Mr. Speaker, and they are disappointed in the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations who has on occasion after occasion had opportunities in

Cabinet to stand up for issues that concern the women of this Province but has

let her male counterparts in Cabinet override her and ignore the issues which

are important to women.

You know, that was tried in our Cabinet when I was there. I

am not telling any secrets outside of Cabinet, I say. That was often discussed

in Cabinet meetings and Committee meetings and caucus meetings. And there was

one person in our caucus, definitely always one person, sometimes she had

support from male counterparts too, but there was always one person whom you

could never get ahead of when it came to women's issues in our caucus, in our

Cabinet, you just could not do it, and that is the Member for Humber East. She

would not let you away with it. She would kick up such a ruckus, and eventually

through logic and good arguments win over the other nineteen or twenty of us who

might have been against what she wanted to do in the first place. She would not

allow -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did not understand.

Yes, I was against many issues I did not relate to, being women's issues in this

Province, because I did not understand them. I was against them and I do not

mind admitting it. The same as the fourteen Members in your Cabinet now who

might be against them. But I always could depend on at least one of my Cabinet

colleagues, one of my caucus colleagues bringing me back to reality and

explaining and fighting for the issue that person believed in. And I might say

more often than not that Cabinet person would win me over; that person who was

speaking for these issues would win me over because of her good arguments.

Mr. Speaker, that is not being done in this Cabinet. The

Member for Conception Bay South, the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, has let the women of her District and the women of this Province down

badly. She had the support of the teachers, and the Government did, too, when

they made these promises and some other promises where they broke their word.

They had the support of NAPE. They had the support of Fraser March, getting his

picture taken with a candidate in Mount Pearl, Judge Seabright. They had the

support of Leo Puddister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: On the Southern Shore I would say, Leo

Puddister. He probably campaigned for the Liberals, but he is kicking himself

now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they did have the

support of the labour unions because of what they said, that they were going to

bring in progressive and fair legislation on pay equity. That has to be the real

joke.

MS. COWAN: Tell us what you did to the NTA (inaudible)

before you brought in (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: We discussed it with them. We let their

contract run out. All the contracts they had there, all the agreements, all the

benefits the NTA had, we let them have them. We did not take them away from

them. We did not roll back their wages, and we did not fire 200 or 300 of them.

That is what I did. What are you doing? You are doing nothing but taking away

from them. That is what you are doing. Here is what you promised to do, but this

here is what you are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Whatever he has is contagious, Mr.

Speaker. These are some other things you promised to do. These are your promises

to get votes. This is the heavy one here, to get votes. You promised the sky to

get your votes, Mr. Speaker, and this is the fairness and balance. This is the

balance here, and it weighs on the side of getting votes. But this one here is

going to get a lot heavier before the next one comes around, Mr. Speaker,

because there are going to be more votes in this one for somebody else. I do not

know if we will get them, but it will not be you. Maybe they will get them

there, I am not sure. Mr. Speaker, there will be more votes in this Bill 16 here

than there will be in this 1989 Liberal manifesto.

Here is another thing you promised: `While the rights of all

workers must be protected, it should not be at the expense of the trade union

movement and its members.' I do not know who suffered in the last hospital

strike. I suppose the trade union movement must have suffered, because there was

a $600,000 fine somewhere, with two union leaders on the verge of going to jail

and they expected they would be in jail.

`A Liberal Government will also seek to enhance harmonious

relations between employers and employees.' Mr. Speaker, as an employer in this

Province they have certainly enhanced their relations with their employees. They

have done everything under the sun to enhance their relationship with their

employees. Actually, the ones they could not enhance, the 3000, they fired.

Maybe the other thirty-odd thousand they have left are enhanced now, I am not

sure.

I would say that one of the reasons the Government took the

approach they did, we will layoff 2000 or 3000, they sat down one night -

because there was no planning to this. It was admitted it was done only a day or

two before, so the Premier and the President of Treasury Board sat down and

said, Well, we have 35,000 employees. Now the biggest problem in this Province

is jobs, employment. That is the biggest problem. It always is the biggest

problem. So what will we do to solve that biggest problem? We have to save

money, because we cannot afford to do what we want to do. They did not sit down

logically and say we have to protect the jobs so that is not an option, we

cannot lay off people because there is a big problem in this Province where a

lot of people are not working, so what we will do, the logical thing I would say

we will do, is save the jobs; rather than lay off 5 per cent of the employees,

we will roll everyone's wage back 5 per cent. That is an option, a very

controversial one. You would certainly suffer for it. But, they said, no, that

would protect jobs, it is fairly logical, but it will really upset too many

people. We cannot have 35,000 public servants in this Province upset with us, so

what is the other step? We will take our 35,000 employees and we will lay off

3000 of them. We then have 32,000 left who are breathing a sigh of relief and

saying, at least I did not lose my job. So you do not have so many people upset

with you. You have 3000 people out on the street, you have again exaggerated the

biggest problem we have in this Province, which is unemployment, yet `we do not

have 35,000 people upset with us in the Province', you thought.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it did not work. Because when you did your

health cutbacks you forgot the implications of the Placentia's of this world,

you forgot the implications of the people who are served by the hospitals in

places like Placentia, you forgot they would organize, and you did not expect

that they would come in and beat the doors down in this place if things were not

changed. Now, Mr. Speaker, the people from Placentia have been here once and

they had an effect; they have an extra couple of weeks of service down there.

But do not think that is the end of it, from what I know, and I am sure the

Member for Placentia will say the same. If you cut what you said you were going

to cut in Placentia, I do not want to be here the next time they come in.

Because I think there is going to be trouble. They are upset people, and it

would be wise for Government to review what has happened. You made a mistake.

Not because of political reasons or anything else, you made a mistake! You

cannot put terminally sick people in an ambulance in Placentia and try to get

them over the Argentia access road in the middle of the winter. You cannot do

it. They are not going to get here. They are going to die on the way.

You have closed hospitals in rural areas, in remote areas and

you have cut your Air Ambulance budget. It does not make sense to me at all. I

mean, it is completely opposite. You put money into road transportation, but you

cannot travel by road when the roads are blocked. The Minister of Transportation

has made sure that the roads will be in poor shape and blocked as much as he

can, because he has changed the overtime policy of staff, he has cut back on

maintenance money, he has cut back on snow clearing and ice control money. So

you cannot get them to hospital in the ambulance, because your own Minister has

cut his budget to pieces so that the roads are not going to be in good enough

shape. The minimum you could have done was to have kept money in for the Air

Ambulance Service. But you took, I think, a half million dollars out of that,

too, so there is no plan, there is no logic to what you are doing.

The promises you made during the last election, the great

vote-getting promises you made to fool the Fraser March's of the world and to

fool the Leo Puddister's of this world into standing up before a camera and

looking like an idiot now - I am sure Fraser March must feel very uncomfortable

when he is sitting down at a meeting with 100 of his people looking him in the

eyes and saying, Mr. March, did you not help to put those fellows in there? I am

sure he is very uncomfortable every time a bunch of women look at him and say,

but, Mr. March, did not the Tories have pay equity in place? It was only a

matter of working out the details. Mr. March, did you not help put these people

in there who took it away from us?

I would say Mr. March is very uncomfortable and hopefully -

do you know what you are forgetting? I mean, the polls are good, the polls are

running fairly high since Meech Lake. I would say they are probably in the

fifty-five, fifty-six range. That would be my guess right now, two points lower

than we were when we went into the last election. Just remember that. Just

remember that. I do not mind anything less than 60 per cent. Because you give me

twenty-one days, Mr. Speaker, and we will work on that 60 per cent. I will give

you a twenty points advantage in Kilbride and you give me a twenty-one days, and

see if I would not turn it around in Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, with all the euphoria of the polls and everyone

tapping you on the back and a lot of people saying what a great job, what you

are forgetting is that you got in here under false pretences, you got in here by

the lies in your manifesto. That was one reason why you got in here; you got in

here by rigging a poll, which was admitted by one of your workers. You rigged

the poll the last week of the election -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I do not. It was reported in the

paper. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am telling any secrets there. The support

you do have, without Meech Lake I would say it would probably be fifty/fifty

again. Or it is probably thirty/thirty/thirty now. Maybe that crowd there might

have more support too. Mr. Speaker, only for Meech Lake, I would say support

would be a lot different. And I congratulate the Premier on fooling a lot of

people on Meech Lake. Yes, he did a great job. The Spin Doctor spun out a lot of

propaganda on that. He fell into an anti-French feeling. He admits some of it,

but he will not admit it all. But you cannot get away with this stuff twice; you

cannot lie to the people twice like this, you cannot get away with it on a

second occasion. Unfortunately, I only have three minutes left. But I will have

another chance to speak in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, `Liberal Government would also seek to enhance

relations between employees and, at the same time, enable employees to increase

the rewards of their labour.' Yes, you are going to increase the rewards with -

where did it go? - this Bill 16. They should gain a lot of rewards for their

labour with Bill 16, Mr. Speaker. They should be able to - what does it say? `At

the same time enable employees to increase the rewards of their labour by

promoting a profit sharing and stock participation arrangements.' Now I do not

know how public servants are supposed to avail of this profit sharing and stock

participation arrangements. I mean, that does not make sense to me at all. They

are your employees, they are the ones you are supposed to be looking after, but

you are doing a very poor job of it with the first piece of major legislation

you have introduced after all these promises.

I see another one. It is too bad the Member for St. John's

South is not - I cannot say he is not here. He is out on business, Government

business no doubt. They stuck a paragraph in the back of it, `Occupational

health and safety must be a high priority. There is no priority. The Member for

St. John's South must have gotten them to stick that in there.

Mr. Speaker, some of the things I read out here were the

Liberal promises in 1989, only a couple of years ago, to fool people and to

deceive people. The leader of this Province is the master of deception, the king

of deception in this democratic country of Canada. The leader of this

Government, Mr. Speaker, Premier Wells, is the master of deception, when he can

stand before the people of this Province when he knowingly lied to them during

that campaign. And there was a reason for it. There was a reason for fixing the

poll, and there was a reason for lying with all these promises. Because he knew

the real polls, and they were so far behind in the real polls that he had an NDP

campaign. That is what he did. `Promise the sky. I am not going to get elected

anyway.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: `I am getting out of here, and I am going

back to the law practice to make a pile of money.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SIMMS: Is nobody going to defend this draconian

measure?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hesitated before

standing, because I thought a Member of the Government might stand to defend

Bill 16, this ruthless rollback legislation.

MR. SIMMS: It is ridiculous. Not one of them over there

has spoken except the President of Treasury Board. That is all. This is

shocking.

MS. VERGE: Only the President of Treasury Board has

spoken in this House on the proposed legislation so far. The other members of

the Cabinet and the Government back bench Members sit silently looking sheepish.

Of course, some of them in acquiescing to this rollback legislation are

betraying their stated principles. The Premier and some of the others over there

hold themselves out as people of high moral standards; the Premier particularly

is big on ethics. Well where are their ethics now? Here they are after having

negotiated several public service collective agreements, after having accepted

arbitration awards, after putting disputed matters out to arbitration, now using

their majority in the House of Assembly to renege on those contractual

obligations, to wipe out salary and benefits increases in this fiscal year, and

worst of all, to retroactively cancel pay equity which was supposed to be

negotiated over a five year period from 1988, and take effect retroactively from

April 1st, 1988.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation amounts to a betrayal of public

employees, a betrayal of public service unions, and the worst betrayal of all is

to women public employees. The only provision of this bill with retroactive

effect is the cancellation of pay equity. The Government mouths support for the

concept of pay equity, saying that they will implement it at some unspecified

time in the future. Well, Mr. Speaker, what they are doing with this legislation

is wiping out more than three year's worth of pay equity. Three years have

passed since April 1, 1988, and women public employees who have worked from then

until now doing work the Government admits is of equal value to their male

counterparts, have been paid less than their male colleagues. Women in that

situation who have retired already or who will be retiring in the next little

while will never receive fair remuneration for their efforts. The pay equity

adjustment that was promised and committed to them with effect from April 1,

1988 will never materialize.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking now I am supporting the motion made

by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, to delay for six months our

consideration of this ruthless, regressive rollback legislation. In allowing for

six months delay, we would hope that the Government would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Order, Mr. Speaker! Look. He is yakking there

all the while and he is not even in his seat.

MS. VERGE: - do in that period of time what it should

have been doing over the last two years, certainly over the months that led up

to the March 7th Budget and to the proposal of this legislation: Number one,

checking the legality of their proposals. Number two, discussing with the public

service unions, with public employees and with other citizens of Newfoundland

and Labrador more palatable alternatives to the ruthless rollback.

I will discuss the first point, Mr. Speaker. On March 15, a

day after Bill 16, this rollback bill was distributed in the House of Assembly,

and after I had had a chance to read and consider it, I wrote a letter to the

Premier, the Premier who holds himself out to all of Canada as a constitutional

legal authority. What I said in my letter to the Premier is that he should refer

this proposed legislation to the Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal for a

ruling on the constitutional validity of the bill.

I reminded the Premier that when he was in private law

practice there was a precedent for this type of Government reference to the

court, and that was the Peckford Administration's reference of The Water Rights

Reversion Act, an attempt to open up the inequitable Upper Churchill power

contract which of course he, in his former life as the MHA for Humber East from

1966 to 1971, had voted for in the House of Assembly.

The Premier also had reason to recall that reference to the

Court of Appeal because he, as a private lawyer, acted for one of the

bondholders and in doing so opposed the Government's attempt to open up the

Upper Churchill power contract and to change it for the benefit of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that was not the first

time the Premier acted against the interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

in the courts. He acted for Prime Minister Trudeau and the Federal Liberal

Government during the 1980s in trying to block our assertion of ownership of the

Continental Shelf and the minerals under the Continental Shelf.

The Premier argued with all his might that the Federal

Government owns our Continental Shelf. In my letter to the Premier on March 15,

I continued by stating my own view, as a lawyer, that the proposed roll back

legislation is unconstitutional because it violates the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. In particular, I said, in rolling back pay equity agreements the Bill

permits discrimination against women public employees on the basis of sex and

therefore offends the Charter guarantee, the

Section 15 Charter guarantee of

equality rights without discrimination, including without discrimination on the

basis of sex. To digress, Mr. Speaker, this rollback of pay equity essentially

acquiesces in continuing discrimination against women public employees on the

basis of sex. The pay equity agreement reached by the previous PC administration

with public service unions in June 1988 provided for the implementation of pay

equity over a five year period through a process of negotiations retroactive to

April 1, 1988. I said to the Premier that his Government and its agencies have

admitted paying less salary and benefits to women public employees than the

Government is paying men for doing work of equal value. The Government has

admitted to discriminating against women public employees and the Government

embraced, or at least pretended to adopt the 1988 agreement to end that

discrimination. Actually, when they were campaigning for election two years ago

the Liberals did more than that, they promised in writing to introduce and

enforce pay equity legislation. Now, over the past two years periodically I have

asked the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, who may have forgotten

that part of his responsibility here lately - I have also asked the Premier -

when they are going to get around to introducing the promised pay equity

legislation. Well, perhaps Bill 16 is it. Maybe this is what they had in mind

when they promised pay equity legislation. Of course the rest of us, when we

read Clyde Well's glossy full colour election pamphlet and saw that he was going

to introduce and enforce pay equity legislation, thought he was going to

legislate equal pay for work of equal value, the same for women as for men doing

work of equal value. That is what we thought, but perhaps in his crafty,

cunning, technical legal way, what he had in his mind was legislating to wipe

out the agreement that had been reached between the PC administration and the

pubic service unions. Perhaps that is what he meant. He has been caught in more

than one lie already. He has been caught in more than one trick already. Mr.

Speaker, the First Ministers of Canada were the beneficiary of another reneging

act on the part of the Premier of this Province last June. He undertook to put

to the Legislature the question of the Meech Lake Accord. He signed his

signature to a commitment to have either a referendum or a free vote in the

House of Assembly on the Meech Lake Accord. He told the people of the Province

there was not enough time to have a referendum when, I am told, the Chief

Electorial Officer advised him that there really was enough time. He then

claimed to chose his fallback position which was a free vote in the House of

Assembly. He negotiated special rules with the Opposition. We mutually agreed to

suspend the usual rules. We commenced the debate, fifty of us spoke, and then at

the last minute he called off the vote.

So the treatment the Premier gave the First Ministers of

Canada and the people of Canada, he is now giving the public service unions and

the public employees.

Mr. Speaker, I went on in my letter to point out to the

Premier that the only provision of Bill 16 with retroactive effect is the

cancellation of pay equity commitments. The Bill reneges on the negotiated, the

signed contractual commitments for increases in pay and benefits in the 1991-92

fiscal year. The Bill tears up the written contractual provisions for salary and

benefit increases for the twelve month period from April 1, 1991 to March 31,

1992. What it does to pay equity is much worse than that. It cancels the pay

equity undertaking retroactively. It wipes out three years plus worth of pay

equity commitments. What is that worth, Mr. Speaker? What is that worth?

The President of Treasury Board and Dave Curtis, the

President of the Provincial Federation of Labour, who was active with NAPE in

negotiating pay equity because of his particular responsibility for the health

care sector, which is made up mostly of women public employees, estimate the

cost of the loss of the previously negotiated pay equity to women in the health

care sector alone at $25 million to $27 million. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

Minister of Labour is troubled by any of this?

AN HON. MEMBER: Troubled?

MS. VERGE: I wonder if the Minister of Social Services is

upset by any of this?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I wonder what they meant when they campaigned

two years ago? What did they mean when they had their pictures on the election

brochure which made a Liberal commitment for real change and a promise to

introduce and enforce pay equity legislation? What did they mean? Did they mean

to trick women public employees? Did they deliberately fool people? Did they

deliberately and in a calculated way lure people to vote for them, knowing all

along that once they formed the Government and once they occupied their

comfortable positions, drawing $90,000 plus a year and getting an $8,000 a year

car allowance, that they would wipe out their campaign promises and wipe out,

through their majority in this House of Assembly, signed contractual commitments

to give their employees pay and benefits increases and to provide for pay equity

retroactive to three years ago, to April 1, 1988? What did they intend?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite, particularly the

Minister of Development, gleefully from time to time quotes statistics about the

debt of the Province. They have never attempted to relate the debt to the wealth

of the Province, the gross provincial product, the gross domestic product or to

earned income. And, of course, as the Member for Pleasantville mentioned the

last time that I tried to put things into perspective and to compare the debt in

1989 and the debt in 1971, when the Liberals last left office -

MR. EFFORD: What was it (inaudible.)

-relating it to a common base and showing that the debt load

in 1971 was tremendously worse than it was in 1989, pointing out that there had

been enormous improvement in the debt load during the PC years. Unfortunately my

time ran out, but the Member for Pleasantville did ask me if I knew about

inflation; well, Mr. Speaker, that was the whole point of my comparison. We have

to factor in inflation and when we quote a statistic for 1970 or 1971, we have

to then adjust for inflation, we have to relate to the gross domestic product at

that time and earned income at that time, as well as relating the debt now to

our wealth production and earned income now.

Mr. Speaker, the other question that I would have to ask is:

did not the Liberals research the financial position of the Province when they

mounted their election campaign two years ago, did they read the published

Budget documents that were distributed in this Assembly year after year after

year, including the salary details? Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the

Government salary details for the 1991-1992 Budget year, for the current Budget

year.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am asking whether the Liberals

researched the financial position of the Province when they mounted their

election campaign two years ago, is that, during that campaign they made

extravagant promises, the most flagrant example of course was the Premier's

promise to build new universities in each region of the Province. He was going

to start with a new university in central Newfoundland but he was not going to

stop there, he was going to construct new universities in northern Newfoundland

and in Labrador as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier scoffed at the standing of the

previous PC Administration on health care, he said that he would spend way more,

that an Administration headed by him would open many additional hospital beds,

that was a major plank of his election platform and, of course, the other major

promise when he was campaigning was to improve the economy, create more jobs,

employ everyone here at home and then reach out to the mothers' sons on the

mainland and have all them come back home; and there was a Liberal woman on the

nor