May 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 47

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Before going on to our regular

business, I would like, on behalf of hon. members, to welcome to the House of

Assembly today fifteen Grade V students from Purchase Academy, Botwood,

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Bruce Critch, and parents, Bonnie Critch and

Annie Sacrey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to make a final comment on a

ruling of yesterday, with respect to a matter raised by the Member for Kilbride,

seeking my ruling re a modification he had made to a badge, on which I had ruled

yesterday. Substantially, I tell the Member, in the House, the ruling I made

yesterday may equally apply here, because it is the same badge, carrying the

same message, the same symbolism, the change being that a piece of masking tape

is placed over one word, with another word being substituted. It is basically,

as I said, the same badge, carrying the same symbolism, and if the Chair were to

rule that the hon. Member were allowed to wear that, I think the Chair would not

be making a very wise decision, but one that would be creating further disorder.

I say, that both slogans are offensive and disrespectful to a

member of this House, and the British Parliamentary system is founded upon the

principle of dignity and respect, dignity and respect attached to the Office of

Premier, attached to the Leader of the Opposition, attached to the Chair, and,

indeed, attached to all hon. members. Once that dignity and respect is lost,

then we are into a situation of disorder and chaos. It is again a matter of

trying to do, through the backdoor, what one is not allowed to do through the

front door.

So, I rule again, with respect to this matter, that it is out

of order and that the badge, in its modified form, ought not to be worn or

displayed.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling and I

will not wear that badge on my lapel, either with `lied' or `cried' on it, but,

Mr. Speaker, the Premier might know that the badge will not be far away.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to revisit an issue that was very

prevalent a week or so ago and, in fact, was recently raised, I think, just the

night before last on NTV's First Edition newscast, so it is worthy of

revisiting, I think. It is a question to the President of Treasury Board,

concerning the nature of the pre-Budget talks that he and the Premier held with

leaders of the public sector unions.

On March 12, the Minister said: Within two weeks of the

budget he and the Premier - and this is virtually a quote - talked to the four

major unions, indicating that we were looking at choices, and indicating what

those choices were. He went on to say: It was within a week of the budget, in

other words a week after the meeting with the union leaders, that the final

decision was made in terms of the wage freeze, and how that would take place.

I want to ask the President of Treasury Board, does his

statement of March 12 still accurately reflect the content of the meeting that

he held with the union leaders, and does it accurately reflect the sequence of

events in relation to Cabinet's decision to freeze wages?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with the exception that

there were two meetings, not one. The first meeting was not a meeting with

everybody together, it was a meeting held separately with the union leaders, and

the second meeting was a joint meeting of all unions, held at the request of the

unions.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything

inaccurate in what I have said. I did not indicate otherwise, I do not believe.

Anyway, a supplementary: Can I then ask him, would he agree,

then, that it is clear that the description of that meeting, from one of the

leaders, Mr. Fraser March, was similar to the description given by the Minister

in the House on March 12, when Mr. March, himself, said, in relation to the wage

freeze, and I quote - this is a quote from The Evening Telegram, May 1 - "We

were asked the question, what would happen if they, the Government, touched the

collective agreements. We told them, it would be a declaration of war on the

labour movement." Is that the context in which the freeze option was raised with

the unions, is what I want to ask the Minister, and is that the response that

the President of Treasury Board and the Premier received from the unions?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, what the hon.

Member read out is not what I have said happened, and not what the Premier said

happened. So the statement by Mr. March, that I understand the hon. gentleman

referred to, is an incomplete statement. Mr. March is trying to make it appear

as if the conversation with the unions was much more general than it actually

was. The conversation with the unions was very, very specific, and not in the

general terms that Mr. March describes.

So, the answer to his question is, that that description is

not similar to the description that both the Premier and I have given, and is

not an accurate representation of what happened at the meetings.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary. I mean,

this is getting confusing again. My first question to the Minister was, if he

would confirm that what he said on March 12 - and here is what he said, "Within

two weeks of the Budget, he and the Premier talked to the major unions,

indicating we were looking at choices and indicating what those choices were. It

was within a week of the budget, in other words a week after meeting with union

leaders, that the decision was made on a wage freeze." Now, is that the case or

is it not the case? Is what he said on March 12 still accurate, or is it not

accurate?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot account for the Opposition House Leader's confusion.

He is confused quite a lot of the time. We have gone over what we said at the

meeting many times in this House, and the hon. Member can look it up in Hansard.

The information we gave the unions was this: That we had done, in terms of

changes to the Public Service of the Province, as much as we felt we could do.

We were still short a lot of money. We were very specific as to the options, and

the options that we were looking at were these: A wage freeze, and we even

discussed specifics of how that could be done and the number of ways it could be

done; and the other option was the layoff of another, approximately, 3500 public

employees, over and above what we had already planned to do. These were the

options that we were considering, and we were very specific.

The statement by Mr. March is an attempt to give the

impression that Government was not straightforward, honest, and forthcoming with

the union leadership. That is the purpose of the statement by Mr. March. I would

reiterate in the House, at this time, Mr. Speaker, that that is entirely

incorrect. We were totally honest, straightforward, and up-front with the union

leadership, all the way through the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have a question for the Premier, but, in his absence, I

will refer it to the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in

his speech to the St. John's Rotary Club on April 31, gave a far different

version, I think at least, of what happened at the meeting between the unions

and Treasury Board, a different version than either Fraser March gave, or the

President of Treasury Board gave this House some time ago. Did I say Premier

March? Hopefully, no!

Mr. Speaker, this is what the Premier said - and the

President of Treasury Board can correct me, but this is what he is quoted as

saying, I was not at the meeting: the unions were told in detail what the

Government was planning to do, with specific reference to the wage rollback. He

said: union leaders were told of the impending wage freeze, the clear meaning of

the Premier's statement, being that the union leaders were told that the wage

rollback was a certainty, not a possibility.

Mr. Speaker, in the Premier's own words, I say, who is lying

to whom? If Mr. March lied about the meeting to his union members, as the

Premier clearly implies, did the President of Treasury Board also lie to this

House on March 12, and again today?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, they are grasping at straws,

going around picking out partial quotes and everything else, trying to twist

them and trying to assume that this means one thing, and something else means

something else.

In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, in many statements in

this House we have described exactly what happened during these two meetings,

and there was no conflict nor difference of opinion. The unions were told the

options, and the options were explained to them. We had a choice of either, in

our view, the wage freeze plus the retroactivity on the pay equity disappearing,

or the layoff of another 3500 public employees, and the unions well knew the

options. They were asked if they had any comments, any input, or any other

suggestions that could be made, and there were none forthcoming.

As a matter of fact, I probably suggested one or two in the

discussions myself, that we had considered but had ruled out. So, Mr. Speaker,

they were well aware of exactly the options Government was considering. Well

aware!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, some of the problem that we

are having -

MR. SIMMS: Hanging loose (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Opposition House Leader to please restrain

himself. I am trying to give the floor to one of his colleagues, and I find it

difficult.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we have is, we know there

were several statements made in the House of Assembly, particularly by the

President of Treasury Board, and we know there were statements made outside the

House of Assembly by the Premier, which contradict each other, Mr. Speaker. One

said there were general discussions, and the Premier, in particular, said there

were detailed discussions. The Premier said, at the Rotary Club, that there were

detailed discussions, not possibilities -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride is on a supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, maybe the President of

Treasury Board will clear up the confusion about what is being said in the

House, and what the Premier is saying outside the House. Would he tell us when

the decision was made to roll back the wages? Was it approximately one week

after he met with the union leaders?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we have some more confusion. We

have a very confused Opposition these days, I understand, by their own

admission.

Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection, at this point, that the

final decision was made on the weekend before the Budget was actually introduced

into the House. So, I believe it was a Thursday that the Budget was introduced.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BAKER: So, it was sometime on that weekend. That is

my recollection of when the final decision was made. Up to that point, no

decision had been made, and we were still considering both options, and willing

to listen to any suggestions that the union leadership had with regards to this

very serious situation.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that going back to last October we

asked for input from the union leadership of the Province and, with one

exception, did not receive any input.

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

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

Just a simple question to the President of Treasury Board: At

the meeting with the unions, did the Premier or the President of Treasury Board

tell the unions that there would be a wage freeze?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is

self-evident. I have just described that the decision was made on the weekend

before the Budget. There were no meetings with the union leaders from that

weekend to the Budget date. So, the answer is self-evident, the union leaders

were not told what the decision was. They were told simply that there were two

choices that Government was considering, and we would welcome any further input,

whether there were any other options we should consider. They knew, in detail,

what the two options were. It was not a general discussion, as Mr. March says,

where there were no details discussed. That is not the situation. We were very

specific in terms of the options that we were then considering.

The other point, Mr. Speaker, is that nobody is told of

decisions that are brought down in the Budget, ahead of time. These are

budgetary decisions that are released by the Minister of Finance in his budget.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, is the President of Treasury

Board now confirming that the Premier misled the St. John's Rotary Club in his

speech, and is he also confirming that the buttons and T-shirts and caps that

are going around this Province are actually the truth?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not confirming any such

nonsense, any such foolishness. The Member has had some fun in the last few

days, with his little bit of childishness, and I suppose we can excuse that for

a while. Everybody is due his few days of childishness.

Mr. Speaker, both the Premier and I have gone over that

process in this House many times. If the hon. Member wants to look back at

Hansard, to see what is on the record of this Province, if he wants to examine

the press statements, if he wants to examine the newscasts and so on, he should

do so, and he would discover that there is no -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have stood on a point of order. The noise level,

particularly to my left, is becoming rather bothersome to me. I remind hon.

members again about the swivel chairs. The Chair has done that, and members are

not supposed to have their backs to the Chair. I realize that it makes it very,

very easy for that. I ask hon. members, please, to remember that we are in

Question Period, the acoustics here are exceptionally good, and it makes it

difficult for the Chair to listen to everything that is going on.

Is the hon. Minister finished?

MR. BAKER: Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker. There is no

conflict between what I have said and what the Premier has said, concerning this

issue. The Premier and I have said exactly the same thing, because we have been

telling the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the President of Treasury Board. For

the first time in the history of collective bargaining in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, a Minister responsible for public sector bargaining

has been quoted in the press as saying: The unions have been lying through their

teeth since day one. Now, that statement is so provocative, it is so

destructive, that I have to ask the President of Treasury Board, is that

statement correct and did he, indeed, say that?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if you apply that to every action

of unions, since I have taken over, and since we started the collective

bargaining process, the answer is, no, that statement is not correct. If you

apply it in the context, that during a collective bargaining process things are

said to the press, that are sometimes not correct, then, in that context, the

answer is, yes.

MR. SIMMS: Can you give a straight answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have not recognized the hon. Member, simply because, the

minute the President of Treasury Board finished there was too much noise coming

from my right, and I think it is an appropriate time to read to hon. members a

very important rule. If hon. members prefer, I will read it after, but the noise

is becoming too, too much and I may have to do it during Question Period.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, again I would say to the

President of Treasury Board, that this is a direct quote: The unions have been

lying through their teeth since day one. Now, again I ask the Minister, did he

indeed say that. This statement comes days after the Premier's attack on union

leaders at his Rotary Club speech last Tuesday. Is this a deliberate attack to

discredit the public sector unions, and will the President of Treasury Board

immediately issue an apology to the public sector unions and try to get some

semblance of decent labour relations back on track?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could take ten or

fifteen minutes of Question Period, which I will not, to go over the whole

commentary that I made, concerning the bargaining process. Mr. Speaker, all I

can say is that from day one the statements that I have been making to the

press, and the descriptions of what has been going on, have been the absolute

truth. If, in fact, there were other statements at variance to what I have been

saying, then they have not been the truth, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Is the Minister concerned that the

Government's efforts to destroy the credibility of the unions, following as it

does on the heels of Bill 16, will destroy any possibility of rational and

reasonable collective bargaining? Should he not be trying to repair the damage

of Bill 16, instead of continuing with a strategy to destroy the unions in

Newfoundland?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, and I

reiterate at the beginning, if the hon. Member wishes to apply that statement he

quotes, to everything that happened in the collective bargaining process, the

answer was, that it was not correct.

Mr. Speaker, I have been very forthright in my descriptions

of everything that has happened in this process. I do not believe that being

forthright and honest will destroy the collective bargaining process. I believe

that, in the next number of months, there are some major issues that have to be

negotiated with the public service unions of this Province. I believe that these

issues, particularly the one involving the possible indexing of the public

service pension plan, these discussions will go on and we will reach

satisfactory conclusions to them. So, the short answer to the question, Mr.

Speaker, is that the bargaining will go on and progress will be made. But, Mr.

Speaker, I am not going to put up with statements that are incorrect concerning

the collective bargaining process. I can only say that I have been honest and

forthright with the people and the press, and I will continue to be so.

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

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: A supplementary to the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations.

Since the President of Treasury Board did, indeed, confirm

that he made these very, very provocative statements, could the Minister of

Labour tell me what she is doing to diffuse this potentially explosive issue,

and does she agree that the unions have been: lying through their teeth since

day one?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I am wondering who he is performing for this

morning, Mr. Speaker.

I find that the only time the critic seems to have anything

interesting to say is when someone up in the gallery is there watching him, and

he feels some pressure from his so-called constituency.

I was not present at the meetings to which the President of

Treasury Board refers, therefore, I can make no comments on them. I am confident

that Treasury Board and the leaders of the union movement will act in the best

interests of their members and we will act in the best interests of their

members and of our fiscal responsibility, as a Government, when we sit down to

do any kind of work regarding indexing of pensions, or whatever the topic might

be at the time. If there are hitches that come into the process, then my

Department is there with its usual mandate, to try to ease the situation through

the use of conciliation and so on. We will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker, as

we have in the past.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs. As the Minister knows, the process that is laid down in

the law, in The Municipalities Act, for amalgamation, before any amalgamation

can take place, indeed before the Minister, according to the law, is even

permitted to make a recommendation to Cabinet, there is, according to the law,

supposed to be a feasibility report on Government's proposal, not on somebody

else, but on what Government's proposal is, and there are supposed to be public

hearings.

Would the Minister agree that in order for this to be a real

process, and in order for it not to be a sham, that municipalities and citizens

participating in this must be placed in a position of reacting to specific

Government proposals?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we are carrying out the

requirements of the feasibility process to the letter. As a matter of fact, at

the end of the feasibility hearings and the feasibility process, which involves

some seventeen main points that have to be studied, heard debated, and so on, in

the public forum - hearings are only one part of the process - but, certainly,

towards the end of the hearings stage, I asked the four commissioners involved,

in the Northeast Avalon, if they would join together for the purpose of writing

a final commissioners' report that would deal with the three separate groupings

that were being looked at, and the difficulties, if you like, of examining

seventeen communities, all with adjacent boundaries, and arrive at a decision.

Having made that decision, of course, the Northeast Avalon

was looked at in that context. That was part of the feasibility process, clearly

stated publicly at the time, and then a decision and a recommendation was made

to me, as the Minister. Having examined it on a global basis, if you like, but

all seventeen communities, the feasibility process then requires the Minister to

examine those commissioners' reports, have dialogue with officials, consultants

or anybody else the Minister wishes to consult, and make a recommendation to

Government. Mr. Speaker, I have followed that to the letter.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the letter of the law requires

that the Government make a specific proposal and that there be feasibility

studies on that proposal.

Let me ask the Minister this: Was the supercity concept

proposed by the Government, was that given to his commissioners, and, did his

commissioners make a recommendation, on that concept, back to the Minister?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the word `supercity' has been

used in different ways by different groups. Some describe the supercity as being

all the lands east of Witless Bay and Holyrood, others describe it as being the

urban core, and others describe it as being a diminished urban core. There are

all sorts of descriptions for a supercity.

All I can tell the Leader of the Opposition is that the

commissioners examined all the options available; they were asked to do that.

Certainly, they were asked, at the end of the day, to do it, or towards to end

of the day. I asked them, as I said, to come together with the reports they were

working on separately. Three separate commissions started out. I said, `I want

you to come together and examine this as a group, now,' because it is very

difficult for three separate commissions to work in isolation, when we have

seventeen communities, all with adjacent boundaries. They did that. So, all

options, including three or four variations of a supercity, were examined by the

commissioners.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I should say to the Minister

that after you leave Witless Bay, 3600 kilometres later, you will hit Ireland?

Is that included in the supercity concept?

MR. SIMMS: East of Witless Bay.

MR. RIDEOUT: East of Witless Bay, the Minister says.

AN HON. MEMBER: A shining star from the East.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: East of Witless Bay, the Minister says - the

shining star from the East.

Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with the four-eyed

beetle over there this morning. The Minister of Forestry has not shut up since

nine o'clock. He is over there ranting, raving, and babbling like I do not know

what, Mr. Speaker, the four-eyed bark beetle.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: When `Clyde' is not here, he talks.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, when `Clyde' is not here, the Minister

goes mad.

I have a supplementary for the Minister, Mr. Speaker.

On November 10, 1989, in this House, the Minister said, and

let me quote the Minster: "If in the end we find" - `we' being the Government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Another fellow upset over there - `Clyde' is

gone.

MR. RIDEOUT: He is not eating chocolate bars this hour in

the morning, is he, Mr. Speaker?

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

It is an appropriate time to remind all hon. Members, that

the Chair is in charge of Question Period, and the Chair will decide when the

questions are out of order and when the answers are out of order.

The hon. the Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: A good ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is time to put the Ministers in their

place.

Now, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said this in the House

on November 10, 1989, Mr. Speaker, and I quote from Hansard, page R11, on that

day. The Minister said the following: "If in the end we find that even though

the commissioners are recommending that amalgamation take place in certain

communities and we still find that the councils or a council in question is

opposed, the Government has said that in a case where it is clear that for the

benefit of the majority of the grouping that amalgamation should take place, and

it is being recommended by the commissioners" - and the Minister went on and

repeated himself - "by the Commissioners - then we would take it into the House

here" and we would have to debate, and so on. Now, is that still the

Government's position, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister, or has the Minister

reversed himself? And will he, contrary to that commitment, bring a proposal

before this House that has not been recommended by his commissioners, one of

whom is his own assistant deputy minister?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, that was his position.

MR. RIDEOUT: That was the position of (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to get over the noise, as to who is

speaking.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as happened a couple of days

ago, when I was quoted out of Hansard and taken out of context, it is probably

the case this time as well. I would have to go back and check Hansard for the

full debate and everything I said, not just a few sentences. But certainly,

clearly, the intent of what I said at that time, and I will repeat it now, is

that we would look at groups of communities - and I was speaking of the entire

Province, all forty-two groupings - we would look at the recommendations and, as

a Minister, I would make a recommendation to Government to proceed or not to

proceed, based on the best interests of the communities involved. Now, that was

the intent of my comment. And if it was felt that there was a group of

communities dissenting, in the best interest, globally, of those people, they

should come together, and then Government might make a decision on that basis.

That was clearly the intent of my comments.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, when a Minister stands in this

House as this Minister did on November 10th, 1989 and makes a clear policy

statement on behalf of Government, and if Government does not, at the end of the

day, support him, the Minister has one choice. Now I ask this Minister, what

will he do under those circumstances?

MR. SIMMS: A good question.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, my obligation, as a Minister,

is to bring forward a recommendation, outlined as I described earlier, coming

out of the feasibility process. The final point in that process is the Minister

to make a recommendation to Government and the Leader of the Opposition knows

that; he was over here and he knows that. That is the obligation I have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Oh don't be so ludicrous! Lots of things are

brought by Ministers to Government that are not accepted; if everything we

brought in, as Ministers, to Government, was accepted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS : (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Come on! Don't be so ridiculous!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Social Services: Last year the House of Assembly passed an amendment to the

Adoption of Children Act allowing adopted persons to obtain information about

their natural parents with the consent of the people, of course. Mr. Speaker,

this was good progressive legislation, but progressive legislation is one thing

and the will to implement the legislation is another. Can the Minister confirm

that the Department has over 1,000 requests to search the records to obtain

necessary consent?

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

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

I want to bring to hon. Members attention a couple of matters

with respect to Question Period that bear repeating now. Question Period has on

some days been rather slow, only getting in four or five people for questions.

That is the way it has been dragged out, and not, with respect, to the

questioners entirely. The Chair continually having to rise on points of order,

and some mornings the whole atmosphere is like that and this is one of those. I

ask hon. Members to please follow the rules or adhere to the rules so that as

many people can get in Question Period as possible. I want also to address hon.

Members attention to supplementaries. The Chair tries to - if it has a number in

mind it does not say it - tries to give the Member fair time to follow through

on a topic that the Member might be pursuing, but in any event there should not

be too many supplementaries and hon. Members should keep that in mind and it is

at the discretion of the Chair as to precisely how many supplementaries are

allowed any Member. I want to also remind hon. Members of one of our Standing

Orders which says, 'In putting any oral question, no argument or opinion is to

be offered, nor any fact stated except sofar as may be necessary to explain the

same, and in answering any such question the Minister is not to debate.'

Questions have been getting long, I say to hon. Members, particularly the

supplementaries. A supplementary should contain no

preamble. It should be the

question right off the top. The Chair does exercise a bit of flexibility, I

would think, and tolerance with respect to the

preamble in the first instance,

so I remind hon. Members of that. The final one causes a lot of disorder when

people do not adhere to it in Question Period, and there should not be disorder

in Question Period, I know there are times, but I want to remind hon. Members of

Beauchesne, Page 123, 416, Replies to Oral Questions. Hon. Members will know why

I am bringing this one to the attention of hon. Members. "A Minister may decline

to answer a question without stating the reason for refusing, and insistence on

an answer is out of order, with no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer

cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon

such a refusal. A Member may put a question but has no right to insist upon an

answer." These things are put in there to make Question Period smooth and

orderly and fast flowing, so I ask hon. Members on both sides to please follow

these rules. Of course, as I say, they have to.

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

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

point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I fully concur with everything

Your Honour said. Your Honour has the onerous responsibility of trying to keep

Question Period on track, and we appreciate that as being a very difficult

position from time to time, but I do want to say on behalf of this group here,

the official Opposition, not pretending at all to speak for our friend for St.

John's East, but for the official Opposition, I will decide who participates in

Question Period from this side. We as a caucus will decide who participates in

Question Period from this side, and how many. If Your Honour does not want to

recognize us when we stand that is Your Honour's prerogative but we are going to

decide who participates in Question Period from this group, and how many of us

are going to participate. If we have more than enough, obviously we cannot get

on, but if we do not have enough, which I have never seen happen so far, we will

be caught with our parliamentary pants down and the clock will run out, but this

group, and I as Leader of this group, is going to decide who participates in the

daily Question Period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to, on behalf of hon. Members, welcome

to the House of Assembly today seventy-six Grade V1 French immersion students

from St. Joseph's school here in St. John's. They are accompanied by three

parents and three teachers, Madam Noelle Whalen, Michele Stamp and Michel Genest

- I apologize for any mispronunciation. Maybe I should get somebody to give me

these names phonetically. In any event we extend a warm welcome to these people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

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

Relations Act, 1977."

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The

Regulation Of Lotteries And Amusement Devices In The Province."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Yes. Several days ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Member for Grand Falls asked me a question regarding the hiring of nurses at the

Bull Arm site. And I have that answer for him this morning. In actual fact there

is only one nurse that has been hired from outside the Province. That individual

has a background in occupational health and safety and has only been hired for a

short term contract while they advertise to find someone in Newfoundland. They

were given forty-eight hours by HMDC to find this person. And I might add -

particularly for the Member for St. John's East who is trying to discredit HMDC

and Nodeco - that this individual whom they have hired is not even required by

the Occupational Health and Safety Act of the Province, but they are doing it as

an extra way to meet the needs of the workers at that particular site.

So I have the full report on that that I will now table in

the House and the Member for Grand Falls can read that at his leisure. If he has

any more questions I will be glad to, certainly, take them under advisement.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: The President of Treasury Board, the

Government House Leader will recall a few days ago I brought to the attention of

the Premier a number of questions that I had asked over a month ago. The Premier

I think was going to get on to the Ministers and get them to supply the answers

because a month was not acceptable. Does he know where those answers may be or

when they are coming or if they are coming? There are still a half a dozen

Ministers who have not answered a bunch of questions.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the

questions that the hon. Member is referring to had to do with the travel?

MR. SIMMS: That's one lot.

MR. BAKER: That's one lot. Okay, it had to do with the

travel. That is the only point he raised and I will deal with both of them.

As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the Ministers are getting the

information put together and will be answering these questions. There was

another lot of questions that the Member put there that has not been really

discussed, and the Member has not asked about. That had to do with the number of

individuals in each Department that were laid off - their names and addresses

and all this kind of stuff. So since then we have had the salary estimates and I

have some documentation now put together for the hon. Member from all

Departments, in one lump. But I must say to the hon. Member, we are not going to

give names and addresses and so on. But we will give all the other information.

I am now putting it together for all Departments. The process will soon be

finished and we are trying to include as many as we can.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SIMMS: The other lot of questions that I asked, he

may recall, were questions relating to the expense claims of the Chairman of the

Economic Recovery Commission and all the other commissioners and some

advertising costs to Enterprise Newfoundland. All of those questions had been

asked April 4, well over a month ago. And -

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I raise a point of

order with respect to the -

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me, please. Sorry. Is the Member

speaking to this same point of order?

MR. HARRIS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: He is on a different point. The Chair has to

rule on this point of order, which is substantially not a point of order. Just

points of explanation.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a

point of order regarding the remarks of the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. In her answer she was responding to a question asked by the Member

for Grand Falls concerning a matter that he had raised in this House, and she

responded to that question and gave him the answer. But instead of responding to

that question, took the liberty of making slurs at the Member for St. John's

East and suggesting -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: - suggesting that the hon. Member for St.

John's East was attempting to discredit HMDC and Nodeco while the Minister was

attempting to support them and praise them in this House and make excuses for

them, and that was suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that my motives in raising

questions, having nothing to do with the question that the hon. Minister had

been asked, she was imputing motives to me totally unrelated to the question

that the hon. Member had asked about nurses and jobs at the Bull Arm site, and

that is not proper.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind Members that when the Chair rises hon. Members

should take their place. I ask the hon. Member to quickly establish his point of

order, it seems to be long and drawn out. I would ask him please to become more

precise and finish up the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that the

hon. Member, in rising to respond to another Member's question imputed motives

to me that were improper, and she did it in a context that was totally improper

and I think that she aught to be called to question on it.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House on

several occasions and listened to the crass political - excuse me, it is just

that it annoys me to such an extent, the Member for St. John's East taking

advantage of situations, telling things that are not true about the site out at

Bull Arm. I talked only yesterday to the head of the employee group out there

who says there are no occupational health and safety problems there and I would

use -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. Members that we have to please get

to know the rules of the House. It makes it very, very difficult for the Chair

when hon. Members are not paying attention to the rules. I have time and time

again outlined the procedures. There is a time for debate and it comes in the

area of debate. Question Period is not a place for debate, answering questions

is the same thing. When hon. Members are answering questions, they should

understand giving Questions for which Notice have been Given that number one,

there is no chance of reply afforded to the Opposition. This means that a

Minister giving an answer has to be more courteous than they would normally be

knowing that there is no chance of reply to the Opposition. I do not think there

was any point of order, other than the Minister was entering into the realm of

debate and ought not to have been doing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Oh yes I do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order one, Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply

for a short while.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear up some

loose ends. There have been a number of detailed questions asked about the

Executive Council that I would like to clear up. First of all there were a

number of questions, comments, and so on, during the Estimates of this

Department, asked by Members opposite regarding the employment of Ms Deborah

Coyne and the amounts quoted in the Budget showing large increases and so on.

The correct position, Mr. Chairman, is that the amount quoted in last year's

Budget was a position: Director of Constitutional Policy. That position remained

vacant for the fiscal year so that $44,790 that the Leader of the Opposition

refers to was in fact -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Okay, what the Opposition House Leader

referred to, was in fact a vacant position. In the Budget last year Ms Coyne was

on a contract for the amount of $57,071, so the increase would be from $57,000

to $64,000. This is a permanent job this year filling that particular position.

So, it is not from $44,000 to $64,000 and the huge percentage suggested by

Members opposite, so I would like to table that response, Mr. Chairman.

The other question, and quite a bit of time was spent on it,

had to do with the hiring of public relations directors under Newfoundland

Information Services, Mr. Chairman, I promised I would get all the information

and details. I believe this was mentioned in Question Period as well, so I could

have done it, I guess, under Answers to Questions for which Notice has been

Given, but I chose this particular forum. In terms of the public relations

directors there is a lot of detail I have. There is a comparison of the public

relations situation going back a few years, and as it currently is, with the

names of individuals and the salaries paid. In actual fact you will find, Mr.

Chairman, that we have cut down tremendously on the cost of the Government's

public relations and will continue to look for ways in the Executive Council to

save the people of the Province some money.

The difference that should be noted, and I do have a note on

this, Mr. Chairman, is that under the previous administration, the Peckford

administration, I do not have the information on the interregnum, but under the

Peckford administration the public relations positions were all political

appointments, every one of them. The fifteen of them, I believe, were all

political appointments, but what we have done now is there is only one political

appointment in terms of public relations and the rest of them are eight people

who were hired in consultation with the Public Service Commission, and it was

spelled out clearly that the positions were not political, that they were not

being hired as press secretaries but as departmental public relations directors

responsible to the Deputy Minister and so on. So, there is a tremendous

difference in the approach we have taken, as well as the fact that we have saved

Government a lot of money on the public relations directors. I would also like

to table that information, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. BAKER: Well, you can see if you dispute it or not.

There were a number of speeches and questions asked about the

Premier's office and I said I would put together some information. I have also

put together information on the cost of the Premier's office which I would like

to table showing, in fact, what has been spent in the Premier's office over the

last number of years.

The fourth one has to do with a promise I made to one of the

Members opposite, I do not know which one now, that I would provide information.

I used some information from this document providing information on all the

salary settlements that occurred during the last year. This came up in the

questioning of collective bargaining, the collective bargaining process. There

was a great deal of discussion about the Salary Estimates. I would like to

remind Members that it is something that we hesitated, or it took us some time

to put together this year, and the reason it took time was because there were

changes in the public service because of the Budget and we wanted to make sure

that there was an accurate representation in the Salary Estimates of what was

happening. There may still be a few problems there because we rushed the

document. We got it out as quickly as we could and as a result of this there was

a great deal of discussion, a great deal of false information, and a great deal

of false conclusions by the Opposition, and by some members of the press,

concerning the Salary Estimates, the percentages and so on of the Salary

Estimates.

In actual fact what happened with the executive and

management was exactly in line with what happened to all Government employees

during the last year. That in fact similar decisions were made relating to the

management and executive as were made with regard to the unionized employees.

There was no favouritism, no group got special treatment, no group in the public

service. As a matter of fact all groups are treated in exactly the same manner.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the

summary of the

comments and the misrepresentations that have been made concerning the salary

situation and the collective bargaining situation during the last year for. I am

sure, all Members will be very interested to see the truth. So I would like to

table these as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We

appreciate the President of Treasury Board has been so forthcoming today in

tabling that information, and certainly when we get a chance we will study it.

And if we have any other questions we will ask them later.

But there is one thing that I forgot to ask when I was

speaking in this debate before. I wonder would the hon. the President of

Treasury Board or the Premier when he gets a chance table the expenditures under

the Premier's office, 2.1.01.09, allowances and assistance? There was nothing in

the Budget last year for it but there was $20,000 spent and there is $20,000 in

it this year. Maybe they could table how this was spent, some estimates or

details on how this $20,000 was spent.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would be glad

to answer. When this was done there was a full explanation given in the House I

believe as a Ministerial statement. I gave a Ministerial statement related to

that whole matter. The past practice was for the Government to pay for the

accommodations of the Premier. Whether it be in Mount Scio house, which we had a

decision to make on at the time, or whether it be down in Tiffany Apartments or

whatever it happened to be. The practice was for Government to pay for the

accommodations of the Premier. And these accommodations plus food plus a whole

lot of things was costing a lot of money per year. I mean, well over $20,000 per

year.

In addition there was the Premier's private dining room,

where costs were again very exorbitant. The last standing offer we saw indicated

that over a year period it was projected that $20,000 would be spent alone on

booze, another $10,000 on shrimp and a few things like that. So, the Premier's

dining room was in existence and was being used. So when the Premier needed to

entertain -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) responsibility to account for

the stuff (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible). When the Premier needed to

entertain the Premier used to use, by and large, the Premier's private dining

room and entertain visitors from all over the world and what have you - people

from Ottawa and so on. Now, we tried to save a bit of money in this regard. We

decided not to pay for the Premier's accommodation. We felt that that was the

Premier's responsibility. We decided to close the private dining room because

there was, I believe, a full time chef involved, and the costs were exorbitant.

And I believe we tabled the full costs in the House at the time.

So in place of this horrendous cost of paying the Premier's

accommodation and food and everything else, plus his private dining room and his

protection and his private chef and all that kind of thing, we instituted a -

the present Premier entertains in his house. Instead of using the private dining

room he takes these people to his house.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Oh yes, the executive dining room was there in

addition to the Premier's dining room, is the point, okay? I believe during the

last year, for instance, the amount charged to the Premier's office in the

executive dining room for the full year was - $400 or $500? I believe that was

the amount. And that had to do with, I believe, a meeting of a policy committee

that the Premiers' chief of staff happened to sign, that ended up being assigned

to the premier's office. It was actually a policy committee meeting.

So the Premier does not use the executive dining room over

there. That is used now like it was always used, in terms of committee meetings

and everything else. So, Mr. Chairman, we instituted a $20,000 housing allowance

instead of these other things that I mentioned. All the figures have been tabled

in the House, and I suppose we could dig them up for the hon. Member, if he

wants. We instituted a $20,000 a year housing allowance, which was fully

explained in this House, and that is where the $20,000 came from. It is in there

this year for the same amount, at the same level, as was in there last year. Mr.

Chairman, it is an amount that is given to cover a variety of things, as I have

indicated. It is not that expenses are incurred and bills are put in and all

this kind of thing, it is a $20,000 a year housing allowance given in lieu of

paying for the residence, in lieu of the private dining room, in lieu of the

private chef, in lieu of all these things. That is the $20,000 allowance that is

in there.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am surprised to hear that. I do not object to his getting

that $20,000 grant, I am just surprised that it is not an accountable $20,000. I

mean, if the Premier spends money in doing his job on behalf of the taxpayer,

certainly, he should be reimbursed for it -I have no problem with that at all -

but, at least, the same as the MHAs have to do for the allowances they get for

doing their jobs; we bring in receipts and we are held accountable -

MR. RIDEOUT: We should not be having to (inaudible) for

it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, he should not be, either. It should

not be taxable if he is entertaining.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, because it is his salary, that is what

it is.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is another $20,000 salary and it has

very little to do with the entertainment the Premier is providing on behalf of

the Province.

The Premier is a good enough businessman to know that if he

is incurring expenses because of his business, he is not going to pay tax on it.

He certainly never did while he was in private business and I doubt very much

that he is going to do it now. So I would imagine, Mr. Chairman, that if the

Premier is paying tax on it, it is just another salary supplement. It has

nothing to do with the expenses of the Premier. You will probably find some

entertainment expenses at Hotel Newfoundland or maybe the Radisson Plaza Hotel,

that should probably be included in this $20,000, but it is being charged to

others. It might not be directly charged to the Premier's Office but there are

quite a few subheads in this Budget where you could hide away a dinner or a few

free drinks or -

AN HON. MEMBER: You hid $400 a day.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I hid away $400 a day? No, I did not hide

it away. The Minister of Transportation read out my expenses. I did not try to

hide anything. Every expense account I ever filled out was in The Sunday

Express. I have no problem. He can put them in again if he likes.

I do not know what that has to do with the Premier's $20,000

salary supplement, or home lunch program, whatever you want to call it. I guess

he needs that to go home to lunch every day. I heard him say on television one

night, he likes to go home to lunch so that he can break up the day. Well, I

mean, if we are paying for his lunches - I go home to lunch most often, too, to

break up the day, but, certainly, I am not being paid to do it. Whatever lunch

is prepared, it certainly comes out of my grocery bill.

And, it was said. I mean, the Commissioner, Dr. Morgan, when

he did the report on MHAs expenses, said that if you incur expenses while doing

your job as a MHA, or while operating in this Legislature, it is very reasonable

to get a receipt and submit it as an expense. If that is approved by whomever -

it could be the Speaker's Office, the Legislature, or the Administration people

in a department - if that is approved as a legitimate expense, you should be

reimbursed for it. I have no problem with that.

I know the Premier closed the dining room downstairs, and

there probably were savings, but, I mean, you just do not get $20,000 put in

your back pocket because you say you were saving by closing something else down.

If you still have an executive dining room at your disposal, certainly, you

could close down one of the dining rooms. The Premier is going to have first

shot at the executive dining room over in the West Block now. I am sure none of

his Ministers are going to bump him out of it if he wanted to use it.

But, Mr. Chairman, it concerns me. I assumed when the

statement was made that this $20,000 expense, which is called Allowances and

Assistance, would be an accountable charge to the Premier, and he would submit

his bills -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

- he would submit his bills for whatever expense. And if it

went to $30,000, I would say it was still pretty cheap. But I do not understand

that the allowances - I mean it is the grant -

MR. DOYLE: It is a tax statement, which means it is part

of his salary, then?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, if it is taxable, it certainly is

part of his salary, and if it is part of his salary, the Premier is getting a

$20,000 salary supplement that is not reported.

Now, I would expect that if the $20,000 sub-head No. 210109,

Allowances and Assistance, $20,000, which was not budgeted for last year but was

made through a statement in this House - which I accept, I think it is probably

a good thing to do; you have saved money by closing the dining room downstairs

and taking the $20,000, either through your home or through an expense account

to provide entertainment, as Premier of this Province, and I accept that. It is

probably - I do not say probably, it is a saving - but I understood this $20,000

to be the same as for an MHA and the rest of the MHAs in this House who have

expenses while performing their duties, they are accountable; you put in a

receipt and you get reimbursed for whatever you spent of your District

Allowance, as I think it is referred to in the Legislature. I would expect that

the $20,000 allowance the Premier had is a budgeting figure and if he spent

$30,000, well, sobeit. He puts in receipts and he will get his $30,000, if he

spends $15,000, he will put in receipts and get $15,000.

It was suggested here this morning - and maybe the Premier

would want to differ with that - that this is not an accountable expense, it is

a salary supplement; you pay taxes on it, and it is part of your income rather

than a part of your expense claims working as Premier. Maybe the Premier would

like to make some comment on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to do so. In

fact, it is paid as an allowance and, in fact, I paid income tax on it, so the

net value of it is $10,000 or $11,000, or whatever it is; I do not like the

thing, I wish it did not exist, it is not right, but, as hon. Members know, for

every Premier before me, all housing expenses have been provided, complete

house, all furnishings, dishes, crystal, china, silverware, food -

AN HON. MEMBER: Everything?

PREMIER WELLS: - full-time maid -

AN HON. MEMBER: Food?

PREMIER WELLS: - everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: All that stuff is still there, somewhere,

is it not?

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Peckford bought it for a few

thousand dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no, no, no.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, yes, yes, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, no, no.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I mean (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). furniture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: As far as I know -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is wrong -

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I will check it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is all stored over at Mount Scio

House.

PREMIER WELLS: Maybe it is, I have not seen any of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I will check it out and see exactly

what was bought for what and I will report to the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I will do that.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, as everybody knows, all this was

provided for every other Premier; he had no investment in a House, he did not

have his money tied up, invested in a house, he did not pay any rent, he did not

pay any heat, he did not pay light, he did not pay any city tax, he did not pay

any cable television, it was all done and all provided for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Taxable?

PREMIER WELLS: A portion of it was attributable to

taxation and the other part, the overall cost of Mount Scio house, was not, it

was a portion of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Not the total benefit. Anyway, Mr.

Chairman, I had my own house when I became Premier. It was a fairly expensive

House to maintain, fairly costly to pay the taxes, the heat, the light, the

insurance; gardening: keeping the gardens cost over $5,000 last year. So,

maintenance on it runs into a lot of money. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is what the

$20,000 was intended to compensate for. I have to do that; I cannot maintain

that house -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what the statement says. It

says it is for entertainment allowance.

PREMIER WELLS: No it is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that is what it is called.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I have no problem. Just let Members keep

their cool for a moment. What we decided was, instead of maintaining a house for

the Premier, as had been done before, with all costs covered, instead of -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. the Opposition Leader will

just sit tight for a minute, he will have the full explanation of it instead of

his own queries about it, he will understand.

Instead of maintaining a house for the Premier and the

private dining room for the Premier to entertain in, and so on, we have closed

both. No house for the Premier - Mount Scio House, as hon. Members know, is now

the headquarters for the Pippy Park Commission, I believe. So that is not

operating. We closed the private dining room from day one, and I have done all

the entertainment in my own house, so I am providing the house, the building,

the facility, I am paying the insurance, the taxes, the heat, the light, the

maintenance, the lawn coverage and everything, and frankly, I cannot afford to

do it. To be honest, I cannot afford to do it on my salary, and I think hon.

Members will appreciate that. The $20,000 was intended to be a contribution

toward that.

Now, in the ordinary course, when I bring somebody down for

lunch, my wife will prepare lunch or something, unless it is a formal visitation

like the other day when I entertained the Ambassador from Zambia and a few

people. The other night, I entertained the Ambassador from South Africa, I had

dinner for him and people who were interested in the South African situation,

and so on. When I have that, what we do is engage a restaurant to supply the

meal and you pay the direct bill for the meal that is supplied. Twenty thousand

dollars is not, and never was, intended to cover these detailed accountable

expenses for food or anything like that. I buy all my own food, all my own

supplies, everything is all at my personal expense. I run that place totally at

my personal expense. The province contributes $20,000 towards it. I end up

paying taxes on it and it turns out to be $10,000 or $11,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why should you pay taxes?

PREMIER WELLS: Now, look, I do not disagree with hon.

Members. I think they are probably right. I am quite prepared to alter the

situation and have the Government pay a portion of the cost, accountable. Take

the account. I do not want it in that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will think about it.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I have no -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier should not be out-of-pocket

for doing public (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: No he should not.

PREMIER WELLS: Of course. I understand that. The

difficult thing is deciding how to do it, because I am part of the Cabinet, the

Government. The Members here are part of the Cabinet that I sit in every day,

and even though I may absent myself from the decision, in fact, they are sitting

around the table with me every day, so it is not a very satisfactory or

comfortable situation, and frankly, I do not like it. I would like to find some

way to alter it that would enable me to maintain the house and save the

Government a lot of money, instead of providing a house for the Premier, as was

done in the past, providing the operation of the private dining room at a cost

of some $100,000 a year - $78,000, I think was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy-eight thousand dollars.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: How was the food?

PREMIER WELLS: I have no doubt the food was good, but I

do not know, I never tasted it, so I cannot judge it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean you were not in there with Joey?

PREMIER WELLS: That was a long time ago, so long that

senility has set in and I have forgotten!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Was it the same chef?

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a good chef.

PREMIER WELLS: Well it was good then. Yes, I agree, the

food was good then.

AN HON. MEMBER: Way back.

PREMIER WELLS: But there were seventeen years when I was

not anywhere near.

Mr. Chairman, to get back and be serious for a moment,

frankly, I would like to find some other means -

MR. RIDEOUT: I will give you an alternative. Ask the

former Premier (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: There you go. I agree with that

(inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, but I would sooner that it be done in

some way that removes me personally.

PREMIER WELLS: Okay, that is a way that may remove me

personally, but you see, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, I am providing the facility,

it is my investment, a substantial one, in that property. It costs a substantial

sum every year to heat it, it cost another substantial sum for taxes and

insurance and grounds maintenance and maintenance of the building, and so on. I

cannot live on my salary, I have to dip into my bit of savings that I have in

order to continue and I do not like that situation, because I am absorbing the

cost that the Government paid for prior Premiers for their residence and for the

operation of the dining room for entertaining people. So I do not like having it

that way. I do not like having an arrangement that I am part of making that

deals with me. I feel uncomfortable doing that. The Leader of the Opposition may

have a worthwhile suggestion, or maybe a committee of this House might make the

decision with representation from both sides of the House. Something of that

nature may be a better way to do it.

I would sooner that it be done in some kind of way that

recognizes fairly what the burden is and compensates fairly, and leaves me

paying my own personal expenses, which the Government should not pay. They are

my own personal expenses and I should pay those. But the Government should at

least make a substantial contribution toward the cost of providing the

facilities that I am providing on behalf of the people.

So, that is the explanation. Up to now, what has been done is

this $20,000 payment, and that is what it is intended to contribute towards, but

it ends up being $10,000 or $11,000, because it is taxable. It is a difficult

problem.

MR. RIDEOUT: Why did they make it a taxable allowance?

PREMIER WELLS: Because the accountants reported it as

other taxable payment, so I just pay taxes on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, I mean, I cannot go and cause -

MR. RIDEOUT: It makes it worse!

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it has made my situation worse. The

hon. Opposition Leader is quite right. It has made my situation worse. But just

imagine what would have happened if I had gone to the Department of Finance

people who issued this T-4 and said: Do not do that, change it, alter it, make

this a non-taxable allowance, and then filed my tax return on the basis of that.

The whole country would have been in an uproar.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, maybe. I agree, but let us look at

some way to do it that will not have me perceived as creating a benefit for

myself.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible), whoever it is.

PREMIER WELLS: Whoever it is, it does not matter, and the

standard should apply. It is not necessary for me to have a house made available

to me, because I have my house. I happen to like it and I would sooner not have

to move out of it and sell it, quite frankly. I would prefer to keep it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have a garden party this

summer.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, maybe I should have a garden party

for the Members of the House this summer and they can see. But, Mr. Chairman, I

would be quite happy to sit with the Opposition Leader and discuss some kind of

means that would be a better way of dealing with this.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: We want to get rid of this. The Premier

said that when he is entertaining a restaurateur will come in and do the meal.

That restaurateur who comes in to do the meal, to serve, do your entertainment,

that expense, is that bill, itself, yours and you pay it, or is it the

department's and they pay it?

PREMIER WELLS: No, it goes to the department. If I happen

to be entertaining somebody - it is usually an intergovernmental matter,

diplomats, and that kind of thing, who come here. And I suppose occasionally the

Department of Development will ask me to entertain somebody, and I will. That

bill is charged to my office if it is my responsibility, but if I am

entertaining a diplomat, it probably is an IGA expense. I do not know how -

maybe it is all in my office, but I do not pay it out of the $10,000 or $11,000

that is left, if that is what the hon. Member is asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: No food was bought for my house, or

anything, I buy all that myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready for the question?

Shall Clause 1 carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: It is the Executive Council and the

Consolidated Loan one.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the

Members of the Committee, I apologize that I was not here for Question Period

this morning, and to provide an answer to a question that I was asked yesterday.

I tell hon. Members, I would much rather have been here. I was sitting in the

dentist's chair for two hours. And, the dentist's chair, as opposed to being in

this House, I will take the House. I will take the House any time, as bad as I

may think it might be.

Yesterday I believe the Opposition House Leader asked me why

the doors were locked out front. He asked me to check on a report that the doors

were locked out front. I have checked on it, Mr. Chairman, and I have discovered

that the explanation was that the security people had been advised that there

was to be a major demonstration of some 2000 people, which was suggested, and

they had to comply with the fire marshall's order to limit entrance to 200

people so they locked the two side doors and left the one in the middle open so

that they could count approximately 200 people and stop the entry once 200 had

gone in. That was the explanation for it.

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

MR. SIMMS: The other question I asked related to the

instructions that had been given with respect to the future of demonstrations

being permitted in the lobby of Confederation Building. Now, I double checked my

sources again after Question Period yesterday and I understand, quite clearly,

that instructions were given to them that what was happening was there would be

no further demonstrations provided, or allowed for, in Confederation Building

lobby, and that there had in fact been a decision by Cabinet, a Minute in

Council by Cabinet. I wonder if the Premier would be prepared to perhaps table

the Minute in Council from Cabinet dealing with it so that we could all know

exactly what the decision was?

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the

reason is. I am answering the question, not the answer the Member wants me to

make, I will give him my answer totally honestly as I know it at this moment. If

it is somehow incorrect I will deal with it. What I am saying is, security have

a problem. They cannot run the risk of having the foyer overcrowded. Now, how

they are dealing with it, sofar as I know, they are not barring any

demonstration from the foyer of Confederation Building. If the people want to

come and demonstrate in the foyer of Confederation Building, as far as I know,

they can still do that provided it is not a massive mob of people that exceeds

the capacity of the building. I do know that there was some discussion, or some

concern, expressed to me in discussion, not in Cabinet but in discussion

outside, about if you have 2000 people demonstrating, how you control the number

that come into the building, and I gather from what I am told, that the means

they have chosen is to close two of the doors, leave the centre one open, and

count the 200. I will check and see what the situation is.

MR. RIDEOUT: I have one other question. Is the Premier

aware, and I did not write the words, but there was a sign placed on the main

entrance of this building yesterday, like I said I did not write down the words,

but what I recollect it saying is: lobby closed, use northeast entrance - which

is the entrance straight across from here - use northeast entrance and entrance

on Government business only. Is the Premier aware that this big long sign, about

three or four feet long, and that wide, was placed on the front door yesterday?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I do not know the details of

how the security people manage, or what instruction they are given. They are

only given a general instruction by us to maintain the laws and the rules, and

if there is a problem with a demonstration, and they have been informed

beforehand that there is going to be a demonstration of 1000 or 2000 people,

then they have to take precaution, and it may well be that the only sensible

precaution is to allow nobody to enter the building, allow nobody to enter the

foyer and have the demonstration outside on the steps of the building. Maybe

that is the course they chose to follow in that kind of circumstance. In another

circumstance where there is a demonstration of 100 people what is wrong with

them being in the building? I do not really see anything wrong with them being

in the building. Now, maybe the security people do. Maybe they see something

wrong with their being in the building, so I am not going to answer and say it

is an absolute, and dictate this is the way it is going to be. I will talk to

everybody about it and see what is the right security procedures for the people

who work in the building, and for the demonstrators. We will develop a sound

policy.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the Premier is

misunderstanding what I am asking him, or what I am saying, I guess. I am saying

that there were instructions that came down from Cabinet, okay, there was an MC

issued from Cabinet, yesterday, I am told, and the

interpretation of that MC

clearly was that there would be no further demonstrations allowed in the lobby

of Confederation Building. Now, that is what I have been told.

AN HON. MEMBER: None at all.

MR. SIMMS: None at all. All I am asking the Premier to do

is, if he would check that, and more particularly just so that we can understand

and see more clearly for ourselves, would he be prepared to table the MC? I mean

there is nothing very startling about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, if that was the order, I

will advise the House. It may well be that was the order. Maybe that is the

right order, I do not know. Maybe there should be no demonstrations allowed in

Confederation Building.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We can debate that. I have expressed my

personal view that if there were one hundred people or anything under the two

hundred limit coming to have a demonstration, I cannot see anything very much

wrong with it. Maybe there is from a security point of view, but that is my

personal point of view. But it may well be that the only sensible way to handle

it is that when there are demonstrations, have the demonstration confined to the

front of the building outside maybe that is the right answer. I will check it

and find out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the Heads of the Executive Council,

the Consolidated Fund and the Legislature carry?

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Baie de

Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to

sit again on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 7. Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 7.

Motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend

The Law Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The

Province And Others". (Bill No. 6)

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with considerable pride that I bring in this long

overdue Bill to revise and amend the law respecting a pension plan for employees

of the Government of the Province and others.

When we assumed office two years ago and I took the Portfolio

for the Department of Finance, two things were very striking about the

conditions of the finances of the Province. One was the debt which we inherited,

the other was the unfunded liability of the pension plans and the serious

condition that the pension plans were in. We looked at that for a short time and

appointed a Commission of Enquiry into pensions, and after holding public

discussions and looking into the pension plans of other provinces and the

Federal Government, the Commission of Enquiry which consisted of: Mr. George M.

Cummins, Chairman, who was a Professor at Memorial, Department of Commerce and a

lawyer; two chartered accounts, one David Earle from Corner Brook and one

Michael Power from St. John's, they constituted a Commission of Enquiry and

brought in a report in March 1990, a comprehensive report. Volume one, most

Members are aware of, there are also two or three other volumes consisting of

the submissions that were made to the commission. That commission made a number

of very serious recommendations most of which find themselves incorporated into

Bill 6.

I would like to just say a word or two about that, the

unfunded liability of the plans were at the end of December 1989 approximately

$2.1 billion. Most of the unfunded liability, more than half of that was in the

Teacher Pension Plan but a substantial amount was in the Public Service Pension

Plan the last time we had an actuarial assessment done, at that time it was

something over $730 million. The Uniformed Services Pension Plan was in a

non-funded liability situation. In fact, we had no assets in the plan at all and

all the pensions were paid out of revenue and a (Inaudible) with the MHAs'

pension plan. So we did have serious questions with respect to pensions. And we

decided to address these plans. And I would like to take Members through some of

the changes that were made.

First, we will be dealing with the other two pension plans

shortly. We are dealing now with the Public Service Pension plan. Shortly I hope

to be able to deal with the Uniform Services Pension plan and the Teachers

Pension plan which should be ready for Members shortly. We have not come to

grips with the MHAs' pension plan as yet. By comparison it is a minor problem

but it is has to be looked at and will be looked at. But it will not be ready

for this session of the House, not this spring anyway. And so we will confine

our remarks now I think to the Public Service Pension Plan and the changes that

are incorporated in Bill 6.

I would like to call Members attention to some of the

changes. In

Section 23 (1), if you have your Bill in front of you, it makes the

survivor's benefit - that means when a pensioner dies and leaves his survivor -

that survivor gets 60 per cent instead of 55 per cent. We have actually

increased the survivor's benefit. And that is in accordance with recommendations

that have come out of a commission that was set up nationally with provincial

and Federal representation on it. And they suggested that survivor's benefits

should be 60 per cent rather than 55 per cent as being fair. So we have

incorporated that amendment which does nothing for our unfunded liability but it

does make things a bit fairer for survivors.

What

Section 32(4) does is provide for splitting up pension

benefits upon marriage breakdown. The notion that the pension is not just of the

pensioner but also has to do with the other person in the marriage, and it

should be appropriately shared at the time. So this Bill makes provision for

splitting up pension benefits upon marriage breakdown.

The major change in the pension is in

Section 5, and

Section

5 increases the amount of contributions that employees make and also which the

Government would make as well, because the Government will be paying in the same

amount.

Section 5 (2) says: "There shall be deducted from the salary of every

employee to whom the pension plan applies..." and it says in (a): "6.6 per cent

of that portion of his or her salary which is the basic exemption under the

Canada Pension Plan." That used to be 6 per cent, it is now raised to 6.6 per

cent.

Section 5 (2) (

b) says: "4.8 per cent of that portion of his

or her salary in excess of the basic exemption referred to" just a minute ago,

"and including the Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings as defined by the Canada

Pension Plan." Which at the moment is $30,100. So between $3,000 - which is the

basic exemption under the Canada Pension Plan - and $30,100, the people would

pay 4.8 per cent. It used to be 4.2 per cent. And then for contributions above

it becomes, as it says in

Section 5 (2) (c), "6.6 per cent of the portion of his

or her salary which is in excess of the Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings." So

for monies a person earns over thirty-one thousand it goes up to 6.6 per cent

again, and that used to be 6 per cent.

So the overall effect of the change we have made in

Section 5

is to increase the overall payment by .6 per cent. This for most employees works

out to be about 5 per cent. And before it was somewhat less.

So that is the major point that we have made, to increase

what is called the current service cost. Once the employer and employee pay that

amount we should be able to cover the current service cost. In other words, the

money that we take from the employees and what the Government takes from its own

budget and puts in the pension plan, should be enough to meet the liability that

is created during that year provided that the fund is appropriately invested. So

that we will not be adding, hopefully, anything to the unfunded liability now as

time goes on, and

Section 5 is a major part of that.

Also

Section 8 of the plan: I would like to call Member's

attention to

Section 8 where we deal with prior service, to increase cost to

employees with regard to the purchase of pensionable service, employees may

purchase if there has been a refund and the person leaves and then the person

comes back, that person may purchase that service again and it will be done at

half the actuarial value. If people bring in service from other institutions

that is possible, but it will be at the full actuarial value. It is specified

conditions that will be set out in the regulations which are just about

completed now.

I would also like to indicate another change which is the

change in

Section 17 and

Section 17 talks about vesting. Up until now a person

had to have ten years in, in order to get a pension and we have reduced that to

five years so that is a great benefit. So an employee now shall not receive a

pension under the pension plan until the employee has been credited with not

less than five years of pensionable service, previously it was ten years, so

that a person could leave his six years or seven years in the plan, and when

they have reached the proper age a pension can be paid

whereas before it had to

be ten years. So that is an advantage.

One of the major changes, I might add, that differentiates

this Bill with the former Act, the Public Service Pensions Act of 1970, is that

we will be discontinuing redundancy pensions. Up until now and up until the time

that this Bill takes effect, which we anticipate being September 1, next, up

until then a person whose job becomes redundant in the public service has been

able to qualify for a pension if they have the appropriate number of years in

would be able to draw their pension immediately. It has been a tremendous

benefit to those people who were affected by layoffs or redundancies, but it is

a provision that very few pension plans have and we have decided to eliminate

that redundancy pension. That is one of the big drains on the pension fund.

Instead we will implement a better severance package than we had before.

So another problem that we have had but which we have decided

not to deal with, this time we could not, was the question of disability

pensions, people who become sick on the job. When their sick leave is over if

they qualify for a pension, they draw one, but we thought that we might be able

to substitute some sort of an insurance package there. We explored it very

carefully and the advice we had was that it would be just as well to retain the

disability pension rather than to eliminate it and substitute an insurance plan

for that. The cost of the insurance plan would be probably greater than the cost

of the pension benefit. So at this point we have decided to stay with the

disability pension even though there are problems with it, but we have altered

it a bit to make a provision that once a person gets on a disability pension or

is no longer able to perform the job for which he was hired, we will ask the

public service commission to see if we can find a reasonably comparable job

within the public service and give that person priority for a period of time in

a job rather than having to go out on a reduced or disability pension. These are

some of the reforms, Mr. Speaker, that we have been able to introduce into the

pension plan, and hopefully some of the problems we have been experiencing will

be eliminated. The big problem has been with the unfunded liability. Now, that

still leaves us with the Public Service Pension Plan. It is still not fully

funded because of the problems that have occurred in the past, and as time goes

on and the finances of the Province improve it is our intention to put money

into the pension fund so that this builds up. What we have been able to do, and

this is a major reform of this Government, the reform of the pension plan, this

is a major reform, we have been able to come to grips with the very serious

problem of liabilities that have been created by our pension policies which have

grown up over the years, and which have not been addressed up until now,

problems which, I believe, should have been addressed long ago, but which were

not addressed, but which are addressed now. The increased benefits that we

brought in are not costly ones. They are in accordance with the national pension

reform consensus which, as I mentioned before, was agreed on by a number of

people. We are trying to bring into most Canadian pension schemes now, the

increase of survivor's benefits from 55 to 60 per cent, and the splitting of

pension benefits upon marriage breakdown, and reducing the best vesting period

from ten to five. The pension consensus suggest that this be reduced eventually

to two years, but we feel at the moment that we are unable to afford this yet,

but perhaps later on we will be able to reduce the vesting period to two years.

This is a major reform of pensions in the Public Service Pension Plan. What I

will do now is stop my remarks and listen to what Members opposite have to say,

or other Members, and if there are any questions we will do our best to answer

them, and provide any other information you may wish to have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to have a few words to say on the pension reform that

the Minister is touting as a major reform, and it is. I have no quarrel that it

is a major reform. It is a more drastic reform on uniform services than it is on

the Public Service Pension. Mr. Speaker, I was very fortunate to be on the

Legislative Review Committee that reviewed the Pension's Acts. The Committee

Members, the Chairperson, the Member for St. John's South, the Member for

LaPoile, the Member for Pleasantville, and the Member for Harbour Main, were on

the Committee and we had the opportunity to hear what the public service unions,

their representatives, and people who are affected by these pension changes feel

about the pension reform the Government is going to bring in. I will, over the

next couple of minutes, give the Minister a rundown on what some of these people

said. There were several of them, especially the people who are on pensions now,

the Government Pensioner's Association, I believe they are called, had several

questions in their brief which obviously the Member for St. John's South could

not answer, because he did not know the answers to them. Nor, did the Member for

Kilbride have the answers because we were not knowledgeable enough. We were

there to hear their concerns, and hopefully we will be able to get answers from

the Minister as the debate comes.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of words on the Committee system

first. Each of the Members of our Committee tried to be fairly diligent in

getting the legislation as fast as we could out to the people who are concerned

which we figure is our job. And give them enough time to consider the

legislation and come back to us with some briefs.

Now unfortunately this time our Committee was really strapped

for time. We had the Budget Estimates Review Committees coming on, we had the

legislation a little bit late, and we expected that it was coming to the House

before this, actually. So we had to push the people who were going to make

presentations to us a bit more than we wanted to get the presentations in on

time. And that in itself is a small flaw in our committee system. Because as a

Committee we are relying on the people who are affected by this legislation -

the experts, I guess we would call them - to come in and inform us what problems

they have with it or what they see good about certain legislation.

If the people who are presenting the briefs do not have

enough time to give them full consideration that takes away the advice, I guess,

or the ability of the committees to be able to give Members of this House of

Assembly the benefit of the advice given to us as a committee Member. It is just

that this came in a crunch. I am not saying it is anybody's fault, I am not

trying to blame anybody for the short time notice on this pension legislation.

But it just came with the Budget and it came with everything in a pinch.

And there was not enough - particularly with the uniform

services legislation - time for the people involved in the pension scheme to

have proper consideration of what the legislation was going to do for them. They

did, as the Minister said, have an opportunity to make presentations to the

commission that was set up some time ago, the commission that made - the public

service people pensioners did, anyway to make presentations. But there was not

enough time given all the groups involved - in particular with the uniform

services - to give it proper consideration so that the Committee could get a

better feeling of how they feel about the legislation as it is being prepared

and how it affects them. And the uniform services legislation drastically

affects what the members of that plan had in their minds for their future. It

really is a tough one. But we are not doing uniform services today, that will

probably come some day next week, and I will have a better shot at that.

Now the Committee did get presentations from several groups.

Some written, one oral presentation was given to us by Mr. Jim Ryan from NAPE,

who obviously, from what he was telling our Committee, was very knowledgeable of

the pension systems and the pension legislation changes. He was so knowledgeable

and went in to such great detail that he never got a chance to even finish his

presentation before the time ran out on us. He did give a lot of detail and I

tried to take as many notes as I could, but the detail was even too overpowering

to try to get enough of it. That again shows a small fault in our committee

system. Because we as committee Members record the proceedings of our

committees, yet because of staff shortages these reports, these transcripts,

will not be typed up until next August or September some time.

So if I missed anything in my notes as the presenters go

through their briefs I am not going to know I missed it until next August or

September when they are printed up, when I review it, and then it is too late,

the pension legislation has passed. That causes some problems to the committee

system and I would expect that the President of Treasury Board is trying to work

on that to expedite the printing of the different people who make presentations

to our committees. NAPE did give a presentation on the Public Service Pension

Plan, the nurses gave an excellent presentation, it was concise, brief, written

recommendations very clearly and I must commend them on their professional

presentation and the professional way that they did it, even though they did not

have as much time to consider it as they would have liked.

Government Managers gave us a written presentation or a

written letter. Our committee asked them to make a presentation to us and they

suggested that they did not wish to appear before our committee but if we wanted

to meet with the Government Managers Association, they would be willing to meet

with us, but they did point out that legislation was drafted as a result of

extensive consultation which occurred during the Commission of Inquiry on

Pensions, so we did not meet with them.

The IBEW sent in a brief and they are looking for inclusion;

I will mention this a bit later, they are looking for inclusion of one of their

groups into the pension plan and the pensioners themselves, the people who are

on present day pensions, made a presentation and I will highlight eventually

what they had to say to our committee, but just to go over generally for Members

of the House of Assembly, as the Minister did, what changes are coming in this

pension plan.

Some of the benefits that are coming, the vesting period

which is certainly a good reform and I do not think there were too many people

who complained about reducing from ten to five; there were some who would like

to see it at two years, but our committee, I do not think would recommend that

we reduce it to two years yet because we have other problems in the system right

now that need to be rectified, so I would be inclined to agree that it is an

improvement of reducing the vesting period from ten years to five years and I

think probably our committee did not make any recommendations to change that and

Oh, another thing about the committee too. Because of the

time crunch that we did have, our committee was sitting Wednesday night I

believe it was. We sat to try to do our report, again, time constraints really

had us, we made some recommendations; again, our report is not finalized; the

clerk of our committee also has four other committees to try to look after and

the Chairman of the Committee is also Chairman of another Estimates Committee,

so our report has not been typed up yet, and I would like to have had it and

have a look at it for this debate, maybe by the time the committee stages of

this debate occur, we will be able to have our report and make the

recommendations or show the Minister what recommendations we made as a

committee.

Today I will go over some of the comments that were made by

the people who made presentations to us, so that the Minister will be aware of

what the presentations were, even if he is not going to be fully aware of what

the committee's recommendations on it were.

Survivor benefits, which is another improvement in the

pension plan; certainly people would have liked to see survivor benefits

increased even more, but there is a certain cost to that and it does increase

from 55 per cent in the old plan to 60 per cent which is an improvement. Some

people would have liked to see it 65 per cent to 70 per cent, I believe one of

our presenters suggested to us and certainly that would be good and that would

probably be what is coming in the future, if you consider it a national trend in

pensions reform and I guess our pension plans will follow them at the time.

There is a provision here, a new provision, that if an

employee or pensioner dies without survivors, the difference if any, between the

contributions paid plus the interest, less pension benefits received will be

paid to the estate, so if you do happen to go on pension and you do not get a

chance to even receive the benefits that you had paid into the pension plan,

this new provision will allow your estate to receive the money and the interest

- some interest on that money, so that your estate will have the benefit of what

money you put into the system over the time. The old plan had no such mention of

this and I really do not know what used to happen, what would happen to the

money if you happened to die before you had all your money out of it; I suppose

it just stayed in the fund or it disappeared but I am not sure what would happen

to that.

Interest paid on contributions should the employee result in

refund on termination: The old plan said 5 per cent per annum, which certainly

was not fair, when you look at the interest rates that are being paid as they go

up and down throughout the last seven or eight years; interest rates on savings

accounts alone, went as high as 8 per cent or 9 per cent, so the 5 per cent

certainly was not covered. The new plan - one year chartered bank fixed term

deposit rate, established as of December 31 of each year. So you will have a

little benefit if the interest rate on that one year fixed term is good on

December 31 of each year, you will be getting a little extra interest on the

money that is provided if you need to get it back. If you take your money back -

if you finish your job and get your money out of the system - you will probably

be due a bit more interest on it than you had been in the old plan.

Calculation of average pensionable salary: The average

pensionable salary that is used as a base for determining the amount of pension.

The old plan, the average base was the last five years of salary. The new system

will be the best five years of salary. That technically for some will be an

improvement. It is not going to hurt anyone. It is not going to take away

benefits. For some people who, in the last years of work, wish to accept a job

at a lower pay and work at a different pace for the last year or so, this will

allow them to take that job at a less paying and less stressful position if

necessary. And they will not lose their pension benefits by having the last five

years. They can make the average on the best five years. So that is an

improvement for some but it is not a great reform in any pension system. It will

not affect most people, I would say.

Contribution rates: Percentage of salary required to fund

future benefits, cost shared between employer and employee. In the old plan it

was 4.5 per cent, in the new plan the effective rate is 5 per cent. Now this is

not a great increase, I suppose, .5 per cent. But it is an increase and the

increase comes at a time when salaries are frozen. So that caused some concern

to people, not a great concern, because it is a small increase. It causes a much

larger concern when we talk uniform services pension. And especially for the

people who would like to keep the option of staying in the old plan. It

literally - you can give anyone all the options you want. If you make it too

expensive for them to be able to take advantage of these options it is just as

well not to offer it to them. But that again will be more in line with the

uniform pensions when it comes.

Redundancy pensions: The Minister mentioned the redundancy

pensions when he spoke. And I have had some calls from members of the public

service pension plan now who are working and who are considering the bumping

procedure and the redundancy procedure. And if they want to avail of the

redundancy, they are more or less pressured into it by - the Minister is saying

the redundancy pensions are going to be gone by - I think the date has been

moved to September 1 now? It was January 1, then the last of April. So this

removal of the redundancy pension is definitely a loss to the members of the

pension plan. It is not a loss to all of them, obviously, because they are all

not going to be redundant. But I did have several cases in my twelve years in

this House of Assembly of trying to help people to try to weed through the

bureaucracy to try to avail of the redundancy policy that we had. Not yours - I

suppose it is the same one there now. But even the one that was there when we

were there.

And there was one person in particular, he was an engineer, a

member of the Newfoundland Engineers Association. Certainly this system of ours,

with 35,000 people, you would think could use a trained engineer. It happened

that the Metric Division of Consumer Affairs was being wiped out after the five

year plan when the metric - or ten years, whatever it was - system was

introduced. There was no need for the Metric Division of Consumer Affairs, I

believe it was at the time. So one position, director, who was an engineer, was

declared redundant. Now I thought it was probably pretty good to have his

position declared redundant. He was in the system for twelve or fourteen years

at the time. So as I understand the redundancy position, he was well trained,

well qualified, I will have no trouble getting him slotted into - the man was

only forty-two or forty-three at the time, I believe, in his early forties

anyway. So there will be no trouble for me to slot him into a position in the

system. He does not have to worry about going out on a small pension. I was a

year and a half on that one. We managed to get it delayed for a while, but I was

a year and a half at it, and the outcome of it at the end of that year and a

half was this qualified engineer who worked for us for twelve or fourteen years

was out the door with a $6,000 pension. That in itself was a big problem, but if

the redundancy clause was gone - when this reform comes in and the redundancy

pension is removed he would have been out the door without a cent. I mean as bad

as it was and as hard as it was on him and his family, and fortunately because

of his training and because he was a good employee in our system, he had a good

rapport with private industry that he was dealing with. He was not long when he

got out in private industry in getting a job, and he was fortunate. But had he

not been as fortunate and had there been times like we had today, only because

the Tories were in and they had the economy working half reasonable, was he able

to get a job. Today if that same person had to go out, and we have them in the

system now being declared redundant daily, thousands of people to 2,500

guaranteed laid off up to 4,000 people before it is all over, and we have people

going out on the redundancy and there is not a chance, not a hope the way our

economy is in this Province, not a hope of finding a job anywhere in this

Province. So they are going to go out after the next phase of cuts come when the

Minister prepares his next Budget, and we know that there will be more cuts.

There are going to be people going out into the system next year who will be

declared redundant and they will not even have the $5,000, or $6,000, or

$10,000, or $12,000 or $16,000 a year pension that they would have now.

Mr. Speaker, I find that very hard to - especially what the

Government is doing now, especially when the Government's focus is on reducing

the public service. I mean if you make a lot of jobs redundant at the same time,

if you do a few here and a few there, you might be able to fit people in, but

when you are making hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of jobs redundant at the

same time there is no way for the people who are declared redundant to fit into

the system, it is not big enough. You cannot get them into our system.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend personally this redundancy

pension, as small as it is, and as expensive as it is because it does cost

money. It certainly cost a lot of money this year when we laid off 3,000 or

4,000 people when we declared 3,000 or 4,000 people redundant, and I guess this

is the most expensive year on the pension plan ever in the history of our

province because all of these people who are declared redundant should be

working, should be contributing to the pension plan, should be into our system

and paying income taxes, yet now they are all going to be out in the street.

One, they will not find jobs in Newfoundland because there are none, they will

be lucky if they can get a $10,000, $12,000, or $14,000 pension under the

redundancy. They will take that pension now and run it and pay taxes on it in

Newfoundland, they have to go to the mainland, take the pension with them and

Ontario is going to benefit from what the Minister has done in damaging the

pension system.

The next thing in this pension change is the purchase of

service. The cost of an employee to re-instate periods of prior pensionable

service. This caused a lot of concern for one of the groups that made a

presentation to us. This is actually where he got bogged down I think when Mr.

Ryan was here from NAPE and he really got into detail on this part of purchase

services. I think he more or less left the impression with the committee and

certainly with me that this part of the pension plan reform is going to effect

women more than men, because a lot of times women come into the workforce for a

few years sometimes, you are not able to afford to do this very much now, then

decide to get married or raise a family and some decide to stay at home, so they

go out of the work force and take their pension money with them because it is

not built up enough, then after twelve, fourteen, or fifteen years when the

children are old enough to get along on their own a lot of people, including my

wife actually, want to go back in the work force. These are the ones who are

going to be affected most by being able to buy back their pension plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I do not know. I am not familiar enough

with pension plans or the finances of pension plans to know what difference this

is going to make to the bottom line in our budget plan. I think we could

probably allow people to continue to buy this back time indefinitely, if they

come back into the work force.

Now, there is one unfair part of it, I would say, and that is

if someone comes back into the work force who had worked ten years ago and they

wish to buy their back time, they could wait until the last day before they

retire when they get their severance package and pay for all that back time, it

might have been fifteen or sixteen years ago, and they will pay that today. The

guy who has been in the plan for the fifteen or sixteen years has his money into

it and they will pay it today and get the same benefit as the fellow who had

been paying into the plan for the thirty years. That change I do not disagree

with but I do disagree with not being able to buy your back time at a reasonable

rate, at pretty well any time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go through the nurse's

presentation first because that was the best organized and the proposal that

flowed fairly well while they were presenting it. They gave us a bit of history

of whom the nurse's represent and their Association. Actually, there are 3800

registered nurses employed throughout the health care system in the Province, a

lot more than I expected there were. Mr. Speaker, they also suggest -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, the Brief is a response to the plan

and perspective from the union whose membership is 98 per cent female. So this

Brief they presented to us is coming from a point of view that not a lot of us

in here would always understand, or always think of because it is from a

different point of view. This one is from the point of view of the nurses in

particular and I do not think we have any nurses in our Legislature. It is from

a women's or female point of view definitely.

Mr. Speaker, they say in their Brief the Nurses' Union of

Newfoundland would welcome any opportunity for further discussion on the issues

related to the proposed legislation. They would like more time, more discussion

before this is finalized, to sit down with people in the Department of Finance

who look after pensions and work out some of the suggestions that they give us

in their Brief. Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that they raised in their Brief

is that the Nurses' Union believes that it is the fundamental right of employees

to have full and meaningful participation in all decisions regarding their

pension plan.

Section 31 in this proposed Act, which says that the Minister may

set up committees for this and may set up committees for that, and the problem

with that is the problem with that is the Minister does not have to do it. If a

Minister sets up committees dealing with a pension plan, I would expect that the

people whose money is in the pension plan would have representation, but, I

think, one of our Legislative Review Committee recommendations will be that the

section in the Act that suggests the Minister 'may' set up committees to deal

with certain things, be changed to the Minister `shall' set up committees to

include representation from the different groups. It is not easy to do,

especially in the public service pension plan, because you have twelve or

fourteen different groups, I suppose, involved with that and it is going to be

hard to get a committee to work with that many on it. When you include employer,

employee, and the Government representatives, it is going to be hard to do, but,

as the nurses say, and as I believe, it is the right of those people whose money

it is. Sometimes we seem to think, this is a pension plan here, and we will

manage and look after it. We will take care of it, and tell you what the rules

are, then when you retire we will give you whatever the rules say at that date.

I think the way everyone should be looking at pension plans is, if someone got

some money today and put some of it on their mortgage, some on their grocery

bill, and some on their pension plan, that is their money, just the same as what

they pay for their house, their groceries, and their car. That money is theirs.

Part of the agreement they are working with includes that their employer put in

an equal amount of money into that plan. Mr. Speaker, that money is theirs also.

Both sets of money that go into the pot belongs to the employees who put it

there, so it makes sense to me that the representatives of these employees

should have a very meaningful say in what is happening to that pot of money.

Had that been the case when the pension plans were started

first we would not be in as hard shape as we are now. I am very sure that in

1967, 1968, 1970, 1972, right on to 1981, I believe, when we started to fund

these pensions, when we put the first money into the pension fund, if I were an

employee representative sitting on a pension management board, I would certainly

not have allowed the Government of the day - not only Liberals - Liberals or

Tories, whoever they were, to take the money I was putting into that pot and

pave roads with it. I do not think I would have allowed them to to take it out

to build water and sewer. I would have told them those things were very

necessary, but this was more important to my group.

Mr. Speaker, by allowing the employees to participate in the

decision-making process of the pension plans, I think we would probably never

have had that problem in the first place. We have it now and we have to live

with it, and we need some changes to deal with it. One of the changes we should

make is to be sure there is employee representation on the committees that are

dealing with the pension plan. There has to be. We cannot leave it just to

Section 31 of the Act, which says the Minister `may' set up committees to deal

with, certain, certain, certain - our Committee recommends that wording be

changed to, the Minister `shall' set up these committees. They probably will

anyway, but, if you have a Minister someday who is not as reasonable as the

Minister of Finance we have now -

MR. SIMMS: What?

MR. R. AYLWARD: If you had a Minister who was not such a

great fellow as that, he might not set up the committees. If you had a Premier

someday who was not as reasonable as the Premier we have today - certainly, this

Premier we have today would not set up these committees. The Premier we have

today certainly would not lie to anyone, and he certainly would not tear up

agreements and things like that. Someday you might have a Premier who is like

that, a Premier who is not fully trusted as the Premier is today. You might have

a Premier in this Province who might banish all of these committees and try to

rule as King of a Province. Mr. Speaker, you might get a Premier, someday, like

that. Now, I would not suggest that we have a Premier, or a Minister of Finance

like that today, but maybe someday in the future. It certainly would not be a

Tory Premier, Mr. Speaker, it would have to be a Liberal Premier. It might even

be an NDP Premier, but I doubt that very much because they -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, there will be some day; I have no

doubt about that, there will be someday.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will not be around.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will not be around, is right. I will

not be around when there is an NDP Premier in this Province, but I will be

around after the next election and there are going to be a lot of fellows over

there who will not be around.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). How is your health?

MR. R. AYLWARD: There are probably fellows who said that

in the Ontario legislature not too long ago, so maybe I should hold on for a

while.

Mr. Speaker, a major concern of almost everyone who came

before both committees on uniform services and on the public service pension

plan changes here, was the transfer of legislative responsibility to

regulations. That was a big problem with everyone who came to us. We are

changing legislated authority, which has to be changed by this House, to

regulations. Now bureaucrats - I mean you will not even see half the

regulations. You will see them, but you will not understand them and you will

not read them - but bureaucrats love regulations and the regulations that might

come out, about a foot thick, on these pension plans, if nobody can get a look

at them, if they are not reviewed in a legislature, then my argument for having

employee representations on committees, who have to look at these regulations,

also stands up in that area. It would be better to have a committee of

employees, who owned that money, reviewing all of these regulations before they

become law, before they become gazetted, better than Members of the House of

Assembly reviewing them, because they understand the implications better than

most of the people in this Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Minister of Forestry - no. Well, he

might look at it. He certainly should look at his pension, because the next time

around he is probably going to need it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: But he will not look at the regulations.

Yes, I agree, he will not be looking at regulations. I will get him a job

cleaning up Jack McDonald's barn after the next election. Jack thinks he is

pretty good. He said he would probably make a half decent labourer around the

barn, so I will get him a job at that if he needs it, because I think he is a

pretty good fellow and I do not mind helping him out after the next election.

MR. TOBIN: He will probably be good working on a poultry

farm picking out the cracked eggs.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would not mind helping him out after

the next election if he needs a job, and certainly, there is lots of work to do

on all the farms in the Province, as the Minister knows.

Mr. Speaker, the regulations - the nurses have said, NAPE has

said, every group that came before us has said that there is too much being

moved to the regulation

section of the plan. Now, I think this fear would be

alleviated somewhat if there were a guarantee that committees would be set up to

review these regulations before they are made into law and before they are

gazetted.

Mr. Speaker, another thing the nurses recommend is that there

be full-time employee participation on drafting the regulations, not only when

the regulations are prepared; but when they are finished, you do not just give

them to people and say this is what we have, review them and see if we need to

change them. There should be employee participation in the drafting of the

regulations, because we are giving a lot of power to the bureaucrats and to

Cabinet, generally, because regulations, although they are approved by Cabinet,

are not necessarily scrutinized individually by Cabinet, unless there is

somebody who can highlight the problems, and then it would take a lot of time to

go over them in detail. But, Mr. Speaker, if there were employee representatives

on a board to prepare the draft regulations and a committee to approve them, I

think we would probably get a better set of regulations than if it were coming

back to the House of Assembly for changes all the time.

Mr. Speaker, disclosure of information - one thing the nurses

suggested to us is that proposed legislation does not