April 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 27

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to announce the introduction of new regulations

for control of off-road vehicles and control of firearms within our Provincial

Park boundaries.

The growing popularity of the use of off-road vehicles,

including all-terrain vehicles, trail bikes, four wheel drive vehicles,

snowmobiles and amphibious machines, has resulted in problems with park

environment damages, wildlife habitat disruptions and park user safety. In

keeping with the preservation and protection role of the Provincial Parks

Division, future use of these type vehicles will now be strictly controlled.

Public use of off-road vehicles may be permitted for specific

purposes, for example, wood hauling across park land, based on traditional local

use activities and resource management considerations. In addition, limited

off-road vehicles use may be permitted in some parks. For example, snowmobiles

may be permitted on roads in certain parks which do not have designated cross-

country ski trails.

Control of firearms within Provincial Parks has been

strengthened by amendment of existing regulations restricting possession and

transportation within park boundaries.

In addition to previous regulations on transportation, the

amendment provides regulations regarding possession of firearms within parks.

These new regulations are intended to assist park officials

in enforcing their mandate of preserving and protecting our Provincial Park

lands.

Mr. Speaker, I have the actual regulations attached as an

appendix. I will not read these but will table them.

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

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

On behalf of all my colleagues we welcome this particular

statement by the Minister, in particular as it pertains to our Provincial Parks

and the use of all-terrain vehicles. However, I should remind the Minister that

he is also Minister of Environment and Lands, which includes the whole Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the Provincial Parks, and we have to look

at the abusive use of all-terrain vehicles in parts of the Province other that

the Provincial Parks.

I also welcome the news about the use of firearms, or the

possession of firearms within the parks. I believe the Minister is on the right

track and what the Minister is doing as it pertains to the parks is right. I

compliment the Minister on taking this bold initiative. But I would say to the

Minister again, look after the forty-seven or forty-eight parks in the Province,

but there is also a lot of land out there which is not controlled like our parks

and we need to look after the environment there as well. Thank you.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations. She is not present today, so I will direct

my question to the Premier.

On last evening's NTV newscast the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations said with respect to our 22.3 per cent unemployment rate and I

want to quote her, `As the Premier said, it is not an easy job and he says it

could be five to ten years before we see any results'. Now I want to ask him is

the Premier, is the Minister, is the Government really seriously and with a

straight face telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the

unemployment rate of 22.3 per cent, up a full 5 percentage points since his

Government took office two years ago, is going to be the unemployment rate for

five to ten years, and that this is the prediction of his Government? Is this

what the Premier is telling the 52,000 people who are unemployed in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, that they can wait from five to ten years for any

change?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, not at all, Mr. Speaker. The hon.

Member is totally misrepresenting the position. The comment with respect to five

to ten years was a response to a question as to how long it would take for the

ERC to achieve its directive and that was from five to ten years - my estimate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is all I am saying. That is what the

five to ten years related to.

With respect to the unemployment rate, I ask hon. Members to

look at the number employed this year compared with the number employed last

year. Look at the numbers. There are more people employed now than there were

when the hon. Members last sat on the Government side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is so. Mr. Speaker, the figures are

very clear. I have them here and I can table them for the House. The figures are

very clear, Mr. Speaker. The number of people in the work force has greatly

increased for a variety of reasons; the number of people in the work force has

greatly increased and the number of people employed is 1,000 less this year than

it was last year despite, Mr. Speaker, the impact of the reduction in the

fisheries and the impact of a Federal Government instituting a policy caused

national economic recession. Despite that we are performing better than most

other provinces in Canada.

MR. SIMMS: You are going to table that, are you not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Premier that if

this is not the position of his Government, let this year's employment

programmes reflect his concerns, which they do not. Now let me ask him again

what does the Premier and his Government and the Department of Employment and

Labour Relations intend to do for the 52,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

who are unemployed today? The only employment programme the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations had he has cut this year by $700,000. Now does

the Premier have no compassion for the 52,000 people? An unemployment rate of

22.3 and he cuts the only employment programme the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations has by $700,000. Does he have any compassion for the 52,000

people who are unemployed, or does he intend to direct these people to the city

index, to the food banks, or to welfare, as the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations said last year?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we are in a very, very

difficult position this year. We are suffering the affects of a nationally

caused economic recession throughout the nation. The increase in Newfoundland in

the unemployment rate was a 3.5 percentage point increase from this time last

year. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable, but in asking the people of this

Province to understand, I ask them also to understand the increase in wealthy

Ontario was 4.6 percentage points, a full 1.1 percentage points higher than this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we can go a long way towards

solving the problems caused by the former Government when they were here, and we

are doing that, but we cannot at the same time solve all the problems caused by

the national government piled on top of it at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me correct something the

Premier said a couple of minutes ago, and this is from the labour force flash

sheet itself. In 1990 we had 186,000 people in the labour force in this

Province, in 1991 we have 183,000 people in the labour force in this Province,

so how can the Premier explain that? Now, isn't the real message that the

Premier is sending to the 52,000 unemployed people in the Province is that you

can join the hundreds of other families who have left this Province in droves?

You can join them because you have lost all confidence in this Government and

this Premier's economic policies to solve the unemployment problem. Isn't that

the message that the Premier is sending? Either get out or put up with the

consequences because I really did not mean it when I said pack your bags and

come home.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the number in the work force

is not 183,000 this month, it is 235,000, and in the same month last year is was

226,000 which is up 9,000. The number employed this past month was 183,000 and

in the same month last year is was 186,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a

significant decrease in the number employed. We understand that, and we are

doing our best to cope with it. I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that

Newfoundland is coping with it far better than any other Province of Canada is

coping with it, far better than the national average, Mr. Speaker, we are

performing much better than the national average.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) New Brunswick.

PREMIER WELLS: He is quite right, New Brunswick is

performing fairly well at the moment in the unemployment area. Mr. Speaker, we

have had a tremendous growth, some 9,000 more in the work force than there was

in the work force this time last year. That is what has caused the major

increase, not as much the loss of jobs as as much the increase.

Now, let's go back again to this proposition. Mr. Speaker, I

had to deal with the final point the hon. Member raised about coming home. And

the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: And, Mr. Speaker, let me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - remind all hon. Members that the

statement of policy of the Liberal Party was that we would first work to correct

the economic problems in the Province in order that our people would not have to

leave unless they genuinely wanted to. And then we wanted to make sure that any

who had to leave under their regime would have the opportunity to come back if

they did. Now to convert this into my promise, 'drop everything and come home',

is utterly false, it is an absolute political fraud, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think

"Home On The Range" would be most appropriate. In the absence of the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations I would like to ask a follow up to yesterday's

question to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that was responded

to in part by the Minister of Social Services.

I would like to refer the Minister to the Occupational Health

and Safety Act: Rights of workers to refuse to work, particularly

Section 43

(1). Which says a worker may refuse to do any work that he or she has reasonable

grounds to believe is dangerous to his or her health or safety, or the health

and safety of any other person at the work place.

Section A says: until remedial action has been taken by the

employer to the worker's satisfaction, and C reads: until an officer has

investigated the matter and has advised him or her to return to work.

Now I want to say to the Minister that those employees stayed

off work that particular day because remedial action had not been taken. In

light of that, would the Minister not agree that the rights of those workers are

being violated and that their day's pay should be reinstated and the letters of

reprimand taken back?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, had the employees been asked to return to their

place of work where the problem was, the act would certainly have been violated.

The workers were not asked to return to that place of work. The three workers in

particular: two workers were supposed to attend a CNIB workshop out in the

community and the other worker was supposed to take a foster child and bring it

to its natural parent. That had nothing to do with the -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that had absolutely nothing to

do with the place of work. Absolutely no employees were asked to return to the

place of work.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of

the response given by the Minister of what the workers were asked to do, that

they were not asked to return to the work place, and in view of the response he

gave yesterday when he admitted they were removed from the work place because of

the fumes, I said two of the employees have been reprimanded or three, then he

went on to correct me, because of work outside. He said, social workers do not

only have to work in the building.

Let me just say to the Minister, and I am sure he has checked

into the matter, but the information that I have is that two of the three

workers were not directed to work anywhere else, and, as I say, sat in their

cars on the parking lot; and one employee was advised to go to her home and

continue work, not by her immediate supervisor but by another co-worker. Now in

light of that I would ask the Minister would he not seriously consider

reinstating the day's pay and taking back the letters of reprimand, because it

is obvious that those workers were quite justified in taking the action they

did. In essence, I say to the Minister, they have been falsely or improperly

penalized, so would the Minister seriously consider that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker - absolutely not.

Let me explain again: two of the workers refused to go to the CNIB workshop,

there were four workers to attend that workshop, two of the workers attended and

two did not. It had nothing to do with the place of work. I will say very

clearly, I do not know where the hon. Member is getting his information, I knew

all about the problem long before I came to the House yesterday and I have since

talked to the executive to make sure I was absolutely right in what I was

saying. The other person was suppose to take a child from one foster parent to

its natural parent and she refused, she did not do that.

The hon. Members can say what they like, I depend on the

executive of my staff to advise me. I have been advised and I knew long before.

Will I change my mind, Mr. Speaker, or will we change our mind? Absolutely not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) you did not listen to your

executive before, why would you start now?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the

Minister should further investigate this matter because there are obviously

conflicting reports coming out of this. Knowing a couple of those individuals as

I do, I do not think that they would take this kind of action if it was not

justified. The Minister admitted there was a fumes problem yesterday.

I would like to refer the Minister to

section 47 of The

Occupational Health and Safety Act which says that 'No employer or union, as the

case may be, shall take any discriminatory action against a worker by dismissing

him or her or by deducting any wages, salaries, or other benefits or by taking

any other disciplinary action against him or her.' And it goes on, in

section D,

it says 'because the worker has reasonably refused to work pursuant to his right

to do so under

section 43', which I referred to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) under the law.

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, in essence, we have seen a violation

of the Occupational Health and Safety Act here. Again I would ask the Minister,

if he is not willing immediately to make a commitment would he seriously

investigate this matter further? Because my understanding is that in light of

what has happened here, there is some very serious morale problems developing at

the office, interpersonal problems, and I would ask him to investigate that with

a view to once again reinstating the benefits and taking back those letters.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure all hon.

Members opposite that the morale problem at the Marystown office is not nearly

as bad as it was when I first went in there as Minister as compared to what is

was like under former Ministers. I can assure you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Secondly, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I did not make the

decision myself to suspend one day's pay or take that action, that was the

responsibility of the regional operations Assistant Deputy Minister and his

staff. Had I made the decision it would have been a lot more severe should

someone refuse to go to work, I can assure you that. But that decision was made

by the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for that.

Thirdly, it had nothing to do with the office in question.

The work was outside of the office. Nobody, no staff, was asked to return to

that facility until it was corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister admitted in the

Legislature yesterday: I had referred to the first test that was done where it

was six times the acceptable limit or level. The Minister when he answered said

it was five times. Whether it was five or six it is still a very highly

unacceptable level of toxic fumes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member to get on with his supplementary,

please.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would get on with my

supplementary if I was not interrupted so rudely by the Minister of Health, who

I believe must have been breathing in some of the fumes. But I say to the

Minister, in light of the admission by the Minister, and a further investigation

by the Minister responsible for the Act, who I am sure will have some

information when she returns, that indeed those levels were too high to be

humanly safe to work in that environment, will he not consider my request to him

yesterday and today to clear up this matter once and for all? Because he

admitted that those toxic levels were too high.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: I am surprised at the hon. Member for putting

the same question four different ways. I mean, he is not going to change my

mind. There were no fumes at CNIB, there were no fumes in the foster parents'

home, and there were no fumes in the natural parents' home who wanted to see the

baby. There were absolutely no fumes there whatsoever. The individuals were not

asked to return to the place of work where there were fumes.

Will I change my mind? Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, and that

is final.

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

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

the Premier and it concerns the special Joint Committee of Parliament on the

Constitutional amending process. The Premier knows of course that the Committee

was here today and that he had made a written submission to the Committee. I

would ask the Premier why was he - although willing to present a written

submission to the Committee, and that he was willing to meet with them in

private behind closed doors - why was he not willing to go to the Committee and

make a public presentation as part of the open Constitutional process which he

favoured, as opposed to the Meech Lake Accord which he complained about being

behind closed doors.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to meet with

the Committee behind closed doors. I had made no request whatsoever to meet with

the Committee in open or behind closed doors. I do not know where the hon.

Member is getting his information. I suppose he has got a distorted view of it

from within the Committee. I can only say to you, one of the co-chairman of the

Committee telephoned me this morning to ask if they could meet with me, or if I

could meet with the Committee, and I said: I cannot do it today. If you are

through with your work and you want to drop by the House I would be happy to

step out of the House and meet with you.

Now I can meet with them in front of all the media out there

if they want. I did not ask to meet behind closed doors. That is all I suggest.

If the Committee wants to meet behind closed doors, that is up to the Committee.

But I certainly did not request it.

MR. HARRIS: Further to the supplementary to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier saying

that he did not express that he was unwilling to meet with them publicly, that

he, in fact, would meet with them in a private meeting in his office or

wherever, but he was not prepared to attend at the committee? That is the

question. Was he prepared to meet with them in public? Did he tell them that he

was not prepared to attend at the committee this morning or at any time today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. I prepared at the

committee's request a

summary of our position with respect to the changes I felt

should be made in the amending formula. I prepared it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you table it?

PREMIER WELLS: Sure. I will table it today. I will get

someone to go up and get it and I will table it. There is no difficulty at all.

I prepared that submission and submitted it to the committee. I did not appear

before the committee. No other Premier in the country has appeared before the

committee. The last committee that was here did not want me to appear before it.

Mr. Speaker, there was no need for me to appear before the committee.

As a matter of fact, there may, on reflection, be good reason

for me not to have appeared before the committee, but I will leave that to

others to judge. This morning, at the initiative of the committee not me - I did

not want to meet behind closed doors and I do not now want to meet behind closed

doors, and I did not say to the Committee that I refuse to meet with you

publicly but I will meet with you behind closed doors. No I did not say that

before to the Chairman of the Committee. What I said to the committee is I

cannot alter my plans to go and make a formal appearance before your committee

this afternoon. That was the request I had from the Chairman this morning and

that, of course, leads aside the question of whether or not it is appropriate

that I should do so.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the

contents of the submission it appears that the Premier is changing his views

with respect to the constituent assembly and now sees it as, perhaps, a last

resort as opposed to a proposal that he had. Will he tell the House, instead of

having his own personal views which he presents to committees and publicly, is

he prepared to start a process involving the people of Newfoundland in this

process, someone other than himself or his advisors?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Either the hon. Member is incredibly

ill-informed or he is grossly misrepresenting. I have not changed my views with

respect to the constituent assembly. My views are exactly the same on that as

they were a year ago and six months ago and three months ago and three weeks ago

and three days ago. There has been no change of view on that, so I do not know

what the hon. Member is talking about.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a constituent assembly or

a constitutional convention to allow for public involvement to keep the

politicians out of it. My specific recommendation to them or as a model that

they should consider would provide for the election of at least 106 members from

all across Canada, six or seven of whom would be from Newfoundland. This is the

kind of involvement I want, outside the Government, outside the Legislature. I

also suggest appointments by Government and appointments by the Legislature to

allow for open public debate. So the hon. Member is incredibly ill-informed or

grossly misrepresenting reality.

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

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

is to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I am sure the Minister

is aware that three school bus drivers from Happy Valley -Goose Bay have been

fired by their employer for refusing to work because they knew the school buses

had not been inspected during the December inspection. Is the Minister aware

that it was only after those employees acted, as is their right under The

Occupational Health Safety Act, that inspections were carried out by officials

of his Department and the buses were ordered to stay off the roads until

particular parts for some of those buses were ordered?

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

and Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware of

everything that happened in the investigation of the buses in question, and I am

comfortable that our Department acted the way they should have.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the

Minister for his answer. My supplementary would be to the Premier in the absence

of the Minister of Labour Relations. In view of the fact that these three

employees have now been proven to have acted properly, and while the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation says he is aware of everything which has

developed between these three employees, the school board, the school, the

students, the parents and everything else in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, would the

Premier undertake to give an answer to the Legislature on whether those three

employees have been fired illegally under The Occupational Health and Safety Act

which is enunciated by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the representations by the

hon. gentleman are completely at odds with what I understand to be the facts,

but that does not surprise me; that is not being inconsistent with his

representations in the past. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the

inspections indicated there was no cause for concern. Now whether that is a

breach of any act or not, I will have to refer the matter to the Government's

legal advisor, the Attorney General, and ask for legal advice on the matter. I

can certainly ask the Attorney General to determine whether or not the

Government acted illegally, and I can assure all hon. Members of the House if

the Government in any way acted illegally we will take steps to correct the

consequences of that illegality.

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

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

supplementary is to the Premier. As the Premier is aware, in December 1990 those

school buses were supposed to be inspected. The school buses were not inspected,

so is that not against the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador regulations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware they were

supposed to be inspected at that specific time, although that may be the case.

MR. WARREN: I am telling you.

PREMIER WELLS: Well I do not accept that representation

from the hon. Member, although he may be right. I have learned by bitter

experience in the past not to accept any such representations from the hon.

Member because they are probably quite incorrect. I will undertake to have the

matter checked and if it turns out that there was any illegality, any action by

the Government was in any manner illegal or contrary to the provisions of the

Occupational Health and Safety Act, I assure all Members of the House that I

will take action to ensure that the consequences of that illegality are

corrected.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Justice. How can the

Minister of Justice justify spending absolutely nothing on services for victims

of crime in the two years the Liberals have formed the Government despite the

fact that over the past couple of years there has been a sharp rise in the

number of reports of incest, other sexual abuse and other family violent crimes,

and despite the fact that many of the victims of these crimes have disclosed

them to the authorities believing the system would respond sympathetically, yet

the system has let them down badly and in some instances the victims have been

traumatized worse by the criminal justice system than by the crime itself? Why

did the Minister budget $150,000 for victim services in last year's Budget and

end up spending zero?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am always amused

when the hon. Member rises in this House and suddenly discovers that victims

exist after April 20, 1989. I think if she is going to be honest and frank

before the House she should justify why in seventeen years of the Conservative

Government, particularly the four years when she was Minister of Justice,

nothing was done during that period of time to address the needs of victims.

Now frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have said from the beginning that

this Government intended to address it. In fact, in the current year's estimates

we have provided funds for a pilot project for victim assistance across the

Island, which will take place in four centres: Eastern, St. John's, Central,

Western, as well as Labrador. We expect the positions will probably start being

filled in late May. I would query the hon. Member as to where she gets $150,000

in last year's Budget. That figure does not appear to me to be quite accurate. I

think what she may be referring to is this year's Budget.

May I just suggest in closing, Mr. Speaker, that this

Government has addressed the problem, we have looked at it, and I think in all

fairness to the hon. Member it has taken us approximately one tenth the time

that we have been in power to start acting on a problem that has been in

existence since there started to be crime. Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I refer the Minister to Page 227

of this year's Budget estimates for the information that last year he estimated

spending $150,000 on services for victims yet ended up spending zero. Now, Mr.

Speaking, how can the Minister explain stringing along victims and the public of

this Province for the past two years, constantly promising to do something for

victims yet doing absolutely nothing, yet in the same two years spending money

to add a Director of Public Relations to the Department of Justice, spending

money to add another secretary to the office of the Minister, and taking an

$8000 a year car allowance, all departures from the past? How can he explain

those priorities?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it difficult to

answer the hon. Member's question. Because I do not see it as a question, I see

it as some venomous out-pouring about some secret rage she has within herself

and in that case I do not really sense that it is a question to be answered. She

mentioned stringing along victims. Mr. Speaker, I think what is clear is that

what we try to do in this Province and what we have certainly tried to do since

we have had the pleasure and honour of serving the people of the Province, is to

try to identify legitimate needs and to find means within the tax structure of

this Province to finance them. Frankly what we have done, Mr. Speaker, at a very

difficult time in the Province's fiscal history, my colleagues and this

Government have found the money to be able to do so and to start to answer a

portion of the legitimate demands for victim services in this Province.

It was not easy to do, and I think reflects favourably on the

Government and Cabinet that we did identify that at this particular time. I

think if the hon. Member is going to be fair and frank about this, if anyone

strung victims along it was the hon. Member herself who, as Minister of Justice,

advocated many issues and did nothing for them during that period of time. Thank

you.

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

for a quick supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the

Minister that the plight of victims of sexual assault and family violence crimes

is not a matter for political gamesmanship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the

Minister of Justice. Has not his Government been breaking the law by failing to

use the revenue from the criminal code victim fine surcharge that has accrued to

the Province since August of 1989 for victims services? Would the Minister

explain what he has done with that revenue instead of spending it on victims

services?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad the hon.

Member has seen the light and finally determined in her second supplementary

that this is not a proper matter for political gamesmanship. Obviously she

learned something in my first two answers, and I am pleased to respond to her

third question which is, perhaps, legitimate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: As the hon. Member knows, two years ago -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: As the hon. Member knows, the victim fine

surcharge was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will remind the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains,

please to - he has been continuously interrupting and I find it difficult to

concentrate on the answers, which makes it difficult for me to be able to call

when the Minister has answered and, sometimes, when the Member has asked the

right questions.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the

question raised on victim fine surcharge, Mr. Speaker, the question has been

raised before and I will just touch on several points which are relevant to

properly answer the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Speak up.

MR. DICKS: Perhaps if the hon. Members listened they

would not have trouble in hearing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I said, Mr.

Speaker, and the hon. Members were obviously more interested in speaking than

listening, was that the victim fine surcharge was introduced in July,

approximately a year ago. -

MS. VERGE: July of `89 (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: July 1, 1989. Mr. Speaker, it has not yet been

two full years. In any event, the revenue from that programme was not sufficient

to generate and provide a victim services programme.

In the initial months of that programme the revenues were

$800, subsequently in the first year we realized approximately $18,000. Since

then and because of our discussions with the Chief Judge of Provincial Court and

others those revenues have increased. But even in the current fiscal year it is

not estimated that we will achieve much more than $80,000, which is still

significantly short of the approximately $200,000 we will need to run this

programme.

What the Government has done, and I think the Government is

to be commended for it, is rather than rely solely on the victim fine surcharge

programme to finance a victim services programme, we have put in sufficient

funds from provincial general revenues to make sure that we are able to get a

programme off and running this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired by a little more

excessively than normally, and the Minister was into a long answer and I am

afraid I have stop him here.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed to the

next matter on the Order Paper I was asked if I would table the submission to

the Special Joint Committee. I am pleased to do so,and I have arranged for a

copy to be prepared for all hon. Members so that they can have their very own

copy of the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to the next item of

business, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the gallery today

Mr. Barry Chubbs, the Mayor of L'Anse-au-Clair and Vice-President of the

Combined Councils of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise And

Consolidate The Law Respecting Crown Lands, Public Lands, And Other Lands of the

Province". Bill No. 22, Mr. Speaker, by any other name the same bill.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Some days ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader asked a question with respect to whether or not I knew

of any delays in the environmental assessment process affecting the Greenwood

Hydro Electric Development in Grand Falls. I have a brief answer I would like to

read into the record.

To our knowledge the project has not been delayed by

environmental requirements. An assessment of the environmental impacts of this

project is presently underway. The decision of whether and under what conditions

to allow construction of this proposed development will be made at the

conclusion of the environmental assessment. The decision to require an

environmental assessment under The Provincial Environmental Assessment Act was

made in August of 1990. In October 1990, under the Federal EARP guidelines, a

panel review was ordered. Arrangements are presently being made to co-ordinate

the Federal/Provincial Environment Assessment processes to reduce overall time,

efforts and cost to the proponent, public and governments.

In the meantime, the guidelines for the terms of reference,

for the impact statement are under review and the assessment is proceeding. It

is expected that the entire assessment process, from April 1991, will take

approximately eighteen months. Thank you.

Petitions

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I have

been asked to present by approximately -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition I have been

asked to present with approximately 1,000 signatures from the Placentia area.

The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, which I understand I should read is,

`To the Hon. House of Assembly of The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

petition of the undersigned, the friends of MUN Extension, states that

whereas

MUN Extension has provided and continues to provide an essential service to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

whereas no other agency is capable of

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

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

ensure that Memorial University reinstates its Extension Service and that it be

funded and equipped to provide the services it has traditionally provided.'

There are approximately 1,000 names on that petition I have

been asked to present, from a group of people from the Placentia area. I

understand my colleague for Placentia is not present. I do not know what the

situation is, but I have been asked by the people to present the petition and I

intend to do it. I can say, Mr. Speaker, I fully support the petition of the

approximately 1,000 signatories who are asking to have MUN Extension reinstated.

Why this Government has taken such cruel and callous action, why this Government

has such a vengeance to settle some sort of a debt with rural Newfoundland is

beyond most of us. Why do the people of rural Newfoundland have to be attacked

day in and day out by a Government which could not care less about the rural

portion of this Province? When I look across the House I see Members over there

who represent rural parts of this Province and one can only wonder what their

position is and why they sit and support a Government that is prepared to attack

one of the most vital parts of any Province, one of the most vital parts of any

country, and that is the rural way of life.

I am familiar, and have been familiar for many years with the

MUN Extension Service. They have done a lot of work in my district organizing

and assisting people in the isolated communities of South East Bight and Petit

Forte. They have done tremendous work in the Placentia area in terms of a cable

television programme that most people in - by the way, probably that is one of

the reasons why Government wants to oust the MUN Extension Service, because the

service they are providing is letting the people of the Placentia area see the

vicious attack this Government is showing and heaping upon the people of

Placentia with the closure of the hospital, and then trying to string the people

along for two weeks with some sort of a vague promise that we are going to do

something, and the Minister of Health again ends up doing what he does best,

nothing.

That is the situation, and that is one of the reasons MUN

Extension has been downgraded. Two of the main culprits in the downgrading of

MUN Extension happen to be the Ministers of Education and Finance. both of whom

are very familiar with Memorial University. They come into this House to become

part of the Government, appointed to Cabinet, and what happens to MUN Extension?

The two Ministers from MUN, what have they done? They have viciously attacked

that institution since coming into this House. There has been nothing by the

Ministers of Education and Finance but a vicious attack on Memorial University.

And I do not know why they are attacking the institution like

that. I do not know if they were overworked when they were over there. I do not

know if that is the problem or not. I can tell you neither one of them appears

to be overworked here, and there will be nothing left to do by the time they are

finished slashing programmes. And it is time for Members in the backbenches over

there to stand up and speak for their constituents, but not one over there has

the courage.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes we saw your courage, too, when you had to

vote on the Economic Recovery Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: We saw your courage. We saw your courage! Yes,

we saw your courage.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in cluing up let me say that I

beg the Member to stand up and support this petition.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I trust the Minister

of Education will rise when I finish. I am glad to support this petition of more

than 1,000 residents of the Placentia area calling on the Government to do what

they can to have Memorial University reinstate Memorial University Extension

Service.

This petition was taken up by friends of MUN Extension over

the past few days. They first approached their own Member, the MHA for

Placentia, requesting him to present it on their behalf in this Assembly. Now

after several days of phoning his office and waiting for an answer from him, the

Member finally told them no. Then the Member left for the south.

It is very disturbing that the Wells' Cabinet has acquiesced

in the University's extinguishing Memorial University Extension Service. I say

`acquiesced'. Perhaps their involvement was more active. But to see a Government

backbencher, a Liberal Member who is a private Member, who is not in the

Cabinet, who is not bound by the rules of Cabinet solidarity, toe the line when

it goes against the express requests and the direct interests of the people he

is here to serve. Mr. Speaker, talk about a bunch of sheep.

The Member for Green Bay keeps reminding us that this is the

Chinese year of the sheep. What is happening in this Province now is very scary.

What we are seeing is intimidation of a scale unprecedented since the dark days

of the Smallwood era, since the 1960s. At least from the mid-60s on there was a

healthy movement to challenge the dictatorial style of Smallwood. In this

Province now at the start of the Wells era, which I trust will be terminated at

the next election, we see wholesale intimidation. People are afraid, they are

scared of losing their jobs. Those who have lost their jobs are scared to speak

out against authorities for fear that they may jeopardize whatever slim chance

there is of getting rehired or brought back on a casual basis. People still

working are scared to challenge the government for fear that reprisals will be

directed against them and they will be fired in the next round of layoffs.

Mr. Speaker, we need Memorial University Extension Service

now more than at any time since the dark days of the Smallwood resettlement

program. An important component of Extension Service is the rural outreach, the

field workers who have acted as catalysts who have assisted individuals,

municipalities, local service districts, regional rural development associations

and other organizations achieve their goals. In the 1960s, Memorial University

Extension Service assisted rural communities successfully to resist

resettlement.

Now perhaps the real reason the Wells' administration is glad

to get rid of Extension Service is that they are afraid that Extension Service

will thwart their plan for the finalizing of the Smallwood resettlement program.

Because not all of it was implemented in the 1960s; Smallwood was finally

checked in 1971-72. The Wells' version is much more subtle, it is not overt.

They are quietly withdrawing life supports from rural areas: they are closing

hospitals, closing operating rooms, closing acute care beds, closing community

college campuses, pretending to substitute in the case of community colleges

adult learning centres which will be dependant on federal funding and local

initiative, in the case of hospitals, after an indefinite period of renovations

and alterations, chronic care centres. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, more and

more people are going to have to give up living in those areas and go to

Ontario, Alberta or Kuwait, or wherever in this wide world they can find jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Premier and the Minister of

Education -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to say some of the

things I feel today. I have listened to the Opposition in the last few weeks

with great interest about what Memorial University is doing to close down rural

Newfoundland, and I did not respond.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are doing.

DR. WARREN: I would ask for silence from the Member

because I am very serious about these comments today.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial has been under attack in this

institution by the Opposition from day one, and I did not fight back because I

had some commitment to Extension. I worked with Extension years ago and I know

what they did, and I knew the number of people employed. So yesterday I said,

with all the devastating news I am hearing, and what I just heard from the

Member for Humber East, I am going to find out how many people are working in

rural Newfoundland with Extension today, because when I worked with them years

ago there were dozens, hundreds of people out there. Well, Mr. Speaker, I got it

this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

DR. WARREN: Let me tell you what is happening, how many

people have worked with Extension outside St. John's in the last few months:

Four permanent people, one contract person, and three part-time contract people.

I could not believe it. There are a total of thirty-three people, including

contract part-time, twenty-five of whom are in St. John's. I just could not

believe it. One field co-ordinator in Gander, permanent; one field co-ordinator

in Deer Lake, permanent; one in Placentia, permanent; four full-time permanent

people. In Mary's Harbour, Labrador, one field co-ordinator. He has been on

long-term disability, replaced by a contract person in Red Bay - a total of

seven persons. Now they have done outstanding work. I am not going to deny what

they have done, Mr. Speaker, but I just could not believe the data after what I

have heard from the Opposition in the past few weeks. Now I do not have time to

give all the details on the persons involved, but I will eventually.

Let me tell you a few other facts, Mr. Speaker. I went and

found out what Memorial is doing in rural Newfoundland. Let me just list it

because of the devastation they said they have done by closing the extension

office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: The Opposition. We have Sir Wilfred Grenfell,

including the Fine Arts College, we have first year programs in Salt Pond,

Lewisporte, Grand Falls-Windsor, and Labrador City; we have a division of

continuing studies with offices in Clarenville, in Grand Falls-Windsor serving

rural Newfoundland, in Corner Brook serving the Northern Peninsula, and in Happy

Valley - Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker. Memorial operates 160 teleconference systems

and I have the places here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. WARREN: Teleconference systems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there any in Labrador?

DR. WARREN: In Labrador - Nain, all over, with courses

being offered for rural Newfoundland, 160 they offer today.

Telemedicine and Tetra provide distance education for private

sector agencies and public sector agencies. The Labrador Institute for Northern

Studies in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, the Centre for Fisheries Innovation,

Continuing Medical Education, they work with teachers in rural Newfoundland. We

have interns in schools all over the Province; businesspeople, social workers in

schools all over the Province. Memorial has $150,000 left this year, I found out

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, for art education which they are going to spend on

professional and personal development courses in St. John's in the next year.

Mr. Speaker, 39,000 or 40,000 people have graduated from

Memorial University and 25 per cent of the students now attending Memorial come

from St. John's - 25 to 30 per cent. If we can estimate the number of graduates,

perhaps 70 per cent of the 40,000 graduates of Memorial University have come

from rural Newfoundland and are back working in rural Newfoundland. When they

over there talk about what Memorial is not doing for rural Newfoundland, let

them go and find out who this University serves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please

The hon. Member's time is up.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let them find out how Memorial

has served this Province. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour to

rise in this House and present a petition signed by approximately 11,000

Newfoundlanders. These petitioners say in their prayer as follows: `That as a

voter, taxpayer and supporter of the right to a quality health care system I

strongly oppose the suggested cutbacks to the health care budget which will

force health care facilities to reduce services to the citizens of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. I join with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour in calling on the Provincial Government to consider quality

health care as a right of all citizens and as such to be exempt from fiscal

restraints that will see a reduction in services.

Now this petition is a petition from individuals from all

over this Province: from St. John's, Springdale, Torbay, Northern Bay,

Placentia, Hermitage, Harbour Breton, Pouch Cove - everywhere in this Province

that you can think of where there are people who are concerned about health care

and about what this Government is doing to health care in this Province. And I

was very surprised to see the Minister of Health get up and shake the hand of

the Minister of Education after that half-hearted attempt to defend the

Government's position on this, trying to suggest that the University was to

blame for this,

whereas the Government in fact is taking the approach and

cutting back on health care and cutting back on services.

Now these individuals are concerned about the quality of

health care and its delivery in this Province. And these are citizens who know

what it is like, because they live in the areas in which the health care

delivery is required. There is a large number of people from the area of

Placentia who are served by the Placentia hospital, and they are concerned that

despite the fact that this Government had said it was going to reconsider, they

did reconsider for a few weeks and have finally told the people they are going

to go ahead and reduce those services.

It is quite clear that this Government is responding not to

the plan they say they have for the health care in this Province but, in fact,

to budgetary measures and to fiscal restraint. And they are going ahead and

reducing those services despite the fact that the people of Newfoundland need

those services, those in the areas where they are cutting back in particular, in

the Placentia area, in the Baie Verte area, in Burgeo and the south coast, where

people are now expected to have to travel to Stephenville to receive attention,

or to Corner Brook. There are areas all over this Province where this Government

is cutting back on the quality of the health care system, and the citizens of

Newfoundland are joining together to answer this Government and tell them that

they are opposed to this, that they want them to change it and they want them to

exempt such basic services as health care from the Government's fiscal plan.

Now we know there is a difficulty with Medicare and there is

a threat to Medicare because the Federal Government in Ottawa, the current

Progressive Conservative Government, has a policy that was begun by the previous

Liberal Government in cutting back on transfer payments for established

programmes financing in health care and post-secondary education. That is a

programme that must stop. What we need from this Government is leadership to

take that cause not only to the people of Newfoundland but also to the people of

the rest of Canada, and insist that the Federal Government do something about

that issue, but on their own home front, not to cut back on health services.

Now this petition makes reference to supporting the

Newfoundland Federation of Labour. There were some comments in this House in the

last few days, from this side of the House, a concern that there was not a

sufficient number of people in the House to please certain hon. Members, and

they complained about that. In fact, one hon. Member went so far as to suggest

that he might even vote for the Government's Bill 16. Well, 11,000 signatures do

not just pop out of the air. Obviously there are people around this Province who

are engaging in debate and talking to others about what this Government is doing

and are bringing matters to this House by way of petition for the consideration

of the House and for the consideration of the Government.

I ask the Government to consider the views of these 11,000

people who want their voices to be heard in this Government and ask them to

change their minds, change their approach, and restore those services they have

demonstrated a willingness to cut.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Health

would stand and support the petition but I do not think he was even paying

attention to it. We have a petition now laid before the House with 11,000

signatures.

MR. HARRIS: Eleven thousand signatures.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand and support that petition

which was presented by my colleague for St. John's East, because the whole

Province, the District that I represent, the District that every man and woman

in this House represents has been affected by health care cuts. And I, unlike my

colleague for St. John;s East, was not surprised when the Minister of Health

shook the hand of the other slasher, the man who cut the education system, who

underfunded Memorial University so they cannot do their job and then talked

about Memorial University not being able to do it. There has never been such

action taken before, Mr. Speaker, in this Province.

I want to ask the Minister of Health, in supporting the

petition, whether or not he would show some concern, as he has shown no concern

for the people who work in this Province, it is obvious to all of us that this

Government has no concern for people who work in this Province. I read in The

Globe and Mail where the Minister of Finance from New Brunswick said, it was

unconscionable to do what was done in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unconscionable.

MR. TOBIN: Unconscionable to do what was done in

Newfoundland. Unconscionable: Their Liberal friends in New Brunswick and the

same thing in P.E.I. They would not hear tell of what happened in Newfoundland.

This Government has no concern for workers in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: No compassion. Not an ounce.

MR. TOBIN: Now I want to ask the Minister of Health if he

would show some concern for the sick and the suffering people of this Province

who need health care services, and provide them with that type of service. We

have not seen it since this Government came into office.

What has happened, Mr. Speaker, in Placentia, what has

happened in Bonavista, what has happened on the Burin Peninsula - St. Lawrence

and Grand Bank? Every hospital in this Province either has been closed or cut

back, and yet the Minister of Health shakes the hand of the other slasher, the

Minister of Education. No two people have attacked rural Newfoundland more than

these two gentlemen, who are attacking the vital part of this Province, the two

who service health and education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have never had, we have never

seen and we cannot afford the ultraconservative right wing views of this

Administration. And it is time for this Government to look after the health care

and the other social needs of the people of this Province.

If it is unconscionable to take such action in New Brunswick,

why would it not be unconscionable to take such action here? That is the

question that has to be answered. What do they expect from the sick and the

suffering of this Province? How many people have to die, Mr. Speaker, because of

the actions of this Government, how many before they will come to their senses

and put in place the right funding system?

AN HON. MEMBER: There will have to be thousands.

MR. TOBIN: How many people have to die due to lack of

adequate services because this Government is closing hospital beds, because this

Government is closing down hospitals? Yet there is not a whimper, Mr. Speaker,

from the backbenches over there. As my colleague pointed out, there are

signatures there from Harbour Breton. Not a whimper, Mr. Speaker, from the

Member for Harbour Breton who obviously supports this. What about Port aux

Basques? Where is the Member from there, who said: I want to support the

Government. Well there were signatures on that petition as well I would suspect

from Port aux Basques area, as well as the Placentia area. And it is now time

for the Members opposite to take a stand to support the people who sent you to

this Assembly. You were elected by your constituents to represent their best

interests and supporting the closure of a hospital in Port aux Basques,

supporting the closure of a hospital in Placentia, supporting the cutbacks of

all the other health care facilities in this Province is not in the best

interest of your constituents. It is time now to stand up, and it is time for

the Member for Bell Island to take a stand as it relates to the drastic action

that has been taken against his constituents, the Member for Bonavista South,

the Members throughout the Province who have been sent here, Mr. Speaker, to

represent the best interests of their constituents. How can the Minister of

Health justify closing hospital beds? How can he justify the action that he took

in Placentia?

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I support the petition and I hope

the Minister and his Government will change their minds.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to speak to

this petition and tell the 11,000 people who signed this that Government will

take their petition and we will read it and we will reply to the first name on

the petition and hopefully he will see that it gets around to the remainder of

the people in the Province who signed the petition.

I would like to refer the hon. Member for St. John's East to

an

article which appeared in the weekend Telegram by a former NDP Member

of this House, the hon. Peter Fenwick. Mr. Fenwick has a tremendous grasp on the

health care system of this Province, and it is unfortunate that the hon. Member

for St. John's East is not listening to Mr. Fenwick, because he probably would

be able to advise him much more maturely than he is being now advised on the

health care needs of the Province.

Mr. Fenwick said that it is quite obvious that the health

care system in this Province needed to be reorganized for the last ten or twelve

years. When this Party was in Opposition and during the election we saw the need

to reorganize the health care system. Hon. Members quite often quote from our

policy manual which we used during the last election, but they always

conveniently ignore to read the most important paragraph of our policy. We

talked about the health policy, how important it was to maintain hospital beds

for our people, and we stand by that today. But we recognized that unless the

health care system was restructured and unless it was streamlined, we realized

that the Province would not be able to afford it.

One of the telling paragraphs was, and I am reading directly

from the policy manual: we can however provide our health care service in a less

costly but more efficient manner. We believed this when we were in Opposition,

we believed this during the campaign, and we believe this today, and we are

standing by it.

Now because of the fiscal problems which we inherited,

because of the fiscal problems which are caused by the recession, because of the

fiscal problems which are caused by the freezing of the transfer payments -

especially the transfer payments for health and education - it has become

necessary to accelerate our plan to restructure the health care system of this

Province. We started to restructure on the Burin Peninsula in Year 1. But

because we were overtaken by the recession and the previous Administration had

used up all our taxing room, had used up all our borrowing capacity - we

accelerated what we had to do, what we intend to do in health care anyway.

Now, what we are finding in our attempt to restructure the

health care system - and ultimately save the health care system and Medicare -

that there are people in this very House who would try to obstruct what we are

doing. In this very House! I do not want to say any names, but they are not on

this side of the House. People who are trying to spread half-truths, who are

trying to fearmonger, who are trying to make people believe that what we are

doing is somehow unnecessary. The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West gave

evidence of what I am saying when he said: this Government closed hospitals in

Newfoundland.

This Government since it has been in power has never closed a

hospital, not since 1989 when we were elected. We have not closed a single

hospital.. We have changed the roles of some institutions and made them more

appropriate to do what they are meant to do or what they are already doing. Now,

if you want to talk about closing hospitals, let me take hon. Members on a tour

around this Province: let me take them out to Come By Chance, where they closed

a hospital; let me take them up to Northwest River, where they closed a

hospital; let me take them out to Markland where they closed a hospital; closure

after closure after closure - what we are doing is restructuring.

We are having a difficult time doing it because hon. Members

on the other side of the House, for eighteen years were bent and determined to

totally obliterate the health care system of this Province, and they came that

close to putting us in a position where we could not have saved health care and

universal Medicare. That is how close they came. And we got here just in the

nick of time. And it grieves me today when I see the hon. the Member for St.

John's East, who is a new Member in this House, aligning himself with a bunch of

dinosaurs who for eighteen years were totally irrelevant to what should be done

in the health care system.

So it gives the people of this Province only one hope for the

future, and that is not fair democracy. The only hope they have is to support

this Party, and that, Mr. Speaker, is not good for democracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 3, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Question?

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SIMMS: We are not quite ready for the question, not

by a long shot, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, back to Bill 16, back to the Committee stage of

Bill 16, the clause by clause review, a stage in the Parliamentary process where

clause 1 is the clause that is debated for all time and the debate is fairly

wide-ranging, and Members, particularly Members on the Opposition side of the

House, will have to use every possible opportunity it can to try to bring to the

attention of the Government what it is doing in terms of wrecking labour

relations in the Province, and what it is doing with respect to bringing in such

draconian legislation as Bill 16. That is why Members on this side of the House

are continuing to debate this particular piece of legislation. It is unfortunate

that, admittedly, we do not make much more indentation into the Government's

minds collectively over there. It is very unfortunate. Since this debate began

Members opposite have failed to participate.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. SIMMS: It is true, I say to the Member for Exploits.

I have listed every person here who has debated. Since this debate began, on

second reading stage, for example, there were two Members, I think, that

participated on the Bill in principle. That was the President of Treasury Board

and then the Member for Eagle River. And then on one of the two amendments that

the Opposition proposed, one which was to delay the Bill for at least six

months, and then another one asking for a delay at least until the Government

had an opportunity to call in the unions and maybe see if they could find some

other options. On those two amendments there were only two Members in total on

the other side who spoke to the amendments. So, I say to the Member for Exploits

if he considers that four from the Government side is an adequate number to be

debating this particular piece of legislation, which Members opposite have in

the last couple of days publicly stood up and condemned themselves, and said: it

is a terrible piece of legislation, we do not want to bring it in, we hate it.

Yet nobody over there gets up to try to explain why, or to try to defend it.

Debate is suppose to be back and forth. The Opposition has a responsibility. I

am sure the Member for Exploits would agree that we have a responsibility to

stand, to question, to debate, to argue and to criticize.

AN HON. MEMBER: To present alternatives.

MR. SIMMS: To present alternatives, which we have done on

many occasions. I am glad the Member for Exploits has raised that very point

because that is the topic of my first fifteen minutes today. That is what I want

to discuss today. I have to say at the outset though, because of the fact that

Members opposite are not participating, are not debating, are not listening, are

not responding to criticisms, I have to say today that I find myself in

agreement this morning with some comments I heard by Fraser March, the leader of

the largest public service sector union, NAPE, who was on the radio this morning

making some comments about some of the comments that have been made in the

Legislature in the last couple of days.

I heard what Mr. Curtis had to say, I have no problems. Mr.

Curtis is entitled to express his opinion. I think he understands the

frustrations we are undergoing as well, I think he understands that. But Mr.

March, made, perhaps the most relevant comment today when he said, words to this

effect, I do not have the quote in front of me, but I believe he said: what is

going on in the Legislature is for the most part, irrelevant.

I find myself unfortunately and regrettably almost agreeing

with what Mr. March had to say and that is regrettable, that is unfortunate,

but, in view of the response that the Government is providing in debate on this

bill, I have to suggest that he is probably quite correct.

The Government is not prepared to get up and defend its

actions and explain a little more clearly and in more detail, the reasons for

bringing in this legislation. Members opposite have stood in the House over the

last couple of days, I am not sure if the Premier was here, but Members opposite

stood and said this is a terrible piece of legislation; they have said that, but

then they very quickly sat down without going into much more detail, so,

regrettably, I believe Mr. March's comments are fairly accurate and

representative and that is very unfortunate for the process and very unfortunate

for the system.

The Member opposite talked about alternatives; now, Mr.

Chairman, we have had over the last couple of weeks exchanges in the Legislature

during Question Period, periodically in debate, about this whole question of

alternatives and about this specific question that the President of Treasury

Board has raised from time to time when he said that he, not he alone but he and

the Premier I believe, invited unions in just prior to the Budget to discuss

options and alternatives, and, my understanding of what the President of

Treasury Board has said, and Members opposite can correct me if I am wrong, my

understanding of what he had said is that they called in the unions, they asked

them for alternatives, none were forthcoming, I think he has said that outright,

none were forthcoming; the unions were not co-operative in that regard.

We finally narrowed it down and said, well, look, be

specific, were there options discussed? Yes, and he takes the credit for the

options that were put forward and the options are options to avoid having to

have further job losses as I understand it, further to the 2,000 I guess the

Government had already decided it was going to undertake, and the options to

having further job losses were, two specific ones that I remember and recall in

the House: the unpaid leave of absence for a two week period, I think, which

would have provided $50 million or something in that area, that is what the

President of Treasury Board has said; another option was a wage freeze.

Now those are two options that we have been able to extract

from the President of Treasury Board, which were discussed at those meetings

just prior to the Budget, with union representation. Now in The Evening Telegram

yesterday there is reference to the President of Treasury Board and what he said

in this debate, and he said, a couple of days ago, that we discussed with the

unions these alternatives, these options. There was one union, you remember the

comments, there was one union that said the most palatable thing for them would

be more layoffs, more job losses, the President of Treasury Board said that, the

Member for Bonavista South will recall. The newspaper report yesterday goes on

to quote the President of Treasury Board, Mr. Baker, as saying, or at least

implying that the rest of the unions indicated the most palatable alternative or

option for them was a wage freeze.

Now, I do not know if the Premier or somebody can clarify for

this House and for the Province, if indeed the Government House Leader is saying

that. Is he saying that in those discussions with the unions that led up to the

Budget, a week before, is he saying that all of the options, two of which we

recall, a wage freeze and the two week unpaid leave of absence as examples of

the options, out of all of those options which were discussed, one union said:

the best option for us is layoffs, more job losses, he did say that. But then it

is implied in his comments, and I do not have the quote in front of me,

unfortunately, that the rest of the unions said: the most palatable option for

them would be a wage freeze. I would like to know from the Premier, from the

Member for Bonavista South, whomever may speak on this issue next, whether or

not, that is a fact. It is a very important question and it is a very important

issue that needs to be addressed.

I certainly would like to know, because it is not the

impression I am getting from talking to people with whom I talk, so if the

Member for Bonavista South, or the Premier or somebody who speaks on this, can

tell us that, we would be very appreciative. It is a very important thing that

we would need to know and I am not sure he heard everything I said. I would hate

to have to repeat it all but I will because it is important.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not necessary, I heard (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. The President of Treasury Board is

saying, or implying at least, that in the discussions the President of Treasury

Board and the Premier had with the unions leading up to the Budget, that week or

so before, yesterday it is reported in the newspaper, in an interview for

example, and in this House he said: one of the unions said job losses or layoffs

would be their option. One union, he said, said that. He said that in the House.

And he implies that the rest of the unions said the most palatable option for

them was a wage freeze.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, yes, if you read the quote in the

newspaper from yesterday. Perhaps I can get - no, it was in yesterday's

Evening Telegram . Perhaps I will get it for the Premier and I will read it

to the Premier a little later on as soon as I get a copy of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, the Minister may not have a copy of it

either but I will show -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, well, that is precisely the reason why I

am raising it. Because it implies there - well, whatever it implies, the Premier

can tell us, maybe, if he is going to speak. Did the unions agree with the

option of a wage freeze as being the most palatable option to them? That is the

question I guess in essence. Because that is what is implied in the interview

yesterday, to put it in a nutshell.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the other point I want to raise is this

whole question of not putting this issue out for discussion and consideration in

a forum which would provide an opportunity to people who are going to be

affected by this legislation, to express their views and opinions, i.e., the

Legislative Review Committee. And if the Premier is going to comment I would

like to hear him explain to the House - perhaps he could do so, we would

appreciate it - why the Government is not prepared to put this piece of

legislation, or why they were not prepared to put the piece of legislation, out

to a committee for a couple of weeks. To give those groups that are going to be

affected by the legislation, but particularly groups who are going to be

affected by the draconian measures outlined in the legislation. I do not mean

the wage freeze itself, I mean the legislation itself, the unprecedented move of

breaking collective agreements and that kind of thing. I mean, those are pretty

serious and drastic measures.

So, why the Government would not have put the legislation out

to a committee, as it does with all kinds of other pieces of legislation, not

nearly as serious, I suppose, in terms of ramifications, but they do it with all

kinds of other pieces of legislation. They could have put a time limit on it,

had a committee look at the matter for a couple of weeks and make some

recommendations back to the Legislature. But it did not, it has decided not to

do that, and that is in fact why we moved the second amendment on second

reading, because of the fact the Government publicly said it would not put it

out.

I do not know if it is too late now in the Government's mind

to still do that with a time limit on it of a couple of weeks or something like

that. Perhaps it is. I am sure it is. In the Government's mind it is. But

realistically, what is the reason for it? Is there any major reason? Since the

legislation says, I believe, it is effective April 1, what is the reason, what

would be the urgency of waiting until the end of April to deal with the bill or

pass the bill or whatever, as opposed to trying to ram it through now with night

sittings and no legislative review process being involved.

I would like to have an answer to those particular questions,

and in particular the original question. I believe the Premier may have a few

comments, I hope, to make on the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) it was in the paper

(Inaudible) best of my knowledge, the hon. Member's suggested implication from

it is totally unwarranted and totally incorrect. Mr. Baker was quoted as saying:

we laid out for them the options before us, and asked them, which would be more

palatable. I would say there is a variation on that, that may be the way the

hon. Minister would have said it. My recollection is, we said to them: we would

like you to give us some idea of how we could deal with this which would cause

the least adverse consequences to your membership. And we were honest enough

with them to say, in fairness to the unions now, we also said to them: even

though you recommend something our overall Governmental considerations may not

make it possible for us to implement what you recommend. So we told them

beforehand. But we wanted to have their advice as to how we could do this with

the least possible impact. Is that a fair assessment? The President of Treasury

Board nods his head. Now that is a fair assessment of what he is saying.

Then, when the hon. Member for Grand Falls goes on to say:

only one union chose more layoffs rather than the wage freeze, Mr. Baker said,

declining to name the particular union. My recollection is that that is correct.

But the implication that the hon. Member draws from that, that all the others

chose wage freeze - well, if he wants to impute that to the unions, that is up

to him. This hon. Member did not say that and did not imply that. But if the

hon. Member for Grand Falls wants to impute that let him go to the union and do

it and deal with the union. But the hon. the President of Treasury Board

certainly did not imply that. What is there is quite correct.

Mr. Chairman, we had a very difficult problem and I am

satisfied from everything that I have heard, from all the responses that I have

gotten, from the reaction of the public generally, I am totally satisfied that

the vast majority of the people of this Province accept the Government's Budget

as the only appropriate thing to do in these circumstances. Now, many of them do

not like it. Perhaps most of the people in the Province would prefer not to see

education or health cutbacks. I do not suggest that they welcome these

reductions in the public service generally. I do not suggest that they welcome

it. But I say to all hon. Members of the House that clearly the very substantial

majority of the people of this Province support the Government's decision and

the position we have taken in the matter. I think that that is clear.

Now I also recognize that the leadership of the various

unions involved, the people who were directly laid off as a result, communities

where a hospital may have been reduced in size or where there was a substantial

change in a community college or something of that nature - I can understand

those communities' reaction for two reasons: The reduction in the public service

that would otherwise be available and the employment and economic impact of the

reduction. So I fully understand and appreciate the fact that people directly

affected will make strong representation.

The media will give it a great deal of attention. But they

have given virtually no attention to the extent to which the Government's Budget

proposal is endorsed by a very clear and substantial majority of the people of

this Province. But I highlighted the extent to which there was some opposition

to it, some substantial demonstration here and there. That is essentially what

the news media have done. And I understand the news media doing that. It is not

very exciting for the news media to say that the Government's position is widely

endorsed throughout the Province, and that is an end of it. What are they going

to do then for the rest of their news? So I understand their position on it as

well.

I even understand what the Opposition has done. I have read

in the newspaper and I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition being

interviewed, and listened to the hon. Member for Kilbride, saying: why should we

get all uptight if the unions are not demonstrating and up in the gallery? Why

are they not demonstrating? You are provoking! The Opposition has ceased to put

the interest of this Province ahead of their own Party's political interest. And

they are provoking or trying their best to provoke demonstrations, to the point

of not acting in the House, or putting on this charade that the Member for

Kilbride went through the other night, to try and provoke interest and get

people stirred up to demonstrate.

But, fortunately, it backfired and the unions quite properly

criticized the hon. Member for his improper action. Now that is what I am

confident Mr. March was talking about when he said the House of Assembly was

irrelevant. He has been watching what has been happening since the Budget was

brought in. He has been watching what the Opposition did in two and a half weeks

of shilly-shallying about Interim Supply. Interim Supply is normally put through

on a debate that takes a couple of hours or so. But the Opposition sat for two

and a half weeks and held up the ordinary working of this House, in order to put

on this political demonstration in the hope of trying to provoke and promote

dissension in the Province.

They are not putting the interest of the Province ahead. No

wonder people are saying the House of Assembly is irrelevant. It has been

largely the Opposition who has been speaking and they are judging it by what

they hearing from the Opposition. And I can only agree with Mr. March that the

House of Assembly is largely irrelevant, bearing in mind what has been said here

in the last three weeks. And that is why they feel that way.

Now just in case hon. Members have any doubts about it, I

will now give them the running total on sitting time. As of the end of March

this year, in the twenty-three months - a little less - that we have formed the

Government we have had 168 sitting legislative days of the full Legislature

sitting, for a total of 590 legislative hours. Now in addition to that, Mr.

Chairman, we have had another 142 hours of Legislative Review Committees sitting

in less than two years, in twenty-three months.

Now let me tell you about the similar twenty-three month

period from the Opposition when they formed the Government. They sat for only

ninety-one days.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

PREMIER WELLS: Ninety-one. Two hundred and eighty-nine

and a half legislative hours of the full Legislature. No legislative Committee

sittings at all.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the performance of a Government

that is trying to ram things through. It is no wonder Mr. March says the

Legislature is largely irrelevant. It is. They sit and listen to drivel repeated

after drivel after more drivel, the same thing over and over and over again. No

wonder people are bored silly and they leave. I look up at night and there is

not a single person sitting in the gallery. No wonder they conclude it is

irrelevant. With this kind of a performance it is completely understandable that

they should conclude that it is irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, just to update you and bring us right to the

minute, if you look at it you will see that the total sitting of the full

Legislature and the Legislative Committees in terms of total hours sitting

considering House business has been 763 hours and 42 minutes, right to this

point in time - 763 hours compared, Mr. Chairman, with 863 hours for the former

Government in the whole of their last term.

AN HON. MEMBER: In their whole term?

PREMIER WELLS: In their whole term.

AN HON. MEMBER: No kidding!

PREMIER WELLS: In the whole term they had 863 hours.

MR. MURPHY: It must be wrong.

PREMIER WELLS: In the whole term, they had a total

sitting time of 863 hours.

Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder people look at the Legislature

and say it is irrelevant. They have had to come and sit and listen to the hon.

Members opposite just hold up Government business, and that is essentially what

they have done. And they wonder why we use closure. We have used closure at

least a half dozen times, if I recall, and I will say to the House and to the

public of this Province we will use closure a half dozen more times this session

or a half a dozen more times next week if it becomes necessary to get the

Government business through and to stop the Opposition from interfering with the

orderly running of the Province. We will do whatever is necessary, because that

is our responsibility as a Government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is why we have taken the position we

have. Now listen to the hon. Member stand and piously ask today would the

Government just consider waiting another two weeks to hear other alternatives?

Mr. Chairman, it has been over a month since we brought down the Budget and any

union, any Opposition, anybody who has wanted to put forward alternatives has

had an open opportunity to do so. And the unions have had an invitation since we

brought in the Budget, and we told them at the time, in the meetings we had in

the week or two before the Budget was brought down, they could come at any time

and make any kind of suggestion they had. But going right back to last October

they were invited to make these suggestions. And the hon. Opposition House

Leader stands now and with great piety and feigned concern: Would the Government

just sit now, would the Government just sit on it for a couple of weeks and give

people time to make presentations?

No, the Government will not any longer delay the orderly

management of the business of the people of this Province. And we are confident

we have the support of the people of the Province in what we are doing. If we do

not have the support of the people of this Province, I am equally confident they

will tell us so during the next election and so they should. But I have complete

confidence that we do indeed have their support and that we are doing that which

is right for the Province. Fortunately for the people of this Province, we came

along just in time. We were prepared to act without thinking how will people

think about me? Will somebody fail to vote for me or refuse to support me if I

do this?

We have not put narrow-minded political considerations ahead

of the interests of the public of this Province. We have put the interests of

the people first, and we will continue to do just that in the next few years

that are left in this mandate and in the next few mandates I hope the people

will give us. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say that is

the first time I have heard that speech from the Premier. It is a rather new

approach. And I have to commend him. It is a nice try. It is not a bad try to

try to pump up the troops over there, to try to pump up the troops who have been

pretty depressed and down over the last few weeks. The Premier needs to come

into the Legislature every once in awhile and try to give a bit of a rousing

address, and twist words and use the ability he has and has used so well in the

past to camouflage the real issues, the real questions, and spend half his time

talking about the number of sitting days, the number of sitting hours, and then

rush out. After he has made his big speech to rouse the troops, he gets up and

he leaves.

Now I have to say to you, that in itself speaks for itself in

my view. This whole issue of whether the majority of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians agree with the Premier's position is one that will not be answered

for another couple of years, or year and a half, or whenever it is going to be.

So I know the Premier thinks in his own mind, because he has become a legend in

his own mind, that it is clear, to use his words, that the majority of people

agree with the Premier. Well, I have to say with respect that it is not clear.

It is not very clear at all, not by a long shot, that the majority of people in

Newfoundland and Labrador agree with the Premier. In fact, I would venture to

suggest and say that in due course you will see that the majority of people in

this Province do not agree with what this Government has undertaken in its

Budget. But we will have to wait and see.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) polls say.

MR. SIMMS: Members can do all the polls they want. There

is only one poll that counts and he knows that, the Member for Exploits. I am

afraid he will not be around anyway after the next time, so he will not have to

worry about polls. He will not have to worry about polls in Exploits, let me

tell him.

MR. BAKER: You will not be around (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No? I can assure the Government House Leader

that my chances of being around are much better than his are in Gander. That

much I can tell him.

Now the Premier tried very hard to twist once again a

question I asked in the absence of the Government House Leader, a very

legitimate question. He tried to turn it around and twist it and suggest that we

in the Opposition were making some kind of allegation about the unions. Now, I

mean, that is so much hogwash it is not even funny. I asked a sensible,

reasonable question, based on an

article in yesterday's newspaper which featured

the President of Treasury Board's picture and a quotation. Now if it is

incorrect, then I would expect the President of Treasury Board to stand and

indicate that it is incorrect. And if it is not being read properly by myself,

then I do not mind him telling me. That is why I asked the question. I do not

mind him telling me that I am misinterpreting what was said in this article. But

I ask you again, Mr. Chairman, and I ask the President of Treasury Board, if he

is interested in responding to it. The

article the Premier quoted from quotes

the President of Treasury Board as saying, `We laid out for them the options

before us and asked them which would be more palatable. Only one union chose

more layoffs rather than the wage freeze Mr. Baker said,...'

Now I think it is reasonable for one to assume and to

interpret from that that one union chose more layoffs but the rest of the unions

involved chose the wage freeze, and I simply asked the question is that a fair

interpretation, is that an incorrect

interpretation? Now the Premier has stood

in his place and said `No, it is absolutely an incorrect

interpretation.' Well

that is all I asked. I asked the question but the Premier then tried to turn it

around and suggest that we were attacking the unions or making some allegations

against the unions, which again is a bunch of nonsense and hogwash which the

Government always tries to use in defence of its indefensible positions,

particularly with respect to the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier made some reference - of course it

is hardly worth responding to, but I suppose I might as well - to the galleries

being empty and implying that the galleries have been empty for the last two or

three weeks. Well let me remind Members of this Legislature that the galleries

have basically been empty for the last couple of years, since this Government

came to power. I do not know why. It never was the case. There always were a lot

of people who had an interest in the House of Assembly and its proceedings.

There always were people who sat in the gallery. But these days, and for last

couple of years for some strange reason, there have not been very many, except

from time to time when groups come in.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, he is talking about the last couple of

weeks I say to the Minister of Forestry. He is not listening to what the Premier

had to say. I am very surprised at that. Naughty, naughty! You will be rapped on

the knuckles for not listening to the Premier. But, Mr. Chairman, I sure the

Minister of Forestry, if he was prepared to be honest, would have to admit that

in the past years, prior to him being part of the Government, the galleries

generally had a fair number of people, particularly on days like Opening Day,

Throne Speech Day.

One thing I have noticed in the last couple of years is that

there has hardly been anybody in the gallery, particularly on those major days.

So that is a bunch of nonsense the Premier gets on with there today. He did not

say anything about the bill. He said nothing about the bill. He talked about the

number of hours the House sat, the number of days the House sat compared to what

they sat five years ago or ten years ago or whatever, he talked about how the

public all support him, everybody is in favour of everything he is doing, but he

did not say one thing in defence of this action, the introduction of Bill 16,

and that is very unfortunate. But, again, if Fraser March is correct and if the

Premier is correct and if everything that is going on in here is irrelevant,

then it does not matter much what any of us say and that is regrettable. I do

not really buy it. I said earlier that I find myself between a rock and a hard

place. On the one hand I kind of think that what Fraser March had to say might

be correct, might be accurate, and I often think that from time to time. But on

the other hand, being a parliamentarian and having been around in the process

for a long time, I have a bit more faith in the people, and I have a bit more

faith in the parliamentary process. I would like to think that people who are

interested in knowing what is going on in the Province and what is going on in

the politics of the Province would find out what is going on and would know what

is going on. Hopefully that is the case rather than the other.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, today in the Legislature I want

to touch on one thing, and the Minister of Forestry can respond for me, since he

is anxious to speak and say things and offer interjections.

Today the Minister of Environment tabled an answer to a

question I raised a few days ago with respect to the Greenwood Hydro Electric

Development in Grand Falls. I ask him seriously if he can confirm for me what

this answer really said. He says in the answer, `An assessment of the

environmental impacts of this project is presently underway.' Down on the bottom

he says, `It is expected the entire assessment process, from April 1991, will

take about 18 months.' Then he says back up on top, `The decision as to whether

and under what conditions to allow construction of this proposed development

will be made at the conclusion of the environmental assessment.' So can the

Minister of Forestry confirm then for me - or am I reading that wrong? That is

quite possible - that the decision on construction of that hydro electric

project will not even be made for another year and a half; the decision as to

whether there will be a project even will not even be made for another year and

a half. Is that what that answer means? Because if it is, it seems to me it is

completely at odds with what the Premier said back in December of 1989 when he

announced in this House the closedown of the number six paper machine in Grand

Falls. And in an effort to try to offset that negativity, he announced at the

same time the company was going to begin an hydro electric project, and that the

likely starting date, target date, was in August or September of 1991.

Now everybody out there understood that the project was going

to get underway this Summer, late Summer or early Fall. Can the Minister confirm

for me that that was the understanding? That is what people out in the area have

been asking. I presume they have asked him, because they have certainly asked

me. I would expect they would have asked him as Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

Now what we have, in fact, is the confirmation that that is

not the case and the earliest time the decision will be considered as to whether

there will be a project will be in another year and a half. Hopefully, the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture will get up and answer that question. I did

not want to raise it in Question Period, I wanted to raise it in debate. I know

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is concerned about it and I know the

Member for Exploits is, because I have discussed the matter with them. We are

all concerned as Members representing that area, because we were looking forward

to something getting underway this Fall; the creation of some jobs even if they

would be short-term, and in particular, of course, improving the viability of

the mill and the operation of the mill in Grand Falls - Windsor for the future.

I hope those three matters I have raised will be addressed by the President of

Treasury Board or the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, whoever might wish

to participate in the debate. More than likely what will happen is that nobody

will, as usual.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: I want to have a few words in this debate as

well. I noticed the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture was not going to

respond to the questions posed by the Member for Grand Falls. I think Bill 16 is

probably the most regressive piece of legislation this House has ever seen. I

have gone through some notes here and I have looked at some of the statements

which have been made over the past few days dealing with this Bill, and one can

only wonder what this Government is up to, what its plans are, and what the

President of Treasury Board is trying to do with the people of this Province

when this Government decides to close hospital beds, to eliminate care for the

sick and suffering in this Province, to close down schools, to do all these

things and at the same time turn around and give the Newfoundland senate, Dr.

House, $44 million.

There is no doubt about it that this Province is part of the

recession, and there is no doubt about it that Government has to make decisions

which are probably not easy decisions to make, but one must realize that when

Government has to face these decisions they have to spend their money wisely. In

my opinion the Economic Recovery Commission is doing absolutely nothing and has

done absolutely nothing in this Province. I think it has created sixty-eight

jobs. It is time for the Premier to disband the Economic Recovery Commission, to

let the Minister of Development look after that responsibility, and do something

constructive for the people of this Province.

When you talk about people being laid off, fired and

everything else, today we had the Minister of Social Services stand in this

House and what he said was not true. What the Minister of Social Services said

was not true, Mr. Chairman. The social workers lost a day's pay - and the

Minister said he would even make it worse, he will be twice - the Minister of

Social Services got up in this House today and said one social worker was told

to go to a foster parent house and bring the child from one house to another

house and that is not true. The social worker was never told to do it. The

social worker was told to go home and make a phone call. It is time that

Minister stopped playing games and be honest with the House and stop trying to

put the social workers in the position that they are in. When someone who has

worked for this Department for over twenty years, gets a day's suspension

because they stayed out of an office because of the fumes there, it is

ridiculous. Probably what the Minister is saying in this House is what he is

being told, I do not know. If that is what he is being told he is not being told

the truth. And I can say to the Minister of Social Services that probably saving

a day's pay may be something he could use for retroactive pay for some of his

buddies, and the Minister of Social Services knows full well what I am talking

about too, and I understand a lot of others around know what I am talking about.

But, Mr. Chairman, this Government has to change their

priorities. If the money is not there to do all the things that they would like

to do well then they are not spending their money the way that they should be

spending it, because the Economic Recovery Commission in this Province is not

working.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I apologize to the hon.

Member. It being 4:00 o'clock, under our Standing Orders, I have to announce the

questions for the late show.

The first question: I am not satisfied with the Justice

Minister's response to my questions about services for victims of crime - the

hon. the Member for Humber East.

The second question: I am dissatisfied with the answer to my

question by the Minister of Justice concerning RNC policing - the hon. the

Member for Kilbride.

The third question: I am not satisfied with the answer from

the Premier re schoolbus safety - the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When the Minister of Education stood in this House and said

there were going to be 200 layoffs in post-secondary education, if my memory

serves me correct that is what the Minister of Education said. That Minister,

Mr. Chairman, has the habit in this House lately of not being honest, of not

telling the truth, and it is time for that to change as well.

When I look down in my own District and see the people who

got laid off in the Eastern Community College, and I am sure Mr. Chairman knows

some of those people as well, people who have been in the vocational school

since it was opened basically, people like Mr. Walsh and Mr. Coady and others,

when you look at the numbers of people who were laid off and kicked out of the

post-secondary education system by this Minister, it is regrettable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: And I do not know why this Minister of

Education continues to fire people from the post-educational system. People who

have made a very valuable contribution, Mr. Chairman, to our education system in

this Province over the years are now unemployed.

Then he talks about saving money, and we look at this Bill

16: because of the position that Government finds itself in. Well then why in

the name of God do they not leave the Eastern Community College Headquarters

alone and let it stay in Burin instead of, for political benefits and gains,

pushing it someplace else. Why is all of this happening in a time of restraint?

What benefit is it to this Government, Mr. Chairman, to take revenge out on the

Burin Peninsula, and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. They have one large

building down there, Dodge Building is the name of it, that was leased for five

years, five years is the lease on that building and what is going to happen is

this Government is going to pay five years for a vacant building. I believe the

lease runs out at the end of 1994.

I know the Minister of Education and others are checking the

lease to see if there is any way they can get out of it, or break it or

re-assign it, but that cannot happen. They have a lease on that building for

five years and they are willing to waste the money of this Province, the

taxpayers money. They close hospital beds, the sick and the suffering cannot get

services, they cannot be taken care of by the medical people in this Province,

and yet the Government has a five year lease on an Eastern Community College

Headquarters in Burin and they are going to leave that vacant and move the

headquarters to Clarenville. Does that make sense, Mr. Chairman, I submit it

does not.

We talk about cutbacks in the health care system, the

elimination of a hospital at Grand Bank and St. Lawrence on the Burin Peninsula

and what that has done. The Marystown Shipyard: I understand they were in and

had a meeting with the Premier last week. As a matter of fact, I spoke with the

President the next morning after he met with the Premier, and with the union

executive and, Mr. Chairman, there is no hope, there is no hope for the future

of that yard and it is now time for the Government to start doing something, to

create employment so that people can make money and spend money.

This year, we will see approximately 300 people leave

Marystown Shipyard and go to the mainland to receive enough stamps for their

Unemployment Insurance. We were in a recession in 1982, but the Government of

the day built supply vessels on speculation, Mr. Chairman, and sold every one of

them. Now with the Hibernia development taking place, with all the barges that

are going to be needed on that site, why does not the Government take the same

type of action and start a programme of building barges and selling them to the

oil companies, let the oil companies buy their barges made in Newfoundland, not

bring them in from overseas, not tow them from overseas. Let them buy their

barges here and have them built at the Marystown Shipyard.

I will ask the Premier and his Government to consider a plan

whereby barges can be constructed on speculation and sold. There is no

confidence left in the economy of this Province. I had the opportunity over the

past week or so, to speak to some business people throughout the Province who

were telling me that they are experiencing the worst time they have ever had in

business, the confidence is just not there and there is nobody in Government who

cares enough about the problems they are experiencing, and yet we have the

Economic Recovery Commission getting $44 million.

Today I looked at a letter in the paper, it is in a cynical

fashion I guess, where some Government employee wrote to the Premier and told

him that he should have been taking their money long ago, they should have been

freezing their wages long ago, not freezing their wages, rolling back, because

there has been a 6 per cent inflation rate, they are getting a 6 per cent cut in

their wages and yet they turn around and give the Newfoundland 'Senate' $44

million, one has to wonder where are the priorities of this Government.

They eliminate the construction of the ferry for Fogo Island,

they eliminate sending a better ferry service to the people of Bell Island, they

take one of the ferries from Bell Island out of the system for six months, they

close down programme after programme in the vocational school system throughout

this Province, they close down various programmes offered by Memorial

University. MUN Extension: the Minister of Education said he worked for MUN

Extension at one time. Well, Mr. Chairman, MUN Extension must have a different

role now than it had when he worked there, because, the number of people who

worked for MUN Extension is not what is important -

AN HON. MEMBER: He said they had hundreds when he was

there.

MR. TOBIN: - yes, hundreds, they needed hundreds if they

are all like him, they needed one for every person and I am not sure it worked

then; they needed hundreds if they were all like the Minister of Education. What

the field workers are doing is what is important, the numbers of communities

they have been assisting throughout this Province, the numbers in rural

Newfoundland. I know several times they went down to isolated communities in my

own constituency and helped people, good friends of mine, Mr. O'Keefe who is in

the Placentia area, was a very valuable member to the rural parts of this

Province and in particular my own district over the years, and the Minister of

Education says well, it is only five or six or seven or eight, whatever the case

may be, big deal! Well I say to the Minister of Education that it is a big deal,

that these people have done a tremendous amount of good in rural Newfoundland.

They do not need hundreds. The people who are working for MUN Extension possess

such knowledge and skills of handling the needs of rural Newfoundland that

unlike the Minister of Education they do not need hundreds. They can work

throughout this Province, and I do not know why they are subject to such

attacks. I know in our own area in the Burin Peninsula we have never seen such

an economic down-climb so fast. We have never seen it. We have hospitals closed

in Grand Bank and St. Lawrence, and we have the mines gone in St. Lawrence.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if it is in order for the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture to be whistling in the House. I do not

think he should be doing it.

MR. FLIGHT: I was not.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, yes you were. You sure were whistling in

the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Social Services should be

careful. I want to say that I am concerned about what is happening in my own

area, in my own district on the Burin Peninsula. I am concerned about the state

of the Newfoundland fishery, and I am sure the Minister of Fisheries is

concerned as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about the

legislation, Bill 16, and specifically about the provision of the legislation to

do with pay equity. I have spoken a number of times in the debate so far about

the issue of fairness, and the pay equity provision. I think on a number of

occasions, it has been pointed out to be particularly unfair to the women of

this Province. What the Government has said on the issue of pay equity is that

they believe in pay equity and that they are going to implement it this year.

And what the Premier has said, and the President of Treasury Board has said is:

what we are doing merely is eliminating the retroactive portion of that pay

equity. Well, Mr. Chairman, by eliminating the retroactive portion of the pay

equity agreement what the Government is doing is taking a particular view about

women in the public service whom they have agreed, they being the Government and

not this particular administration of the Government, but the Government has

agreed in writing in a solemn contract that they in fact were discriminating

against. What they have done is two things, number one they have expressed some

sort of view on retroactivity that they find distasteful, retroactive payments

are distasteful, and the second thing they are trying to say is that they cannot

implement these pay equity agreements retroactively even though they have agreed

it is discriminatory against women. Well, Mr. Chairman, if that was their view,

and it was a consistent view that the Government had about retroactive

provisions, I wonder if they could explain what standard was applied when the

Government and Treasury Board made retroactive payments in December 1990 to the

Chairman of the Social Services Appeal Board, when retroactive payments were

made through the Ministry of Social Services to the Chairman of the Social

Services Review Board, I understand totalling some large thousands and thousands

of dollars payable retroactively to the Chairman of the Board and to another

individual. I understand that if this is a principle that the Government has

about retroactive pay that perhaps they would have applied that then. In

December 1990 the Premier was well aware, and certainly the President of

Treasury Board was well aware of the financial circumstances of the Province.

They were telling us in the House that they were talking to the unions about

this in October, telling them how constrained they were and how they were going

to have to do certain things, so why is it that in December 1990 the Government

could see fit to make retroactive payments to a Chair of a Social Services

Appeal Board who just happens to have been a campaign worker for the Minister of

Social Services? Just happens to be, coincidentally, I suppose, and these

retroactive payments were made not only to the Chair but to another campaign

worker of the Minister of Social Services as well. Now, do we have a double

standard here, is the Premier really aware of this type of activity? Perhaps he

was not. Perhaps he was not at the Treasury Board meeting or the Cabinet meeting

when this was approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If he is not, I do not see him paying

particular attention to what I am saying here today. But I hope he is listening

because he should be aware that retroactive payments were made to certain

political appointees of the Minister of Social Services and maybe others, and

perhaps the President of Treasury Board can enlighten us on this. I understand

that throughout 1990 there was a review being conducted -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Listen to what he is saying.

MR. HARRIS: - by Treasury Board of some numerous number

of boards that the Government made appointees to over the course of that year. I

do not know how many. Perhaps 150 or thereabout, boards that the Government

makes appointees to. And I understand that the Government was reviewing these

boards to see whether or not they ought to increase the remuneration for people

serving on these boards. It may well be that the remuneration was inadequate for

the services performed, I am not suggesting that. What the Government has done

is reviewed these boards. Perhaps the President of Treasury Board can tell us

how many of these boards were reviewed, when the decision was made to upgrade

them and how many of these board members and board chairs received retroactive

pay for the year 1990? Or was it just a special case to look after the Minister

of Social Services and his particular needs for his board chair and other

members? Is that something that was done especially for them? Or was it

something done for all boards whether the appointees were appointed by this

Government or by previous Governments?

Now, Mr. Chairman, what it appears here is that there may be

a double standard at work, that this Government is not applying the same

standards to public servants who come under collective agreements and who they

sit down and make written formal agreements with. They will not honour those

agreements. They are prepared to bring legislation here to take those away. And

then for other types of appointments that they do not have agreements with -

they do not have agreements with other types of individuals but yet they are

able to make retroactive payments there. So I wonder if the Premier or the

President of Treasury Board could enlighten us as to whether this was a policy

of this Government up until Bill 16, whether it was the policy of this

Government to make retroactive payments or whether that was a special case made

for other reasons that he may be able to explain.

And I wanted to bring that up, Mr. Chairman, because it is a

very important point about the public service and about Bill 16 because we

cannot have the Government applying one standard or one rule to public servants

who are covered by collective agreements, and another rule to people that they

appoint. And I say it most sincerely, I am not here to make any political points

or make problems for anybody, but merely to ask whether or not this Government

has a double standard it is applying, and whether they can explain to the

Members of the House and to the public what exactly is going on.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: I would like to have a few remarks, Mr.

Chairman, as it pertains to this Bill 16. Mr. Chairman, I rose in my place on

Tuesday night and spoke about Bill 16. I do not see my friend across there now

from St. John's South. But I was listening to the Member for LaPoile and he said

the cause of this bill, this shameful bill being introduced in the House was, in

fact, the fault of the Federal Government because they reduced transfer payments

and I suppose EPF financing to the Province.

When I rose I said in defence of the Federal Government, as

far as I am concerned the Federal Government did give the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador sufficient funds. And as for Newfoundland and Labrador

reneging on their commitments to the labour force, the Government in Ottawa had

very little if anything to do with it. They knew quite well long before they

signed those agreements that money would not flow from Ottawa like they wanted

it to. Then I was interrupted, Mr. Chairman, and said, `Well what about the free

trade situation?' Seeing that the Premier today again stressed the fact that

some of the discrepancies in our financial situation were caused by the Federal

Government and their not giving us sufficient funds to run this Province, then I

want to return to what I said the other night.

Taking into consideration Bill 16, from what the Premier has

said and what the Member for St. John's South and many Ministers have said, it

was partially caused by the inaccuracy of the Federal Government in funding our

needs. The Member for St. John's South called out and said, How about free

trade? - and I was about to explain why I thought free trade was the