December

6, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 86

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am honoured to lead the House today in recognizing December

6 as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, in

commemoration of the fourteen women who were killed at cole Polytechnique in

Montreal just two years ago today. Although an extreme example of the violence

against women that exists in our society, that event was a stark reminder of the

women and children who are battered, sexually assaulted and live with the threat

of violence every single day.

Throughout the Province, women's groups are commemorating

this day in a variety of ways. Public vigils are planned in Stephenville, St.

John's, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and a meeting and discussion in Labrador

City-Wabush. Port aux Basques and Corner Brook will hold public forums to debate

the issue of violence against women, and Gander will hold a public meeting at

the Women's Centre to view the film 'After the Montreal Massacre'. In St.

John's, the Interagency Committee on Violence Against Women is sponsoring a

conference on 'Working Together To End Violence'.

It is important now that this day become not only one of

remembrance, but one of action. This past June, in St. John's, Status of Women

Ministers from across the country endorsed and publicly released the document

entitled, 'Building Blocks' which proposes a framework for a national strategy

on violence against women. Newfoundland is pleased to be part of that strategy,

and will continue its own efforts to deal constructively with this important

social problem.

I am pleased to announce that an executive level committee

with representation from Social Services, Justice, Health, Education and the

Women's Policy Office has been established to develop a Provincial Strategy on

Violence. Three sub-committees on violence against women, violence against

children, and violence against the elderly and dependent adults will consult

with community groups with interest or expertise in these areas and work

together to propose a plan to the executive committee. A co-ordinated approach

will strengthen our efforts to deal with this problem in an effective manner.

A workshop called 'Wife Battering-Understanding What it is

and What to do about it' has been developed by the Public Service Commission in

conjunction with the Interdepartmental Committee on Wife Battering. It has been

offered throughout the Province to police offices, social workers, public health

nurses, Crown attorneys and other public service staff who encounter battered

women in their normal work. It has been so successful that a follow-up course on

'Crisis Counselling for Victims of Wife Abuse' will be offered early next year.

Staff development has long been a concern of those who operate the five

transition houses and the shelters around the Province. I am pleased to announce

today that Government has decided to make spaces available for these shelter

workers in the Province to attend the Public Service Commission courses free of

charge.

Government recently gave money, through the Women's Policy

Office Grants Program, to two groups whose projects deal with violence; $2,500

was given to a Gander group, Women Survivors of Sexual Assault, to provide

assistance for members to attend self-help meetings. The Women's Committee of

the Justice Association of Newfoundland and Labrador received $1,500 to do

research on the needs of families of sex offenders. The Women's Policy Office is

also conducting research to evaluate the aggressive charge-laying policy by the

police in cases of wife abuse.

In addition to providing services to survivors, Government is

interested in work on prevention. Over the past few years, Government has

sponsored a number of public awareness activities. An example of one of these is

the brochure on Dating Violence, published by the Women's Policy Office, in

conjunction with the Department of Education, and distributed to schools in the

Province. This particular brochure has raised awareness about violence in young

people's relationships, and has resulted in many, many requests for further

information and follow-up.

At the Women's Lobby, this spring, women's groups expressed a

need for training for facilitators of support groups of survivors of violence.

In direct response to this request, the Women's Policy Office, after

consultation with representatives of the Women's Centres, is in the process of

working with consultants to design, develop, and pilot test a workshop for

volunteers who are willing to facilitate support groups for survivors. I am

pleased to announce today that $15,000 will be added to the Women's Policy

Office's 1992-93 budget to offer this workshop in six locations across our

Province.

Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the need to

address violence in our society. The Women's Lobby raised violence as an issue

of concern to women in this Province, and emphasized the need for a co-ordinated

approach. I have demonstrated this Government's commitment to addressing the

issue, and look forward to continuing to work with service agencies, community

groups, and individuals throughout the year to effect positive change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the PC Opposition and as the only

woman now present in the House of Assembly, let me say that I am glad the acting

Minister for the Status of Women has made this statement to mark this National

Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

I believe it is fitting that he has devoted much of his

statement to paying tribute to the efforts and the effectiveness of volunteer

women's groups throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been feminists who

have led the drive to recognize the pervasiveness of violence against women, and

to prompt governments, at all levels, of all political stripes, to begin to

recognize the problem and do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, any objective onlooker listening to the

statement and hearing the indications of plans for spending and action, however,

would have to conclude that the Government strategy is woefully inadequate.

After all, all the minister announced was a plan to form yet another committee

and to spend $2,500 for one volunteer group, $1,500 for a second volunteer

effort and to increase the Women's Policy budget by $15,000. Mr. Speaker, this

is in a budget year when the Government reduced the Women's Policy Office

overall budget from what it was last year.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detract from the potential

usefulness of these measures, all I am pointing out is that, given the gravity

and the extent of violence against women, these measures are very, very

inadequate. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but contrast the words of the

acting Minister for the Status of Women, which I regard as eloquent and

heartfelt on his part, no doubt drafted in consultation with Women's Policy

advisors, a very valuable office in the Provincial Government - I cannot help

but contrast the acting Minister's words with the behaviour of the Premier in

this House yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why the Premier has such

personal difficulty acknowledging violence against women.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member, in a Ministerial Statement, to keep

her remarks to the statement please. Ministerial Statements are not for debate,

but are to comment on the remarks made purely in the statement by the minister.

I would ask the member to remember that, please.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude by suggesting that the Premier and his

Cabinet attend a special workshop on violence against women. The acting minister

has said that the Public Service Commission has offered a workshop on violence

against women, a workshop developed in consultation with the former

interdepartmental committee on wife battering, and he has mentioned plans for a

new course. I would like to suggest, on this national day of action, that the

Premier arrange to attend such a course, perhaps one designed specifically for

the Cabinet, for the policy makers, for the men and the one woman in our

Province who decide on the provincial Budget, and who make allocations for

addressing the problems of violence against women, for providing services and

supports to the women who are victimized, and for dealing with offenders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House is

prepared to give unanimous consent to allow me to address the Ministerial

Statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, sure.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear the minister responsible for the status

of women give this statement in the House today to recognize, as all

Legislatures across the country now do, December 6 as a national day of

remembrance and action on violence against women.

We were all most shocked, of course, at the events of

December 6, 1989, and it brought home to all of us the terrible problem of

violence against women in our society, and has caused since then a ground swell,

I think, of support for programs to eliminate violence against women and also to

help victims of violence and also, I think, a new phenomenon, one that the

minister did not address, support groups, prevention groups, and assistance for

men who are themselves involved in battering situations. The minister talked

about assistance for survivors groups, and that is certainly important and has

been a focus of much attention. But the problem, Mr. Speaker, and I think all

the men in this House who wear these white ribbons, are doing that to recognize

that the problem is what men do. Not what women do.

The women's lobby and the women's groups in this Province

have recognized that violence against women is the single most important issue

facing women in this Province today. That is a fundamental problem to do with

the relationship between men and women in our society. That is something that we

all have an obligation, and particularly the men who sit in this Legislature. I

think the programs announced by the minister in terms of research for victims,

the $2,500 and the $1,500, will do something to help, but really only touch the

surface. The additional $15,000 for the women's policy office again is a little

bit more of a help.

But I want to contrast that in terms of priorities, I

suppose, with the news we learned yesterday, that the Province anticipates

obtaining an additional $6 million to $7 million in this year alone in revenues

from slot machines in bars. To contrast that kind of revenue from that source

with the kind of efforts that have been announced today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, it must be Christmas.

For the benefit of hon. members and the general public I

would like to clarify Government's intentions regarding Provincial tax reform.

Government has been examining a range of tax reform options,

focusing on whether it would be in the best interest of this Province to retain

distinctly different Federal and Provincial sales taxes or whether the

differences should be reduced, up to and including full harmonization with the

Goods and Service Tax. We have concluded that if we are to move significantly

from the status quo, GST harmonization appears to offer the most potential

benefits to the Provincial economy. Harmonization and the provision of input tax

credits would enhance our competitive position internationally and within

Canada, providing a tax environment conducive to business expansion and economic

growth. The simplification of the tax system resulting from harmonization would

reduce compliance costs for small businesses and improve the efficiency of tax

administration.

While there are many and great advantages to harmonization,

there are also possible negative repercussions on at least certain sectors of

the provincial economy and on our fiscal position.

A key element in any decision has to be the effect of change

on the Province's fiscal position. To achieve our goals of a lower sales tax

rate and full input tax credits for business would require us, in the absence of

offsetting measures, to endure about a $100 million shortfall in provincial

revenues. Each of the range of offsetting measures to restore the fiscal balance

has other ramifications which make the assessment of any tax reform package a

complex and time-consuming undertaking. GST harmonization could be a severe

constraint on our fiscal maneuverability at a time when our fiscal position is

already strained.

In sum, the complexity of tax reform, and our desire to

ensure that the economic and fiscal effects are fully understood, require us to

defer a decision on implementing change at this time. Before making a final

decision, we intend to continue the consultative process initiated earlier this

year, which has been valuable in assessing the impact of harmonization. We will

be preparing a detailed technical paper on harmonization for release in late

1992 seeking further public input.

On the issue of the school tax, there has been no change in

our position that this tax is unfair and inefficient.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: It was our view that the deficiencies of the

school tax could be overcome only by either completely abolishing the tax or

substantially reforming it. After much study and discussion we have come to the

conclusion that reforming the school tax regime is not a satisfactory solution.

Therefore, I am pleased to announce today that the school tax will be abolished

as of June 30, 1992.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: The end of the fiscal year.

DR. KITCHEN: That is the end of the -

MR. DECKER: School board fiscal year.

DR. KITCHEN: A Committee under the direction of my

colleague the Hon. Minister of Education will be established to co-ordinate the

wind up of the school tax regime. Details will be forthcoming over the coming

weeks as consultations between Government, school boards and school tax

authorities are completed. However, it is Government's intention that the school

tax authorities will, for the January to June period, bill taxpayers for the

full annual amount of the tax. Taxpayers who have paid half the amount by June

30 will be forgiven the remaining half, or be refunded any amount paid in excess

of half. Taxpayers who have not remitted all taxes due and payable up to that

point will not be relieved of their liability to settle any outstanding amounts.

Government intends to pursue vigorously clearing up the substantial amount of

school tax arrears, and will be announcing measures to address this issue when

plans are finalized.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure every school board in the

Province that they will receive no less funding in the year commencing July 1,

1992 than they would otherwise have received.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

announce that it is Government's intention to enhance the financial position of

the vast majority of school boards by fully equalizing board funding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: These decisions to provide equal funding and

to eliminate the school tax will overcome many of the current inequities in

school board financing and are valuable steps in creating a better education

system as well as a more efficient and equitable taxation system. The revenue

measures required to replace the school tax and to provide the additional funds

for school boards will be made known in the 1992 budget.

Mr. Speaker, merry Christmas to you and to every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we are delighted the hon.

gentlemen opposite find him so amusing. The people of Newfoundland have known

the Minister of Finance as the 'Grinch who stole Christmas' for many years, and

he has proven it once again today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, this is a realization of

Newfoundlander's worst fears, that the minister now is confirming that it is

Government's intention to move towards full harmonization with GST. Now, group

after group have warned the minister that would be absolute economic disaster

for this Province. It would be absolute disaster, Mr. Speaker. If the Government

is intending to move forward in this manner, then this Province is going to pay

dearly. But more seriously here, we are now finding that the school tax - I say

to the hon. gentlemen, I came in late, but as I read the highlights of this

paper - the school tax is now going to disappear and we are now going to have to

be totally dependent on this Government for financing of education.

The school trustees authorities have expressed grave concerns

about this matter. This Government's record, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to

funding of education has been dismal. They came into power with all kinds of

promises of additional funding for health and education, they implemented a

payroll tax which was called The Health and Education Tax and we have seen

funding for health and education decrease over the past two years since that tax

was implemented -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: -so, Mr. Speaker, what guarantee, what

protection do the school boards and the school trustees have against this

Government further decreasing funding for education? What guarantee will they

have in future years that the funds that they have committed for capital

expenditures over a period of time, for which they must meet those commitments,

will be met by the funding for education? Mr. Speaker, this is indeed another

Christmas present from the grinch who stole Christmas.

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving on to the routine business of

the day, on behalf of hon. members, we would like to extend a warm welcome to

sixty Grade XI students from Vaters Collegiate, here in St. John's, accompanied

by their teachers, Mr. Winston Wall and Mr. Fred Halfyard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, before you call Question

Period, maybe I can have one minute to inform hon. members that the father of

one of our colleagues, the Member for Terra Nova, Mr. Greening, died yesterday

and I would ask the Speaker, on behalf of hon. members, to send condolences to

Mr. Greening and his family and I would like hon. members to know that the

funeral services will be held in Musgrave Town on Saturday at two o'clock.

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we would endorse that

message from the House of condolences to Mr. Greening and the whole family.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Premier. As we politicians debate the fine points of the recent decision of his

Government to double the daily food and entertainment allowance of senior

Government executives, does the Premier realize that his Government is providing

for the battered women and children at Libra House in Happy Valley - Goose Bay

an average daily amount for food of less than $2.00 per woman and child?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is no connection

between the two and furthermore the first is totally inaccurate. It is difficult

to believe that a member of this House, who should be knowledgeable about it,

could make that kind of representation. There has been no doubling of any

allowance, no increase of any expenditure, not $1.00 more will be spent on

entertainment in this coming year than was spent last year, and probably less

for all I know. All that has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the level at which

prior Treasury Board approval has to be obtained has been changed, the same as

hon. members opposite did in 1984, when after setting it in 1980 four years

later they doubled the level at which prior Treasury Board approval had to be

obtained. Now, there was no change in the last seven years, so to avoid the

unnecessary expense and effort, the paper work through which Treasury Board and

officials were being put, we altered it as the hon. members did in 1984 with no

additional expenditure. Now, for the hon. member to stand and misrepresent it in

that way is inexcusable.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier completely missed the

point of the question and failed to address the glaring inequity. Whether senior

civil servants spend $100 a day or $200 a day on food and entertainment without

Treasury Board authorization, from the point of view of a battered woman at

Libra House in Happy Valley - Goose Bay who is expected to live with a daily

food budget of $2.00, there is an unacceptable inequity. Will the Premier

recognize this inequity and will he act immediately to increase the Provincial

Government grant to Libra House to provide a decent amount of funding for food

for the residents of that shelter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I say again there is no

connection between the two. There is no more connection between those two than

there is between the $40.00 a day that the member gets as a food allowance,

none. There is no more connection between that and what is paid. Now, is she

going to talk about that, too? This is utterly ludicrous. I just want to point

out, Mr. Speaker, that the average expenditure per executive, as the President

of Treasury Board just pointed out, was $287 per year. That was the average

expenditure. Now, Mr. Speaker, as to what the Government will do, or does not

do, with respect to battered women I will let the minister responsible deal with

the question.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this is another appalling display

by the Premier of terrible insensitivity to the plight of the poor -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member is on a

supplementary and I ask the hon. member to ask the question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier, as head of the Government, is responsible for

setting Provincial Government priorities and for divvying up the Provincial

Government pie. I say to him there has to be a connection between the portion of

the pie given to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members know that supplementary questions are not to be

given long

preambles. They should ask the question and the Chair is not about to

permit debate. I ask the hon. member to ask the question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know I have touched a raw nerve with the Premier. Let me

ask the Premier whether he will have his Government supplement the resources the

Government provides to womens' groups in this Province as he indicated at the

womens' lobby in the spring that he would consider doing? Specifically, let me

ask him whether he would arrange to have Provincial Government social workers

and counsellors seconded to women's centres? The women's centres at Gander and

Corner Brook specifically asked me to make this request to the Premier. At the

women's lobby the Premier told them he would look favourably at this request.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member does not get to the question I am just

going to move on to somebody else. The Chair has intervened a couple of times.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: In terms of shelters in the Province since

this Government has taken over we have opened one more shelter and are actively

considering another shelter to cover another area of the Province that we feel

has a very great need, which happens to be the Burin Peninsula, and consequently

funding for these shelters has been increased. We are now providing more

training and experience for the workers in the shelters and for the volunteers

who deal with victims of violence, we are now providing more help for them, and

more assistance so that they can do a better job, which is what they have asked

for essentially.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have progressed, and we will progress. I

say to the hon. member that decisions as to extension of shelters, decisions as

to expenditures of large sums of money will be made in the budgetary process,

and all of these things are considered in the light of everything else. Mr.

Speaker, we are keeping these needs in mind, and we are trying to fulfil these

needs the best way that we can, and as quickly as we can.

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

supplementary.

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

acting Minister for the Status of Women. What is the acting minister and the

Government going to do to provide Libra House with an adequate food budget so

that the residents, the battered women and children who are being sheltered

there, have more than $2 a day for food?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a request from

Libra House of the nature that the hon. member talks about. I will certainly

discuss the issue with the Women's Policy Office. My understanding is that the

level of funding that is being provided is sufficient to carry them through the

year. That is the only communication that I have had about that, so I will

certainly look into the matter. But, Mr. Speaker, I will not automatically

assume that I have to run off and do something because the hon. member asked the

question in Question Period.

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

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

Minister of Health.

As the minister is aware chiropractors have spent a number of

months -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) about the $200.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, I remind the minister that I had my facts

straight yesterday as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister of Health.

MR. HODDER: What does the Speaker say about this?

MR. DOYLE: As the minister is aware, chiropractors have

spent a number of months drafting regulations at the request of the minister's

department, as a matter of fact, and these regulations were submitted to the

minister about a month ago. Could the minister indicate what the status of these

regulations are, and when the regulations might be approved?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it is

the prerogative of the Department of Health, the Government through the

minister, the minister through the Government to proclaim the regulations under

the Chiropractor's Act. Now this Government always operates in a spirit of

co-operation where we talk back and forth with people who will be affected.

Therefore, after we announced the Chiropractor's Act last year we went out to

the chiropractors and asked them to make some suggestions to the Government as

to what they would want to have included in the regulations, notwithstanding the

fact that the Chiropractor's Act belongs to the people of the Province. It is

not the chiropractor's, it is not the teachers, it is the people of the Province

who owns the Chiropractor's Act. Nevertheless we were courteous and asked the

chiropractors to give us some recommendations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it there was some delay on

their part. I think they had some misunderstandings among themselves as to what

they were going to recommend, and not too long ago we finally did receive from

the chiropractors - after I notified them and gave them a deadline and said: if

you do not have your suggestions into us by such and such a date, then we will

go ahead and do it anyway. So we finally did receive some suggestions from them.

These suggestions, Mr. Speaker, are now being analyzed and reviewed, and in due

course we will be making the regulations so that the people of the Province can

receive the protection, and so that the chiropractors can be protected. The

spirit of co-operation as usual, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last session of the House, Government passed

legislation governing chiropractors. Can the minister tell the House when the

act is going to be proclaimed, or is there a problem with the Act, or is

proclamation of the Act also contingent upon approval of the regulations?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I think that question was

answered in the first question. As I said, the regulations are now being

examined and it will be proclaimed as soon as we are satisfied that all the

information has been gathered.

MR. DOYLE: A supplementary to the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations.

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

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: As the minister is aware, the majority report,

and the minority report, as well, on Workers' Compensation, recommended that

chiropractic services be covered under the Workers' Compensation Act. Is it the

Government's intention to have these services covered under Workers'

Compensation, as was mentioned in the majority and minority reports?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think, as the hon.

member knows, in asking the question, we are not in a position yet to state

publicly what any of the responses of Government will be to the recommendations

of the Workers' Compensation Review Committee report. We have indicated when we

release the report publicly that we would take the remainder of this calendar

year to allow everyone with an interest in that system and in the report to

respond to us as to the direct recommendations in the report. One of the groups

that have indicated they will give a response are the chiropractors. We will

consider everything dealing with Workers' Compensation, including their

position, when we make decisions relating to the Workers' Compensation

Commission, early in the new year.

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

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

Minister of Health.

MR. WARREN: Minister of Health, wake up!

MR. DOYLE: When he is ready. Chiropractors have been

given X ray privileges, I believe, under the Act that will be proclaimed. They

have also requested that X ray services be covered under MCP, as they are in

some other provinces in Canada. Not in all provinces, but in some provinces,

these X ray privileges are covered under MCP. Can the minister tell the House if

that is going to be the case for chiropractors? Will these X ray services be

covered under MCP when the Act is finally proclaimed?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when the Act was being drafted,

chiropractors wanted to have the right to have their X rays in their own

offices, and there was some discussion as to whether or not MCP would pay for

the use of these X rays in their offices. Government have decided that we will

not be paying for the X rays. I don't know what some future government will do,

I don't know what this Government will do at some future time, but there is no

provision, no plan, at this time, for Government to pay for X rays in

chiropractors' offices.

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

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

Minister of Social Services. The minister is no doubt aware that the Consumer

Organization for the Disabled announced yesterday that they might have to close

their doors because of a lack of funding. Now, this morning, another

organization, the Association for Community Living, have informed me that they,

as well, did not get adequate funding, that they are in an overdraft position at

the bank, and that they must lay off their executive director of the

organization today, December 6, this afternoon, thereby severely curtailing the

activities of that organization.

My question for the minister is: does the Minister support

those organizations, and, for the sake of $47,000 for both of those

organizations, is the minister about to sacrifice them?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am totally supportive of those

organizations. They are doing some very fine work in the Province.

Unfortunately, at the beginning of the year, they were allotted a certain amount

in the Budget and, as everybody does, we have to attempt to live within the

Budget. We have revisited on a number of occasions and have addressed it

accordingly.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out

to the minister that the Association for Community Living requested $112,000,

they got $100,000, and then $20,000 of that was taken away from them and given

to another group - not another group, but a branch. The umbrella group did not

get that money.

I want to ask the minister a question specifically concerning

the Association for Community Living.

The Association for Community Living is now more important

than ever, because Government is closing group homes and integrating more

individuals back into the community. I ask the minister to reconsider the

request, in view of the important work that the Association does in helping

families to support mentally disabled children and adults in the home.

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

MR. HOGAN: As stated, Mr. Speaker, the department will

always revisit these requests for funding. We have more than one group out there

to provide core funding, and there are x number of dollars to be provided to all

these groups. We just cannot deal with one request when all the groups are under

the same fiscal restraints.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

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

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, is this not a penny wise and

pound foolish situation? If families do not have the support they need to keep

mentally disabled members at home, then Government will have to care for them in

institutions at much greater cost. Is this not so? Could the minister not

confirm this or deny it?

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

MR. HOGAN: I do not have the exact figures in front of

me, Mr. Speaker, so I will neither deny nor admit it, but I do recognize the

great work that these groups are doing out there, as all people associated with

the department.

MR. TOBIN: You can't do it (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you stay quiet?

MR. HOGAN: Could I have the protection of the Chair

before I boot the hon. member across the way, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister.

MR. HOGAN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we address the

concerns of all these groups. We do recognize the work they are doing publicly

with people less advantaged than we are, and we will continue to recognize that

and supply the funding as we have it.

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

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my final

question to the Premier. I ask the Premier: In view of the fact that only

$47,000 is needed to support those two organizations, the Consumer Organization

for the Disabled, and the Association for Community Living - one, the advocate

for all disabled people, the other, integral to the rehabilitation of mentally

handicapped in the Province; one, about to close its doors, the other having to

lay off an executive director - can the Premier tell me what are his priorities

and the priorities of the Government? Is this Liberal philosophy, and is this

not an attack on the weakest, most vulnerable people in society?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Government has an overall

responsibility to the people of the Province to manage all of the affairs of the

Province in a sound and proper way, and you cannot let any one group dictate

what the Budget is going to be and make the functioning of this House totally

superfluous. The Government has to lead the way in bringing its proposal to the

House and manage the budgetary expenditures for that group, what it makes

available to that group, amongst all others.

Now I have seen the press release. The first I heard of it

was when I saw a copy of the press release relating to it, so I spoke with the

President of Treasury Board, who has assured me that they will have somebody

from Treasury Board go and look at what is happening, and see if the position

is, in fact, justified or if they simply decided that they are going to run

their own budget anyway, without regard to what the Government or the House

does. We will take a look at it, and if there is genuine need there the

Government is not insensitive to genuine need for the people of the Province.

The President of Treasury Board already has the matter in hand, and he will

attend to it, I have no doubt.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. Three years ago, the Town of Flatrock received its last provincial

grant for water and sewer. At that time the Town of Flatrock was very highly

prioritized. This Government is now saying that Flatrock's priority rate has

dropped, and the town is not even in the running for water and sewer funding in

the near future. This small town is being assessed at $40,000 per annum, and

with this previous funding there is still half a mile to go to put the pipe to

the first house. Does the minister think that this is fair? Now their priority

is gone, there is nothing in the foreseeable future, and they still have to pay

the $40,000. If there were some inkling that there was something in the future -

but does the minister think it is fair for this small town to pay that $40,000

for nothing, and if he does not think it is fair, will he do something about it?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process now of

looking at water and sewer, roads, and other servicing needs for municipalities

throughout the Province, including Flatrock. As to whether or not Flatrock will

be prioritized in this year's capital works is much too early to determine. As I

said, we are in the process now of examining, community by community, and

looking at the recommendations from our regional offices. So it is much too

early, Mr. Speaker, to answer the question.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: I want to remind the minister that

Flatrock's mil rate is now 5.5 with no services whatsoever, none. How can the

council raise the mil rate?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the minister is aware of it or

not, but officials from his department have already told the Town Council of

Flatrock that what they should do is dig artesian wells in troubled areas. So,

Mr. Speaker, it seems as if the minister's officials have already decided on

what the minister is talking about, looking into the situation in Flatrock.

I want to ask the minister again: If this is right, and it

is, what is in the future for the Town of Flatrock? Will he erase this $40,000

and give the people the chance, if it is necessary and if there is nothing there

for the future, to dig the artesian wells? Will the minister do that?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly commit to

examine the recommendations from the regional office. The hon. member is

probably talking about some discussions between the Town Council, no doubt the

officials of my department, possibly the regional office, and the town officials

regarding possible solutions to the problem that exists with Flatrock. So, I

will certainly commit to examine those recommendations and see whether or not

solutions can be found within the parameters of capital works. Whether or not it

will be this year is difficult to determine because, as I said, we are just in

the process now of examining the priorities, community by community, and

establishing the amount of money that will be spent this year.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, whether Flatrock will be

prioritized in this year's capital works will have to be determined. Certainly,

I will commit to talk to my officials to see what their recommendations are and

to see whether or not I am in agreement.

MR. PARSONS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern, on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: The minister will know that the City of St.

John's has refused to take septic waste from the surrounding area. A place to

dump this affluent has become a major problem for all the surrounding

communities. With the ground frozen, the problem is even greater for dumping

because there is no seepage.

Will the minister tell this hon. House what is being done? We

were told that something was ongoing three months ago, but nothing has

materialized. Will the minister now tell the House if there is some place where

this affluent can be dumped?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under

advisement. I understand that Environment and Lands and my own officials have

been working on a solution to the septic waste problem, sites that might be

available. I will take that question under advisement and report back to the

House as to which sites have been designated.

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

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

My question is to the Minister responsible for Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. It concerns the Labrador Travel Subsidy Program, a program

implemented to subsidize the travel of athletes and cultural groups to

participate in events here on the Island portion of the Province. Mr. Speaker,

$310,000 was allocated last year to assist these groups in travel, and that

budget had all been spent or allocated about a month ago.

Now, the minister responded to my question in the House and

said a decision will be made soon with regard to increased funding in that

particular program. Mr. Speaker, groups in Western Labrador have to make

arrangements to travel to the Island portion of the Province to participate in

provincial figure skating competitions and if they do not have word within a

couple of days, Mr. Speaker, they will not be able to participate because they

have to outlay funds with regard to accommodations and their commitment on the

travel portion.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell me now whether or not a

decision has been made with regard to the extra allocation of funds in the

Labrador Travel Subsidy Program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct, we

have been having discussions with the people affected by the Travel Subsidy

Program. I have also met with the Mayors of Happy Valley - Goose Bay and

Labrador City just recently. Both of them came in to see me. We are examining

the program, attempting to find a solution to a very difficult problem, I must

agree. But, Mr. Speaker, we have not as yet made a decision as to what we are

going to do with the Labrador Travel Subsidy Program.

The matter of the figure skating clubs and the competition

that is coming up on the weekend, I believe you said, I will address that today

to see what difficulty is there. But, Mr. Speaker, we have yet to make a

decision on the Labrador Travel Subsidy Program. I realize the seriousness of

it, the lateness in the season, and the fact that several events are

forthcoming. We will deal with this matter, Mr. Speaker, very shortly.

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

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

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture and responsible for Environment, but in

his absence, I will ask the Premier.

The Federal Government has just announced new pollution

controls and pollution control regulations on pulp mills. Can the Premier advise

the House what the consequences of these new regulations will be on the three

pulp and paper mills in Newfoundland, and can the Premier tell the House what

prior knowledge the Provincial Government has had of these matters and what

plans have been made to ensure that compliance with these new regulations will

not cost jobs in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the House the

detailed information today that the hon. member requested, but when I heard the

announcement made by the Federal Minister, Mr. Charest, I asked the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture how it would affect, particularly the older mills at

Corner Brook and Grand Falls, and he told me that his understanding of the

situation at that point in time was that the liquid effluent from both those

mills was not the greatest problem, that the greatest pollution problem was in

the air in Corner Brook. Also, the mill at Corner Brook, he told me was, and I

have heard from others in the industry there, they are moving out of the sulfite

pulp altogether and moving into thermo mechanical pulp, which would eliminate a

good deal of the effluent problem. So, exactly what the impact will be, I do not

at this moment know, but the minister is doing an assessment of it and will

probably be able to advise the House as to what the circumstances are next week.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a news story last night on the

CBC, indicated that officials at Kruger indicated that the cost of compliance

might be as much as $40 million and $20 million in Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls.

It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, as being a rather serious amount of money to comply

with these regulations and not really consistent with, apparently the minister's

advice to the Premier as to what the consequences are. I wonder, Mr. Speaker,

does the Premier have confidence that his Department of Forestry and Agriculture

and Environment is really up to speed on this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I saw the news story too and

I have learned from very sound experience, not to run off and make decisions on

the basis of what I see in the television media, hear on the radio or read in

the newspapers, so I will still await the minister's assessment.

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

MR. HARRIS: Just simply, Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary,

would the Premier commit to requesting the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

to make a ministerial statement to the House next week on this issue, so that we

can all know and particularly the people who depend on these industries know

what the consequences might be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to commit to

any such thing. I have told the House I have asked the minister to find out the

information, and I just told the hon. member in the answer to the last question

that we would advise the House next week. Now whether the minister does it or I

do it, I do not feel that it is necessary for me to commit that it will be the

minister who will do it. I may do it or somebody else may do it, but I restate

again what I said in answer to his first question, that the minister or I or

somebody else will advise the House sometime next week I hope, as soon as we

have the information as to what the consequences will be.

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

There is time for a very brief question, with a correspondingly brief answer.

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

is to the Minister of Social Services. A couple of days ago I asked the minister

about the possibility of keeping the group home open in Happy Valley - Goose

Bay. Yesterday, a former cabinet minister, the Member for Naskaupi, went public

and also is demanding the Government keep that particular group home open. Would

the minister now reconsider his position and keep that group home open? That

could be of benefit to those people who definitely need that kind of service.

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

MR. HOGAN: No. Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to other routine business, on behalf of hon.

members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before moving on to other routine business, on behalf of hon.

Members I would like to welcome to the galleries today another group of students

from Queen Elizabeth High School in Foxtrap, accompanied by their teacher, Mr.

Ross Senior.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Department

Of Mines And Energy Act, 1989." This is Bill Number 60.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to draw

Your Honour's attention to an error in the Order Paper today, dealing with

Motions 4 and 5, which in fact should be second readings. Sometimes this happens

on Friday because of the short turnaround time in printing. So I would just like

to draw hon. Members' attention to that inadvertent error in the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, Motion 6.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6.

Motion, the hon. the Premier to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Establish An Advisory Council On The Economy," carried. (Bill No. 61).

On motion, Bill No. 61 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow, by leave.

MR. BAKER: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 7.

This is the third reading of Bill 50. Hon. Members will know

that Motion 7 states the conditions for the debate, the time limits, which is

commonly referred to as closure.

Motion 7, carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I think it is highly unusual

indeed that we debate third readings of bills. It has not happened very often in

my sixteen years in this House. In fact, I am not sure that we have ever debated

third reading of a bill since -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We have had a couple?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Several times the last couple of years, Mr.

Speaker, and I would suspect each time was on the closure motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No? But that is the first point that I want

to make, Mr. Speaker, that this is the third closure motion forcing this piece

of legislation through the House of Assembly.

MR. TOBIN: That's ten in two years!

MR. WINDSOR: Ten in two years. I think there were three

in the history of this House of Assembly since Confederation, three closure

motions used prior to this Government coming into power, and we have had ten

closure motions in the last two years. That says something, Mr. Speaker, about

this Government and the respect - or the disrespect - that they have for the

House of Assembly.

Now I am not going to speak at great length this morning.

Hon. gentlemen opposite will be glad to hear that. I see no point, and I say

that out of absolute frustration for this whole exercise. I say it out of

disgust for the process that we have gone through. I say it out of a feeling of

shame for this House of Assembly and for the process that we have seen take

place on this particular piece of legislation. I take no pride in participating

in this particular debate except for the honour that I feel of representing my

constituents. It is sad that hon. gentlemen opposite are not feeling the same

pride and are not representing their constituents in the same manner.

Mr. Speaker, one matter of detail I did want to address was

the statement the minister made yesterday as it relates to the regional services

concept. The minister made the statement, I think, that most municipalities in

the northeast region did not favour regional services. Now there are

unparliamentary terms that I cannot use, of course, to apply to that statement.

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

Provincial Affairs on a point of order.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misleading

the House. I did not make any such statement that municipalities on the

Northeast Avalon were not in favour of regional services. I made no such

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The hon.

member is making a point of clarification.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention this

morning of arguing with the hon. minister. Hansard will show very clearly what

he said.

Now, Mr. Speaker, last evening in discussing that statement

with a gentleman friend of mine, he said: there are certain parliamentary terms

you cannot use. Why don't you use the one that the former Prime Minister of

England, Sir Winston Churchill, used to use when it is not parliamentary. I say

to the young people in the galleries, it is not parliamentary to call a member a

liar or to say that a member lied, so we would not use that term. Sir Winston

Churchill said: 'the hon. gentleman is the purveyor of terminological

inexactitudes.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is also well known that you

cannot do through the back door what you cannot do through the front door, and

the member has, I believe, abused the rules of the House and the intent of the

rules of the House by the way that he approached his previous statement.

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

MR. WINDSOR: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the

parliamentary terminology is what we are speaking about here, the term I cannot

use. The facts speak for themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, hon. members all know

the rules with respect to parliamentary language, and the hon. the President of

Treasury Board is also correct when he says we cannot say indirectly what we

cannot say directly, yet in the meantime the Chair would be in a very difficult

position to rule unparliamentary the statement made by that great

parliamentarian, Sir Winston Churchill. I would still advise hon. members to be

circumspect when using the phrase, and not to use it in the sense of trying to

say something that one cannot say directly. So I advise the hon. member, please,

to watch his use of that language.

The hon. Member from Mount Pearl.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Just to clarify, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member for Mount Pearl to take his place. I

have recognized the hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: To clarify my comment, Mr. Speaker -

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

point of privilege.

MR. BAKER: I am on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: But he is on a point of privilege.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I just rose on a point of

privilege to clarify what just took place. Your Honour did recognize me. The

hon. gentleman opposite stood and started to speak. He did not say that he was

on a point of order, and I proceeded to speak. Until Your Honour recognized him

on a point of order I think I was totally in order to continue with my address

to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I assume when hon. members stand they are on

a point of order. Hon. members view the rules that they are not supposed to

stand when an hon. member is speaking. I apologize if I made a mistake. Is the

hon. member on a point of order?

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I said point of order, but

my microphone was not turned on, and Your Honour did recognize me, so things

were done properly.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify my previous point of order, my

point of order was not about the topic that Your Honour ruled on about Winston

Churchill's use of terminological inexactitude. That was not my point of order.

My point of order was concerning language used previous to that, so if Your

Honour could check the transcript at some point in time and see what I am

talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. I simply advise the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl my position, and just advise him to be cautious with

his language knowing, as he does, the rules regarding the conduct of members of

the House on parliamentary language.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Did I do? Once again, Your Honour, has displayed the wisdom

of Solomon in his rulings. I accept Your Honour's ruling.

The point I want to make this morning, very briefly, and I

have taken more time already than I had actually expected to spend on this this

morning. As I said in my

preamble I think this is the fifth time I have spoken

in this debate. I think I have said all that needs to be said. I think I have

covered all of the details of the various aspects of this legislation and the

ramifications of it, and it is clear that hon. gentlemen opposite have no

intention of listening to what is being said, and that I am having absolutely no

impact on hon. gentlemen opposite.

I did want to point out though the inexactitude of the

minister in dealing with statements relating to groups or municipalities as to

whether they did or did not favour any kind of regional services. Of the briefs

that were submitted to the commission established by the minister let me very

quickly outline the municipalities that did or did not relate to it. The City of

St. John's made no reference to a regional board or authority. In fact as I

recall the City of St. John's requested that they be the regional board or

authority which is exactly what the minister has made them. The Committee of

Wedgewood Park recognized that a regional authority can best provide services

such as water, fire protection, animal control, and so forth. They recognized

that concept. When I say, Mr. Speaker, that municipalities recognize that

concept, they recognize it in relation to the structure that the minister had

brought through this House in legislation a year ago, the Regional Services Bill

which provided for a democratic structure of administering regional services.

Let us not confuse that kind of a structure with the autocratic approach that

the minister has taken with his particular proposal in Bill 50. It is not a

regional service we are talking about. It is a municipal service being foisted

on other municipalities. The community of St. Phillips made no reference to it,

Mr. Speaker. Portugal Cove stated that the town feels there is a need for

services of a regional nature. Petty Harbour -Maddox Cove made no reference to

regional services whatsoever. The Goulds made no reference. St. John's Metro

Board states that a regional services authority should be established. Torbay

supports a form of regional authority. Pouch Cove made no references. Bauline

made no reference, and Flatrock made no reference to regional authorities. Logy

Bay, Middle Cove, Outer Cove recommended that establishment of a regional

services body be considered. Mount Pearl, 'supports the concept of regional

government'. Paradise, a regional authority would be responsible for all water

sheds, pumping and treatment facilities, and so forth. St. Thomas, no reference.

Mr. Speaker, that covers all the municipalities. If the minister cares to

challenge that I refer him to the report of the commissioners which provides in

them copies of the briefs from the municipalities. Those references were taken

from his commissioner's report, clearly documented and tabled in this hon.

House, so when the minister stood in his place yesterday and said that

municipalities in this region did not want regional services, then obviously he

is expressing an inexactitude very clearly. I just wanted to clean up that

point, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how long the

Chair is going to tolerate the hon. member's inaccuracies. Everything he is

saying is untruthful and certainly was not said by me yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would advise hon. members again of the necessity of

adhering to the rules of this House, in the interest of decorum. I would ask the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl please to cautiously use the term that he is using.

In the meantime, the Chair will look at Hansard and see in which context it was

used before I make a ruling, but it was indeed unparliamentary in this

particular case.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention

of continuing with any kind of a trivial argument with the hon. minister. The

hon. minister is so insignificant that I really have no concern for whether he

is upset or whether he is not. I can appreciate that the reception he got in

Mount Pearl last night leaves him a little uneasy this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: I said, I think, in this House that I did

not know if the hon. gentleman had courage or lacked sense, Mr. Speaker. I think

that the second was right. I think the second was right, because I would not

have done what he did last night.

I just want to conclude my remarks once again by pointing out

that the key factor in this whole debate is the lack of a democratic process

here. Once again let me say that this House is being manipulated to allow the

minister to break the existing law. He is not changing the law. He is using this

House to allow him to do what he cannot do legally. I spent some time yesterday

in this debate pointing out that hon. gentlemen opposite clearly are not

listening to their constituents. I spoke at some length yesterday as well about

the philosophical question of whether or not members have a responsibility here

to represent the feelings of the majority of their constituents. When does a

member's right to stand and speak in this House supersede the clear voice of a

majority of the constituents?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Of a majority. It is very clear that the

majority in this case do not favour this legislation - clear, Mr. Speaker. If

hon. gentlemen opposite - it is an option I gave the minister yesterday which

was voted down by hon. gentlemen opposite - the clear opportunity, if they feel

so strongly that the majority of people favour this particular piece of

legislation, let them put it to a plebiscite. Let the people speak. They refused

to do that. Each of them stood in their place and was counted, and it is

recorded in Hansard that each of them refused to let the people speak on this

issue.

As I said yesterday, I do not favour governing by plebiscite,

but there are times when governments, in their wisdom, feel that a particular

course of action is appropriate; but when the expression of thousands of people

directly involved is contrary to that, then a plebiscite is a very valid

mechanism to hear the people. It may not be bound by it. I suggested that

Government be bound by it. Hon. gentlemen opposite chose yesterday, in voting

against my amendment, not to give the people a voice. Well they will eventually

have a voice. As we all know, every four years or thereabouts the people vote in

the greatest plebiscite of all - a general election - and I suspect the people

will speak, and we will find out how the people of this region feel.

I am concerned about the illegality of the process, the fact

that feasibility studies were not carried out on this particular proposal in

accordance with the existing legislation. I have pointed out, as hon. members

are aware, that the City of Mount Pearl today were to be in court, in the

Supreme Court of Newfoundland, challenging this particular piece of legislation

purely on legal grounds - a very strong legal challenge, Mr. Speaker. I am aware

also that the Department of Justice is doing everything to defeat that move on

technical grounds. The Department of Justice, no doubt directed by Government,

clearly do not want to have this matter debated by the courts. So we have seen

debate in this House stifled by three closure motions. We have seen this House,

or the Government majority in this House, stifle the people's voice by voting

against a plebiscite; we see the Department of Justice doing everything possible

to stop this matter from coming before the courts. I do not know what this

Government is so afraid about, Mr. Speaker, but it is an extremely cowardly

approach. To refuse to let - or try to stop - the City of Mount Pearl from

having their day in court. I was just passed a note by the way, as I was

speaking, that the hearing has now been deferred until Monday at the court's

request.

Amazing, the courts have now requested it be deferred until

Monday. I will not cast any aspersions on the court as to whether or not that

was a legitimate logistical problem or whether it was as a result of some

trickery by the Department of Justice representatives on this particular case.

Time will tell.

But I am particularly concerned about: the legality of the

process; I am particularly concerned about the lack of concern for the wishes of

the people; I am particularly concerned about the undemocratic approach that is

being taken; the incredible powers that are being given to this Government,

being taken by this Government, over municipalities. It marks the death of any

kind of autonomy and self-determination in municipalities in this Province. It

is a very serious piece of legislation, and I think it is a very serious day in

this Legislature that this will be forced through the House of Assembly.

So there are not many avenues available to us. This

Government has control of this House, they are using their majority in this

House to force this legislation through, as we will see it today. But there is

one final hope I suppose. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has to give royal

assent -

AN HON. MEMBER: No he doesn't.

MR. WINDSOR: He has to give royal assent before it

becomes law.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, before it becomes law.

MR. WINDSOR: Before it becomes law the

Lieutenant-Governor must give royal assent on behalf of Her Majesty. The

Lieutenant-Governor's role, of course, is to protect the people, I suppose. He

is the final protector of the people against a dictatorial government, or a

government which is doing something that is totally against the good of the

people. That is his role. He is there to safeguard our basic democratic

principles.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to advise this House that this

morning on the way to this Chamber I visited His Honour. I visited His Honour

because I feel so strongly that what is taking place in this Chamber is so much

against the democratic principles on which this House is founded. I delivered to

His Honour a letter -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, the Premier will be well

advised to visit His Honour and submit his resignation. The Minister of Justice

might just as well, because he is going to be fired out shortly anyway. I

delivered to His Honour a letter. I ask Your Honour's guidance as to whether I

should read it into the record or simply table it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I will read it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not need His Honour's permission. I

asked His Honour's guidance because I have respect for His Honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

(Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the letter reads:

May it please Your Honour: the hon. House of Assembly in this

present third session of the forty-first General Assembly has passed a certain

measure, Bill 50, "An Act To Facilitate The Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal

Authorities And Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon Region."

This Bill in essence facilitates the amalgamation of certain municipal

authorities and municipal services in accordance with the resolution respecting

the Northeast Avalon region as adopted by the House of Assembly on May 24, 1991.

I am gravely concerned that the present proposal was not the

subject of a properly conducted feasibility report in accordance with

Section 9

(1) of The Municipalities Act and similar sections in The City Of St. John's Act

and The City Of Mount Pearl Act. Further, the City Council of the City of Mount

Pearl shares these concerns and has petitioned the Supreme Court of Newfoundland

to rule that Bill 50 is ultra vires and should be declared invalid.

Additionally, an abnormal measure of public reaction has

clearly shown that an overwhelming majority of the residents of the region

disagree with the provisions of Bill 50. An amendment to Bill 50 which would

have provided an opportunity for the people to exercise their democratic rights

by way of a plebiscite was defeated by the Government majority in the House,

therefore denying the people this opportunity to be heard.

I am particularly concerned that

section 10 (3) of Bill 50,

confers on the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, abnormal powers over

municipalities which are clearly contrary to accepted democratic principles and

contrary to the objectives of the Commonwealth Heads of Government, who at their

mid-October meeting in Zimbabwe, re-affirmed the 1971 Singapore Declaration

which included and I quote: 'Inalienable right to participate by means of free

and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she

lives.' Accordingly, I beseech Your Honour to refuse Royal Assent on behalf of

Her Majesty, in the name of Her loyal subjects.

Mr. Speaker, I table that letter for the benefit of the House

of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual measure

MR. NOEL: Maybe Mount Pearl (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am not aware that it has happened before,

there may have been one or two other occasions but I doubt it very much. The

President of Treasury Board feels that there probably was not, but it is the

final avenue open to the House of Assembly, when an injustice is being forced

through the House of Assembly. His Honour is the Queen's representative, His

Honour is the representative of the Commonwealth and Protector of Democratic

Principles, Mr. Speaker -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not interrupt.

MR. WINDSOR: - and this is the final appeal available to

us and I have taken that action this morning. So with those few words, Mr.

Speaker, I will now take my seat. Let me simply assure this Government that this

day is not the end of this debate. This debate will live on. The City of Mount

Pearl will not stop, the hon. minister must know that well, we will continue to

fight in the courts - we will continue to fight in the courts. We will continue

to fight in this Chamber with every avenue that is available to us, Mr. Speaker,

and let me assure this Government that we will fight them in the next election

and we will fight them fiercely and they will pay, Mr. Speaker, the price for

their actions in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill "

An Act To Facilitate The Amalgamation Of

Certain Municipal Authorities And Municipal Services In Relation To The

Northeast Avalon Region." read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as

on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 50).

MR. BAKER: Order 20, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 20, second reading of a bill "An Act

Respecting Colleges of Applied Arts, Technology And Continuing Education", (Bill

No. 37). I think this is an adjourned debate, it has already been introduced, so

the second reading of Bill 37, Order No. 20, "An Act Respecting Colleges of

Applied Arts, Technology And Continuing Education".

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am not

sure how much time I have left. The clerk may - six minutes?

Six minutes. Mr. Speaker, last night we had a fairly good

discussion on Bill 37. Hopefully during the points made, Government had the

chance to perhaps have second thoughts about some of their plans. One of the

things we are seeing about this Government is that they make moves in haste.

Here we have the Minister of Education setting up a number of Colleges of

Applied Arts, Technology and Continuing Education, and as we said we have no

problem with this to a great degree, but it is the omissions that we worry

about. What is going to happen with the Fisher Institute? What is going to

happen to all the smaller colleges throughout the Province, colleges where

students in the small rural areas could attend to get their first year

university and pick up other courses. Are they going to continue? Are the

courses going to be cut back?

Just this morning, I had a call from an instructor at the

Marine Institute who is extremely worried about courses that are being dropped,

some of the courses that the field, the industry, is pressing to have

reinstated. There is a shortage of people with the courses involved and,

apparently, these courses are going to be dropped because of changes occurring

at the Marine Institute. So I wonder how much thought -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: That is factual. It comes from an instructor

at the Marine Institute, and it is a real concern. Once again, we have the great

addition to the debate by the former president of the NTA when he says: 'No,

that is not right.' Hansard will show that the member certainly has a record for

the number of times he says, That is not right, that is not correct. And, as

time goes by, somebody could look at the member and say: That was right, that

was correct.

Being a junior minister in Cabinet, he has not been told very

much, and maybe, with his background in teaching, he should be a lot more

concerned about what is going on with the people who were away from him. When he

was out there working in the trenches for x number of years as a teacher, and as

the President of the NTA, he was there plodding away, hand in hand with the

people in the field, and you had the two scholars hoarded away at university -

the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Finance - in there for centuries,

I suppose, completely and utterly out of touch with what is going on, and all of

a sudden they come into elected life and they want to change everything. But are

they changing everything to coincide with the needs of today? No, they are

changing everything to coincide with the theories that they spouted forty years

ago when they were then senior members in the faculty of education.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have some real concerns about the haste

in which the minister is moving, and the lack of planning in the overall

educational program in the Province. This morning, we saw a combination of

efforts of the two ministers who sit so closely there together. They are

inseparable, they have been for years. But the statement made by the Minister of

Finance, this morning, about the elimination of school tax, as you delve into

the statement - and it certainly has an effect on the financing of education, in

case somebody is wondering about relevancy - as you look at the abolition of

school tax, from then on it is extremely vague how the minister is going to

address making up the funding. He says there will be nobody with any less money

than they had last year. That is not the aim. The aim is to make sure that they

have more money. He goes on to say, but without dating it, as they have been

doing for these last two-and-a-half years, that 'it is our aim to equalize.' Now

the big question there is, equalize to what? Does it mean to the top board in

the Province? If that is the case, that is great, but, then, on top of that, the

question is, as costs escalate over the next few years, is that amount of money

- over which the boards have no control now, absolutely no control - is that

amount of money going to continue to escalate? What the minister did not tell

the people of Newfoundland, who are now breathing a sigh of relief because they

heard school tax is abolished and we will not have to pay $100 to $130,

whatever, next year - unknown to them is that the minister must find some way

now, because he says he is not going to rush into tax reform because it is too

complicated for him to figure out. What the minister has not explained to them

is how he is going to come up with the $60 million that he is going to need to

offset the loss of $40 million in school tax revenue plus the amount of money

needed to equalize, a minimum of $60 million. Where is the Province going to get

$60 million? The answer is simple - where the Province gets all the rest of the

money, from the pockets of the taxpayers. So how are we going to get it from the

pocket of the taxpayers? - by taking off one tax and putting on another tax. So

the people out there who are now breathing a sigh of relief because they do not

have to pay the $125, will find that they are going to have to pay a lot more.

The unfortunate thing about it is there are a number of people out there who do

not have to pay school tax who will now, undoubtedly, have to end up making up

the lost money by paying taxes on their bread, milk, and everything else. Mr.

Speaker, it will be extremely interesting to see how the Minister of Education

and the Minister of Finance will get their heads together to come up with a

funding program for education that will make sure that the students in the field

benefit, that the boards are not left hung out to dry, that the local

authorities have some say in the expenditure of education, and that they are not

left to the whim of this or future governments in the Province. That is the real

concern, and I do not know if the members have addressed that in their long-term

plan; if they have, it will be extremely interesting to hear it down the road.

But, as we see here with the applied colleges, we see the minister, rushing full

steam ahead, dig out the old theories and dust them off, and full steam ahead,

not realizing at all the consequences and fallout that will occur.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just conclude by saying that I hope the minister, when

he responds, will assure that the smaller colleges will not be wiped out and,

with respect to students in rural Newfoundland, in particular, that their future

in the Province and their right to education will be looked after as he moves

full steam ahead.

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

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

I want to have a few words on this important bill dealing

with the structure of community colleges throughout the Province. It was

interesting to hear the minister, last night, in his introductory remarks on the

bill, and my colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes who, being a former Education

Minister, as well, has a good grasp of the issue; because, when he was Minister

of Education, I happened to be minister responsible for post-secondary education

in the Province.

When we were in Government, we were quite proud to establish

the community college system in the Province. We thought it was a major step

forward in education and we still do. We knew when we put the community college

system together initially that like anything else there would need to be

furthering restructuring and further reorganization of the system.

Some of the things we have witnessed the minister do since he

became Minister of Education has not pleased some of us, particularly in the

area of the Province where I come from, where we have a campus of Eastern

Community College at Burin, the Burin campus, where the headquarters of Eastern

Community College was established at Salt Pond. The other campuses at that time

were Clarenville and Bonavista, a three-campus community college system.

We had established a full-fledged headquarters for Eastern

Community College at Salt Pond. Of course, what did the minister and the Cabinet

do? They decided they would relocate the headquarters of Eastern Community

College to Clarenville. And I said at the time when Government decided to do

that, that if it was going to improve the educational value for students

serviced by Eastern Community College, I would have had no problem with it

whatsoever. I would have had no problem with it if there had been some

educational value to the move that was being undertaken by the minister. But

what he was doing was taking the headquarters of Eastern Community College from

Salt Pond, a well-established, efficient headquarters, and putting it in

Clarenville. What he did, in essence, was cost the Government and the Board of

Governors of Eastern Community College money for nothing. At a time when we find

dollars in the Province very tight, particularly educational dollars, I thought

that it was an unnecessary expenditure of scare dollars. And I still consider

that it was a waste of educational dollars to relocate a well-established

headquarters from one campus to another with no educational benefit whatsoever

to the students and the people in the area that that community college system

serviced. I know the Member for Carbonear had some problems, as well, with his

headquarters established at Carbonear.

MR. TOBIN: He did nothing and said nothing.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, he might not have said anything but

he is not too happy about it. I want to go on record and say to the minister

that I still think that was a bad move. I still think it was a very bad move and

an unwise expenditure of dollars.

Now, with the reorganization of the community college system,

I guess I have to say to the minister that for most intents and purposes it is a

positive move. It is a positive move, for the most part. Like I said, in doing

so, I think he spent some dollars that he should not have spent, that the boards

of governors of these community colleges could have used more wisely than in

sending a bunch of people down the highway from Salt Pond to Clarenville; had to

rent more space - had a lease on office space in Salt Pond for five years - had

to go down to Clarenville, re-establish, enter into new lease-rental

arrangements. It was very unnecessary and I think it was politically motivated,

I say to the minister, with all due respect. I think he was under great pressure

from colleagues opposite who represent some of the districts that - in Bonavista

and Clarenville. I think that is the only reason it happened, I say to the

minister.

If the next government were of the same mentality as this

one, then we would see, after the next election, all of them being moved back

down to Salt Pond again. So the poor people would be sick and tired - they would

probably go up and down the Burin Peninsula highway as many times I do, I say to

the minister. Because, you see, once they are well-established now in

Clarenville, there will be no educational value in moving them back to Salt

Pond, any more than there was in moving them in the opposite direction. So I

think it was an unwise move by the minister and he should not have given in, I

say to him, to members opposite who pressured him to relocate that community

college from the Burin Peninsula to Clarenville.

I am surprised the minister did it. But, then, when I look at

what he did last night, when he introduced the amendments to the University Act,

incorporating the Marine Institute, that was a result of direct pressure from

his officials in his department, as I told him last night. They had the same

notes written for me when I was minister, but I told them to file the notes in

the inactive file. Put them in the inactive file. But the minister was pressured

by his officials in gobbling up the Marine Institute and putting it in with the

University, the same way he has done now, with this Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did not stand firm.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, he did not stand firm.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I stood firm. Oh yes, I told the

officials who was the boss, who was running the department. That was the

difference between me and this minister. That is the difference really with this

Government. That is why they are getting into so much trouble. It is because the

elected representatives sent here by the people are not governing the Province,

I say to the Minister of Finance. That is the reason! You were sent here to

govern, you were elected to come here and govern this Province, and you are not

doing it. You have bureaucrats over there building up their own little empires

that would put in all kinds of recommendations to the minister and give him all

the reasons why this is better than what is, and why you should do this, Mr.

Minister.

But early in your tenure as a minister, you have to lay the

conditions down to the officials and let them know that you are the boss - not

that you don't want good advice, because that is what you are paying them for.

But you always have to be careful of those people and particularly the people in

the executive ranks of the departments, I say to the Minister of Education.

MR. NOEL: Down with bureaucrats!

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not say 'down with bureaucrats.' Down

with too many bureaucrats, I say to the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. TOBIN: Don't blame it on the bureaucrats!

MR. MATTHEWS: So you have to govern.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) criticize bureaucrats!

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, when they need to be criticized I

criticize bureaucrats, the same way as I criticize ministers when they deserve

to be criticized, the same way as I will criticize colleagues when they deserve

to be criticized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the same way. If they need to be

criticized, I will criticize them. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, I have great

difficulty in finding any reason to criticize any of my colleagues. I find it

very difficult. But Members opposite, they have to govern, that is what they

were sent here for, to govern.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I did not say anything about him last

night. The member, last night, was out looking after his district and trying to

get the Marystown Shipyard re-established, I say to members opposite, with the

new company, a facility that this Government let go down to forty workers from

MR. TOBIN: Twenty.

MR. MATTHEWS: Twenty, now - six hundred, two-and-a-half

years ago, down to twenty workers, I say to members opposite. That is when this

member was in the government. Six hundred workers! Today he has twenty up in the

Marystown Shipyard, so is it any wonder he was out last night meeting with the

new Norwegian company trying to get some benefits?

Getting back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose it is

somewhat related that we are talking about the community college system and the

Marystown Shipyard, and technology transfer, and whatever else is incorporated

in the community college system, because with the training now that these

workers are going to have to undergo - about 150 of them are going to be

expected to go off to Norway to be trained, to get ready for work that hopefully

the new company will get - I am sure there will be an involvement by Eastern

Community College, because there has been a great working relationship between

Eastern Community College and the Marystown Shipyard. There has been. That is

one thing that we have been fortunate with. I have to say this, in the area of

the Province that I come from, that the Eastern Community College, in particular

the Burin campus, has been a very, very aggressive-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) education and everything.

MR. MATTHEWS: Everything. They have moved out into the

communities on the Burin Peninsula. They are doing extremely good work -

extremely good work.

MR. TOBIN: Thanks to Ray Kavanagh.

MR. MATTHEWS: Really, I say to the minister that I am

rather pleased that Dr. Marsh has moved into the Department of Education as

assistant Deputy Minister, but-

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a bureaucrat. (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: He is a very good bureaucrat, I say to the

Minister of Finance, a very good bureaucrat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I did not say they were all that way. I

am sure Dr. Marsh will give very good advice to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sure he will.

What I was saying is that I was rather pleased, and I

congratulated Dr. Marsh when he got the appointment, but I was somewhat

saddened, or had a little bit of mixed emotion in a sort of way, when I knew

that he would be leaving as president of Eastern Community College, because I

happened to be minister when he was about to be appointed there. He did a

fantastic job, an excellent job -

AN HON. MEMBER: One of the best.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, one of the best in the system, but

what I was saying is that that tied into the Burin Peninsula area with the

Marystown Shipyard, that we have received some wonderful benefits from Eastern

Community College, in particular Burin campus. My colleague from Burin -

Placentia West mentioned Mr. Kavanagh, the principal of the Burin campus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes he is, and Dr. Marsh and Mr. Kavanagh

work very well together. If you look at the enrolment at the Burin campus - I

suppose the minister would have a better grip on the enrolment in the community

college systems than I have - but I would say to the minister that my guess is

that the Burin campus probably has one of the largest or highest enrolments of

all the campuses in the community college system, so it has done very well,

fulfilling a great purpose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well that is another thing that I am

pleased the minister brought up, because I happened to announce first year

university courses for the Burin campus of Eastern Community College when I was

minister of post-secondary education. I was quite relieved when the minister

became minister that he did not cancel that, Mr. Speaker. He continued with it,

but it has gone very well. It has gone very, very well.

I visited there when students have been doing their courses.

I have students from my own communities, even the community across the street

where I live I have one or two students who are doing first year at Eastern

Community College, Burin campus, and they find it extremely good, I say to the

minister. At first there was some apprehension. At first a lot of the young

students I know from Fortune where I live, when I asked them, what are you going

to do? Are you going to university? Are you going to Burin campus, or St.

John's? A lot of them wanted to go to St. John's for some reason. They thought,

I guess, it was better and bigger, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: They were good reasons.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, yes, it probably was for the right

reason in their mind at the time, but I say to the Member for Pleasantville that

now by far the majority, because of the reputation that has been established in

the first year courses at Burin campus, that by far the majority now go to

Burin.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the grades are (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: - and the grades are better. They are

better, I believe, I say to the minister. Of course, the convenience of going to

Salt Pond - they can drive, and go back at night and stay with their parents, or

they can stay at the campus, but most of them drive back and forth - it reduces

the cost on their parents and them. So that is another positive aspect to

getting this stuff out and about the Province.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, I think it has been a very positive

move, the community college system in the Province. Like I said, I have a few

concerns but they are more localized, I say to the minister, pertaining to the

headquarters and relocation; but overall I think this bill is a positive bill,

and I commend the minister for bringing it forward.

MR. WINSOR: The first good thing he has done since he has

been a minister.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addressing this bill, I will focus my remarks on the

effects of this legislative measure on post-secondary education in Western

Newfoundland. This bill has the effect of downgrading post-secondary education

in Western Newfoundland by dispensing with the autonomy of Fisher Institute of

Applied Arts and Technology which is located in Corner Brook, and subordinating

the present Fisher Institute to Western Community College. In keeping with the

Government's penchant for amalgamating and merging, this measure brings together

the Fisher Institute of Applied Arts and Technology with Western Community

College under headquarters at Stephenville.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said when I have spoken about

municipal amalgamation, amalgamation in and of itself may be good or it may be

bad, it is necessary to evaluate each individual proposal. In positive

instances, amalgamation has the result of harmonizing, of bringing about

economies of scale, of reducing the unit cost of operating, of eliminating

duplications and of avoiding conflicts. There are examples where this Government

and previous Governments have presided over amalgamations where there have been

beneficial results.

However, amalgamation may be negative. Bigger is not always

better. Centralizing and urbanizing is not always better. Often, in our

Province, with our preponderance of rural population, centralization has

negative consequences. Now, Mr. Speaker, in this particular instance of the

Government moving to combine Fisher Institute with Western Community College,

although the minister has used glib platitudes such as the three education Es -

equality, excellence and efficiency - and although he has talked about 'more

scholar for the dollar', and although he says 'this is all calculated to

streamline and rationalize', he has not provided any specifics.

He went through what I consider to be a sham consultative

exercise more than a year ago - he published a White Paper on post-secondary

education in February 1990. Now, Mr. Speaker, some parts of that Paper had some

merit but the particular

section dealing with the Government's thinking about

'revising institutional structures in Corner Brook,' was sadly deficient. After

a very short

preamble, the document jumped to a conclusion which amounted to a

non sequitur. The document jumped from the statement that: the existence of both

Western and Fisher within this city - meaning Corner Brook - cannot be justified

when their overall mandates are similar.... to the conclusion: therefore

Government plans to create one community college for the entire West Coast of

the Province, Fisher will become the Corner Brook campus of the new college.

That was it.

In the months that followed, when the minister was inviting

citizens to respond to the White Paper, there was quite a bit of response from

organizations, agencies and individuals in Western Newfoundland. Several

important agencies rejected the White Paper proposal of subordinating Fisher

Institute to Western Community College through a merger. There were formal

representations made by municipalities, chambers of commerce, by individuals, by

the Fisher Institute Board of Governors, faculty and staff. Many of these

submissions showed considerable care and concern, indicated thoughtful analysis

and put forward constructive reflections.

The Fisher Institute submission addressed the concern with

administrative cost. The Minister, although never clearly stating how combining

Fisher with Western would result in economies of scale, intimated that the

merger would result in the elimination of some administrative jobs. The

statistics indicate that the spending on administrative positions as a

proportion of the overall salary and operating budgets at both Fisher and

Western are considerably below the Ontario community colleges model. But the

figures also show that the spending is proportionately lowest at Fisher

Institute. That reality does not seem to be reflected in the Government's

decision, and the Government has craftily avoided ever spelling out specifics

for people in Western Newfoundland, for people involved in post-secondary

education, for elected representatives at the municipal and Provincial levels,

and for the citizens at large.

After the White Paper consultation sham in October of 1990

the Minister of Education announced that the Government was going to proceed to

implement the proposals in the White Paper. As I mentioned last night, the

legislation now before the House reflects that resolve with the exception of

what the Government is doing to the Marine Institute. But that was the subject

of last night's debate. In the case of Fisher Institute the minister indicated

back in October of 1990 that the Government would be proceeding to implement the

White Paper idea. He did not provide any more rationale than the White Paper had

laid out. All he gave once again were glib platitudes.

Now at that point in the debate a group of municipalities in

the Bay of Islands - Humber Valley region, called the Great Humber Joint

Council, had been seeking a meeting in the area with the minister. Months had

passed since their first request to the minister and finally after the political

heat was turned up the minister agreed to come to Corner Brook for a meeting.

Most people here will remember the infamous meeting at Corner Brook City Hall.

The Member for Humber West, the Minister of Education, and the Mayor of Corner

Brook had a meeting with representatives of area organizations supposedly to

explain the Government's decision.

I was barred from that meeting. I was blocked at the front

door of Corner Brook City Hall by a uniformed municipal police officer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the whole story (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I am telling the whole story, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not half a story.

MS. VERGE: I am telling the whole story as I know it, Mr.

Speaker. I tried to go to that meeting one October night last year and I was

blocked at the front door of Corner Brook City Hall by a uniformed municipal

police officer. I made a second attempt to get into that meeting later that

evening by specifically asking the police officer to go upstairs to the meeting

and let the mayor know that I was downstairs trying to get in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is behaving in a

very defensive way, as well he should. The question I asked after being blocked

from that meeting was: what is the Government trying to hide? Why are they

afraid to subject their decision to combine Fisher Institute with Western

Community College and in doing so to downgrade Fisher Institute and to

shortchange education in Western Newfoundland to the light of public scrutiny?

Mr. Speaker, there are still many doubts, concerns, fears and unanswered

questions in the minds of people in Western Newfoundland, including the

administrators, faculty, staff and students at post-secondary education

institutions in Western Newfoundland.

Let's go back to the minister's platitudes about streamlining

and rationalization. It is not good enough to hide behind these buzzwords. The

minister has to demonstrate through facts and figures, by referring to the

actual instance, how there are going to be economies of scale from this merger,

and how the cause of educational quality is going to be enhanced. The minister

has totally failed to do this. What the Government is doing is combining within

one legal entity an institute located in Corner Brook - with physical facilities

concentrated on O'Connell Drive in Corner Brook, which is now delivering

programs to 650 full-time students - with a community college concentrated in

Stephenville but with campuses in three or four other places. In addition to

Stephenville, Stephenville Crossing, Port aux Basques, until - for a couple of

years in between - Corner Brook and St. Anthony.

Now the possibilities for economies of scale - given the

distances separating these campuses, these educational buildings - I would

suggest are minimal. How is it possible to achieve economies of scale in serving

students located more than sixty miles from each other, in the one case centred

and concentrated on O'Connell Drive in Corner Brook, and in the other case

concentrated in Stephenville?

I mentioned that some of the people who responded to the

White Paper showed a willingness to examine some modification or a change. The

Fisher Institute Board of Governors' submission suggested that Government,

instead of pursuing the option of subordinating Fisher to Western and putting it

under a headquarters in Stephenville, sixty miles away, instead look at the idea

of facilitating linkages and sharing between Fisher Institute of Applied Arts

and Technology on O'Connell Drive in Corner Brook with Grenfell College of

Memorial University, located a very short distance away on University Drive in

Corner Brook. Less than a half mile away, perhaps only a quarter of a mile away.

Apparently there are many opportunities for sharing

facilities for academic purposes - classrooms, libraries, labs - and also

student residential accommodation facilities, dining and recreational

facilities. Disappointingly the Government did not even pause to think through

that alternative, to address it or respond to it. I can only conclude that the

real motivation for this alteration in post-secondary education in Western

Newfoundland does not have to do with educational objectives but, instead, has

to do with petty, partisan political ends. I think education is far too

important to be tampered with in this narrow, destructive way.

Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about is the downgrading of

post-secondary education in Western Newfoundland. I am talking about the

shortchanging of the educational and economic needs of the Bay of Islands and

Humber Valley area, in particular. I am talking about the avoidance of the

exploration of an opportunity, instead, to facilitate linkages and sharing

between two post-secondary institutions in Corner Brook, very close to one

another, Fisher Institute of Applied Arts and Technology, and Grenfell College.

MR. BAKER: Grenfell College (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board

is saying Grenfell College is headed in a different direction. How, then, does

he rationalize what the Government is doing with the Marine Institute and

Memorial University in St. John's? Last night, he came over and had a private

conversation with me, which I think was quite sincere on his part, in which he

told me that he really believes that putting Marine Institute under the umbrella

of Memorial University, and expecting the University to deliver short,

skill-specific courses, training courses for the labour force requirements of

the fishing and other marine industries, is a positive move.

Well, how can he rationalize that on the one hand with an

outright rejection of the proposal put forward constructively by people in the

Corner Brook area of considering, of exploring, linking Fisher Institute with

Grenfell College? Fisher Institute has, for the past several years, been

concentrating on three-year and two-year high level technology diploma programs.

The Fisher Institute Board of Governors, since they have been in place, have

developed, with the assistance of a plan put together by consultants, some of

whom are now working with the Government's Economic Recovery Commission, to

establish at Fisher Institute a centre of excellence in forestry and

environmental technology and research.

Now, that orientation, I say to the members opposite, is

quite compatible with the present thrust of Grenfell College. I am not

suggesting a legal merger of the two. I am not suggesting that Grenfell College

take Fisher Institute under its wing, but what I am advocating is that the

Government explore the possibility of sharing of facilities. When you stop and

think about it, these are two facilities, within view of each other, both of

which have to provide for libraries, cafeteria and dining facilities and housing

needs for students, and both of which have classrooms and research facilities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education deserves a prize

for putting on a happy face in the midst of adversity and disaster. The minister

glibly smiles and mouths platitudes as education is falling down all around him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, oh, boy!

MS. VERGE: It was just a short four or five years ago

that the Provincial government reorganized non-university post-secondary

education by decentralizing it, by establishing autonomous institutes and

community colleges with, in each case, a board of governors and a president.

Those institutions had just been up and running and functioning well when the

Liberal 'real change' administration took office.

Mr. Speaker, they seem to have embarked on change for the

sake of change. They have upset well-functioning satisfactory institutions and

agencies. I have always been an advocate of reform and change when that is

demonstrably needed and justified. This Government did not pause to consider

properly the strengths and weaknesses of post-secondary education. Instead,

after a few months in office, it put out this White Paper, which is really only

a superficial examination of post-secondary education structures and programs.

There is a philosophy which sounds wonderful. It uses the words of motherhood

and apple pie. It uses the slogans and sayings so often repeated by the

minister. I assume these are buzz words that developed in the United States

twenty years ago or so, which the minister is using here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, today.

But, all of this is masking a terrible deterioration in the

functioning of our post-secondary education institutions. Ironically, this is

happening at a time when more and more people are recognizing that education is

the key to our economic development. More and more people are seeing that

Newfoundland and Labrador is but a small part of a world that is becoming

smaller and smaller, of a Province that increasingly is having to compete in the

fishery, in the newsprint industry, in the mining industry, in knowledge

industries, with people, not only next door in Nova Scotia, but in every

continent.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the move to combine Fisher and

Western is being done without a rationale, without documentation to support the

claims of streamlining and rationalization, without the provision of any

specifics about how economies of scale will result. On the one hand, the

minister insinuates that this combination is going to streamline a top-heavy

administration but, yet, when he is pressed for specifics, when he asked by

people in Corner Brook, he says, 'Oh, no, don't worry, you are not going to lose

here in Corner Brook.' When he is asked in Stephenville, he says, 'Oh, not to

worry, you will have a bigger and better headquarters.' This is a minister who

smiles through all this turbulence and tries to be all things to all people.

Many of us would prefer to see a minister who demonstrates a realistic appraisal

of what is happening, and who will indicate honestly what is happening that is

positive, but equally, who will admit the very genuine and real deficiencies.

Let me deal with some specifics of this bill. I have

mentioned that Fisher Institute of Applied Arts and Technology, in the few short

years that it has been an autonomous institution with a board of governors, has

developed a plan to concentrate in certain areas of technology and research.

This bill, from what I have seen, makes no reference of a research mandate for

any of these new combined, amalgamated, re-organized community colleges.

Mr. Speaker, in Clause 3, the purpose of the Act is set out.

There are five subclauses which have to do with the economy, with employers and

with students.

Then we go on to Clause 5, Mr. Speaker, which outlines the

mandate of colleges. Now, the mandate listed includes: Operating facilities, in

order to meet the needs of the persons in the region; providing programs leading

to a certificate or diploma from the college; more about courses and programs;

identifying the educational needs of persons in the region; identifying

education and training requirements of the labour market of the Province; and

more about courses.

I do not see anything in this, Mr. Speaker, to authorize the

new enlarged, merged, streamlined, rationalized community colleges, under the

banner of the three Es, from carrying out research. Now, Mr. Speaker, is this an

omission of the minister and his officials or is this a deliberate change to

strip Fisher Institute, to strip the future branch of the Western Community

College in Corner Brook from pursuing its objectives of carrying out research?

If it is an omission, Mr. Speaker, I would call on the minister to move an

appropriate addition to the bill.

MR. GOVER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bonavista South,

the new acting Minister of Justice, I suppose, at the prompting of the former

Minister of Justice, is asking how did it get the name Fisher. Mr. Speaker, for

those who are not aware, that is a snide remark directed at me.

MR. GOVER: That was an innocent question.

MS. VERGE: No, it is not an innocent question. I would

like to take this occasion to explain, because I am afraid that is behind the

Government's move to remove the autonomy of Fisher Institute and downgrade

education in Corner brook. I think it all comes down to the small-mindedness

that can't tolerate an institution carrying a name which happens to be my family

name.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to be one of hundreds of descendants of

a pioneer family of the Humber Valley and Corner Brook by the name of Fisher. A

couple by the name of Christopher and Janet Fisher came to that area more than

100 years ago to engage in logging. They owned and operated a sawmill there. Mr.

Speaker, because of our patriarchal naming system, I ended up being born with

the name Fisher. Hundreds of other descendants, one of whom is now married to

the Executive Assistant of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and

another of whom is the Executive Assistant of the Minister of Health, have

different surnames. There are hundreds of us in the Province who are descended

from that pioneer family.

Mr. Speaker, the Smallwood Administration named the former

sanatorium in Corner Brook after that pioneer settler. In the mid-1980s, when

the Government was making the former Corner Brook District Vocational School a

college and moving to decentralize it, there was a public exercise of choosing a

name. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Member for Bonavista South, the Acting

Minister of Justice, if he is so interested in this, that he research it by

referring to the old newspapers. What he will find is that there was a citizen's

petition in Corner Brook advocating that the name be for the pioneer family, for

the pioneer logger and sawmill owner, Christopher Fisher and, in particular, for

one of his sons, Dr. Franklin Fisher, who was a medical doctor in the Bay of

Islands in the early part of this century. The citizen who initiated the

petition is an individual I know only slightly, who felt that if Grenfell

College -

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I will finish my

explanation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let her finish up, sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MS. VERGE: Well, too bad, Mr. Speaker. I guess some of

the members opposite are happier without knowing the truth, and are more content

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - relishing in their -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. members time has

elapsed.

MS. VERGE: - partisan vindictiveness -

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: An historic day, this is.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, and that is the way I will start it,

as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. What this bill does is it brings back - not

only brings back and makes improvements to, but it gives back and gives to the

colleges of the Province, a proper mandate, a wide open mandate to deal with

community education and education in this Province. What it does is it enhances

the education system in this Province, the post-secondary side, it does not

downgrade at all. It is a big improvement, as a matter of fact, and I believe it

is a bold move and a big move for this Province.

When I hear the Member for Humber East talking about

downgrading Fisher in Corner Brook, I have to wonder if that is being said for

just partisan political purposes, or because she really means it about

education; the Fisher Institute, the Western Community College in Stephenville,

and campuses in St. Anthony and Port aux Basques, for example, on the West

Coast. That institution - the Western Community College - has been one of the

longest-standing institutions in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact,

it is one of the first community colleges in Canada, and one of the leaders in

programs, and has been for many years.

The former Government, under its direction, changed and

restructured education a few years ago. When they changed it, Mr. Speaker, they

took the mandate of the colleges' programs from three years down to one year,

and they said: You are only allowed to develop one-year programs from now on.

So, in essence, it very much so struck down their mandate of being able to

establish programs and then build on those programs, in those regions, and this

was for all of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

So, what they did was they limited the mandates. What we have

done is enhanced the mandates, and we have also said we are going to try to put

some organization into it by also looking at and evaluating transfer of credit,

which would allow for people who take courses in colleges to be able to transfer

credit to the universities or other institutions in the Province which, right

now, you cannot do. You could not do it before, and now we are going to try to

change that, which makes sense. Because you had students taking one year of

community college and then going to university or going to an institute and

finding that none of their courses were any good to them, which was a waste of

money for them and a waste of the system. So we are going to organize the system

and do it right. I commend the minister for his initiative. I commend the

Department of Education for coming forward with this bill, and for the changes

that it will bring. It makes sense to the system.

When the Member for Humber East speaks about Corner Brook -

before this bill, these changes, Western Community College was renting space in

Corner Brook, looking for classrooms and trying to establish programs; Fisher

was in there offering programs, some of them very similar, and then we had the

regional college in Corner Brook, plus you have a private training institution

in Corner Brook. So you had all kinds of competition with programs that were not

even rationalized, and with no organization to them. What we are saying is that

we are putting some organization in. We also had Western College and Fisher both

competing for funds to set up programs, to do different things and to do some of

the same things, and we are not organized with proper mandate. Now, we have a

fully re-organized and structured system which allows a set of goals for the

Fisher campus, the Stephenville campus, the Port aux Basques campus, and so on.

I mean, when the Member for Humber East talks about research

- there is no mention of research in this bill, she says. Well, I have to

correct her because there is. As a matter of fact,

section 18 (

i) it 'provides

facilities and grants, enters into agreements for research and prescribes the

therefore, Fisher can easily go out as a campus and get research grants and do

want they want. As a matter of fact, some of the reports that I have heard, and

I have talked to a number of people both at Western and at Fisher, this is going

to be a time for them, now, to organize, see their mandate, and go clearly

ahead, so that they do not go clashing and worrying about what Fisher is doing,

what they are doing at Western, are we doing the same program, do we have to

compete with the other crowd, and have everybody nervous about education. That

is going to end. We are going to have one organization to deal with that, and I

believe with the proper mandate, an expanded mandate. Many people have said, why

should one campus, Fisher Institute, be allowed to develop a three year program

and Western Community College, or Central Community College, not be allowed to

develop their three year programs, which they were allowed to do up until the

former Government changed it. Why did they change it? That is another question.

When they set up the institute on the West Coast why did they not set it up in

Stephenville, for example? Here was Stephenville with Western Community College

with a big campus, and all kinds of available facilities, had been there for

twenty years and been committed, by the way, from the previous Government back

in the mid 70s for an institute status for Stephenville, and they never even

looked at it. They did another one and set it up in Corner Brook. We in

Stephenville said, what can we do? We will go and build a college as best we

can. They did, and it has been very