Volume XL Thursday PROPERTY OF NE\VFOU!\!*U!..ft:

M) LEGISLATIVE LIB1V\"'RV PLEASE RETUf~!\7 Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF. NEWFOUNDLAND Third Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard} Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Number 59 11 June 1987

The House met at 3:00p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Before calling for Statements by Ministers, I would like to deal with a point of order raised by the hon. the member for St. John•s East (Mr. Long). The Deputy Chairman of Committees asked me if I would deal with it. I think it was originally raised as a point of privilege but later as a point of order . In Hansard, one would get the impression that the clauses referred to were taken together, but I did check that matter on the tape upstairs and clause 6 was called separately, as was clause 7. So that matter has been dealt with. 0 0 0 .- MR .

FLIGHT: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR . .SPEAKER: A point of privilege, the hon. the member for Windsor- Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to make my point of privilege as quickly as possible, Sir. Mr . Speaker, you will know that there were eleven jobs created in Catamaran Park, you will also know that there are demonstrations taking place now at Catamaran Park, and you will also know, Sir, that I raised the issue in Question Period yesterday, as was my right.

Today, on CBC radio, the Premier was quoted as saying that the reason no jobs went to Badger is because the member for L3140 June 11, 1987 Vol XL Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight) was not doing his job as a member of the House of Assembly. The Premier, Mr. Speaker, in answering my question yesterday said, and I quote from Hansard, 11 The minister has apparently informed me that he received no representation from the member for Windsor - Buchans, Mr. Flight, at all for these special provincial job creation projects. Now , Mr .

Speaker, I have, and I am prepared to table, copies of seven letters, · dated from February ·14 through to June 4-, addressed to Mr. Don Hustins, Director of Parks Division. I want to draw to the Speaker • s attention that each one of those letters, Sir, was in support of an application from Badger for the jobs. Mr. Speaker, I personally sent application forms to constituents in Badger and, Mr.

Speaker, recognizing what might happen as a result of the first two jobs that were placed in Catamaran Park, I called the Deputy Minister of Parks and told him the situation, that there were needy students in Badger I and young adults, who badly needed those jobs and if they did not get their share of jobs there may well be demonstrations . My motive, Sir I was to head off the kind of thing we are seeing in Badger. I will just say to the Speaker, in winding up my point of privilege, that the reason I write I and any other members write to the minister•s officials - MR. MATTHEWS: You did not write to me, boy. MR.

FLIGHT: is to keep political interference out of jobs that are created by this government . No. S9 R3140

My point of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker: I believe, in the Premier acting as he did in the House of Assembly and in public, he is trying to inhibit my ability to do my job as an MHA; he is questioning my diligence and sincerity and competence in performing as a member of this House of Assembly. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has breached my privileges as a member of this House of Assembly and I hope that you, Sir, and this House will concur that he has indeed done so. I believe I am intitled to nothing less than an apology from the Premier of this Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! DR . COLLINS: To the point of privilege, Mr . Speaker. ~ MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I hardly need get up, because Your Honour knows, I am sure, that that is not a point of privilege. The hon. the Premier answered to the best of his knowledge. The hon. member opposite does not agree with him. So what? It is a difference of opinion. There is no point of privilege there. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of privilege . MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Very briefly.

I am quite prepared L3141 June 11, 1987 Vol XL to rule, but I will hear the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be reinforced that what the gentleman fo~ Windsor - Buchans has demonstrated to the House is that the Premier has clearly been caught in a fairly clumsy attempt to mislead the House. It is understood that senior civil servants, of whom Don Hustins is certainly one, who have administrative responsibility for matters such as parks, clearly handle matters for their respective ministers.

The Premier, in submitting to this House yesterday that my friend and colleague had not made representation, was clearly making a false statement, a statement which does not stand up to scrutiny, as is demonstrated by the seven letters, not to mention the many phone calls and personal business that member has made on behalf of his constituents, particularly those in Badger in the present instance. So, I submit to you, Mr.

Speaker, that you consider, even if you want to take time to do this, the two contradictory bits of information : The Premier on the one hand says -the representation was not made, and my friend not only says it was made but says here is the proof that it was made. I submit to you, Sir, that that alone constitutes, on the part of the Premier, a breach of the privileges of that member and, indeed, all members of this Chamber. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR . SPEAKER: Order, please! No. 59 R3141

I have heard two submissions from my right. I will hear one more and then I will be quite prepared to make a ruling. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr . Speaker. privilege. MR .. SPEAKER: to that point of The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: In essence. what the hon. member for Windsor - Buchans has done is verify the Premier • s statement. as is in Hansard, that the member did not make representation to the minister . The member has verified that his representation was made to the Director of Parks.

Now, in the Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth, with its six divisions, hundreds and hundreds of letters a week go to officials about parks, wildlife, . recreation and youth. The situation is that this member did not make representation to me as a minister. I am on the floor of this legislature on a daily basis, when I am lobbied consistently by members from the two parties opposite. and on a number of occasions members opposite have come to me about jobs and there have been jobs provided. The fact of the matter is, I think, Mr .

Speaker, that the member has verified that indeed what the Premier said is correct, that he did not make representation to the minister. MR . SPEAKER: To that point of privilege, the hon. member · has taken the opportunity of explaining his point of view. There is no prima facie case of breach of privilege. I would like to welcome to the L3142 June 11, 1987 Vol XL visitor's gallery fifty-two Grade V students and their six teachers from Memorial Academy in Botwood. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr.

Speaker, by leave I would like to ask the Speaker to send a congratulatory letter to Mr. Gordon Obed, Nain, Labrador, an Inuit journalist, broadcaster with the Inuit radio station in Nain, who recently won the National Aboriginal Communications Society Award for Journalism. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WARREN: I might add, for the reporters in the gallery, that Mr. Obed only has a Grade VIII education, which shows the ability of that gentleman in the broadcasting field.

Gordon won his award when he attended a news conference held in Frobisher Bay by National Defence officials who were doing a seminar on the warning radar s y sterns for the North. Gordon did a four and a half minute broadcast interview with the officials and, subsequently, out of twenty-six communities across the North, Gordon was selected as the winner. I might add also, Mr . Speaker, he is the first Native person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to win such an award . No. S9 R3142

Thank you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Naskaupi. MR. KELLAND: It gives me pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to rise and add our party•s support to the congratulatory message that will go out to Mr. Obed. Just a day or two ago, I had the pleasure of doing an interview with Mr. Obed, as a working member of the Okaalakatigiit Society in Nain, and I was quite amazed and pleased with his grasp of the local situation with respect to Labrador issues, and we were discussing that in the interview..

He has a determination to . make sure the Society • s work is carried ·on on a very high level, which serves the communities mainly in Torngat Mountains district, from Nain to Rigolet. We do, indeed, support that sort of an enterprise by the Native peoples, particularly in the region of Labrador, and certainly in other parts of the Province as well. So, it is our pleasure to support that and add our congratulations to those expressed by the member for Torngat Mountains. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker . M R . S PEA K E.R : The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: M~.

Speaker, we would make it L3143 June 11, 1987 Uol XL unanimous, in that we join with the other two Labrador members in congratulating Mr. Obed for the fine journalistic work being done and point out that this is one of the facets that I think Native people are becoming much better at, int-erpreting to themselves and to the rest of the world in terms of what their aspirations are.

I think it is one of the steps towards creating an identity and a degree of self-government, which I think is very important and which we as a party endorse, and which I think all parties in this House should eventua-lly endorse, that there is a need, I think, for Native people, both Inuit and Innu, to feel some control over their own environment. The work they have done in communications clearly is a first step towards that, and we certainly endorse the fine journalistic work of Mr. Obed. MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President: of Treasury Board. MR. WINDSOR: Mr.

Speaker, I want to make two brief statements. I want to, first of all,· apologize to the parties opposite that I did not have copies available to give them. I will give them copies very shortly. They are very briefs statements. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that a tenative agreement has been reached with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, covering some 600 Lab and X-Ray employees in hospitals throughout the Province. I make this announcement on behalf of government and, as well, the Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing No. 59 R3143

Home will which 1987. Association. This agreement carry on from the agreement is due to expire on June 30, I am also pleased to announce on behalf of government and the · Marine Institute that tenative agreements have been reached with the two bargaining agents representing faculty and support staff employees at the Institute. The Marine Institute Faculty Association represents approximately 110 instructors and the Newfoundland Association of Public . Employees represents approximately 60 support staff employees.

The successful conclusion of these negotiations guarantees several years of labour peace and co-operation in this critical period in the Marine Institutes development. I also meant to note, Mr. Speaker, · the assistance of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) and his staff in facilitating these negotiations to this successful conclusion. I will also note, Mr. Speaker, that this brings to more than 99 per cent of all public employees who have signed collective agreements with this government within the last twelve months. Not bad for a government that cannot negotiate! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: Leader of the As the minister has intimated, we L3144 June 11, 1987 Vol XL have not seen copies of the statement, but judging from what the minister just said and particularly judging from his whistling past the graveyard remark at the end, it seems to me he probably protests too much when he talks about the 99 per cent and then, in his own words, •we cannot negotiate•. Both items are correct.

The 99 per cent -is correct, and they cannot negotiate is equally correct, else, how do you explain the furor in labour matters that wa have witnessed and haue been put through in this Province, particularly in the past three or four years, else, Mr. Speaker, how do you explain and how does the Minister of Labour, in particular, explain to the nurses of this Province, · to the hospital workers of this Province?

Where is his justification for the current frustration that those people are experiencing? people who · are caught up in a situation of almost volcanic proportions, a situation that is about to blow, I say to him. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

SIMMONS: I am talking particularly about hospital staff, so he can restrain himself on the red herring approach and just listen for a moment to what it is we are saying to him, because we are saying it on behalf of many hospital workers who have great concern about what is to happen to them because of the lack of attention of this administration to their legitimate concerns. I know what he is saying about nurses is true, but I also know and he knows to be true that the No. S9 R3144

hospital workers are most apprehensive these days with very good reason, Mr. Speaker. MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) agreement (inaudible) . MR. SIMMONS: I know exactly what the minister is · saying and the minister knows exactly what I am saying. I am saying to him that he can skate all he wants on this one, but what he ought to do instead is address that very serious situation in the hospitals before it blows publicly. That is what I am saying to him. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihe~. MR. FENWICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of comments: The 99 per cent that were under contract over the last twelve months, of course, would give one the impression if one did not know better that it was smooth sailing for the last twelve months. I think all of us realize that it has been a particularly rough road in terms of labour negotiations, especially with the employees of the provincial government. Hopefully, the committee now looking at the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act can bring in some excellent amendments to level off the playing field and in the future we will have some rules which all of us can live with.

L3145 June 11, 1987 Vol XL Having said that, I should note that the 600 lab and X-ray employees who have signed were one of the first groups to challenge the provincial government's authority to arbitrarily determine the rules. If I recall correctly, in the Fall of 1981 the infamous Bill 111 was brought in to order the lab and X-ray people back tQ work. I am glad to see that they have not held that completely against the · government and have been able to find an acceptable agreement. Mr.

Speaker, I think one of the things we should realize is that public employees are, by and large, extremely responsible individuals who would like nothing better than to do their job as best they can and to receive a fair wage for it. Hopefully, out of the next year or so, we will be able to bring in legislation which will ensure that in future the collective bargaining .process is carried on in a spirit of fairness, with protection for the public and also equal guarantees for the rights of the employees themselves . Thank you very much, Mr . Speaker. Oral Questi1ons MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth (Mr. Matthews). First off, · I No. 59 R3145

would like to know if the minister has the report of the Facility Advisory Committee on Recreational Facilities. If he has it, since it was, I believe, in late 1985 that they finished their hearings and submitted it to him, I would like to know the date they ·submitted it to him, I would like to . know why he has not tabled it in the House, and I would also like to know the mandate for which they undertook to report. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. · MR. MATTHEWS: Mr.

Speaker, the report was done by the Facility Advisory Committee, which was an advisory committee to the minister. The committee was appointed by my predecessor, who is now the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Ri.deout), and the · report was delivered to me approximately eleven or twelve mon.ths ago. We had the department do a detailed analysis of it. There were a lot of recommendations in it, some of a monetary nature, some of a non-monetary nature, and government has been evaluating it for a long period of time. It looks very much, Mr.

Speaker, as if the monetary recommendations of the report are causing some concern for us considering the Province•s financial position. MR. K. AYLWARD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER : A supplementary, the hon. the member for Stephenville . MR. K. Could since groups L3146 AYLWARD: the minister this report from around tell was the June 11, 1987 us why, done by Province Vol XL who presented briefs and so on, he has not presented the report to the House of Assembly since it is a report that many people out there would like to see because it gives a plan?

I would like to know why he has not brought it to the House. Is the reason he has not brought it to the House because there is embarrassing information in the report, which tells about the job that Culture, Recreation and Youth has been doing in the allocation of grants and so on? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not the reason. It is a good report. As I said, there are numerous recommendations in the report.

Some of the recommendations, as I said, are of a strictly monetary nature, recommending the hiring of additional staff for various purposes for recreation in the Province. One of the main thrusts of the report is planning, and they talk about a number of positions for planning. The other situation is there are a number of recommendations in the report that haue already been acted upon within the past two years by the department, such as electrical power subsidies, retrofit to make facilities in the Province more energy efficient, and reducing the length of the payout

schedule of recreation capital grants. These are things that have been already ongoing for the last two years, at least since I haue been minister of the department. So some of the recommendations of the report, Mr. Speaker, were already being ac;ted upon before the report was even No. 59 R3146 .. "' -- u - ~ !__. , 4 '!.... . ..C..·...:!-•-'- -·-- _,._ ~·-~··- ~~~~ ..... ·-·~- .. -,_.~----· ··--

received ~ As I said, there are other recommendations that are of a strictly financial nature and, as I have said, we have some concerns about them, looking at the financial position of the Province, which reflects directly upon the department. That is the situation with the report, Mr. Speaker. MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. K. AYLWARD : Would the minister answer these questions?

First off, I want to know why, again, he has not brought it to the House of Assembly since there are many groups out there who would like to have a copy of the report since they put their input into it? Also, why will 'he not give us the details of the grants that have been allocated in the last two or three years, which we have requested on numerous occasions and which I have requested in the estimates committee? Why will you not give us the details of the allocations of grants, where they have gone? Is the reason because you are afraid that we might see where the monies have been going? Is that the reason?

Why do you not just show us the fair job that you have been doing? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, now the hon . gentleman has expanded his question to talk about recreation capital grants and allocations over the last number of years.

He is not dealing now specifically L3147 June 11, 1987 Vol XL -- with the Facility Advisory Committee Report, 'because the only thrust in the Facility Advisory Committee Report on recreation capital grants is that the pay out period of staggering it for four or five years should be reduced, and we are making a uery conscious effort to try and reduce that. Of course, that puts us in a bit of a dilemma, because if you reduce the pay out

schedule for grants then it enables you to fund less projects in the Province from recreation improvements, to facilities or start up of new facilities. So it is the sort of dilemma that you get into,

whereas if you have a longer staggered period of payment, you can then fund and get started a greater number of projects. So that is a bit of a dilemma in that particular area of recreation capital grants. As I said to the hon. gentleman, the facility Advisory Committee is an advisory committee to ·the minister. and I guess that should explain to the hon. member why the report has not been tabled to date. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth.

His original answer to the member for Stephenville (Mr. K. Aylward), he gave as his reason for not tabling the report - if I can get his attention - the fact that there were monitory recommendations and that there were planning recommendations and so on, recommendations concerning planning.· I am sure that the No. 59 R3147

minister, Mr. Speaker, will admit that the tabling or the making public of the report does not commit the government to spending money or indeed to undertaking the recommendations that are contained therein. He will also recognize that the report is twelve months old, so I would ask him, Mr. Speaker, when can we expect this report to be tabled in the House, which he has had in his possession for twelve months; so that the public can have a debate, so that we can .~ave a debate in this Legislature? When will he table that report? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR.

MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Facility Advisory Committee was struck as a result · of the Green Paper on Recreation which was commissioned back in the days . when the Minister. · o-1= Transportation (Mr. Dawe) was Minister of Culture, ·Recreation and Youth. And there has been an ongoing process steming out of the Green Paper on Recreation, and this Facility Advisory Committee report was one of the recommendations of the Green Paper.

It is spelled out in the Green Paper on Recreation that a Facility Advisory Committee would be struck and would be an Advisory Committee to the minister to do a report to give to the minister for advice. That is specifically what has happened. As I said, we have gone through a long period of evaluation, looking at it from a department point of view, the various committees of Cabinet have looked at it and so on. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman talks about planning and so on. I mean, it is one thing to L3148 June 1 L 1987 Vol XL talk about recommendations that we already started and initiated.

Last year, for feasibility studies and viability studies in this Province, we funded some eight or ten communities or regions for feasibility studies. The han. gentleman, I guess, is very much aware that one of those studies we p~rtially funded was a study for Stephenville. And we have done it in various regions of the Province that have had requests in for planning, because our department is a strong believer in proper planning since we have forty or so stadiums in the Province -and twenty or so swimming pools. I think for a Province with our population and size that we are very well versed in major facilities.

Of course, a lot of the problems that we are now experiencing in recreation facilities in the Province, in major facilities, is that there · was inadequate planning went into the original structures. So we are trying to correct that. We have made a moue towards planning which is the major thrust of the Facility Advisory Committee Report. So we have already initiated that before we even received the report. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary . MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the minister will note that I asked him when he would table the report.

I would ask him why he refuses to answer the question, why he refuses to table a report which is twelve months ol~, which he has had in his position for twelve months? AN HON. MEMBER : No. S9 R3148

Fourteen. MR. TULK: Fourteen, practically, fourteen months . I would ask him why he has a report in his hands for fourteen months which he refuses to make public? It creates suspicion, and I would ask him has he- something to hide, if indeed. the Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth is perhaps being used a political pork barrel by the hon. gentleman? .. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has been a suspicious. character since I first met him.

I would suggest that his new Leader down there should be very suspicious of him as well, because any day now he could start another movement. But to get back to the report, Mr. Speaker, as I have said indirectly, I guess I have answered the question in answering the member for Stephenville. I do not know how much plainer I can say it: The Facility Advisory Committee did a report, an advisory report to the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth, of whom there is only one in this House of Assembly and in this Province and that happens to me, so I have it. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: L3149 June 11, 1987 Vol XL The hon. the member for Winsdor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. My question also JLs for the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. I indicate!d earlier to the minister that I have in my hands copies of letters that I have written from February to April to June on behalf of constituents seeking jobs at Catamaran Park. Now, I would ask the minister, does this mean anything?

Does this make any difference at all, or is the minister saying that in order to get jobs at Catamaran Park an applicant must have the direct, expressed approval of the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth (Mr. Simms)? Is that what the minister is saying? MR . SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture, · Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said at all.

The Premier in answering a question yesterday said that from information he had received from the minister that this member nad not made any representation to me, which was just a side comment of the total discussion and answer. Now the hon. gentleman comes into the House today with seven letters, which he has not tabled yet, that he says he sent to the Director of Parks. As I said before, there are hundreds and hundreds of letters a week that go to officials within the Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth about· numbers of matters pertaining to the depa1rtment.

The thing is I deal with hundreds of letters a week as a minister and, No. 59 R3149

I mean, it is just not possible to remember all the letters that come to me about certain aspects of the department. I mean, the member for Port de Graue (Mr. Efford) has been asking about a letter he wrote me -as well. He wrote it to me, it was receiued on April 13, I responded back to the person he enquired about, I think it was around the twentieth, with a copy of an application for her to apply for a parks job. The other thing is, of course, in another situation, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is trying to make this a uery one-sided issue and he is being uery parochial about it.

All of the people employed in Catamaran Park were unemployed Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who were eligible to work on a provincial Job Creation Programme in a provincial park. Now, that is not taking anything away whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, from the people whom he is now talking about who . did not get a job, that they did not haue a uery legitimate need, and there are hundreds of others, some 1100 in the Prouince, -who applied for our Job Creation Programme in parks, of whom we haue hired 22S. So the answer to the hon. gentleman 1 s question is no.

Those who got jobs in the parks did not get them as a direct result of interference or representation by a member on either side. We ran into a situation in Sand Banks, in Burgeo Bay d 1 Espoir, where, when the number of applications were in, some of them were from high school students who were not eligible to work until June 20, so we were one short. The information that I haue is that someone in my office, in my department, called the member and said, "Look, we are one · short.

Is there any way you can assist us with a name because we wo u 1 d 1 i k e to · f i 11 up the j o b s , 11 L31SO June 11, 1987 Vol XL to seuen, or eight or whatever it was. So that happened and we thank the hon. member for it. That is the way we like to work, Mr. Speaker. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary . I would ask all hon. members to try and ke~p their questions short and their answers as brief as possible . The hon . the member for Windsor - Buchans . MR . FLIGHT: Since it is the final supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, I have to remind the minister that those letters went direct to the man in Newfoundland responsible for the administration of parks. Either one of two things is happening: Either his officials are ignoring the minister, or the minister is ignoring the officials. MR. BAIRD: And they are all ignoring you . MR. FLIGHT : Mr. Speaker, ~arlier today the minister said, 1 Dozens of members of the House of Assembly have come to me and, as a result, got jobs. 1 Now, that is what the minister said.

Now, is this not admitting blatant political interference in the passing out of jobs in parks, specifically Catamaran, or anything else that this minister is responsible for in this Province - blatant, political interference? He has admitted it! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! No. 59 R31SO

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Mini's ter of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I do not know if I used the word 'dozens', but on a ddily basis there are members opposite, of your party - you should talk to some of your colleagues - who lobby me for jobs in parks, for grants, for some problems with moose licenses, for some youth problems, and I talk to them, and so I should. I am proud to do it. Now, the hon. member is being very parochial. On one occasion last year he had a member make representation to me for work for his own daughter. MR. HISCOCK: And why not? MR.

MATTHEWS: And IIJhY not: What I am saying is you cannot have it all one way. When something does not go your way, do not try to kick the hell out of us because things are not going properly for you, and on the other side, then, make representation. You never bring up when, because of some representation you make or because of my consideration as the minister, things sort of work out for you when you call somebody and tell them, 'Boy, I made representation to the minister, I think you are going to get your grant, I think you are going to get a job.

I do not know, but I think.' When it works out we never hear anything about it. We have a situation in Catamaran Park which is similar to a lot of other areas of the Province. We had 1100 people apply for jobs . We had 225 jobs created, of which L3151 June 11, 1987 Vol XL 40 per cent are for youth. Ninety young people, under the age of twenty-five, are now working as a result of that job creation programme in provincial parks only. Today in provincial parks we have 516 people employed, and 225 of those are a direct result of this government's job creation programme .

Today in provincial parks there are 185 people working who are under twenty-five years of age. Mr .. Speaker, I am not going to apologize to the hon. member or anyone else for that. I am proud that this year, under the Job Creation Programme, I have been able to access approximately $1 million for improvements to provincial parks and, in so doing, we have created 225 jobs. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon . the m~mber for Menihek . MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth as well, and it is in the same vein.

Could the minister tell us what precedure has been used -in order to select employees for employment at the Duley Lake camp ground in Labrador West? Is it the same way as he has indicated here, by applications to the minister, or has some other procedure been used? MR. SPEAKER: The h'on. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS : Mr . Speaker, it is no different in Duley Lake than in any other part of the Province. I think, under the announced Job Creation No. 59 R3151

Programme, it was explained quite explicitly what people had to do to be considered. There had to be applications on file. There has been an update on a weekly basis of the jobs created in the Province because of the Job Cre-ation Programmes, in Fisheries '·, Rural Development, Forestry, and par.ks, and, I think, the hon. gentleman is well aware of it. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: My supplementary. Mr. Speaker, is, if it is done the same way, could the minister explain why the secretary to the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr.

Warren) convened a meeting last March of Memorial University students to ask which of them were interested in jobs at the park, and why she was the individual who has handled the actual hiring of the people? Why is she the actual individual who not only hired them but has been in contact with them, getting their social insurance number and getting them squared away in the park itself? Could he explain, if this is the same procedure used elsewhere, what is the member for Torngat Mountain•s secretary doing as a recruiting agent for your department? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture.

Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the member 1 s secretary is not a recruitment officer for my department. I do not know where he was in March. I ·am not sure. L31S2 June 11, 1987 Vol XL '"'"· MR. YOUNG: In jail, I think. MR. MATTHEWS: I do know if he was able to make representation on behalf of his district or not, because there have been periods of time over the last twelve months where he really could not.

All I can say is that the ·representation that the hon. member has made for his own district of Torngat Mountains, and indeed all of Labrador, is second to none since my involvement, in the five years I have been here in this House of Assembly. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MATTHEWS: If they had the initiative and the foresight to go and talk to students at Memorial University to try and help them find employment th~oughout the Summer, -regardless of whether it was with the provincial or federal government, then I commend the member for Torngat Mountains and his secrectary.

I just want to assure you, in answer to your question that no, she is not a recruitment officer for the Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth, and the hiring process in Duley Lake was the same as for every other park in the Province, Some thirty-five where there are projects ongoing. People had to apply to the Parks Division and, as I said, there were 1100 applications and 225 jobs and, anytime you have that situation, Mr. Speaker, whether in parks or in other sectors of society, the 900 or so who do not get jobs are quite naturally disappointed.

I appreciate that because we do realize there is a real problem with unemployment in the Province. No. S9 R31S2

MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister but I am not sure that the question will get through because it does not seem that he is · capable of understanding that he is playing with the people•s money and not his own - is: Does the minister not feel any shame whatsoever - MR. MATTHEWS: Not a bit. MR.

FENWICK: - that the money that is voted by taxation in this Province, that comes partially from the federal government, is being used in o'rder to prop up the Tory Party in this Province by specifically hiring people who, in order to work, are later under obligation to those particular members? Does the minister not feel any shame that this perversion of the government process is being done on a conscious basis by his department, by the member for Torngat Mountains, and even by the staff of the member for Torngat? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: Mr.

Speaker, if there is one member of this House of Assembly who should no t stand up and talk about shame it is that hon. member right there. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! L31S3 June 11, 1987 Vol XL MR . MATTHEWS: It is obvious, Mr . Speaker, that he does not have any shame, because I do not know how he can come into this House of Assembly with some of the stands that we have seen in this session on matters that of great importance to this Province, particularly Labrador whose residents he is supposed to represent, Mr . Speaker. He is against economic development and job creation in Labrador. That is .::lbvious.

It seems now that he does not even want the students at Memorial University to get jobs. Mr. Speaker, all I can say to him about this Job Creation Programme is if we do not create jobs, the hon. member gets up and says we should be ashamed. Well, we went out and created 225 additional jobs in provincial parks alone, and there have been thousands of jobs created through our public Job Creation Programme through the private sector, and no, Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed at all. I am proud of the programme that we have initiated. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. MR.

SIMMONS: Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I had intended putting a questio n to the Premier. In his absence, let me put the question to the Government House Leader, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Ottenheime r). Can the minister indicate whether he anticipates there is going to be some increased offshore drilling activity this year in the Newfoundland offshore, and if so, No. 59 R31S3

. can he give us the details of that exploration_this Summer? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, there will be two rigs and two wells will be drilled for Petro-Canada. That is in connection with the Terra Nova field. Of course, that was interrupted some time ago when there was · a fire. I understand that that rig will be back drilling very, very soon. Also Husky-Bow Valley, will be drilling two wells, and there is a possibility of another. So there are four drilling operations definite and the possibility of a fifth during this Summer - Fall season. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, a suppl~mentary. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary. MR. SIMMONS : Mr. Speaker, what the minister has just said, of course, is good information but not new information in the sense that it has long since been known publicly to be the case. In addition to that, is the minister aware of any intention on the part of the federal Minister of Energy, Marcel Masse, to come soon to make some announcements, I would allege, as a means of shoring up the sagging fortunes of the Tory candidate in St.

John's East federal, but that aside, is he aware of the intention of Marcel Masse to come into town soon for the purpose of announcing some additional, heretofore unannounced drilling L3154 June 11, 1987 Vol· XL ' activity? MR. OTTENHEIMER : Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. MR. OTTENHEIMER : Mr. Speaker, just as an aside, and it obviously arises from the aside of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, of course Mr. T.V. Hickey, well-known to all of us h~re, is I understand running a vigorous and dynamic campaign and the odds are on him, almost to the same extent of Mrs. Thatcher.

But that was something of an aside. Ac~ually, the Minister of Energy is in St. John's now. As a matter of fact, I sat next to him during lunch. He was here and I spent an hour or so with him before lunch. He was here at the . invitation of the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Offshore '87 Exhibition.

He was the guest speaker there and gave an overview, I suppose that would be the best way of describing it, of the energy policy of the Government of Canada, and also with respect to the situation of frontier oil in Newfoundland, and he spoke on some other matters as well, and I think that is what the hon . gentleman is referring to. He is here now, he ~s leaving later today. He did not make any spectacular announcement. And I am quite sure his visit here really had nothing to do with the by-election because he was invited as guest speaker for this Offshore '87 Exhibition some time ago, . but I do not know when.

MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary, Mr . Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: No. 59 R3154

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader. of the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: Again as an aside, I agree with the minister that T.V. Hickey•s odds are so good he has been referred to these days as •shannie Hickey•. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister put to bed another wild rumour, that Petro-Can has an option on a floating platform in relation to the Terra Nova field? Is he aware of that option to engage the services of the platform? Is he aware of that? Can he indicate whether some development - MR. MORGAN: How is •steve Murpb~· doing? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

SIMMONS: on the Terra Nova field imminent, in addition to announcement made last Spring Petro-Can? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: is the by The hon. the Government House Leader. MR . OTTENHEIMER: Mr . Speaker, obviously if Petro-Canada is going ahead with, number one, the exploratory work, and I have no doubt they are also looking at various means of production.

Indeed, at the offshore conference a lot of the attention and a lot of the papers delivered dealt with the area of L31SS June :1.1, 1987 Vol XL floating platform technology as related to smaller fields, smaller in comparison with Hibernia, fields, let us say, like Terra Nova. But, I mean, there is nothing they can do except continue their exploratory work and their planning, and examine and make corporate decisions with respect to the development technology and the different ·kinds of platforms available and their costs and their relative feasibility.

Before it goes ahead, obviously, they have to put forward to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Development Board a development plan. So there is nothing spectacular to be done prior to that. I am not sure if I am missing some point in the hon. gentleman•s question, but before there is any development, obviously the plan has to be, number one, finalized and done up, and then submitted to the board and then approved by the board, and the two orders of government would have, naturally, their input there also. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Mount Scio. MR.

BARRY: I would like to ask the Government House Leader, the Minister of Energy, is he aware of the fact that there have been 25 people laid off by Mobil over the last seven months, over 100 employees laid off in this Province by Mobil in the last year, and that Mobil Oil is operating right now with a skeleton crew out of its Newfoundland office? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. No. 59 R3155

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the latest figures that I had with respect to people working at Mobil Office here, and they would have been about ten days or so ago, was that there were 4 7 p eo p 1 e wo r k i n g h e r e now, out of any number of figures because it is changed over the past _few years . MiL BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Mount Scio . MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the average figure, I think the minister would confirm, would be around 200 employees over the last several years, and that has gone down from 200 down to less than fifty to forty-seven.

I accept that figure if the minister says so. Is the minister aware that Mobil Oil has also been selling off at rock-bottom, bargain-basement prices equipment which they have had stored in Newfoundland which would be essential for any further drilling carried out by that company? For example, blowout preventers, I am informed - is the minister aware? - have been sold for something like 25 per cent of their value? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader . MR. OTTENHEIMER : Mr. Speaker, I am not aware specifically of the inventory of Mobil or what they might be selling or not selling.

I think it is generally recognized that a great deal of equipment in this offshore area is purchasable now at costs much less than some time L3156 June 11, 1987 Vol XL ago, I suppose certainly connected with the fact that exploratory activity in Newfoundland, and in general throughout the industry, is much less than it was some years ago. That, of course, is related to a number of factors, including, obviously, the price of oil. There is no doubt about that, that that is a general trend. MR. BARRY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Mount Scio - Bell Island. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister: Would he admit and agree that he completely evaded answering the question? The fact that Mobil might be able to buy equipmen~ at bargain-basement prices has nothing to do with the fact that they · are selling equipment which they need if they plan to drill.

Would the minister agree that if Mobil Oil is selling off blowout preuenters, if Mobil Oil is selling off casing which would be required for future wells drilled, that this would indicate something negative in terms of their expectati"on with respect to any early work in seeing the development of Hibernia? MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the Government House Leader. MR . OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with that inference whatsoever. ·I mean, Mobil buys things, Mobil sells things.

They do phone my office or anybody elses office to say today or next week we are planning to buy this and this, and this and then we are going to sell No. 59 R3156

this and this and this. I mean, they do not inform me. I do not particularly need to be informed on that. They buy what they need. If they have something they do not need they sell it, and maybe they sell it because they want to replace it with something better, something newer, something mor-e relevant. Whether it is blowout preventers or any number of other things, anymore than if they buy a new suite'of offices or a new -safe for the President's office or a new car or whatever it is, I do not have an inventory of what Mobil buys and what Mobil sells. That is their own corporate business.

With respect to any linkage of that, I mean, the companies have not yet informed both governments what their position is with respect to the joint federal provincial offer made to them in March. We expect that there will be a meeting in late June or early July when we will have that information. I am quite sure that whoever is in charge of selling or buying a piece of equipment hither and thither is not doing it on the basis of a decision which probably has not been totally finalized yet by the entire group, because there is Mobil and the others, and they presumably have to get a kind of consensus, too.

So I do not draw any inferences from the fact that a piece of equipment has been sold or, indeed, if a piece of equipment has been bought. I do not draw any inferences with respect to the federal provincial offer and the companies reaction to it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time elapsed .. for Oral Questions has L3157 June 11, 1987 Vol XL 0 0 0 MR. GILBERT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the member for Burgeo- Bay d'Espoir. MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt Question Period.

During Question Period the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth referred to a phone call that I had from an official of his department. · I would like to clarify that. I certainly did, and instead of getting involved in political patronage - there was lots of people in Burgeo, good Liberals, I could have phoned the way I handled the situation was I phoned the Department of Social Services in Burgeo and they recommended a person who was h~red by the minister's department. I would suggest an idecl, Sir: The way to get around the problem would be to use Manpower. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

MATTHEWS : To that Point Speaker. of order, Mr . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order . MR. MATTHEWS: I think I should be able to respond, Mr. Speaker. A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of Minister of No. 59 order, the Culture, hon. the Recreation R3157

and Youth. MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to react to what the hon. gentleman said. The reference to him in Question Period was certainly not meant to be a negative remark in any way, it was just to clarify that in some cases ~e do consult and we appreciated · what he did for us. Not that it was political at all. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That was a direct reference to a point I had already ruled on and there was no point of order. There is no point of order now. Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am very pleased to table the annual report of the Canada/Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. It _is being tabled, of course, in this Legislature . and in the House of Commons today. This is, as hon. members are aware, a federal/provincial board and this is the first report. Hon. members will notice, as well, that it is in both French and English. Being a federal/provincial board, that is, I think we would all agree, quite appropriate.

I cannot hesitate or pass the opportunity of pointing out that there is even in there a small picture of the L3158 June 11, 1987 Vol XL hon. Marcel Masse and also of the hon. myself. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! DR. COLLINS: In French or E~glish? MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would point out, as well, to hon. members that the Chairman of the Canada/Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, Mr. Ted Baugh, is in the gallery; he wanted to make sure that I tabled ~t correctly. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Orders of the Day MR. OTTENHEIMER: Order 13.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting An Increase In Pensions 11 • (Bill No. 28). DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR . COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, this is a pension matter. Possibly I should point out that there is another pension matter also on the Order Paper which will deal with a-matter that has caused some comment recently, but this particular bill is not that bill. This is a bill that arises out of announcements in the budget and it deals with an increase in pensions. We haue brought in ad hoc increases in pensions a number of times in this House.

Our pens ion plans are not indexed, and I think for very good No. 59 R3158

reasons, but we have brou~ht in increases a number of times and this is one such occasion. The pensioners will be the Public Service, will be the teachers, will be those on ex gratia awards, MHAs, for instance, uniformed services, and so on. As we have done a number of times in the past, the increases are structured so that those longest on pension, up to a certain point in time, will get greater increases than those who became recent pensioners.

The reason for that, of course, I am sure hon. members are aware, is that a number of years ago, when salaries were quite small compared to present day salaries, the pension benefits were similarly small. The average increase to the fund will be about 4.5 per cent, and the total amount will approximate an extra $2 million going to pensioners. There will be at least a 3 per cent increase for all pensioners, and, as I mentioned, there will be additional amounts so that the maximum will be a 10 per cent increase for pensioners who get the maximum increase.

There is also a floor to the pension increase, a floor of $240 per year. I think, Mr. Speak~r, this is all I really need say on it, although there well may be questions arise, probably on a broader aspect of pensions not specifically on this, because it is a fairly simple bill and I so move second reading. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bonavista North. L3159 June 11, 1987 Vol XL MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, any increases to pensioners, particularly by this particular government, we will support.

I hope the minister does not find some way to take away the increase, in the way that they have dealt with the Canada Pension Plan. Anyway, that is a different story and we will deal with that at a later date. Suffice it to say that we certainly welcome these increases to pensioners, people who, over the last number of years, through loss of income and through erosion of the dollar, through in.flat ·ton and the cost of living, certainly, l\1r. Speaker, can take the increase that the minister has given them today and more besides.

I would like to have seen a more uniform and a more! consistent increase over the years . It is unfortunate that we see many of those pensioners not getting the increase that was given to members of the Public Service, workers in the employ of the go~1ernment, who I think mostly got a 6 per cent increase. If I have any criticism of this bill it is that I would like to see no pensioner receiving less than that amount, no less than 6 per cent , which was the wage settlement given most government employees . The minister talks about pensioners who retired recently.

We are looking here at 1977, which is ten years ago, and that is hardly very recent . There has certainly been a tremendous escalation in the cost of living since that time and a tremendous erosion in the dollar to pensioners, and I would have to say that that is pittance for that group of people who retired in 1977, to be getting a 3 per cent increase, then in 1976 a 4 per No. 59 R31S9

cent increase, and 1975, which takes us back to twelve years ago, getting a S per cent increase. Mr. Speaker, if there is any criticism that I would level at the government it is that I believe that no group of pensioners should have received less than 6 per cent, the rate of increase that was given all unionized public service employees. I certainly would like to have seen that increase for these particular people, in other words, no one receiving less than 6 per cent. That certainly is something that the government should keep in mind in giving increases to pensioners.

I certainly do not disagree with the 10 per cent, and I am sure that we could advocate that it would be more, the 10 per cent to those people who retired in 1971, and prior to that date 10 per cent. I would only wish that every year we could see a consistent and uniform increase to our pensioners, Mr.

Speaker, who, over the last several years in particular, have seen their dollar eroded and, with the high cost of living, many pensioners find it very, very difficult to make it on the monies that they have, particularly, as the minister alluded to, those people who retired back fifteen or twenty years ago when they were working with very, very low salaries. So we certainly do not disagree with that 10 per cent and only wish that it could have been a little more.

But suffice it to say, I would hope that in the future we could somehow bring in regular increases to pensions and certainly make it at the level that all public service employees L3160 June 11, 1987 Vol XL receive. Now, Mr. Speaker, ·I realize that the minister said he was going to deal with the Canada Pension Plan in another bill. I just hope that we get a chance to get at that bill so the minister can explain what went on in this particular situation. We have a situation, as far as I understand, that is not happening anywhere else in Canada.

We have a reduction in the provincial pension when a person retires early, especially somewhere between the age of sixty and sixty-five. I heard the minister make some comments last night. He did not impress me. He did not convince! me that the reasons why he was doing this were valid reasons. He talked about the fact that we pay a lower rate to our pensions than anyone else in the country. . That still does not account for a person being robbed of what is fully· their benefit on a provincial pension when they receive a Canada pension. There is no reason for that, Mr. Speaker.

The minister can stand up in this House and he can go on the public airwaves until he is blue in the face and he will not convince the pensioners of this Province that he is doing the right thing, that he has done the right thing or that there is any substantive reason for it, other than, Mr. Speaker, to take money away from the pensioners, money that they deserve. So I hope the minister will not present that bill. I hope that he will throw that bill away. I hope that that bill will remain on the Order Paper. Is that the word, 1 remain 1 on the Order Paper, and that it will be just done away No. 59 R3160

with? MR. BARRY: Die on the Order Paper. MR. LUSH: Die on the Order Paper, Speaker, because it is not a that is beneficial to pensioners of this Province. DR. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr. bill the A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it is really not my intention in any way to inhibit the member's comments, but I really do have to point out that it is improper, incorrect, and not parliamentary t.o comment ' on another bill that is on the Order Paper when you are discussing a separate bill. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is not just a quibble, that is an important point, because clearly in this House we debate, we put forward a view and the other side will put forward another view. It is improper for one side to be able to put forward a view without the opposite side having a similar opportunity. I cannot do it because I would be out of order if I commented on this other bill. The member is referring to Bill 40, whatever order it is on the Order Paper. It will come up for debate.

The hon. member is -quite improper in taking to himself the ability or the opportunity to comment on that bill, and being out of order in doing so, and I cannot comment back because I then would be out of order. So I think L3161 June 11, 1987 Vol XL it is for a very good reason that Beauchesne and parliamentary practice and, indeed, our own orders, I believe, say that if there is a bill on the Order Paper, that is not to be commented on when a separate bill is under discussion. MR. SIMMONS: To that point Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: of order, Mr . To that point of order, the hon . the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

SIMMONS : The minister can try uery hard but he is not going to get away with that one. Mr; Speaker, he knows full well that when he introduced the bill on Second Reading, he had all the latitude he wanted as long as he -confines himself to the issue of pensions. Iostead of that, he chose to treat the matter f~ippantly and inside of two minutes he had exhausted what he wanted to say about it. That is his privilege . My friend for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) is now addressing an issue, Mr. Speaker, which surely bears on the subject in the very title of the bill, iAn Increase In Pensions • .

My friend and colleague for Bonavista North is bringing to the attention of the House a matter which has the effect of minimizing the purported increases as provided for in this bill. So, Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the Minister of Finance (Or. Collins) in the sense that it touches on ~ subject which is also the subject of another bill, I ask you, Sir, how it is possible in this Chamber when you have a number of pieces of legislation No . 59 R3161

before you, many on related subjects, how it is possible sometimes to address the one subject without touching on, inadvertently, the subject matter of another piece of legislation. So I submit to you that my friend for Bonauista North is quite in order and should be allowed to continue without interruption. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. DR. COLLINS: The hon. the Minister. _of Finance . DR. COLLINS: I do not know if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition misunderstood me. I have no problem whatever if the hon. member is just touching on another matter. We can all field ·that type of thing.

But if he is going to get into a substantive discussion of the matter in Bill 40, he is clearly out of order. In Beauchesne,

Section 340, this comes under what is called The Rule Of Anticipation.

I will not read the whole thing but, for instance, it says here 11 The rule of anticipation, a rule which forbids discussion of a matter standing on the Order Paper .from being forestalled, is dependent upon the same principle as that which forbids the same question from being raised twice within the same session. 11 It says further down, 11 In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the grounds of anticipation, the Speaker must have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable period of time. 11 It is clear that Bill 40 will be L3162 June 11, 1987 Uol XL up for discussion.

It is obviously not in order to go into this in any substantive way. There is no problem with just an allusion to it or a reference to it or whatever, but to get into substantive debate on Bill 40 would be out of order and, as I say, it would be unfair because I could not then comment back, which normally would be my right, without breaking the rules of this House, and I certainly would not do it even with leave from the hon. member opposite. MR. SIMMONS: Further to that Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Further to that the hon. the Opposition. MR. SIMMONS: point of order, point of order, Leader of tbe Mr ..

Speaker, the Explanatory Note on Bill 28 is very specific. It says, 11 This Bill would provide for an increase of certain pensions . 11 Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the minister can suggest that my friend for Bonavista North cannot talk about decreases, surely. My friend for Bonavista North has not mentioned Bill ·40. I giue you the undertaking now, Mr. Speaker, he will not mention Bill 40. But surely he ought to be able to canvas because we are talking at the principle stage of the bill, he ought to be able to canvas the issues relating to increases and, by implication, decreases in pensions.

MR. 'SPEAKER: To the point of order raised by the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Bonavista North did refer to a bill that has not been debated in the House No. 59 R3162

.::" yet. I would ask him to be more relevant in the bill that we are debating today. The hon . the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was commending the government on its increase to these pensioners in this particular bill, and was making the point that I was hoping that the government was not looking for a way to try and take away the increase that they had given them as · they done with certain pensioners, Mr. Speaker. They have been doing it for some time with changes in the Canada Pension Plan which now entitle a person to retire early at age sixty.

It was the intention of the Canada Pension Plan · to be advantageous to a person who wanted to retire at age sixty. But, Mr. Speaker, what happened? In this Province and this Province alone, when a person reaches the age of sixty and applies for their pension which they are entitled to receive, the Province puts in a reduction factor and reduces that person's pension. The sad part about this, Mr. Speaker, is that that reduction stays in place for tb.e lifetime of the pensioner. It is my understanding that the federal government does not ... . like it. They are not pleased with it. I understand that Mr.

Epp has written the minister and indicated to him that he does not want the pensioners punished in this Province because of benefits they receive from the Canada Pension and that is exactly what is happening. Mr. Epp has written the minister telling him precisely that. He believes that all L3163 June 11, 1987 Vol XL pensioners should receive the full benefit of their pension plus the full benefits of the Canada Pension Plan . Mr. Speaker, that is not happening in this Province . I am just wondering now whether this is not a mechan:ism that the minister has found to pay the increases of those pensioners here.

I am just wondering if that is not a mechanism he has found to pay for the increases in these pensions here by using the Canada Pension Plan to the advantage of this Province. That is the key, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial government, the government of this Province, is using the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan to the advantage of the Province and not to the advantage of pensioners. That is what is happening and it should stop. They should follow the advice given by Mr. Epp. Mr. Epp has given the minister good advice. He has given him two good suggestions, as I recall.

He said first of all the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) can do this: When a person retires at age 60, or somewhere between age 60 and 65, the Province can forget, dismiss altogether that they are receiving Canada Pension. In other words, they receive the full •ntitlement of their provincial ·benefits and the entitlement which they receive from Ca-nada Pension . He can do that .

Or, he can bring in a reduction factor but spread it over a longer period so that the pensioner would not feel the effect of it so badly and it would be a more palatable thing to do, but it looks like the minister is not going to do either. It would be my suggestion and my choice that they take the first No. 59 R3163 ~~ . ··~~~ *" ~ >s::Jt .... i&S!:d "§':m ·'lk '!'t:~'-~·_.. ...... .. :::::. ::::a..- ..im .'i.).,. . .:· ~ P.-... ~ · ........ .n. ... ---~1.~.- .\· -...c.. .:;:;:::$" _d.:!. ~· -· 7 ·

.. suggestion by the minister and that they forget all together, that they ignore the fact that they are receiving Canada Pension because that is the purpose of Canada Pension. Canada Pension is to enhance and make the economic situation of the pensioner better, not to take anything away and not to· put them in a worse off situation. It is the intention of the federal government that a person receiving Canada Pension receive the full benefits and not have the pensioner lose any benefits through his provincial pension because he or she happens to be receiving a Canada Pension. That is the crux of the matter, Mr.

Speaker. I wonder how many of those people to whom the minister is going to give increases today are going to be affected by that. I wonder how , many of these are early retirees. I expect there are a number of them. Mr. Speaker, I would· suggest that along with this increase today that the minister is going to give pensioners, and I do not see anybody objecting to it , we might suggest , as I h au e , that they should be given more particularly, I hope, he takes to heart and heeds my suggestion that in the future we not give pensioners any lower increase than what has not been given to the public service.

If that is a 6 per cent, then that is what they should receive. Nobody should receive lower than that, Also, in addition to looking at trying to make the increases compatible and in harmony with the increases in the public service, in addition to looking at that, I would hope that the minister would look at what he is now doing in terms of using the Canada Pension Plan to the benefit of the Province. The minister cannot deny that. That is what L3164 June 11, 1987 Vol XL this Province is doing, using the Canada Pension Plan to the benefit of this Province. Mr.

Speaker, there is no doubt about it that he needs to do it because a lot of our pension plans are underfunded. It is only in the past couple of years that we began to put our house in order with respect to taking care of these pension plans in a proper way. But the minister cannot penalize pensioners because only recently the government adopted funded pensions. He cannot do that.

The minister cannot, for this government•s carelessness, for this government•s neglect in setting up funded pensions, now proceed to penalize pensioners because for years and years and years there was no funded pension and the pensions just went into the general revenues of this Province. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker. That is what· has got us in trouble with respect to the pension fund. For .years and years, there was no funded pension. I know the minister is in trouble. I know the government is in trouble. I know they are.

But let us not, on the backs of the pensioners of this Province, try and replenish ·that pension fund. Let us not do it for those people who made their contributions. You cannot do that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. LUSH: The minister look at it Speaker. So we commend increase to cannot commend done with the No. 59 should look at this, long and hard, Mr. him today for this pensions, but we him for what he has Canada Pension over R3164

the past number of years and what he plans to make legal now. That is not the right word. It is not to make it legal . Just by allusion, Mr. Speaker, I will say this, that Bill 40 will make a better situation out of what existed before that. It will do that, but in no event should pensioners be punished for the neglect and carelessness of the government in not having its pension funds set up in a proper systematic way, in a funded system, and now proceed, because our pensions are in trouble, to penalize our pensioners by using the reduction formula.

I ask the minister when he speaks to this, very ·seriously, what is the rationale, what is the justification, for bringing in this reduction factor to early retirees when it is not done anywhere else in Canada? let me ask the minister this, because it is usually the government which sets the example for the private sector. Is the minister not worried that now with private pensions they will set out to do the same thing, that they will set out to have the reduction factor in the pensions to people in the private sector? There is nothing to stop them. The Province did it, Mr. Speaker.

This has severe ramifications for pensioners in this Province, this step that the government has been following over the past number of years. It has gotten tremendous ramifications for all pensioners in this Province, both in the past and in the future. Mr. Speaker, . it is incumbent on every member to look at what is happening. I would venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is not one person on the other side, L316S June 11, 1987 Vol XL other than the minister himself, who knows what is happening, not one. MR. SIMMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just for clarity•s sake, if for nothing else. The hon. member, I un derstand and gather from his debate, is talking about a reduction in pension for certain groups and individuals. That clearly, as the Minister of Finance stated a few moments ago, is the content of Bil l 40 which is a bill that is to come up a little later on . The content and intent of Bill 28 is to provide for increases in pensions, as I -understand it.

I am not sure if .the hon . member is aware of that or very clear about it, because obviously the speech he is making now would be more applicable to Bill 40, and he is only going to have to get up when Bill 40 comes and give it all over again. Rather than have to go th rough tnat, I thought it might be appropriate to remind him of it so he can save some of the eloquence for that particular debate. MR. TULK: To that Speaker. point of MR. SPEAKER : order, Mr . To that point of order, the hon . the member for Fogo . MR. TULK: Just very briefly, the hon. gentleman, being a former Speaker No. 59 R3165

of the House, should know that what he is really talking about is whether the hon. gentleman from Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) is relevant or not. In this particular case I would suggest to Your Honour that he is and he should know that he is. AN·HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) . MR. TULK: If the hon. gentleman wants to get up and say something in a few minutes, he can. Mr.

Speaker, what I would say to the hon. gentleman is that the member for Bonavista North, while he is on the one hand talking about an increase in pensions, he is also talking about, in the form of a juxtaposition, the decrease that is taking. place as a result of certain actions of · the minister. Therefore, he is pointing out that while the minister is giving on the one hand, he is taking with the other. I would suggest to Your Honour that what he is saying is perfectly relevant. MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, there is no point of order. The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH : Mr .

Speaker, thank you, thank you indeed. I would assume that if a member of this House is talking about pensions and if the legislation or the bill before the House is about increases, by its very nature a member should be able to talk about decreases and should be able to warn the government of any L3166 June 11, 1987 Vol XL decreases that may take place. I realize that the minister might not want to hear what I have to say about the decreases in pensions, I realize that. The minister would like for that to slip through so that pensioners in this Province would not know IA.Ihat is happening.

I knoiAI the minister would like for that to happen but, Mr. Speaker, IA.Ie cannot let that happen because I do not · know, maybe the minister himself is not fully aware of the impact of this reduction factor as a result of changes in the Canada Pension Plan, but he should be. I am told whether it was the minister or whether it IA.Ias his officials IA.Ihen they were discussing this matter in Ottawa IAii th their counterparts and the Newfoundland position was advanced of what they were going to do with pensions in this Province or IA.Ihat they had been doing, I am told tha~ his counterparts were flabbergasted.

It is a measure or a step that surprised them~ Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, I am IA.Iaiting for the minister, when he rises in his place, and I can assure the minister I will not get up on any points of order, IA.Ihen the minister gets in his place to explain why it is that this Province finds it necessary to take that extreme measure, that measure IAihereby people who have given their lives, IAiho have IA.Iorked in the public service, IAiho have IA.Iorked in the service of the government all their lives practically, paying in pensions, expecting to get the full benefits of those pensions and particularly, Mr.

Speaker, when the changes IA.Iere made in the Canada Pension and IAihen all of the benefits of that pension IA.Iere explained to the people and hoiAI that was going to better their No. 59 R3166

economic lot in life, and when a lot of them then decided to take early retirement ·and found out what the Province was doing, it was heartbreaking, Mr. Speaker, it was heartbreaking to many of those pensioners. Of course the other thing, what is happening now, this measure taken by the minister - I wonder if the minister is aware of this - I have run into dozens of people who planned to take an early retirement but now, figuring they were going to get the benefit of both their provincial pension and the Canada Pension, now they are not retiring.

As a matter of fact, specifically in the Department of Highways, in the Bonavista North - Lumsden area, I know of seven or eight people who were going to take early retirement this year and when they found out' what was happening to their pension, they decided that they could not afford to do it. T~ey could not afford to have these exorbitant and horrendous cuts in their pension and they decided to stay on because, Mr. Speaker, it is for a lifetime. The reduction stays in place.

To make it very simple, if Your Honour were to take an early retirement today and it was determined by the salary and by the different formula that they used, if it were calculated that Your Honour was going ·to lose $150 a month on the reduction factor, he would lose that for a lifetime, for as long as he lived, whether he lived to be 80, 8S, 90 or 100, or over. So Your Honour can ·imagine how many dollars people are going to lose because of this severe act, as I call it, by the provincial government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I see the L3167 June 11, 1987 Uol XL minister is very serious.

I hope I have convinced him to take a second look at it or either that, Mr. Speaker, to explain something to us that we do not know that makes it necessary. The minister again talks about the fact that our pensions are integrated. Are there not other provinces in the same circumstances with integrated pensions? Are they not? AN HON. MEMBER: Yes. MR. LUSH: Yes. So I think I have given the minister, Mr. Speaker, some considerable points with which to deal when he rises. I want to say in conclusion that we certainly will approve and go along with any increases to pensioners in this Province.

I just make the point t~at I would like to see no pensi()ner in -this Province receiving less than 6 per cent because that was the sort of wage settlement, the rate that was settled on within the Public Service and I would like to see that applied to pensions as well, Mr. Speaker. I would like to see them indexed but that obviously has to wait for another time and another administration and other matters that we have to look into with pensions. But, Mr. Speaker, having made these few remarks and with these few reservations, we do support Bill 28. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the member for Menihek. No. S9 R3167

MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to get up and speak on a pensions matter, on a bill that is increasing pensions instead of modifying them or decreasing them and so ori. Actually, in my twenty minutes or so, I would like to go into a few details because the Minister of Finance has been giving us some arguments about what they have done, the unconscionable thing of reducing the pensions of early pensioners who take their Canada Pension Plan prior to the age of sixty-five. I had the opportunity yesterday when I was preparing for this debate to talk to the pensions people in the minister 1 s department.

I got a few numbers out because I think it is important for us to realize that there is an impact on these things. Here we have a piece of legislation that will increase the pensions for all our pensioners. What I did was I went and checked with the pensions office. They tell me there are about 6,000 pensioners in the Province who will be receiving benefits from this particular piece of legislation. We are not sure of the breakdown on it. I asked the department but unfortunately I do not think they have all their records computerized so they cannot give you the information quickly.

It is my understanding that about 4, 000 of them are covered by the Public Service Pension Plan and about 2,000 by the Teachers Pension Plan. If the minister has better numbers than that, I suggest he throw them into the debate when he concludes it. But I thought I would mention that because it is important to realize we are talking about thousands of real people. L3168 June 11, 198.7 Vol XL The other thing that should be brought to mind is that ~he Public Service Pension Plan currently has 24,000 public employees contributing to it under various boards, agencies, government departments and so on. Mr.

Speaker, that is 24,000 people, plus the 4, 000 pensioners in the Public Service Pension Plan and the approximately 1, 000 covered by the Uniform Services Pension Plan. I am not sure of the · exact number, but when you add up the Constabulary, the fire department in St. John 1 s and the warders bargaining unit, you would perhaps get close to 1,000 individuals. Mr.

Speaker, we are talking about approximately 30,00Q people here who are affected by the Public Service Pension Plan, the Uniform Services Pension Plan, and by the fiddling, if you want to use that term, · the ficfdling that has been done by our Minister of Finance since the . first of the year, completely contrary, of course, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare 1 s instructions to him that this is ·an unconscionable thing to do.

But we are talking about 30,000 people, so I think that it is important for the Minister of Finance to realize that it is 4,000 people right now who are on pensions that could be affected. We tried to figure out how many were between the ages of sixty and sixty-five. Again, that information is not available, but by a conservative guess, small 1 c 1 here, we estimate maybe 1,000 pensioners have been affected by the minister 1 s arbitrary decision to interpret the legislation one way and to do something completely different from the other provinces to take away this money from his pensioners. - No. 59 R3168

Now. if Jim Cooper, who was on television last night and whose example I am going to use as a base model is any example. he worked, I think, thirty-five years for the Department of Transportation. His pension has been reduced by $1600. If there are 1,000 pensioners affected between the ages of sixty and sixty-five, and $1,000 to $1,SOO to $2,000 is the appropriate amount, that means that the minister is taking from his pensioners between $1 million and $2 million in money of people who are generally under the poverty line. Here we have Jim Cooper.

He gets a pension after thirty-five years with this government of $8,000. Now, to tell you the truth, I find that pretty shameful to start with. A man who worked thirty-five years for us, the ~eople of this Province. and is receiving only $8,000 in pension. OR. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance. MR. FENWICK: I thought that would bring the minister to his feet. OR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a somewhat similar point of order to the point of order I rose on previously.

I do it in regard to this particular hon. member, too, for a specific reason, and that is that ever since this pension matter came up, the hon. member has deliberately, and I would say with foreknowledge, because I have L3169 J u n e 11. , 1 9 8 7 Vol XL given him all the information, misrepresented the• facts. I counted up about six incorrect statements he made in the few minutes he was speaking. Now, the hon. member is deliberately misrepresenting the situation. and that is causing some concern to pensioners.

This is why I rise on this point of order, to hopefully have him ruled out of order in .that he is speaking to the wrong bill. He is not speaking to Bill 28, he is speaking to the substance in Bill 40. Now, in a way. I do not care what he speaks to. but I do care that he has been deliberately misrepresenting the facts for at least the past month, and this in the face of my giving him information time and time and time again as to the true matter.

He misrepresented the facts to the extent, on one occasion, where he said we were acting illegally according to the act, and I showed in thi~ House at the time two statements. one a public release, where he said the government was acting ille.gally or contrary to a Statute, and in the other one he said they were acting legally although he did not agree with it. Now, he has been misrepresenting the facts to the extent that he has even caught himself out by telling in a press release that NIS would not to send out - NIS refused to send it out so he sent it out himself, and that press release had a falsehood in it.

It had an absolute falsE~ hood in it. That is typical of what the hon. member has been saying about the pension issue for the last month or so, despite having knowledge to the contrary. Clearly he is doing it to stir up misapprehension, anxiety, and frustration that should not be stirred up because No. 59 R3169

of his -misrepresentation and distortion of the facts. So that is why I rise, to request that he be called contrary to the anticipatory rule in Beauchesne, in discussing the substance of Bill 40 when we are on Bill 28. MR. FENWICK: To . that point of Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: order, Mr. To that point of order, the hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK : I think you are going to have to ask the minister to take back some of his comments. If I recall correctly, he used a number of unparliamentary expressions, including 'deliberately misrepresenting • and • these are falsehoods • , -and so on.

But to the substance of the ·point of order, it is clearly a difference of opinion. The fact of the matter is, there are illegal things being done by this department. I do not think it is appropriate at this time to raise those issues. It is certainly not a. point of order, and, Mr. Speaker, I would prefer you to rule so I can get on with my debate. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair will decide if it point of order or not. There point of order, and I would the member for Menihek to be relevant, to stick with substance of Bill 28 and not 40. is a is a ask more the Bill The hon. the member for Menihek . MR.

LONG: L3170 June 11, 1987 Vol XL You are not talking about Bill 40, you are talking about what is happening to people . MR. FENWICK: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, what I am addressing right now - and I am speaking in debate. Never mind the point of order, I do not mind if it goes - is we have an instance here where we have a

schedule of percentage increases. It is clearly a money bill in the sense that this will cost the government more money as it goes along. What I am doing is entering into the record the actual circumstances in terms of the number of pensioners who are receiving a pension to give some idea of how much money this costs. I think that is directly relevant to it. Since that is what I was leading up to, I will continue on in that vein and I am sure · the Speaker will find this entirely relevant. So what do we have here?

Well, we have increases ranging from 3 per cent, for individuals who have retired in the last decade, to up to 10 per cent for those retiring before 1970. Clearly the ones retiring before 1970 were on a very low salary scale, because, if you will recall, the salaries being paid back in those days were averaging around $2,000 or $1,500 a year for public employees and clearly they need help. But getting back to the last decade, where I would suggest the majority of our public employees have retired, they are receiving a 3 ·per cent increase in their pension. Well, Mr. Speaker, what does that mean?

What is 3 per cent? Let us take Jim Cooper. Jim Cooper retired just this year at the age of sixty-two. He has a provincial pension of $8,000 No . 59 R3170

'":? 7~~·:;~~ ·,·~~-:-=.;-:~· . c:--..:., ~~···-.t:V~~{:~~-~~'t.;'&J~~-m~~ "'·e:i?"~ .. '?l .;l.j ~ ·r· ¢ E.ct g4 "£M\l)fic e=<i"'~~:tL;~$lr us "''MYt 't·~ ., • ;, - ·· ;e$~ "'1 ·'4tU~· &a5fj .:.¥.'-~~:!Wti'¥ .,. ;-~· ·.-,.·'r,·;;.~ Well, · 3 per cent, in my opinion, comes out to $240. Now he will be receiving a pension of $8,240. But, unfortunately, Jim Cooper was foolish enough, I guess, to apply for his Canada Pension Plan, which he was eligible for this year, at age sixty-two, and he has lost $1,600 on it. So what do we have here?

We have $240 increase in his pension, and then what we have is $1,600 reduction. Now, my math is not fantastic, but that sounds to me like he has lost $1,200 that he had at the beginning of this year, before he got into all these machinations. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if there are 6, 000 pensioners and they average $200 or $300 - DR. COLLINS: A point ·of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just brought in a distortion of the facts.

I do not know where he gets his calculations from, but we are not taking $1,200 away from that gentleman the hon. gentleman mentioned, $1, 200 from his pension receipts before January 1. I think he said the pension receipts were $8,000, or whatever it was, and he is saying that now we are taking $1,200 away, meaning that he is getting $6,800 or so. That is a distortion of the facts. He is not getting $6,800, if the basic facts we .r~ correct.

If he is getting anything, and I do not know what he is getting, he is getting at least the $8,000 he got before the beginning of January, L3171 June 11, 1987 Vol XL and when this goes through, he will get something-plus on that $8,000 as a result of this bill. And if he did apply CPP, he gets something plus again on that.

So the hon. member is distorting the facts, he is misleading the House, and what is even more important, he is misleading the pensioners of this Province with his foolish and confusing remarks to the pensioners of this Province. who, in the circumstances they are, should not be subjected to such deliberate confusion. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to respond to the point of order I it is clearly not one. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, it is a difference of opinion between two hon. members. The hon . the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

You know, whenever you making telling points in this House, the people who are being embarrassed totally, which obviously the Minister of Finance is, have to continually ge~ up on spurious points of order and say that the facts are wrong. If he thinks the facts are wrong, then let him produce the facts, let him table the numbers on this particular case. I am giving you the numbers that I saw on television last night, when the

article was done on this individual. Now, if he feels those numbers are wrong, let him come out and correct them. The fact of the matter is, from this provincial government this individual is receiving a pension and even after he gets his raise I this 3 per cent raise, which is a No. 59 R3171

real IAihoppy-do raise, he is still going to be $1,200 poorer 'off than he !Alas prior to these several changes in the pension legislation, and that is clearly a point. DR. COLLINS: That is IAirong. That is IAirong. MR. FENWICK: I IAiant to enter a feiAI more points into the record here specifically germane to Bill 28. I have never seen the Minister of Finance so flustered. It is clear that he has his hand in the back pockets of every pensioner in this Province. He is clearly embarrassed . by it.

He kno!Ais it is a losing issue, because there are 30,000 people being affected and, I IAiould suggest to him, that this particular piece of legislation and this particular IAiork IAiill do more to d~mage him and his government in this toiAin and across the Province than any other action he has taken. He clearly sees the fact that !Ale are highlighting it is destroying his credibility as anything other than an ogre, or the grinch IAiho stole Christmas. MR. J. CARTER: A point of order, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the member for St. John•s North. MR.

FENWICK: Oh, yes, !Ale aliAiays get these points of order. MR. J. CARTER: Mr . Speaker, !Ale are seeing a despicable display of distortion here and, I think, that if the rules of this House, or if the rules of Parliament mean anything, L3172 June 11, 1987 Vol XL at least the record can and should be set straight at this very instant, not IAiait for these distortions to get over television or over the media. If ever there !Alas an argument needed to shoiAI IAihy television should not be allowed into this House, the hon. member is producing that perfect, crystal clear argument right noiAI.

Because until his errors are pointed out IAii th facts and figures, the poor souls IAiho might !Ale watching, and I cannot think IAiho IAIOuld possibly IAiant to watch this House on television, the poor souls IAiho IAJould IAiatch this performance might, a feiAI of them, a small percentage of them, might believe this nonsense. I think it is pernicious, IAirong, wrong-headed, and utterly unparliamentary to come up IAiith deliberately false information in the House of Assembly. It is IAirong, wrong, IAirong! MR. SPEAKER : ro that. point of order.

It is not for the Chair to rule if the hon. member for Menihek is right or IAirong. If the hon. member for St. John • s North IAiishes to debate the is sue, he may stand up after the member for Menihek is finished. The hon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK : I am going make a suggestion to you, Mr.

Speaker, that like in soccer games, when you have people injured and they have to take a couple of minutes to haul them off the field, maybe IAihat !Ale should have in this· House is Tory time; that !Aiould be a couple of minutes added on to the time that I have spoken to account for the jackasses over on the other side who continue to interrupt on spurious points of order. No. 59 R3172

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to do . at the end of this particular time period, since it has been chewed up by these foolish remarks from the other side, is to lay to rest some of the arguments that the Minister of Finance is bringing forward in terms of our pension plan and its financial status. I have here in front of me the Province of Newfoun .dland' s pooled pension fund financial statements · 1985, December 31. The minister tabled this in the House, I think, a couple of weeks ago and maybe he should go back and have a look at it.

Because what he has been saying on a consistent basis is that there is not enough money going into the pension fund plan in order to pay the kinds of benefits that we have here. The Public Service Pension Plan, the big plan, the one that covers 24,000 public employees who are workingand another 4000 Or 5000 who hav.e already retired, I look at the financial statements, on · Statement 2 in the thing, and I see that there was $74 million put into the fund last year, of which almost $50 million was contributions and about $25 million-plus was interest earned on investment . So $75 million goes in. Mr.

Speaker, if this plan was in trouble, clearly more money would be leaking out. Yet, we look down at the expenses and we find that only $28 million went out. In other words, almost $50 million more went into the Public Service Pension that came out. I mention that because the minister .has repeatedly stood up and said that these people are getting benefits well beyond what they deserve to pay. Now, if you flip along a couple of pages, you will find a

section called the Unfunded Liability, as L3173 June 11, 1987 Vol XL the minister will no doubt point to when . he gets up, and you will find $500 or $600 million in unfunded liability in the Public Service Pension Plan. But, I suggest to you, what that is is the free ride that the Province got up until July 1980 when we never had a funded pian, when the premiums from all the public employees went to the exchequer of the government and were used to pave roads and do everything else. If that had gone in along with ·the contributions, Mr.

Speaker, we _ would be in a much better position to say that it was reasonably balanced and paying its own way. In other words, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is $205 million at the beginning of last year in the Public Service Pension Plan, and $53 million in the Teachers Pension Plan. DR. COLLINS: Go get a primer on pension plans and read it. MR. FENWICK: In other words, there is $250 million in the fund. By the way, one of the things that I find insulting is that all this $250 million is primarily invested in outside corporations .

Our provincial government does not even have the confidence in the Newfoundland economy to invest even a small proportion of that fund in creating jobs in this Province. I would suggest to the minister it is shameful that he would allow this kind of money to be usee! to build up Toronto, Vancouver and other places in this country, when we put none of it into developing the economy of the Province itself. I think it is shameful. They would not even put in 10 per cent of it, in terms of investing in our local economy. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is No. 59 · R3173

another argument and we will get into that another day. The. point I am trying to make to you is that if the Finance Minister stands there and says that our · public employees, all 30,000 of them, working and retired, are ripping off the gouernment, he is sadly mistaken. They worked hard for those pensions. They deserve to get those pensions.

And this increase is such a pitiful amount, in fact the whole $1 million or so that it is going to cost, is more than taken back by the robbery created by this government since January 1 and will be legitimized by Bill No. 40, even though Bill No. 40 will clearly clear up an illegal position of the provincial government where it had no right to do what it did. It had the legislative right to do one thing; it refused to do it because it was foolish to interpret the legislation that way. So, o.n the basis of it, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that all this is is a paper transaction.

When we get to Bill No. 40 and the actions of this provincial government, more money was made by it than is entirely necessary in order to pay these increases . In other words, the grinch has given nothing to our pensioners, he has just reshuffled the dollars around this year. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker . DR. COLLINS: Mr. speaker. MR .. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he closes the debate. The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: L3174 June 11, 1987 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, just a few comments. I do not intend to get into Bill No. 40, that will come up at a later point in time.

I will look forward with anticipation to debate on that, when I will answer some of the comments in that regard that were raised by the hon. member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush), who is now being spoken to by the hon. member for Bonavista South (Mr. Morgan). Anyway, I will answer some of the comments made by the hon. member for Bonavista North which I think do need clarification.

I think there is a certain degree of misunderstanding he might have there, but I look forward with even greater anticipation to Bill No. 40 when I will comment on the comments made by the hon. member for Menihek, which are not based on misunderstandings, because I have given him the facts, they are clearly · based on. attempts . to distort and confuse and to cause anxiety. I will look forward to that with great anticipation. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonauista North mentioned the 3 per cent and, as hon. members know, that more or less approximates the inflation factor.

So what we are doing now for the general run of pensioners is really keeping them up to the ravages of inflation. Their real pensions this year, after this bill goes through, will be the same as the real pensions last year, there will be no erosion by inflation. Now, the hon. member says he wishes there was greater increases. I wish so, too. I sincerely wish so, and, if our pension fund would allow it, clearly we would do that. But as hon. members know, our pension No. 59 R3174 .... ~~~ .::;~~ r~..P.~:~~;. JJ~ _..;.~.-"'"·~ F~' ,_.y~~~, .. ~_.::r·~.~~:·~~·:::~'!"'.~:oor~·:-·· .. ~~...,. ..

fund on an actuarial basis is in serious difficulties, even despite the efforts of this government to partially fund it since 1980, and even though we plan, as a result of recent actuarial reports, to bring in changes. With the concurrence of our employee groups and their representatives, we intend to bring in quite a number of changes to pension arrangements in this Province on the basis of indepth study we have done since receiving the actuarial reports.

But to equate the 3 per cent to the 6 per cent that the public service got - the now working public service - I do not think is quite logical, because the 6 per cent was really the result of collective bargaining. The increase we are giving in pensions is really designed to do as .much ~s we feel it is prudent to do from th~ plan, and the least we ·should do is to match inflation.

But the increases to the public service, that is done iri· a totally different environment, that is done in the collective bargaining environment and it could be that that increase to the public service might have been 10 per cent, if the collective bargaining had gone that way, or conversely it might have gone 2 per cent, it it had gone another way. So, really, there is no particular relationship between the two. Now, the hon. member form Bonavista North also suggested that he would like to see annual increases.

I guess what he is speaking of there is essentially a form of indexing, and that is a legitimate point. I would point out, though, that some of the provinces who do index, who have regular automatic indexing, that indexing is at a lesser rate than the CPI, in other words, the CPI L3175 June 11, 1987 Vol XL minus 40 per cent, CPI minus 30 per cent, that type of formula is in there. So just because we do it on an ad hoc basis does not necessarily mean that we do it at a lesser rate than plans that have an automatic escalation there. Now, Mr.

Speaker, as I said, I am certainly not going · to get into Bill No. 40, but I do just want to very, very briefly bring to the hon. member's mind how our pension plans are arranged. I have done this quite a number of times in the press and so on, so there really should hardly be any need for it. I do not know, but I suppose it is like bringing a horse to water; you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, all you can do is keep bringing him to water.

Our pension plans were arranged in 1967 and, at that time, a definitive decision was made on the basis of a co~mission report - I believe it was a Royal Commission - where it was suggested, and the recommendation was ultimately taken up, that the pension plan from the Province and the pension plan tha t was coming from the federal government, i.e . the CPP, these should be co-ordinated, · and they were co-ordinated in such a way that up to sixty-five a certain amount of money was received by the pensioner.

After sixty-five, the pensioner received at least that amount , probably a bit more, but there would be more of it coming from the federal side and less from the provincial side. Now, this is not taking anything away from anyone. This was the arrangement. This was the organization of the plan . This was the Statute that said that this had to be done, and we have No. 59 R3175

been doing it for early retirees for years. We have thousands of early retirees out there who got early pension benefits. Whenever they got early pension benefits and became eligible and collected CPP, there was this formula clicked into place. We have thousands of them out there. Now, previously you could only get early retirement for medical reasons or disability reasons or that type of thing. There has never been any question about it. The medical retiree - they call him that - the early retiree, he knew this was in the plan. He accepted this arrangement that was in place.

The fact that now there are healthy people eligible for early retirement really does not in any way change the arrangements that are in the Statute. We are just following the Statute, and it is not a case of taking .anything away or robbing or anything like that, these are distor.tions, and, I'sugges~, deliberate distortions, that the hon. member for Menihek has been pushing around for some time.

Now, the last point, a word on investments: The hon. member, in his naiuet~ and in his, whatever the word is one might use, suggests that we are deliberately not using the money in the pension fund for the benefit of Newfoundlanders. The money in the pension fund is invested by experts, and their obj ectiue is to maximize for the benefit of pensioners, for the benefit of retirees. Their mandate is to maximize the return on inues tments, and this is for the benefit of pensioners. We do not direct them to do it.

The experts do this, and they follow the dictates that the federal government lays down for its L3176 June 11, 1987 Vol XL ' investment policy. With those remarks, I moue second reading. On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting An Increase In Pensions," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of 'the Whole on tomorrow. (Bill No. 28) Motion, second reading of a bi 11, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Goue~nment Of Canada And The Government Of The Province Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies." (Bill No. 32) MR.

SP.EAKER : Before I recognize the hon. the Minister of Finance, I wonder if I could first of all welcome sixteen Grade V and VI students, their teachers and their chaperon, Mrs. Gladys West, from Horwood, Notre Dame Bay, and their teacher, Mr. Danny Rideout, Principal. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Also, I would like to read the three questions .for the Late Show .

First question: "The answer to my question in today's Question Period to the Minister of Fisheries requesting representation to be made to Ottawa for an extension to U.I . benefits for fishermen was not answered satisfactorily." That question is placed on the Late Show by the member for Twillingate . The second regards to answer was Minister of No. 59 question Catamaran given by Culture, is with Park. The the hon . Recreation R3176

and Youth. That was placed on the Late Sho~ by the hon. member for Windsor- Buchans. The third question is also for the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. An answer given to a question asked in today•s Question Period was unsatisfactory. The question was placed on the Late Show by the hon. member for Stephenville. The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR . COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I will not read the rather

long title of Bill No. 32. It is a matter that comes up every five years. We have had the arrangements for a Reciprocal Taxation Agreement with the federal government since, I think, 1977. It is renewable on a five year basis. It really is just an administrative easa for both governments to enter into a formal agreement as to the mutual payment of . consumption taxes and fees. That is essentially all this is doing. At one time, both levels of government exempted one another.

In actual fact, we, as a provincial government, did not have the authority to tax the federal government so that was the arrangement then, to exempt. But now the arrangement is that we do tax one another and it is done through the administrative ease of a specific agreement. I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that it does not always run in our favour, but this particular year it does run in our favour, to the extent of $12 million. It is a very useful arrangement administratively, there is certainly no risk to the Province in any way, and there is often a gain. I move second reading. MR.

LUSH: L3177 June 11, 1987 Vol XL Mr . Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bonavista North. MR. LUSH : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition will be supporting this particular bill. As the minister indicated, it is a reciprocal arrangement with respect to taxation. I believe that most .Provinces in Canada have a similar agreement. I do not know whether they all do, but it is a large number. I remember seeing somewhere, as well, I think in this particular bill, that it will ~ring to the Province several million dollars. So, we certainly would agree with the bill.

There is just one question: I wonder now, since the provincial government and the federal government have gone into this arrangement of reciprocal agreements with respect to taxation, whether the Province would not carry this a little further and enter int:o this kind of an arrangement with municipalities, have the same kind of agreement with municipalities, reciprocal taxation in that area, with respect to taxing provincial buildings and this kind of thing?

It is my understanding that this is rather inconsistent at the moment, that it might exist with certain departments of government, and certain agencies might pay grants to the government in lieu of taxes, but if there is nothing consistent, there is nothing uniform. So I am just wondering now, since we have these reciprocal agreements between the two levels of gover·nment, what might prevent the minister from No. 59 R3177

extending it all the way and have a reciprocal taxation agreement with the three levels of government, the federal, the provincial and the municipalities, to certainly create some consistency, particularly at the municipal level. which, I understand, is not there at the moment.

That is about all we have been wanting to say on this particular bill, and maybe the minister could address that particular point as to whether he would consider in the future, and why he has not considered up to this point, carrying the agreement with the three levels of government, namely the federal, the provincial and the municipalities. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speak~ now, he closes debate on the bill. The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: I thank hon. members for giving their concurrence on this bill.

To answer the hon. member, I do not recall that having been discussed, quite frankly, and I will certainly bring it back to officials in the Department of Finance and discuss it with them. I rather suspect, though, that what they will say is that it is easy for two entities to reach an agreement of this sort, even though there is an awful lot of business going on between the two of them. But there is only the two of them, the federal and the provincial government.

Whereas if we wanted to enter into it with the municipalities, we would have to have many, many agreements, and L3178 June 11, 1987 Vol XL not all municipalities have the same amount of provincial institutions in them, and the tax rates are different, and so on and so forth. It might well be a very complex thing to set up on a formal basis, but I certainly will bring that back and discuss-it. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government of Canada and The Government Of The Province Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (BillNo. 32). MR. SPEAKER (Mitchell): It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair and for the House to resolve itself - MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, I think if Your Honour would not mind, we will go on to Order 15. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Government-Kruger Agreements Act. 11 (No. 25). DR.

COLLINS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give government the authority to amend the agreements we have in place with Kruger under The Government-Kruger Agreement Act, 1984. As hon. members know, since the take over by Kruger of No. 59 R3178 ~·~·-·- ........ -.-,-·

'-'' the Corner Brook mill, they have been carrying out an extensive capital modernization programme. I think they have rebuilt three machines. They have installed top rollers. They put in TMP lines and so on and so forth, some of these quite technical matters. We . had a very interesting visit out there a little while ago. I had visited the mill about seven or eight years ago and even with that span of time I could see a tremendous difference in the mill. There were still some teething problems there but it really seemed to be quite changed, and it seemed to be much more efficient, to my untutored eye. Mr.

Speaker, the modernization programme has turned out to be more extensive than originally anticipated. The programme cost over $130 million up to the end of 1986; and it .is estimated that another $140 million is going to be needed to co .mplete the process over the next couple of years. So that will be a total of $270 million spent on the mill, and that is $72 million higher than was originally anticipated. Now, Kruger themselves are kicking in about $42 million of that extra $72 million, which means that there is a shortfall of $30 million there. They want to finance this through bank accommodations.

The banks, through the lead bank, the Royal Bank, are quite agreeable to do this, however, to do it, because of certain agreements we have in place, particularly the put agreement in regard to the Deer Lake power plant, they have to come to government to have certain changes made to the agreements and, in actual fact, as it turned out, we L3179 June 11, 1987 Vol XL had to make certain legislative changes to allow this. So the end result will be that Kruger will be permitted to take up a $30 million accommodation that the banks were quite willing to give them, provided we give the permission.

As I mentioned, our consent is ·required to increase the amount of capital borrowing tha t Kruger can undertake. Up to now, they could only undertake $80 million of capital borrowing, so they need our agreement to advance that amount to $110 million. The original agreements make no provision for such changes and that is why we have to come before the House . The amendments that this bill goes into will not increase the level of risk to us in any way and will not interfere with our security.

It will not in any way change, for i.nstanc&, the price of power that Kruger has to pay in addition to the power it ' generates itself. It will not increase our obligations in any way. When the actual agreements are changed, the wording of those changes will be tabled in the House here within fifteen sitting days, if the House is still sitting, or very shortly thereafter, if· the House is not sitting . That is the reason for this bill. It is a fairly short bill and I think really just reading it explains what we have to do . As is pointed out here, the amending

section will not make any negative changes for government: obligations that I have mentioned. There may well be questions. I will do my best to answer them if they come up in regard to the Kruger operation generally out there, and there may be other No. 59 R3179

" members in the House who are perhaps a bit more familiar with the thing on the ground who might be able to answer some of the questions, if they should so come up. With those words of explanation, I moue second reading. MR. LUSH: Mr .. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bonauista North. MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we certainly, on this side, want to be seen to do anything to support any measure that .is going to support an industry with the impact of Kruger.

However, it would appear, on an initial reading of this bill, that the minister is as king for too many powers to correct what appears to be a deficiency in the present agreement. Now, if I gathered correctly from what the minister said, the intent of this bill is to allow Kruger to borrow more money for modernization. That is really the intent of the bill, to allow Kruger to borrow more money for its expansion, for the capital funding of its modernization. Now, the question that must be asked is: Why could that specific amendment not be brought before the House, if that is what is needed to be done?

It appears here, · by doing this, the government now has the power to change just about anything in the . agreement with the exclusion of the three things that are mentioned. Maybe I am reading the bill wrong but this is what appears. Anything in the Kruger agreement now can be changed when L3180 June 11, 1987 Vol XL all the minister is looking for is an amendment to one deficiency, an amendment to one clause really that would allow Kruger the borrowing power which is necessary for the completion of their modernization . programme.

That would appear to be the essence of what the minister has been putting forward to the House . The bill itself goes much further than that. The bill gives the government actually unlimited power without practically any reference to this House. There is some suggestion that if there are any changes made in the bill that the minister will bring them in fifteen days after the House opens. But, Mr. Speaker, that is after the fact. All of the changes will then be made.

I guess the salient point is is the · minister not asking for too · much power, are the government not asking for an enlarging of the powers that are not ·necessary really for the purposes that the amendment was asked to achieve, namely, to give Kruger the extra borrowing powers? We appreciate again that it does not place the Province in any more of a risk situation. It does not increase the 'liability of t.he Province.

But, the Explanatory Note says, 11 This bill would amend the Government-Kruger Agreements Act to provide authority to amend the Agreements ratified, confirmed and adopted by that Act. 11 Maybe the minister can clarify the situation. Maybe he can tell us something that we do not already know. Why would the government need those extensive powers to almost change anything in the Kruger Act when all they are looking for, actually, is one change? All they are asking for No. S9 R3180

·•· is one particular thing and that is to increase the borrowing power of Kruger to allow them to be able to carry out the modernization to the extent that they want to carry it out. There is nobody on this side of the House that wants to prevent that, Mr. · Speaker, let me assure hon. members. We want to see that particular operation modernized, Mr. Speaker, a·nd developed to its full potential, developed to its maximum with the latest technology.

We want to see all of that but still, there is no necessity of removing the powers from this Assembly, there is no necessity to give the government almost carte blanche the right to change anything within this agreement other than the specified n.eed of Kruger at this particular moment. So it certainly appears to be an enlarging and a substantial increasing of the government•s power with what they are asking for here today when they only want a miniscule amount almost of what they are asking for. They want one particular item.

So my question to the minister is: Why did he not bring in that specific amendment related specifically to the ability of Kruger being able to increase its borrowing power to be able to carry out the particular job that '\:hey want to carry out? I believe the minister would have to address that to the satisfaction of all mem