April 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 24

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

o o o

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

Lands.

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

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder if we could get some agreement on the

clock process. The electronic one is not working. As a matter of fact it is

totally screwed up. That one says l:05 and this one says 1:57. It is hard enough

to operate in here without not having access to a clock. This one down here is

an hour late or an hour slow, so perhaps we should have some understanding, or

agreement, as to which one we use. We need to have some kind of an agreement as

to which one we are going to use.

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

MR. BAKER: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we use both that

one and that one, and add one hour. Then I think we will have two in

agreement.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: Back to Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has approved a request from Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper Limited for a one year extension to the completion date for their new bark

fired boiler. Reduced cash flow resulting from the modernization program as well

as the current recession and general downturn in the newsprint market has forced

this delay.

Work on the bark fired boiler will continue, though at a

reduced rate. Planned completion date is June 30, 1993, a one year delay from

that specified in the PUT agreement. Other air quality improvement programs will

continue as scheduled.

Improvement in the Acid Tower were completed well before the

December 31, 1990 target date, resulting in greatly reduced sulphur dioxide

emissions. In addition, the rebuilding of numbers 3 and 6 oil-fired boilers is

on

schedule for completion by December 31, 1991. The result should be a

significant reduction in oily soot deposits.

To ensure that the delay in the completion of the bark fired

boiler has minimal impacts on the air quality of Corner Brook, Corner Brook Pulp

and Paper will undertake the following:

(1) Bark Burning will be further reduced

in the Summer months so as to minimize particulate carry over. This action will

take effect this year.

(2) The Company will install an Infrasound combustion

system on one existing bark fired boiler to be operational by this Summer.

Testwork by other companies has indicated a potential for significant reductions

in particulate emissions when using this unit. Once proven successful, the

company will also purchase a second unit for the second existing bark fired

boiler.

Mr. Speaker, Government will continue to monitor the work at

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Company and to work together with the company and

Environment Canada for a cleaner environment in the Corner Brook area.

In the meantime an amendment to the PUT agreement will be

required and details regarding this will be tabled in the House at the

appropriate time.

Thank you.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: I want to thank the Minister first of all

for a copy of his statement well in advance. I can see from the first of his

statement that I think we all agree there is a turndown in the paper industry

and I suppose Kruger is no exception.

But with that said, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the House

that I think there was legislation passed last spring for guaranteeing Kruger

borrowing for this project. And I think this is the third time that there has

been an extension given. How can the people trust Government when they have

already given them this third extension? Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

point out that I am not sure what relevance it has, but the Minister of Justice

announced an increase of a grant to the City of Corner Brook, the Council, of

$200,000 from Kruger. The Minister of Justice announced it.

So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that there is no hanky-panky going on

here. And I hope that the people of Corner Brook, who did not have any input

into this decision, by the way, the people in Corner Brook who do have a lot of

this old flying ash problem which is doing damage to their property, and the

environment itself is certainly endangered by this. I also know that Kruger,

although reneging on spending, I think approximately $45 million, they will

spend approximately $10 million this year and I suppose you would have to say

that is a plus. They are not going to renege completely in spending that $10

million. But I want to point out to Government that because the legislation was

brought through last year the borrowing for this project should have been no

problem for that company. And, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this will be the last

extension. I mean the people of Corner Brook just could not absorb something

like this happening again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further Statements By Ministers?

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, from news reports it appears that

the Board of Regents at the university may be reconsidering its decision to cut

extension services. Now I know that the Government has said that it cannot tell

the university what to do, but I would like to ask the Premier if he would agree

to contact the Chairman of the Board of Regents and the President of the

university and advise them that the Government supports the continuation of

extension services, and would he use moral suasion if nothing else to try to

persuade the university to change its mind, in view of his own statement to the

House of Assembly on March 28th when he said, and I quote, 'I could only wish

that MUN extension was not cut out.'

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether what

the hon. Opposition House Leader says is correct or not; whether the university

is considering - I heard it now from him for the first time. Whether or not

there is any substance to it, I have no way of knowing, but let me just repeat

what the Government's position is in terms of the running of the university.

What the university does in running the university and what it gives priority

to, within reason, has to be the university's decision. It will be a sad day,

Mr. Speaker, when the Government of this Province starts to run the university

directly in that way and we have no intention of doing such a thing, Mr.

Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps I did not make myself clear, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to phrase the question in perhaps a more simple way. I did

not ask the Government. I indicated in my

preamble that I know the Government

says it cannot tell the university what to do. What I am asking is if the

Premier would agree to contact the Chairman of the Board of Regents and the

President of the university to use some moral suasion to ask him to continue MUN

extension and to indicate that the Government supports the continuation of MUN

Extension, which both he and the Minister of Education have repeated in this

House time and time again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government would be

pleased to see MUN Extension continued, but what do we tell the university to

cut out if we tell them to continue MUN Extension? Now the Government is not

going to place itself in that position where we will have to tell the university

to cut out MUN Extension or put back MUN Extension, or so much of it, and cut

something else. The university is going to make its own decision in that regard.

Now if we were to do what the hon. Opposition House Leader

asked we would have to do one of two other things, either tell the university

what else to cut out in place of MUN Extension or otherwise provide the

university with more money, and the Government does not have more money to give

to the university at this stage.

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

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

Minister of Education, perhaps taking up the challenge issued by the Premier. My

supplementary to the Minister of Education, who should know the answer to this

question: can he tell us the annual costs of operating the Harlow campus, and

can he also tell us what the dollar value of the campus is?

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

DR. WARREN: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide that

information but I will get it and supply it to the House, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, would he agree with the

statements made in the newspaper over the weekend by somebody from the

university who indicated the annual cost of Harlow Campus is approximately

$300,000 a year?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the

article in the

paper, but I will get the information from the Board of Regents and provide it

for the hon. Member.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Minister gets the

information I am sure he will confirm that it costs several hundreds of

thousands of dollars. I am sure he will confirm that and he does so now. Now I

would like to ask him, would he not agree that it would be a far better use of

the scarce resources available to spend that money in rural Newfoundland and not

in rural England. Would that not be a better use of that money?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the

students who go to Harlow are students from all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not think it is used as he indicated, I think Newfoundland students are the

ones who benefit from Harlow. No, Mr. Speaker, we understand that the university

looked at all the options and I am sure it looked at the option of abolishing or

terminating the Harlow programme as one of the options and they made their

decision. Mr. Speaker, we have to leave these decisions to Memorial University.

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

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

the President of Treasury Board. Last May the Minister stood in this House and

proudly announced a two year agreement with nurses who had an overall wage

increase in excess of 23 per cent. When the Minister was here gloating about his

wonderful negotiating skills he made reference to the fact that this settlement,

and I quote him. `recognizes that nurses are a special case in this current

labour market. It also recognizes the value of the contribution made by this

group of professionals in providing quality service in the health care field'.

Could the Minister explain to this House why he felt last May

that nurses were a special case in the current labour market? Are nurses still a

special case? And in particular, are nurses going to be exempted from

section 8

of Bill 16, so that when this freeze period is over they will be able to have

some catch-up to get what are supposed to be their just rewards for the job they

do?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member

opposite obviously does not understand what has happened in the last year in

this Province and in this country. He does not understand, so let me remind him.

First of all, expected revenues have fallen from two sources. From Federal

sources as well as from the revenue from economic activity within the country

and within the Province, our revenues have fallen, and also because members

opposite when they were in Government pushed us to the absolute limit of our

borrowing and ran us out of credit in the world markets. Those two things

combined mean that we do not now have the money to spend.

If I had a couple of hundred million dollars of my own I

might be tempted to throw it in the pot. But there is no money. Things have

changed in the last year; we do not have the revenue, we cannot make the

expenditure. Does the hon. gentleman understand that?

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I am not in one of the Minister's

former biology classes. I do understand what happens in the Province. I do

understand that the Minister said last year that nurses were a special case.

What happened in this Province affected everyone. Now are nurses still a special

case? And if they are a special case, are they going to receive special

treatment so that they do not have to pay twice for what has happened in this

Province over the last couple of years? That is all I am asking the Minister.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we could say everybody

is a special case. The nurses certainly were at the time and received

substantial increases because of that. And the hon. Member for Humber East can

laugh all she wants but she can not dispute the facts of the case.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is still -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. BAKER: The hon. Member -

MR. POWER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Go on, you are a hypocrite.

MR. BAKER: The hon. Member is still -

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

The Chair heard the word "hypocrite" but the Chair did not

know where it came from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MURPHY: I will gladly retract that statement, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: The hon. gentleman opposite is still assuming

that somewhere there is oodles of money and that we are simply making choices. I

will say to the hon. gentleman that in terms of the wage freeze we have imposed

for one year, everybody in the public service of this Province is being treated

equally; the same thing is being done for everybody. That is the only way you

can do something like this. It has to be done fairly and equally across the

whole spectrum.

The unions have a choice in this legislation, as the hon.

Member knows if he has read the legislation. They have a choice, and the amounts

that were in this particular year, the contracts for this particular year can be

moved one year ahead. This is the choice all unions have, and in that way

everybody will be treated fairly.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final

supplementary. I am asking the Minister a very simple question. If something was

unfair last Spring and new legislation, Bill 16, is being implemented to make

some changes, will the Minister agree that if something was unfair, that there

was a certain group of persons in this Province, our nurses, who were being

discriminated against, who have been treated unfairly and who, in his words,

were a special case, will he agree that in the next series of negotiations with

the nurses union, that the nurses union may be exempt from

section 8 of Bill 16

which prevents them from ever being allowed to be treated fairly in this

Province? That is all I am asking the Minister.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the nurses already have received

three of the four increases negotiated. Those three increases were substantial

and went a long way to correct the imbalance that existed in this Province in

terms of the way that nurses were paid; it went a long way to correct the

imbalance between Newfoundland and the Maritime Provinces; it went a long way to

correct that imbalance which was caused by Members opposite turning a blind eye

to the problems of nurses in this Province. Mr. Speaker, what hypocrisy for the

Member to get up and say what he is now saying.

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

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

for the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister inform the House what the total

estimated salary savings for the fiscal year 1991-92 from the lay off of public

sector employees will be? And how much will the Government pay out this fiscal

year in severance and redundancy pensions?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would gladly table

that information, but the figures are not final as yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

DR. KITCHEN: No, the redundancies have not all been made

up. This is a continuing process. When the information is finalized, Mr.

Speaker, which will probably be mid-summer, then we will table it.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be

another case of what we saw last year, where the Minister came here and

delivered a budget calling for $10 million surplus and got $250 million deficit.

Now he is laying off 3,000 or 4,000 public employees and does not know what he

is going to save or what the redundancy pensions or severance is going to be.

Let me ask the Minister if he can tell the House how much Government will save

this fiscal year as a result of the rollback in public sector wages?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I can only answer in rough

terms because, again, all the individuals are not identified. But the total

approximate savings with respect to the lack of pay equity and the freeze is

about $50-odd million dollars.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Completely incredible, Mr. Speaker, that

Government could make such drastic, drastic decisions affecting thousands of

people in this Province and not know what the bottom line figure will be to this

Province. I think it was the President of Treasury Board who said a few days ago

that before the Budget decisions were made, Government was looking at a deficit

of $200 million or $215 million in 1991-1992, I think he said, and $300 million

in the fiscal year 1992-1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. MATTHEWS: The President of Treasury Board said that.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how much did net

salary savings contribute to the deficit reduction this year, and how much will

Government save from those measures next year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: I will have to take that under advisement,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The House is no

doubt aware that a Provincial acute care bed study just a few years ago

recommended that the M J Boylen Hospital in Baie Verte have its acute care beds

reduced from thirty-one to twenty-five, a reduction of six beds. Now the

Government intends to close it entirely as an acute care centre and convert it

to a chronic care centre with three or four holding beds. The professionals on

the Baie Verte Peninsula are telling us that the residents of that peninsula

will be the most poorly served in the Province when it comes to an acute care

centre. I want to ask the Minister of Health how can he explain how the health

care needs of the Baie Verte Peninsula will be met under this kind of plan that

was announced in the Budget?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. Member

has his facts absolutely right about the four or five holding beds. During this

year the Government will be working very closely with the hospital board out

there to change that facility into a chronic care facility where there is a

proven need. However, there is adequate provision made to provide the acute care

beds in the Baie Verte area, just as there was last year and the year before.

There is no big difference in the number of acute care beds.

The hon. Member talked about the twenty-five beds which were

in use last year, the twenty beds, whatever it was. The fact is that hospital

has been operating at about 35 per cent to 40 per cent utilization over the past

number of years.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well that is going

to be a very comforting answer to the sick on the Baie Verte Peninsula. Let me

ask the Minister this: Is not the Minister aware that residents of the Baie

Verte Peninsula have well in excess of three hours on most occasions to get to

an acute care facility in Corner Brook or two and a half hours in Grand Falls?

Is not the Minister aware of the geography of that part of the Province and that

there are going to be people severely hurt from a health prospective because of

the decision imposed on them by this Government?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the

geography of that particular part of the Province, however, I am not aware that

we are heightening the chances of anyone suffering extremely because of that.

The fact is the delivery of health care has changed in this Province; usage

itself has shown that the trends have changed;

MS. VERGE: People's needs have not changed!

MR. DECKER: The hon. Member says people's needs have not

changed. Mr. Speaker, the way these needs are treated has changed drastically in

medical science over the past number of years. It is too bad the previous

administration did not recognize that and left us with a totally unstructured

health care system which went off in 110 different directions with no general

plan whereby one had a part. It is too bad that happened. And as my good friend

Peter Fenwick pointed out yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I have more, I believe he said

`guts', than the whole Tory Government put together. I concur with his opinion.

MR. MATTHEWS: You have more guts than sense.

MR. SIMMS: Do you concur with what he said about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. MATTHEWS: And more space between your ears.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we will see what guts the

Minister of Health has and other Ministers over there, when they have to face

the people of this Province when something dramatic happens to them under the

guise of this restructured health care system. We will see the Minister's guts

then, Mr. Speaker. There is not one over there who has guts enough to go out and

face the demonstrators and speak to them, whether it is in Baie Verte or St.

John's, not one. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this. I understand

consideration is being given to reconsidering decisions affecting Placentia, for

example, affecting Old Perlican, affecting Port aux Basques. Is the Government

prepared to include Baie Verte on that list that is being re-considered?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to correct some of the

statements the hon. Member is making. And by the look of his face, I can see why

he was not present when the Placentia demonstrators came in.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) every one of my constituents

know it.

MR. DECKER: I went out and met with the Placentia

demonstrators -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I went out and met with the Placentia

demonstrators and got quite a welcome. I shook hands with a fair number; I also

just came back from a visit to Burgeo. The hon. Member is talking about

reconsidering. I will have the hon. Member know that this is a very open,

listening Government and when any group of people, be it a hospital board, be it

any group who has an interest in health wants to meet with this Government, we

will bend over backwards to meet with them. That happened, Mr. Speaker, with

Placentia, that happened with Port aux Basques, that happened with Burgeo, where

I went with the hon. Member for the district on the weekend and had a delightful

weekend in that area.

Now the Baie Verte people have set up a meeting with myself

on Wednesday coming, and the hon. Member is welcome to sit in on that meeting

provided the people from the district are prepared to do that. However, I do not

want to hold out any false hopes to anyone. We believe we are putting in place a

plan for the health care system of this Province which indeed will be the way to

march proudly into the 21st century. However, Mr. Speaker, anyone who comes in

we listen to. But I do not want to hold out any false hopes that we are going to

change our minds unless it is proven that we are wrong, and to date we have not

been proven wrong.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have

questions for the Minister of Justice about the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

and guns. These are following up the questions asked Friday by the Member for

Kilbride. Will the Minister advise the House whether all Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary cars will now have guns? Will the Minister explain the policy

respecting the use of guns in Constabulary cars? Will he tell us specifically

whether Members patrolling in vehicles will require permission of superior

officers for the accessing of guns?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Essentially the

Member's questions do not vary from the ones I heard Friday from the hon. the

Member for Kilbride. If I got them all, and there were several in that, the

first was how many cars will be carrying guns in the trunk? There will be an

increase beyond the number that are presently doing so. I think there are

approximately fifteen cars on patrol and possibly more at different times during

the day. What we will have in all likelihood is virtually all those cars will

have guns locked in the trunk. That is not a change of policy, it is merely a

change in numbers. So the quality of the action does not change but merely the

quantity, and I am sure the hon. Member is well aware that during her term as

Minister of Justice this was, in fact, the case.

As to the conditions under which the RNC will use guns, that

is really a policing matter, Mr. Speaker. I am not prepared to stand in the

Legislature of this Province and set down black and white rules for any police

officer as to when he or she has to defend either his own safety and security or

the safety and security of the members of the public. But I want to give this

House and members of the public the assurance that the police are extremely well

trained in the use of guns, that if we were to have them available at all times

they would be carrying side arms, but as a Province we recognize it is a matter

of last resort and for that reason they are locked in the trunk.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to go and give

any greater detail as to the times and circumstances at which the police should

and do have access to weapons.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the

Minister of Justice. Is the Minister of Justice concerned that this major

escalation in the availability and carrying of weapons by police in their

vehicles - and it is a significant increase in the circulation of police arms

which apparently is prompted by cutbacks in the policing and the elimination of

two member patrols at night - will eventually lead to the wearing of fire arms

by police?

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

MR. DICKS: There are a number of assumptions and

statements that the hon. Member made, frankly, which are inaccurate. She says

this was prompted by changes in the shift in the evening. That is not the case.

Otherwise, we would have had no weapons in police cars at all. She knows that to

be inaccurate and should not be putting that in terms of her question. In fact,

the review of security was prompted as a result of the recent arbitration. And

the Member obviously knows that the Constabulary and Treasury Board have

recourse through an arbitration process to resolve differences. The weapons

issue is one that has perennially been in the topics to be discussed between the

police and the Treasury Board and the Department of Justice. The arbitrator in

that case indicated that how and when the police had access to guns was not a

matter for arbitration but a matter that should properly be a policy decision of

Government.

However, notwithstanding that the three person board

indicated to Government that it felt that the number should be increased, and

may, in fact, have mentioned the number in that arbitration. But in view of that

and in view of the fact that we were also generally reviewing police procedure

and that arbitration board recommended that we provide the police with bullet

proof vests which is also being done at this point in time, we decided to review

the matter of security and we determined that it was, perhaps, an appropriate

time to increase the number of cars which had weapons available.

And I want to repeat for the hon. Member that she well knows

there have in recent times always been cars available with weapons to the

Constabulary. The only question is, what is an appropriate number? And because,

frankly, the number of incidents we have had in the last year formed part of our

considerations, we decided to make more generally available.

The hon. Member also said something and it does not have a

basis. She said that because we are making weapons available in this fashion it

will eventually lead to them carrying side arms. Mr. Speaker, I do not think

anything in life is inevitable. I think we all take pride in the fact that to

this point in time the police in our Province, at least the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, have been able to police without access to side arms, and I would

hope that would be a policy we can continue. There is no inevitability to this,

Mr. Speaker, it is an ongoing assessment. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question

is to the Minister of Health, when he stops talking to his colleague. To the

Minister of Health: In other parts of the world, such as the United Kingdom,

Government funds not only doctors but also nurse practitioners and midwives to

provide health care services. Apparently, results have been very good: better

patient care, less illness and fewer deaths. Has the Government given any

consideration to expanding MCP coverage to health care provided by nurse

practitioners and midwives?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Government has not given any

consideration to directly paying nurses out of the Medicare budget. But I do not

think it matters whether they are paid out of the Medicare budget or whether

they are paid out of the general revenue of the Province. The fact of the matter

is Government is still paying for nurses and midwives in this Province.

Now the role of the nurse, the hon. Member is talking about,

is an interesting concept, because at this very moment the Government is

conducting a project out on the southern shore with the nurses who are

delivering primary care nursing, this particular project, this experiment which

is being carried out down there, Mr. Speaker, is carried out in co-operation

with the World Health Organization. We have representation from Denmark in that

organization who are monitoring this program out there. And it looks like - we

are going into our second year now - there might just be some possibilities

where we can transfer that experiment to the rest of the Province. Now it is a

three year project, so we will not know until after that is over.

But I share with the hon. Member that there is indeed a place

for nurses doing primary care, especially in areas of the Province were it is

extremely difficult to recruit medical doctors.

As to the role of the midwife, this Province is head and

shoulders ahead of the rest of the nation in midwifery. We are one of the few

provinces which has midwifery legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, that midwifery

legislation refers to the untrained midwife and it is probably a little bit

dated now. But we have been talking with the Association of Registered Nurses

about the role of the midwife. However, our Association of Registered Nurses is

not quite of the opinion that midwives should be doing deliveries out in remote

areas of the Province unless the back up services of a surgeon and obstetrician

are available. But we do recognize that there is a role for the midwife as long

as there is adequate supervision by the obstetrician.

The hon. Member raised some good questions which are under

consideration and we are looking at, but we do not intend at this time to pay

nurses out of the MCP fund.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Moutains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My second and final question the Minister partly answered it.

With the Government closing hospitals in various parts of the Province it is

going to be naturally increasingly difficult to attract doctors to those areas.

I would ask the Minister: with less doctors in the remote areas of the Province

because of the close down of hospitals, who is going to provide the health care

to people in those areas now that will be affected? Should not the Government be

making provision for nurses who are living in those areas to provide the health

care that is necessary? And I would suggest to the Minister also, that serious

consideration be given to it being covered by MCP?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is making two

assumptions which are both erroneous. The first assumption is that we are

closing hospitals. We have not closed a single hospital in this Province. We

have changed the roles to make them reflect reality.

MR. WARREN: Come By Chance.

MR. DECKER: Come By Chance - the previous Administration,

Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: The previous Administration closed Come By

Chance and replaced it with an eight hour a day clinic. After coming into power

they had already gutted the Come By Chance area, and we had no choice but to

close it down because it had become pretty well ineffective.

The other assumption that the hon. Member is making is that

because we are changing the roles of some of our institutions, there will be

indeed less doctors in rural Newfoundland. That assumption is wrong as well.

This has nothing to do with doctors. As a matter of fact the general family

practice area where doctors work this will be a much better field for them to

operate in, Mr. Speaker, where they will be able to do what they are trained

for. So I do not think his assumptions are right. Therefore, the other part of

his question becomes totally irrelevant, unless his assumptions were right.

The doctor shortage though - the hon. Member will be pleased

to know that I am working very closely with the University and with the

Newfoundland Medical Association in an effort to try and address the problem

with the shortage of doctors, especially in the hon. Member's District, as well

in the District which I happen to represent, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, as pleasant as it always is to

see members of the Constabulary around the city and around the Province I have

to raise this question because security for the House, as I understand it, is

under Your Honour's jurisdiction. It is the first time that I can recall several

members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, other than a duty constable,

patrolling the galleries of the Legislature. I am wondering if this is a new

policy, or if Your Honour instructed this emphasis on security, or if there is a

special reason that you would like to tell us about privately, afterwards, that

we are not aware of?

MR. SPEAKER: I will talk to hon. Members after.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Notices of Motion

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to

consider certain resolutions relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of

certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow move that this

House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions

relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority

Guarantee Act, 1957.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to lay on the table the response to question

number eighteen on Order Paper 21, April 4, 1991 by the Opposition House Leader.

I will not read the answer, Mr. Speaker, but I will table it for his

information.

Petitions

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to rise and present a petition on behalf of 299

residents of the district of Menihek who have great concerns about cutbacks to

the quality of health care in the Labrador West area. The prayer of the petition

is that: we, the concerned citizens group against hospital cutbacks would like

to canvass your support against the cutbacks at the Captain William Jackman

Memorial Hospital by signing this petition.

Mr. Speaker, almost 300 people from the district of Menihek

signed that petition because they are upset with the number of cutbacks

delivered by this regime to the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in

Labrador City. A cutback of $870,000, a cutback which will result in the loss of

fourteen jobs at the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital. While the people

in the district have a concern for the individuals who lost their jobs they are

more concerned about the quality of health care that is going to be affected in

the Labrador West area, an area that produced since its conception thirty years

ago more economic wealth to this Province than any other electoral district in

this Province, and an area that continues to do the same thing day, after day,

after day. They find it terribly unfair that this regime has seen fit to gut the

health care system in Western Labrador. Because of the nature of the geography

of this Province we find that we are located about 600 miles away from the main

hospital centres of this Province, which is St. John's. That means, Mr. Speaker,

that if we were to lose our surgeon in western Labrador, and that is a direct

possibility in the fact that elective surgery is going to be cut back by 15 per

cent, and there is a distinct possibility that we may lose a surgeon because of

that, because of the lack of the opportunity of a personal development of the

surgeon, he may indeed leave. In that case we will have the three largest

industrial complexes, combined they probably represent the largest industrial

complex in Eastern Canada, undoubtedly the largest industrial complex in this

Province, and the potential for tragic accidents that could cause serious injury

to workers, the opportunity for it is always there, and it means that people

will not have adequate health care service in the case of an accident. It takes

an eight hour turnaround time from the time there is a call for an air ambulance

to come into western Labrador. So this Government should reconsider what they

have done because of the geographic position that we are in in western Labrador.

We have seen cutbacks, we have seen the closure of eight

beds, we have seen a relocation of the chronic or geriatric section. These are

people who have worked and produced the wealth of this Province in previous

years. People today who need our help, need the help of the tax dollars that

they have paid in over the last twenty-five or thirty years. And now what are we

doing? We are relocating them. This is terribly unfair to the people of western

Labrador. We are seeing a 40 per cent reduction in physiotherapy services. That

is terribly unfair to the people in western Labrador. We are seeing specialist

visits reduced. We live a tremendous distance away from specialists who service

this Province. We live in Labrador, 600 miles away from the island portion of

the Province, from St. John's. Air fare is over $900 to come out here to visit.

Now we are seeing fewer specialists coming into the area. We are going to see

350 fewer patient visits by specialists in the area. There will not be a speech

therapist in that hospital.

We are seeing a serious reduction in the quality of health

care in western Labrador. We see it because this Government, contrary to what

they are saying, does not have a plan to improve health care in this Province,

it just has a knee-jerk reaction to a lack of revenues and we are seeing it

displayed not just in western Labrador but throughout the Province, and that is

what really concerns the people of western Labrador - in the towns of Labrador

City and Wabush. It will also affect people who reside in our neighbouring

community of Fermont. This hospital services the community of Fermont and that

puts an additional burden on it, but it also does something else. It provides a

revenue to this Province, because the Province of Quebec provides money to this

Province to help pay for the health care that these people will receive from our

hospital.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that this Government, this

Minister, reconsider what they have done to the health care in western Labrador,

reinstate it. Because the morale of the hospital workers and the people of

western Labrador is tremendously affected by this. Bill 16, we are going to see

the wages frozen -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to take a

couple of moments to support the petition on behalf of the 299 residents of Lab

City-Wabush and I guess the Fermont area as well. These residents of Menihek

district are very concerned with health care as are most people in this

Province. If there is one place in this Budget where this Government has caused

itself a tremendous amount of damage and lack of credibility it is to try and

say that the vast amount of health care cutbacks that we have had in this

Province - laying off close to 1,000 workers, closing down 438 acute care beds -

and somehow or other trying to tell the people of the Province that we have a

better system, is one thing that the public just has not accepted nor will they

accept in this Province.

In Menihek, in the Lab City-Wabush area that I know quite

well, where does a person go if they become seriously ill and you have not got

the right kind of doctoring and medical services there? It is easy enough to do

in St. John's where if you go to a hospital in an emergency you go to St.

Clares's and if you cannot get in, you go to the Grace and if you cannot get in,

you can still go to Health Sciences. Or you can go to the Janeway if you are a

younger person who happens to be sick. But what do you do in Menihek? What do

you do in Lab City-Wabush when you are sick and the hospital that you have

normally gone to has less services, less acute care beds, less access to

specialists, losing a speech therapist - there is not another speech therapist

across the road in Lab City-Wabush area that you can go to simply because there

is not one at the hospital.

And that is where the credibility of this Government has been

seriously undermined, by this health care supposed plan which we have been

exposing in this House as not being a plan at all. It is simply a reaction to

some political pressures that may happen in certain areas. And of course the

other very, very unfortunate part for the people from Menihek district is, how

do they protest except coming to the Legislature? How do they convince this

Government, this Premier and this Minister of Health, that they do have serious

regional health concerns in their area?

Mr. Speaker, they cannot do it because they cannot bring in

enough people to protest. And if you cannot fill the lobby with 1,000 people -

or I suppose you are only allowed to bring in 200 now - I guess if you keep

seeing enough of the police force around the galleries you will not be allowed

to bring many into that place either. And we will have this place closed down

from a democratic point of view, it will be for a small enclave, for a few

people who want to make a scattered speech supporting the Government. If you do

not support the Government there will not be very much you can say in this

Province.

We are already getting reaction on this side of the House,

asking us: not to be saying too much about health care in certain areas of the

Province because we are afraid of this Government, we are afraid this Government

is going to react, we are afraid this Government is not going to do what is

right for us, because you keep bringing it up in the Legislature. That is what

people in rural Newfoundland are saying. The Premier may grumble and growl if he

wishes, but that is what people are saying. The people in Placentia and other

areas of the Province are saying to us in the Opposition: please do not bring up

too vocally our problems because this Government is going to react in a very

political way, and make sure you do not respond to our legitimate health care

concerns. That is what people are afraid of.

Mr. Speaker, that is what people in this Province are saying.

The Members opposite are only hearing what they chose to hear. When you listen

to the people from Menihek who speak through their Member in this House, and

when we are suppose to get better regional services and you get a downgraded

regional service, when we get our cottage hospital systems severely destroyed by

this Government, then all of a sudden somebody has to say to this Premier and to

this Minister of Health, will you please have a second look at what you are

doing? Unfortunately, we cannot bring 1000 people to the lobby but we still have

legitimate concerns and I can only fully support the Member for Menihek who has

brought this concern to Members of the Legislature and hope there will be some

reasonable response from this Government to look at what is a request to

re-establish, in a very isolated region of Newfoundland, legitimate and adequate

health care services.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the petition

and thank the hon. Member for presenting it to the House, and to assure the

people of the Menihek area that Government will review their petition and give

it due consideration. The hon. Member in his speech referred to health care and

he also somehow tied that into wealth. Mr. Speaker, everybody recognizes the

tremendous contribution that Labrador City has made to the economy of this

Province, however when you administer health you have only to consider health

concerns. We are delivering health care to that area, Mr. Speaker, to the best

of our ability. The occupancy rate of the hospital to date has been somewhere

around 35 per cent, however there was a shortage of mental health workers in the

area. In the Budget we addressed that, so basically what we have done is try and

reflect in the Labrador City area what has really been happening instead of

trying to provide services which are not required. Mental health is required so

we are putting more for mental health in there. The acute care occupancy has

been down so therefore why keep alive underutilized beds? We have recognized

that Labrador City is a special case because of geography, and for that reason

that hospital, although not big enough to warrant surgeons, we are still keeping

alive some surgery in that area. We are making a special case for Labrador City,

as well as Melville, as well as Churchill Falls, so geography is a

consideration. The hon. Member for Ferryland makes a big issue about the fact

that they cannot put 1200 people into this Confederation Building. Well, I will

make a better offer, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to go into Labrador City and

speak to 5000 people if they have them there. There is only one thing I would

ask and that is that they give me half an hour without shouting, booing, and

screaming and let me outline our case. After that half hour is up they can

shout, they can boo, they can hiss, they can cough, they can do what they like,

but if they will give me half an hour to make my speech I am prepared to go into

Labrador City, as I did in Burgeo. There, uninhibited by those who have a

political agenda as opposed to a health agenda, Mr. Speaker, I have absolute

confidence that when the people of Labrador City hear the facts, unpolluted by

politics, when they hear these facts, they will know what Government is doing,

and if Burgeo is any indication, Mr. Speaker, they will go along with us. All I

ask is one half hour before the boos and the coughs start, after that they can

cough and they can boo.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition, signed by ninety-nine people

from the community of Mary's Harbour in the district of Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible)

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I knew I was going to get some

kind of comment, one way or the other, from the other side. I should say to the

hon. gentleman who made that remark that the reason I am presenting this

petition is because he was asked to present it and he said, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. WARREN: The Member for Eagle River refused to present

this petition. He said, no, because he does not believe in it.

The prayer of the petition, is: we the undersigned, the

friends of MUN Extension state 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.

Mr. Speaker, I have been given a note that this petition was

given to the Member for Eagle River to present in the Legislature and the Member

for Eagle River said that MUN Extension has outlived its usefulness, in fact,

the Member said, to quote, 'That if he were to support this petition, then the

money that goes into keeping Mun Extension operating would have to come out of

air freight or air traffic subsidies.' Now, Mr. Speaker, that is ninety-nine

people from the community of Mary's Harbour on the coast of Labrador,

ninety-nine people who represent a major number in that small community of

eligible voters. The people in Mary's Harbour realize what Mun Extension has

done for their community, not only for Mary's Harbour, but other communities on

the coast of Labrador. It was Mun Extension that helped the Labrador people to

organize their town councils. It was Mun Extension, in fact, in the early 1970s,

at the time, Mr. Speaker, I was working with the Government in Makkovik, it was

Mun Extension then that started the ball rolling to get the people in Labrador

organized into community councils. Even today or even five months ago when the

Labrador (inaudible) Conference was held in Happy Valley/Goose Bay there was

praise from Members opposite about the work that Mun Extension was doing, only

five months ago, and now today they will not support, they will not support

asking the President of the University to reinstate Mun Extension. I think, Mr.

Speaker, if money is coming from this Government, this Government should make

sure that Mun Extension is reinstated and let them go about the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador and continue to do what they were doing for our rural

area. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will go back, I guess, twenty or

twenty-five years ago knowing when the people were coming along the Labrador

Coast and bringing ideas to the people on how to govern their own affairs, it

was Mun Extension that did this, and they are still needed. Ninety-nine people

in Mary's Harbour, and I would think in looking at those names, a lot of them I

know by name, Mr. Speaker, I know them from seeing them, in fact I stayed with

some of them, those people I am sure, supported my colleague in the last

election. They have given him support because they were hoping he would stand up

and fight for them. But, Mr. Speaker, what he did here today is he had the

opportunity to present the petition and he would not present it because he

stated that Mun Extension is no longer needed anywhere else in this Province. I

think it is a shame, Mr. Speaker, and I call upon the Government, as my friend

for Grand Falls said today, to ask the Premier and ask the Minister of Education

to go after Memorial University and ask for Mun Extension to be reinstated. We

can probably do without this famous school over in England for a year or two. I

think the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador will be more pleased to see

the Rumbolts and the Russells and the Stones and the Spearings and all those

people from Mary's Harbour have a service that they were promised for years and

years and that has been good to them, and hopefully, Mr. Speaker, in the years

coming it will continue to flourish as it has in the past.

Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition so well presented by the

Member for Torngat Mountains on behalf of the residents of Mary's Harbour. The

Minister of Education and the Premier are trying to pretend that they have

absolutely nothing to do with Memorial University's decision to cut the Memorial

University Extension Service.

Now, in fact, as the Minister of Education himself said to

CBC radio recently, the Government is always involved when matters such as

University budget cuts are discussed. The University functions independently of

the Government, yes, but the University gets virtually all its operating funding

from the Government, and the Government is intimately involved when the

University has to consider options for reductions.

The Minister himself said in an interview that was broadcast,

and I quote 'As times get tough, when Government wants certain goals achieved,

economic development, for example, and technology is a good example, we will be

talking more perhaps with the Boards of Governors in the future and with the

Board of Regents than we have in the past, before they make their decisions.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Government cannot be allowed to get away

with responsibility for the extinguishing of Memorial University Extension

Service. Mr. Speaker, at the same time as the Government reduced the university

grant in aid, the Government has escalated funding to the Premier's new agency,

the unelected Cabinet, the Economic Recovery Commission. The Government is

giving that agency $44 million this year and members of the Economic Recovery

Commission and their Advisory Board in particular are telling people -

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

I want to remind the hon. Member that in presenting a

petition, that one keep their remarks to the material allegations of the

petition, to the signatures signed, and it would appear now that the hon. Member

is wandering somewhat away from the petition.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think I

was straying from the prayer of the petition. The point I am making is that,

Members of the Government's -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - Economic Recovery Commission, are saying

that they are being put in place and augmented to replace Memorial University

Extension Service, and I would like to say on behalf of the residents of the

Province, who understand the fallacy of that approach, that it is patently

ludicrous to replace an organization with several years of successful operation

in rural and urban parts of the Province, with a brand new agency with no track

record, it makes absolutely no sense and it puts the lie to the Government's

excuse about not having enough money.

The Government has enough money for a $44 million Economic

Recovery Commission and $600,000 for protocol and $550,000 for a propaganda

office, and it also has enough money to continue Memorial University Extension

Services, it is simply a matter of choice, a matter of attitude, a matter of

values, a matter of political will.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that Memorial University Extension

Service in rural parts of the Province has never been needed as much since the

resettlement days of the 1960s. Right now, the Government is carrying out a

major programme of shifting services and population from rural parts of the

Province to the urban growth centres and probably to the growth centres of

Ontario, Alberta and Kuwait as well, and now is the time that the residents of

those rural areas, so much threatened, need the support and leadership of

Memorial University Extension Service; so it is for these reasons that I am

supporting the petition of residents of Mary's Harbour, Labrador.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond briefly to

the comments of my hon. friends. There is not too much new that I can add, other

than the fact that I have paid tribute and the Premier has paid tribute and I

have heard the hon. Member for Eagle River pay tribute for what Extension has

done in Labrador in the past, and the valuable services performed. Mr. Speaker,

I have heard him say also, and I think, the Government's position is that there

are other agencies now can help fill that void.

In Labrador, I really am excited about what the community

college is doing, it is an outstanding effort; the President and the Board

provide expanding service to the people of Labrador through the community

college; I have heard my friend for Eagle River talk about rural development

associations, all kinds of agencies, it is not any disrespect to Extension, it

is just that the hon. Member said other agencies are now performing a very

valuable service.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the second point very briefly, is that this

Government respects the arm's length position of the university. We are not

going to tell Memorial which programmes to introduce, which to end, we are not

going to tell them which physics professors to hire, which physics course to

terminate. We respect the arm's length position of the university, and this is

traditional in the western world and in this country.

Having said that, I do want to go back to what the Member for

Humber East said about accountability. Mr. Speaker, I think I would argue that

today we need to look at new mechanisms for holding universities more

accountable in the future. For this we will have to look at, perhaps, how Boards

of Regents can be held more accountable. When you are putting $115 million into

an institution, as we are to Memorial, I think you have to look at new ways to

hold Boards of Governors and others more accountable for the future. Up until

this point in time we respect the arm's length position of Memorial, but in the

future we will talk with the Board of Regents and the Board of Governors of the

institution about an increased accountability.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and honour

to present a petition signed by 122 people, the prayer of which is `the

undersigned state 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 this hon. House

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

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

the services it has traditionally provided.'

Mr. Speaker, this is a very special petition, because it is

signed by 122 people who have a certain amount of experience in the area of

rural development and extension services. These are the people the hon. the

Minister of Education just spoke of, the people in rural development itself, the

people involved in the Rural Development Associations. The Minister will know

that these individuals and the Rural Development Council met last weekend in

Goose Bay, Labrador, and at that meeting this petition was circulated and signed

by these people. And they are talking here about people from the Labrador-White

Bay Development Association, the Cape Shore Development Association, the Codroy

Valley Development Association, the St. Mary's Bay Development Association, the

Greater Lamaline Development Association, the Cape Freels Development

Association, the Eastport Peninsula Development Association, the Corner Brook

Development Association, the Placentia Development Association, the St. Barbe

Development Association, the Central Development Association, all over this

Province, Mr. Speaker. There were individuals from communities spread out from

Point May, Rushoon, Petley, Baine Harbour, Melton, all over Newfoundland, people

experienced in rural development, members of these Rural Development

Associations.

And the Member for Eagle River was praised by the Minister of

Education for being aware of that. Well, the Member for Eagle River was there at

this meeting in Goose Bay and he knows what these people want. These are the

experts in rural development. They do not say that Extension Service outlived

its usefulness, as the Member for Eagle River says. Here is what they say. In a

resolution passed by the Rural Development Council last weekend they say MUN

Extension was the only tangible link between the university and rural

Newfoundland; and that the services provided by Extension Service were

invaluable to rural Newfoundland; and that rural Newfoundlanders paid taxes on

an equal basis with urban dwellers; and they resolved therefore that the

recently announced abolition of MUN Extension be revoked and that the department

be reinstated; and further resolved that MUN Extension Service be enhanced to

provide rural Newfoundlanders with the services to which they are entitled.

These are the people the Minister of Education says replaced

MUN Extension. Well, they know what invaluable services have been provided by

Extension through the years and are still necessary. You do not by being elected

Member for Eagle River or any other place become all of a sudden an expert in

rural Newfoundland. You were elected to this House to represent your people. The

people who are experts in this field are the people in rural Newfoundland who

are involved in these development associations. They know what the problems are

and they know the services and the help they need in order to be successful in

development. Is the Minister of Education saying we have gone far enough, that

rural Newfoundland has developed enough? The Development Associations themselves

say they need MUN Extension in order to continue to do a good job in developing

rural Newfoundland. When they say those services are necessary, who is this

Minister of Education to say no, you have developed far enough?

Mr. Speaker, we have heard they listen to the people. Well if

they truly listen to the people who know what they are talking about in the area

of rural development, they will find a way. Arm's length or no arm's length, it

is easy enough for the Minister of Education to go to the Board of Regents of

Memorial University and say we believe in MUN Extension, we think it is an

important and invaluable contribution to the Newfoundland community, what do we

need to do to help you make it happen? That can be done without interfering with

the arm's length relationship between the University and this Government, and

the Minister of Education knows full well that that is the case. And they ought

to do that, because the time is now. There are people they are apparently trying

to kick out of Memorial University now, pay them for the next two months and

lock them out, we understand; we heard that today. It is time this Government

started taking some action to save MUN Extension from extinction.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to present a

petition on behalf of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Another petition?

MR. WOODFORD: Oh, yes, this is another petition. I did

not realize - oh, I am sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River in response to the

petition by the hon. Member for St. John's East.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have

been made here this evening respecting the Extension Service as it applies to

Labrador - the Member for Torngat Mountains presented a petition on that. I want

to take just a few minutes to let the people know exactly where I am coming

from, and maybe to give an update to the Member for St. John's East on the most

prominent rural Newfoundlander in this House. I would suppose he could be

denoted as that.

At 8:00 p.m. on Saturday evening I met for some hour and a

half with some three development associations in my riding: the Southern

Labrador Development Association, the White Bear Development Association, and

the Battle Harbour Development Association. I talked for some time about the

purpose of Memorial University Extension Service as it applies to Labrador, and

I went through the process as I understand it. The Member for St. John's East

can indicate to this House what he likes about how the need is in different

parts of the Province, but I want to tell him exactly where I come from.

I grew up in the Labrador Straits and I know what the

Labrador Straits has needed and needs today. I can say to the hon. Member and to

the House of Assembly that when Memorial Extension first came to the Labrador

Straits they were a very valuable member of the community, a very valuable tool

that worked with the community at large to organize their fishermen's

committees, to organize the community councils, to go out there and arrange for

public meetings and the exchange of public information. Certainly as a community

development tool they were an invaluable asset to that community.

However, there has not been a presence of Memorial University

Extension Service in the Labrador Straits except - for the last six years. I

will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what has happened. Over the last number of years we

have seen seven community councils there, each with a town clerk, we have seen

an office of Enterprise Newfoundland move in; as well, the rural development

specialist is in that area, and we have the development office there that is

functioning very, very well.

And, you know, as time goes on we are always happy to see

people come and assist us, but we are always happy as well to be able to rise up

at some point and say to these people with a lot of pride, we are educated. We

are using our own people as the human resource to develop the kinds of things

you helped us with in the beginning, But now, thank you very much, we do not

need you.

And on the other side, in the Mary's Harbour area, from

Mary's Harbour to Cartwright, we have seen the establishment of similar

community councils, three development associations and numerous fishermen's

committees. In the previous two years, before I got elected in 1989, I was the

Marine Institute liaison with the Labrador Community College who travelled

everywhere, from L'Anse au Clair to Nain. So do not tell me I do not know what

is happening on the Coast of Labrador or what the need is there for this kind of

activity on the Coast of Labrador. I have performed that activity myself, Mr.

Speaker, so I do not need to take lessons from the academic from St. John's

East.

If they want to contact the representatives of the respective

development associations I met with on Saturday evening they will find amongst

them unanimous support for my position and our position to stand here in

confidence and say, We do not need you at this point in time. Thank you very

much for what you have done. We will look forward to seeing a better development

of communities and infrastructure in Labrador and we will do it with pride. And

if at some time we need community development expertise, then certainly that can

be done and be funded by some other agencies, as has been done in the past.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition

presented by the Member for St. John's East. I find it most interesting that my

hon. colleague mentioned that he met with three development associations and

they are behind him, unanimously. I took the time to go to the table and get a

copy of the petition that was just presented and on it I find the name Patricia

Way supporting that petition. Now she is from Cartwright. I find another name,

Chubbs, from Mary's Harbour, and the name Rumbolt from Mary's Harbour. These are

people who supported this petition in support of the reinstatement of Extension

Service and this was on Saturday or Saturday night. This was done at the Rural

Development Council meeting, and now my hon. colleague gets us and says they are

all behind him. Someone just now shouted and said, you are only one. I believe

he is only one. He is the only one, because he does not want to go against his

own Government. That is the trouble. The hon. gentleman does not want to go

against his own Government. Stand up and be counted, boy. What about Matilda

Martin, Labrador White Bear Association? - another one. What about Madonna Way?

You can go through this petition and find that the people are from the District

of Eagle River.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) from Mary's Harbour.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and ninety-nine other

people from Mary's Harbour, from a community in his own district. Is there

something tied in with what the Member is saying, I wonder? Before the Member

came into politics he applied for a position with MUN Extension, and thank God

he was turned down. Here is a person who, before he came into politics, wanted a

job with MUN Extension. And now, two years later, because he joined this

Government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for

Carbonear can talk all he wants about bathrooms, but I will tell the hon.

gentleman from Carbonear that the people out in rural Newfoundland are going to

tell this Government in the next election. And a lot of those people, maybe some

in the gallery now, voted for this Government and voted for a change. Well they

got a change. But I will say that when the ballots are counted in the next

election, there will be another again. Thank you, very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

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

present a petition on behalf of fifty-four residents of the Patrick's Cove area

on the Cape Shore. The prayer of the petition, `To the hon. the House of

Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative Assembly,

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 - no

other agency - is capable of providing that service, MUN Extension should be

reinstated. Your petitioners respectfully request the hon. House to take such

actions 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.'

The wording in the petition, Mr. Speaker, `no other agency is

capable of providing that service' is so true to those who understand Memorial

Extension and to those who understand rural Newfoundland. It was with great

shock a few days ago that I listened to the Member for Eagle River when he spoke

earlier on petitions and he basically reiterated his own words today, except he

did not spell them out. Back a few days ago he said, why Mun Extension is no

longer relevant is because development associations are now in place equipped

with $36,000 in funding. I have four regional development associations in my

district and work very, very closely with them, and $36,000 in funding is very

little when you come to pay a paid co-ordinator who has more work than any

average person is expected to do for the salary, plus running an association

that covers a large rural area.

Instead of taking on the extra (inaudible), Memorial

University Extension has made it possible for many of my rural development

associations to operate cohesively, to take on projects, to develop projects

they could not do with their own expertise or funding. Memorial University has

done a tremendous service in co-ordinating the activities of rural developmental

associations, not replacing them.

The Member mentioned town clerks. Now, really, what do town

clerks do, despite the fact you have x numbers of new councils? I have fifteen

of them, but the town clerks do very little that resembles in any way the work

of Memorial University Extension. Once again, a lot of the work the University

Extension does facilitates the work of the various towns.

And then he mentioned, of course, we have Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador. The biggest joke in history, Enterprise Newfoundland

and Labrador, an association established to employ former Liberal candidates at

high salaries which could easily keep MUN Extension in place. Community

colleges, he says, are taking on part of the role. With the cutbacks to

community colleges, more of which we see today, they are having a job trying to

fulfil their own mandate, not to extend it to take in the role of MUN Extension.

Then he goes on to talk about fishermen's committees and so on. Once again, who

was the co-ordinator for the fishermen when they really had problems this past

year? Who tried to bring to the forefront, to Provincial and Federal Governments

the plight of the fishermen around the Province? Memorial University Extension.

So if the Member understands rural Newfoundland, then he is

living in a different rural Newfoundland than I am. The part of the area from

which these people come, the Patrick's Cove area of the Cape shore, perhaps with

the exception of the Labrador coast, was one of the long forgotten, long

neglected areas by governments in the past, an area where people had to make it

on their own with very little help. In fact, it was only when finally the

Liberals were turfed out some years ago that we started to see improvements on

the Cape shore, and certainly in recent years we have seen a tremendous amount.

A lot of it came not because of politics or politicians, but because the people

became organized and their activities became co-ordinated. A number of agencies

were responsible for that, but one of the key agencies in bringing together a

lot of the people on the Cape shore, in highlighting a lot of their problems and

then in obtaining results - not only problems highlighted, but solutions

highlighted - a lot of the co-ordination was done by Memorial University

Extension.

And I am not surprised at all to see several petitions coming

in from that area signed not by a few people in the area, but from the numbers

we see, from everybody who lives in the Cape shore area. And that makes me

exceptionally proud, because it is an area which has become very well organized

and they know a lot of the success they have had in recent years has come

because some of their problems and solutions, as I said, have been highlighted

through the efforts of Memorial University Extension.

So I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to stand and present this

petition on behalf of the residents of the Patrick's Cove area - and we have

several more to present - asking that Memorial University Extension be

reinstated so it can continue to do the job it has done so well over recent

years.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support my

colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes, and a very well presented petition on

behalf of the people from the Cape shore.

I, too, am familiar with not only the Cape shore, but with

many areas of rural Newfoundland. But not enough, really. I have been to visit

many areas outside St. John's, and when you take everything in its true

perspective, I believe the Government has lost its sense of direction. I believe

this Government has thrown a ring around the Avalon Peninsula, and only certain

parts of the Avalon Peninsula. Because, I mean, MUN Extension was a unit that

would go and spread the good word. They were almost like a church to some people

in outlying areas. They were not only where people could not do it on their own

and went and asked for assistance, MUN Extension took the initiative themselves

to go out and see the problem and try to correct it.

And how would they go about this? Very simply. They were

people who had organizational credentials or abilities and they were leaders in

organizing development within certain areas. We will take the fishery. I am

still a member of the Newfoundland Inshore Fisheries Association. I mean, MUN

Extension helped us, really guided us along the way. And those associations were

necessary for our fishermen and our plant workers and, indeed, our processors,

to get their message across to the people not only in Newfoundland but

everywhere else. Finally, I think, the message from Newfoundland has gotten out

to other parts of Canada, and MUN Extension played a major role. They certainly

played a major role in training workshops, in organizing speaking events,

organizing conventions sort of, where people came to explain their views on the

fishery or on agriculture or on forestry, wherever there was an existing

problem. And to even go a bit farther afield, in family violence workshops MUN

Extension played a major role. Those are things that are uppermost in people's

minds today.

Family violence has become more prominent in the last number

of years, and we have people out there like those people from MUN Extension who

are prepared to do this type of job, a job that serves our population well. And

for the life of me I cannot see how someone can get in this House and say the

ERC or the ENL can take the place of that group. It just baffles me. I just do

not see it. I mean, when we organized not only NIFA but we organized our own

town council, we had expert advice from those people. Certainly we were only

people crying in the wilderness, we certainly had no experience in the field,

and it was from those people we learned. And I am sure there are areas in

Newfoundland where they helped people much more than they did in our area.

But for the hon. the Member for Eagle River to talk about

town clerks being able to do the job that MUN Extension did for their

communities and for their people, I mean it is a disgrace. Now he talks about

what the community colleges are picking up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there have been severe cuts in

all funding for community colleges, right across the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever been to Labrador?

MR. PARSONS: Have I been to Labrador? Yes. I worked in

Labrador before you were born. Before you were born, I worked in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I worked in Labrador before you were born -

not even in diapers, before you were born.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. Member

something. Were you ever in Flatrock?

MR. DUMARESQUE: No. I am not speaking for Flatrock.

MR. PARSONS: No. Were you ever there? That is only ten

miles outside St. John's. Yes, I was north - I was north.

Mr. Speaker, MUN Extension has a wealth of information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to present

a petition on behalf of the people of Humber Valley, a certain number from

Humber Valley, more specifically around the Deer Lake area. The petition of the

undersigned, the Friends of MUN Extension, states `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 actions as may be necessary to ensure that

Memorial University reinstates the Extension Service and that it be funded and

equipped to provide the services it has traditionally provided.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the ironic things about this and one

of the things that strikes me most is that the first three signatories to this

petition are the President of the Deer Lake District Literacy Council, the

Secretary of the Deer Lake Literacy Council and members of the Literacy Council.

Now I do not think there is a Member in the House today who can say this is not

needed in all areas of Newfoundland, let alone rural Newfoundland. The people of

this Province need someone, need a link between the great university which is

going to become an elitist institution in this Province rather than being

something which is accessible to people in rural Newfoundland. And the first

three signatures to this petition really tell you something.

Mr. Speaker, five minutes is not much time, but I find that

in the brochures on MUN Extension, the yellow page, `Issues on Public Policy', I

get down to activities and I see `Current Topics' and the first topic I see is

`Crisis in the Fishery, Jan. 31, 1991.' And secondly and most importantly, I can

probably see why MUN Extension is gone, Mr. Speaker. I found the answer in the

brochures issued by MUN Extension. The answer is in number two of activities, in

the Issues on Public Policy. The second current topic: cutbacks in health,

cutbacks in Education and above all, Mr. Speaker - how ironic - cutbacks in

other services, dated February 28, 1991. Does that not tell you something?

AN HON. MEMBER: Get rid of MUN because (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, get rid of them, Mr. Speaker. Because

I can assure you that they are out into the nooks and crannies, so to speak, of

rural Newfoundland; they are there every day of the week; they are in touch with

every community council, every civic leader, every church group, and they are in

touch with everything and everyone, or the who's who in Newfoundland, when it

pertains to rural Newfoundland. They were there when we were there, Mr. Speaker.

I sat as a Government Member on many a meeting between MUN Extension in Deer

Lake and White Bay in conjunction with the Humber Valley Development Association

and I took it on the chin. I sat with them, I went with them, I travelled with

them to White Bay. And that is where I got some ideas to bring back and feed to

my counterparts in Cabinet. That was how you could make some changes. When you

are not afraid of criticism, Mr. Speaker, you can do those things; you can let

those people go out into rural Newfoundland and you can sit down and talk to

them. And you listen and you bring back your ideas. Because as politicians we

are no different than anybody else; we get our heads in the sand at times and it

is nice to get a tap on the shoulder and have someone say, this is an idea we

have. You should listen. We are representing the same people you are

representing.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this Government should show some real

change - real change - and tell in no uncertain terms that MUN Extension should

be left the way it always was. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it should be added to and

it should be given extra funding. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

delighted to rise in my place today to support the petition presented by my

colleague, the Member for Humber Valley. Mr. Speaker, we saw in this House today

one reason why one Member opposite does not want MUN Extension to continue; we

saw the Member for Eagle River speak on a petition for MUN Extension today and

say his constituents did not want MUN Extension up there any more because they

were overdeveloped now; he stood in his place and told us how the town councils

and the development associations are looking after his area now and MUN

Extension is not needed any more.

But, Mr. Speaker, not two minutes later there was a petition

presented in this House on MUN Extension by the Member for St. John's East which

all the members of his development association had signed requesting that MUN

Extension stay in his area. Now there is a Member who is out of touch. And I do

not believe he is out of touch, I believe there is another motive for him

wanting MUN Extension gone.

We know the hon. the Member for Eagle River had a job with

Marine Institute and he travelled up and down that coast with Marine Institute,

getting paid his daily salary while he was sowing his political seeds and while

he was doing that, Mr. Speaker, then he decided when he got defeated politically

to take on the Member at that time and run politically because he had travelled

up and down the coast. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that Member does not want Mun

Extension because of the potential of another person going in there and doing

the same thing that he did, Mr. Speaker, trying to help service those people and

find out, Mr. Speaker, if the people are not satisfied with his representation

then maybe that next person, Mr. Speaker, would try and knock off the present

incumbent and run in that District, which I think could be done by someone from

Mun Extension, if they wished to, Mr. Speaker. So I know why one Member opposite

is quite delighted that Mun Extension had gotten the axe at Memorial University.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we hear from the Minister of Education

every time he stands to speak in this House about academic interference, I

believe is what he refers to. Is he going to tell Memorial University what to

do? And he says no, he should not. Well, Mr. Speaker, himself and King Clyde had

no trouble whatsoever telling Memorial University to freeze their wages, now if

that is not academic interference, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is, because

you cannot get, unless you pay an adequate salary for professors to come in here

and teach the University students, you are not going to get the quality

professors to come in here. Now if that is not academic interference I do not

know what is.

Now you have no trouble interfering when it comes to freezing

the wages, Mr. Speaker, but you will not - either the Minister of Education or

King Clyde will not go and make a phone call, Mr. Speaker, to the Board of

Regents, just a personal phone call and say: look, see what you can do about

trying to keep Mun Extension because it is an essential service in many parts of

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity before I was elected to

this House of Assembly, when I was working on a Concerned Citizens Committee in

Kilbride area, when we were trying to fight to keep a dump off Ruby Line and we

were trying to get briefs prepared for different commissions about the

amalgamation or the takeover of Kilbride with St. John's, and about protecting

the agricultural resource. Now, Mr. Speaker, I had help from Memorial University

Extension Service, me and that committee at that time. Now I do not say there is

a great many political friends of the PC Party in Mun Extension. I do not know

of them, if they are there. Well, Mr. Speaker, Mun Extension helped me when I

needed it. And I will stand in this House, as often as I can, to help Mun

Extension because I believe Mun Extension helps other people in the Province,

Mr. Speaker, above and beyond the political aspirations of anyone involved. They

are there to help people when they are needed, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that

another reason why I think Mun Extension is gone, Mr. Speaker, is that I

understand last October when the cutbacks were about to come there was

difficulty at Memorial University trying to decide what they would cut. And our

great Minister of Finance said to some of his staff, haul them in before me, he

said, haul them in before us, I will tell them where they can cut. And when they

came in, Mr. Speaker, he wimped out completely because he never opened his mouth

while the whole lot of them were there. But behind the scenes, Mr. Speaker,

Memorial Extension was his target.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Behind the scenes, Mr. Speaker, he won

out, up to now. I think he and King Clyde have taken the tiger by the tail, Mr.

Speaker, because the type of people who are involved with Mun Extension will not

be pushed around by any dictatorial type governments. They have experiences

standing up for what they believe in and I am certainly sure, Mr. Speaker, that

they believe very strongly that they have a useful purpose in this Province, as

I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that they will be around here after King

Clyde and his merry men have long left this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5, to move the debate on Bill 16,

shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution

or resolutions, clause or clauses,

section or sections,

preamble or

preambles,

title or titles or whatever else might be related to Bill 16 shall be the first

business of the House when next called by the House and shall not be further

postponed.

You heard the motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

You heard the motion, all those in favour of the motion, Aye?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, Nay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 15, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 15. Second Reading of a Bill, "An Act

Respecting Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province."

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, for the first time in my twelve years in this Assembly

I saw police officers standing in the galleries intimidating the demonstrators

who were sitting watching our deliberations, as is the right of the citizens of

our Province who we are here to represent. Now, my right as an Opposition

Member, and those of my colleagues here to debate and challenge this draconian

legislation violating collective agreements and discriminating against women is

being limited. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about restraining Government

spending, it is not about freezing the wages and benefits of public employees,

it is about breaching collective agreements, signed legal contracts, between the

Government and its agencies as employers and public employees. It is about

instituting spending restraint measures that penalize women more than men and

accentuate the historic inequities between the sexes.

Mr. Speaker, there are alternatives for a Government facing a

tough economic situation. The previous PC Administration, of which I was a

Member, faced a major recession in the early 1980s when we saw interest rates

soar above 20 per cent, when we saw the deep-sea fishing industry suffer

insolvency, when we saw Bowater decide to abandon the paper mill in Corner

Brook, the largest employer in Western Newfoundland, and when we saw Advocate

Mines give up on Baie Verte. We managed that monumental economic crisis by

taking a different approach. Yes, we restrained spending but did not violate

contracts with our own employees and we did not penalize women. We did not roll

back negotiated settlements.

Mr. Speaker, the measures we took were not popular but we

allowed the negotiated signed collective agreements to run their course before

we imposed wage freezes and wage controls. We did not tamper with signed legal

contracts. We did not use our technical legal power in this Assembly to take

away rights. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, there are alternatives for the

Government now. The Government now, of course, is responsible for making the bed

in which its lying. Over the past two years the Government has spent with

abandon. The Government now chose to ignore the plans made by the previous

Administration's Restraint Senior Expenditure Review Committee. The Government

now got elected on a platform of building new universities. They were going to

increase funding to Memorial University to continue, of course, Extension

Service and all the other programs, faculties, and services. But, not only that,

Mr. Speaker, they were going to carry out a major construction program in Corner

Brook to elevate Grenfell College to full degree granting status. They were

going to build another university in Central Newfoundland, but Clyde Wells was

not going to stop there, Clyde Wells promised to build universities in northern

Newfoundland and Labrador, too. Two years ago. Now, do you suppose that Liberal

Leader campaigning then who had served as Opposition Leader with a $50,000 a

year salary supplement two years previous to that had read the financial

statements of the Province? Do you suppose he read the Budget documents, the

publication of the Newfoundland Statistics Agency and the Department of Finance

and Treasury Board to inform himself before he offered himself to the people as

an alternative Premier, before he promised to build all these new universities?

Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, that Clyde Wells deliberately mislead people,

tricked them, lured them and sucked them into voting for him, do you suppose,

Mr. Speaker? Well what are we supposed to think now? The two promises the

campaigning Liberal Leader made that had the most impact were the one to augment

spending on health care, to open more acute care hospital beds and the one to

increase the number of jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador so mothers' sons could

come home and find employment here. A woman on the northern peninsula, according

to the Premier, when he was speaking at an election rally in Corner Brook, had

offer to kiss his feet if he became Premier and brought home her children. Well,

I wonder what happened to that woman. She probably moved to Mississauga to join

her children because there have been so many setbacks along the St. Barbe coast.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, on assuming office, did not

institute all those promises. He radically scaled down his university plans. He

did put the people in central Newfoundland through a charade of competing for

the cite of a central Newfoundland university campus, and then after a year or

so told them that really the Government could not afford to do that. But the

Government did rush to offer its employees 20 plus per cent wage increases, put

some disputes out to arbitration, signed contracts providing for hefty wage

increases, and did that right up to days before the Minister of Finance

delivered his Budget in this House on March 7th.

Now, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of example are you providing

today?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, look at the swings and lurches of

the Government over the past few months, over the past two years that they have

been in office. Lacking any kind of a coherent plan they have gone really from

one extreme to the other, and the worst example is what I am talking about now,

the way the Government has dealt with its public employees. Other examples, of

course, are the infamous municipal amalgamation master plan announced by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs two months after he assumed office. He has had to

pull back repeatedly from that plan. We have seen retreat after retreat after

retreat. Finally he agreed to live up to the letter though not the spirit of the

Municipalities Act and have feasibility studies. He had members of the executive

of his department, who serve at the pleasure of the Cabinet, do the feasibility

studies. It is nothing like an arm's length independent study mind you, no, no.

He had his own top civil servants do studies.

Those were done though, Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago and

several of the reports still are not completed. Absolutely scandalous. Then the

latest example of municipal real change was the bombshell dropped just before

Christmas after the House of Assembly had closed, days before municipalities

were supposed to start their new budget years in the form of a new municipal

grant system.

Mr. Speaker, a small municipality in the district I

represent, with a purely volunteer council, did up a budget in response to the

changes in the grant system, promptly in January submitted it to the Department

of Municipal Affairs on January 23rd and just got a reply the other day saying:

Sorry, you are not really going to be down $3,000 this year, you are going to be

down $18,000. Well the council had to go back to the drawing board over the

weekend, and the most reasonable way out of the dilemma is raising taxes. Now

they are prepared to do that, but the Government will not let them because the

Municipalities Act says that municipalities cannot raise taxes after March 31st.

So this group of volunteers, who have given so much of themselves, they are

between a rock and a hard place and it is because of the incompetence and

bungling of the Minister and his staff. First of all, in changing the grant

system days before the start of the budget year, and then in sitting on the

municipality's budget request for two months after they submitted it. So the

people of this municipality are being made to suffer while the Minister dithers.

Mr. Speaker, I got slightly off the track, but I was just

trying to illustrate the fact that this administration lacks a plan. Perhaps if

it had done its homework and consulted and listened to the people of the

Province, it could have made better choices. It could have phased in restraint

measures. It could have negotiated in good faith with public employees to see

and select measures that could have kept many more public servants employed and

carried on vital services to the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, the

Administration could have held back spending in other areas. The prime example

of excess is the Economic Recovery Commission which the Government is bragging

about giving $44 million this year. That Recovery Commission is suppose to be

boosting employment. Now it is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that in the two years since

the Government appointed the Recovery Commission, the unelected Cabinet that

answers to the Premier, that the economy has gotten progressively worse. In the

two years that the Economic Recovery Commission has been in place, we have seen

a 5 per cent increase in the employment rate throughout the Province. We did not

have nearly as much to recover from when Doug House began with the Economic

Recovery Commission, as we do right now. Mr. Speaker, there are other examples

of flagrant waste at a time when essential services are being cut back.

So this debate is about stripping contracts. It is about

discriminating against women in the public service,-

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not true.

MS. VERGE: -and it is about rejecting better choices. Mr.

Speaker, violating negotiated legal agreements is repulsive. The Premier holds

himself out as an ethical person, as somebody who is principled. Well how can

anyone claim to be moral when he does not honour his word and his signature. He

broke his agreement with the other Canadian First Ministers last June, and now

he is breaking his contracts with his own employees here at home. I do not know

how he or his henchmen opposite can expect the people of the Province to trust

them anymore. But it seems to me that you would have to exhaust every other

conceivable option before you would stoop to reneging on your promise, on your

word, on your signature, on an agreement. Legal contracts are suppose to be

sacred.

Mr. Speaker, worse than violating agreements this

Administration is violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada by

sponsoring legislation that has the effect of discriminating against women. This

legislation penalizes women in the public service. It penalizes men in the

public service but it takes much more from women in the public service. And, of

course, women were disadvantaged in the public service and in our society in

general always before in any case. This legislation takes away from men in the

public service one year's worth of negotiated and agreed to wages and benefits.

For this budget year, `91-`92, the men in the public service do not get any

increase at all in their wages and benefits, despite the fact that they were the

beneficiaries of signed contracts providing for increases, some large increases

in some cases.

Now women in the public service similarly lose those assured

contracted-for wage and benefits increases for this budget year, but beyond

that, Mr. Speaker, women in the public service lose more than three years of

negotiated, promised and contracted-for pay equity adjustments. Because, Mr.

Speaker, in the spring of 1988 the previous administration, with my colleague,

the Member for Grand Falls, as Minister for the Status of Women and President of

Treasury Board, entered into contracts with the hospital sector and Hydro, with

Cabinet adopting the principle of pay equity for the whole public service,

employees of departments and agencies to correct the pay inequity, to finally

end the entrenched practice of paying women less than men for doing work of

equal value.

Mr. Speaker, the approach taken by the previous

administration and favoured by the public service unions was to arrive at pay

equity adjustments through a process of negotiations over a period of five

years, but the adjustments were to be retroactive to April 1st of 1988. Now that

process involved the public service unions and the employers, the Government and

the hospitals, nursing homes and other Government agencies, analyzing the

make-up of the public service, looking at classifications of jobs, seeing which

ones are virtually monopolized by men, which ones are dominated by women, then

scrutinizing the characteristics of the job classifications, looking at the

skill, effort and responsibility in each category and then comparing. Of course,

once that was all done it was obvious and it was conceded by all parties,

Government, the hospitals, the nursing homes, Hydro, as well as the public

service union leaders, that there was systemic wage and benefit discrimination

against women. With the work that has been done over the past three years, it

was found that to correct this inequity for women in the health care sector

alone back to the agreed-upon date of implementation, April 1st, 1988, would

cost the Government about $25 million. In other words, over the past three years

women in our hospitals and nursing homes have been discriminated against to the

tune of $25 million.

Now though the pay equity agreement was made by the previous

administration, the Liberals, when they campaigned for election, made written

promises, written assurances that they endorsed pay equity and that they would

go the extra step of introducing and enforcing progressive pay equity

legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

The hon. the Member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but I hope I

will have another chance to speak later in the debate.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives

me great pleasure to have an opportunity to speak for a few minutes in this

debate. I just want to point out a few things and to make clear for the record

an indication of why I will be supporting at the end of the day Bill 16.

I might just begin by pointing out that it is a little bit

passingly strange and odd now to see my friends opposite all of a sudden

becoming great defenders of the labour movement in Newfoundland, after my past

experience. I would just like to read into the record again one more time, as I

did in debate the other day on the Private Member's Motion, just a few passages

from a letter to the editor in the Western Star of April 2.

MS. VERGE: Read the whole thing. (Inaudible) to the

Liberals.

MR. GRIMES: `Need politicians speak truth no matter the

cost?' is the title the editor chose to use. It says, `Mr. Editor, while I am at

it please allow me to say that I am sick to my stomach of the sheer hypocrisy,

the sanctimonious self-righteousness of Mr. Simms or Lynn Verge picking up the

gauntlet for the labour movement. Not even the very arrogant, very unpopular

Brian Mulroney has the audacity to propose that he or his cronies are anything

other than union bashers who love the rich and abide the poor and middle-class

as something to be seen and not heard, and, of course, pay taxes. At the risk of

being too cynical, we do not need are politicians who jump on and off bandwagons

as the political whims and fancies sway them, uttering rhetorical garbage and

untruths because they think we want to hear it.' Mr. Speaker, I might say when I

read that, particularly for a couple of Members opposite, it certainly rings

true to me.

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

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I note the hon.

Member was reading from a lengthy document. I wonder if he would be kind enough

to table it so that we can read the whole document? I wonder if he would table

it so that we would have the whole document before the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will rule on the point of order. There is no point of

order. It has been ruled in this House on many occasions that a private Member

has neither the right nor the obligation to table any document. The hon. the

Member for Exploits.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might point out

that Members opposite are very familiar with this because I have done them the

courtesy of distributing it to them a couple of times before. They have seen it

already. They have read all of it. They are well aware of the contents.

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

point of order.

MS. VERGE: The Member for Exploits sent a copy of that

letter to just a couple of us in the official Opposition. I believe he neglected

to send a copy to the Member for St. John's East. After having read the whole

letter, I see the brunt of the writer's criticism about provincial politics was

levelled at the Liberal Government. Though I was not flattered, the thrust of

the criticism about provincial politics was directed at the Wells'

administration.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker. The antics now

being used are typical. One of the other points I want to make in debate, and

which I will elaborate on, is that the hon. the Member for Humber East in

raising trivial points as she just did just consumes time in this debate.

Because on other occasions when questions have been raised and this issue has

been debated in terms of Bill 16 and the merits or demerits related to it and

the opinions of hon. Members in this House, every time she has spoken I have

asked her to lay before the House the alternatives, what she would have done

differently. I report again today that so far she has named one: we should take

some more time and do some more consulting. That is the only one. Even in the

address today, Mr. Speaker, she mentioned that she was going to present some

alternatives fairly early in her twenty minutes. We listened, I listened. I did

not interrupt the hon. Member, I listened. I asked for them the other day in

debate and got none. I listened today because I was accused of not really

wanting to hear any, I heard none. We got the same thing in this debate that has

happened time and time again, the ususal diatribe of nonsense, talking about

election promises and the past and so on. It is no wonder I continue to refer to

this letter, when it refers to the audacity and hypocrisy of this group,

particularly a person who was an hon. Member who was a Member of a Cabinet for

ten years and was silent.

As Minister of Education, unheard of on any issue related to

education in Newfoundland. As Minister of Justice, unheard of. If you did not

come in here and someone told you who the Minister was you would never know the

position of the Government and the Minister on the issues for which she held

responsibility on behalf of the administration of the day.

Now for herself and other hon. Members Opposite, because

there is something of a question of leadership to be resolved amongst that group

in the near future, all of a sudden we have the great crusader for Humber East

with an opinion on everything; silent for ten years when she was in a position

as part of a Government to do something about it, and all of a sudden an

eloquent, passionate, spokesperson for any and every cause that anybody happens

to have in the Province at the present time.

Now what a metamorphosis. What a change! And she has the

nerve to sit there and when asked to present alternatives, no suggestions other

than to consult a little further, take some more time. However, I might point

out that the hon. Member for Grand Falls and the hon. Opposition House Leader,

did present several alternatives in his opening remarks on this bill when it was

introduced. I would like to deal with a few of those, because I did take the

time in debate to make a note of them, write them down and see what happens.

He talked about why not an extra 1 per cent cut in

Transportation, Purchased Services, travel and so on in each Department, and the

Member was suggesting that that could save x number of jobs. Every hon. Member

on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, who was here in the past and served in

the previous administration recognizes full well, unless they are going to be

involved in the total hypocrisy we have seen a lot of in the last few days, that

this administration on this side of the House, and my hon. friends who form the

Cabinet and Government of this Province today, have cut every one of those

categories clear to the bone compared to how those hon. Members used to run the

Province and those Departments. It is absolutely hypocritical. I do not see how

they even have the face to suggest that travel expenses for Members and

Ministers and civil servants in the Departments should be cut when, in three

successive Budgets, these Ministers have brought those things under control when

they were rampantly and wantonly out of control with the previous

administration.

We hear about Newfoundland Information Services, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader says, why not cut the cost of Newfoundland

Information Services? The list the hon. House Leader and the President of

Treasury Board supplied in debate previously already shows that three Budgets

later, when there should be inflation, the number of people dedicated and

committed in salaried positions in this Province today to giving information

about the programmes to the Government still cost over $170,000 less than the

people who were employed by the previous administration, scattered throughout

twenty-three Departments, going around at the beck and call of Ministers,

issuing press releases and good news on behalf of Ministers and Members. And

they have the nerve to suggest, just because this Government has had the good

sense to consolidate all that, never mind hiding it away in different

Departments under different Budget heads, put it under Newfoundland Information

Services so that Government information can be given to the people of

Newfoundland properly rather than political propaganda issued on behalf of

Ministers and Members, as was the previous practice, and to do it and save

$170,000. And the Opposition House Leader, who was party to all that, would

suggest oh, that should be scrapped.

We are already doing a better job on behalf of the people for

$170,000 less three years later, and they have the audacity and the hypocrisy to

stand up and suggest that there is something wrong with that. Now, you talk

about a group grasping for straws and looking at something to try to hang on to.

Another one of my favourites, and I am glad the hon. the Member for Harbour Main

came into the Chamber.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, the hon. the Member for

Grand Falls, suggested why in this bad year do the Ministers not cut out their

$8,000 a year car allowance? I am convinced, and we will see shortly that this

procedure used by these Ministers is going to save the Province countless

thousands of dollars. When the Opposition Members were Members of Cabinet not

only did they have their cars and all the related expenses, they managed to find

ways to suggest that there might be a bit of business in Boston or New Orleans

or Las Vegas and hook a trailer hitch on to the back of the Government car, with

a gas card, and go on down to a meeting. Meanwhile, because the car was going,

you might as well fill it up with all your family.

AN HON. MEMBER: Save money.

MR. GRIMES: There is nothing wrong with that in the

opinion of the hon. Members opposite. And now that we have cleaned up that mess

and cut it just about in half, they suggest it should be stopped altogether. For

seventeen years they drove around in cars and there was nothing wrong with it.

They had a wage freeze for two years. Did they suggested they give up their

cars? Oh, no, the cars are great. We will keep the cars. We will drive the cars,

and pay for our family vacations with them and everything else. All of a sudden

now these Ministers are supposed to give up their car allowances. A great

suggestion! That is really going to save the Province and do wonders.

What about protocol and hosting the Royal family? Are Members

now suggesting that an invitation tendered almost two years ago on behalf of the

Royal Newfoundland Regiment to have the Colonel of the Regiment, the Princess,

come to this Province at the request of the Regiment to honour the seventy-fifty

anniversary of Newfoundlanders who died at Beaumont Hamel should now, because we

are experiencing some financial difficulty, be totally scrapped?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: An insult to the Royal family, an insult to

all Newfoundlanders who fought in the Regiment, an insult to the Legion, an

insult to everybody. But insult them anyway, it does not matter. So they are

suggesting that all the things Governments normally do on behalf of people

should be scrapped. Another great suggestion!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls as well

talked about $200,000 to $300,000 worth of renovations for Exon House, a $9

million extension to the Administration Building at Mun, a $5 million animal

care centre and so on. And he knew the difference, because that hon. Member as

previous President of Treasury Board knows well the difference between capital

account and current account. Now there are some who will not admit it on the

opposite side at the present time because it is not to their political

advantage, but everybody knows that what we have this year is a current account

money problem. We had $117 million deficit just finished, we are already

budgeting for almost $60 million more, and the money markets are saying if you

cannot pay your heat and light bill, as the penultimate Premier, Premier

Peckford, used to refer to it as, if you cannot buy your groceries and pay for

you heat and light, we cannot lend you money for the rest of the stuff. Nobody

minds lending people money to build hospitals, to build schools, pave roads, put

in water and sewer systems, the same as we run our own lives. We will borrow

money to finance a house, or finance a car, but everybody will say to you you

are in big trouble if you are borrowing money to go down to the corner grocery

store and pick up your groceries. And it has to be stopped and brought under

control. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Bill 16.

We have been looking for alternatives. I have heard none from

the opposite side only a pile of nonsense and a pile of foolishness, because

they think all of a sudden they are carrying the flag. I understand fully and

respect and appreciate the positions being taken by the unions and their leaders

and their membership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Indeed I do and I respect everything they are

doing. But for hon. Members opposite to think that all of a sudden they can turn

over a brand new page and be something other than they really are, and carry the

banner and wave the flag and really carry the cross for the labour movement of

Newfoundland, is more hypocrisy than most people can bear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We are looking for alternatives, and there

are none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: To the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, there is no

doubt in my mind, as I have spoken previously in a debate on Private Member's

Day relating to the same issue, if there was a choice other than to bring in

Bill 16, this Cabinet, this Government on this side of the House would have done

it. There is absolutely nobody in elected office who takes any pleasure or pride

or anything else in having to say, Look, we have to take a couple of thousand

people and tell them we are sorry, you have done good work in this Province but

we cannot have you on the payroll any more. And to take the rest of them and

say, We are sorry to you as well. We want you to continue working, but even

though you do have agreements in place, we cannot afford to pay you this year.

Do you think anybody over here, anybody anywhere in their

right mind would make that choice if they had another one they could make?

Somebody has to be kidding. Somebody has to be absolutely kidding, to think that

given an option, anybody in their right mind would stand up and choose that one.

It is being done, Mr. Speaker, because there is no