March 12,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 7

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding to the routine orders of the day, on behalf

of hon. Members I would like to welcome the special guest in the Speaker's

galleries today, Mr. George Erasmus, the National Chief of the Assembly of First

Nations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as required under

Section 26.1 (4) of The

Financial Administration Act, 1973, I am pleased to advise this hon. House that

a contract has been awarded for the construction of a forest access road in the

Chouse Brook area for $198,920. to CONCAP Management Limited of Pasadena through

a pre-commitment of funds under the 1991-92 Resource Road Program.

The reason for this pre-commitment of funds is that there is

an immediate requirement to find alternative sources of timber in this area

where timber supplies are near depletion, thereby ensuring continuing employment

for the years to come. In order to make this timber available by mid-summer

1991, an early start of construction is necessary, and this can only be

accomplished through a pre-commitment of funds. This will then allow local

logging operations to be maintained at existing levels.

Upon completion of this project, an estimated 460,000 cubic

metres of commercial timber will be made available to local operators. This is

part of Government's ongoing commitment to maintain a stable supply of timber

for sawmill operators in the Hampden-White Bay area. It is anticipated that

seven sawmill operators employing approximately fifty people over the next

twenty years will operate in this area. The Department is also proposing to

carry out pre-commercial thinnings employing an additional ten to fifteen people

over the next twelve years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

thank the Minister for the copy of his statement before coming into the House.

And I would also like to say at this time that it is one of the more positive

statements coming from the other side of the House in recent days, and I would

certainly like to echo the comments.... when you see something pertaining to

economic development in this Province, and the showing of some initiative for

long-term employment, especially for people in the rural areas of this Province

who are being hit every day with cuts in some way, shape or form, this is a very

positive statement. And I would like to commend the Minister at this time, Mr.

Speaker, on making sure these monies were allocated last fall and that tender

was called. Because this particular piece of road that is left in that area

would put the operators in there next summer, as stated in his statement. Other

than that, there would be fifty people out of work, with absolutely nothing to

do.

This will give them access to the timbers in that area.

Kruger will have first call on the pulpwood in the area. It is all overmatured

stands. It is something that should be done, and will be done I am sure, in

other parts of the Province, in order to make the timber accessible to the

sawmill operators and pulpwood operators in the Province. Too much of our forest

companies themselves are not going to get to it.

So it is a positive statement, Mr. Speaker, and I look

forward to other statements with regard to the White River Road Project, which

the Minister is aware of, and so on in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier said

yesterday that the 1991-92 Budget decisions were made `solely on the basis of an

intelligent, dispassionate assessment' of what was best for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, the House might remember that back

in the 60s the Liberal Government of the day hired an expert, Mr. Parsifal

Copes, to go about to do a dispassionate, intelligent assessment of what was

best for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we know what the recommendations

of that assessment was, massive resettlement of the rural areas to the urban

centres of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier, is the

Premier now following that plan again? Does the Premier realize that if

Newfoundland and Labrador is governed dispassionately by the cold logic of

cost-efficiency there will be no health care in rural Newfoundland, there will

be no education in rural Newfoundland, there will be no water and sewer in rural

Newfoundland, there will be no fishery and no jobs in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador? Now, is that the direction in which the Premier is headed, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition has either misread, misinterpreted, or misrepresented what I said. He

quoted me fairly accurately as saying that the decisions were made on the basis

of an objective, dispassionate decision of what was right for Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is not what was economically beneficial or anything, it is what

is right. Taking into account rural Newfoundland, urban Newfoundland, education,

health, our financial means, all of these factors, we made the decision without

political involvement in any way on the basis of what was fair and right for the

people of the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, that is what was done.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may want to twist it back to Parsifal

Copes if he wants to, but he has a big chasm to jump and he has fallen in

between.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's denial rings pretty hollow in this

House. The Government is the one that has jumped into a hole in this Province.

Now let me ask the Premier, has the Premier not already used the Parsifal Copes

approach to rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Was it not the Premier of this

Province who just a few months ago, in a speech here in the capital city, said

one of the biggest problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador today is 6000 miles

of coastline and too many rural communities? Did the Premier not say that? And

is the Premier not now, in the Budget that was produced in this House a few days

ago, pointing to a final solution to the problem in Newfoundland and Labrador,

and that is destroy the small rural communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. I did not say one of the

problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador was 6,000 miles of coastline and too

many communities. What I said was, one of the problems facing Newfoundland and

Labrador is a population of 573,000 spread among some 800 communities around

6,000 miles of coastline.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is right. That is exactly what I

said. I did not use the word too many at all, those are the Opposition Leader's

words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is a reality that we have to face,

and this Government, at long last, Mr. Speaker, is facing the reality and we are

dealing with the matter on a fair and balanced basis and will continue to do so,

much to the chagrin of the Opposition, no doubt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the

master of deception is riding free in this House again-

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. RIDEOUT: - and all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, will the Premier not admit, Mr.

Speaker, that coming on the heels of what he just said, coming on the heels of

the most devastating Budget this Province has seen since 1932, that this Premier

and this Government fundamentally believes that the basic problem of

Newfoundland is too many communities, too many rural communities and they must

be resettled to urban Newfoundland and Labrador. Stand up and say it if you

believe it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. That is the effort that I

get from Mr. Crosbie, that I keep trying to resist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: His proposition is that we should

concentrate-

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

We must have a semblance of order. The question has been

asked and I want hon. Members to give every hon. Member the opportunity to be

heard, and in silence.

The hon. the Premier

PREMIER WELLS: His proposition, that is Mr. Crosbie's,

Mr. Speaker, is that we should concentrate on helping the urban communities, and

I have disagreed with him. I have been fighting with him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The question has been asked and it is very difficult for the

Chair to decide when the question has been answered, if hon. Members keep

popping additional questions.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let me say again, that is the proposition that I am

fighting tooth and nail in dealing with Mr. Crosbie, and I am fighting tooth and

nail in dealing with Mr. Crosbie because I want to protect rural Newfoundland to

the maximum extent that we can.

Mr. Speaker, I am bound and determined to make sure it is the

Government of this Province that governs the Province, not Mr. Crosbie or his

Federal counterparts in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again, in direct answer to the hon.

Member's question, let me say that we put in place the Economic Recovery

Commission and spread the offices throughout this Province specifically to deal

with the problems of rural Newfoundland. That is our commitment to rural

Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: And if you want to see just how strong our

commitment to rural Newfoundland is, just watch us in the next two years and the

next two terms of office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier thinks he is going to be around

for two more terms he is not even being honest with himself let alone the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of Treasury

Board. In early April of last year the Minister of Finance knew at that time

that his projected $10 million surplus had disappeared. In fact, by August he

knew that this Province was facing a $120 million deficit as a result of his

over-expenditures and over-optimistic projections of revenues. He also knew he

was facing an even more difficult situation for this year. In view of that

information can the President of Treasury Board tell us why he entered into such

wage settlements with collective bargaining units during the past year knowing

the action he was facing for this year?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The sequence of events is probably close to what the hon.

Member has mentioned. During the summer it became obvious that there was some

deterioration. By the end of September we knew that we had some serious problems

in terms of our revenues, as well as expenditures for this fiscal year. So we

made the announcement, and made the information public to all the people of the

Province at that time. Also at that time I sat down with the heads of all the

unions and explained the situation in detail as to exactly what our problem was

this year and the problems that we were facing in the upcoming year.

So I would say to the hon. Member that we had started sixteen

months ago negotiating and we had received certain collective agreements and

there were certain collective agreements reached during the summer period and

during the fall. But as soon as it became obvious that we had problems, dialogue

was initiated with the unions in terms of suggestions as to how we could

together combat this problem. We wanted suggestions from organized labour. We

did get some.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of that information then would the President of

Treasury Board tell us when, in fact, did he first look at the real options that

were facing him for this year? And when in fact did he first consider a wage

freeze? And is it not true that he first considered a wage freeze early last

fall?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we started looking at all real

options seriously, starting in early October. That is when we started looking at

all the options seriously. All hon. Members of this House know that what

happened then was we went to our systems and told them we wanted information on

the affects of a frozen budget. We gave them time and we assessed that

information and put it all together. In the meantime, we attempted to get proper

dialogue with the public service labour movement as well. All of this was being

put together and I indicated to this hon. House within the last week, in

response to another question, that after we had gone through the whole public

service and gone through the essential services that we needed to provide, and

did as much as we could do with that. Once we talked to the financial people and

reached decisions about our abilities, our limits of borrowing on current

account, once we had examined all the tax options at that point we came up short

by a considerable sum of money. It was at that point we had to look at other

options. It was within two weeks of the Budget that we started considering this

other option that we eventually took. At that point in time we also, as the

Premier indicated yesterday, talked to the four major unions, indicating that we

were looking at choices and indicating what these choices were. It was within a

week of the Budget that the final decision was made in terms of the wage freeze

and how that would take place. So the sequence of events is approximately that.

Sorry I cannot provide the hon. Member with specific dates, but it may be

possible if I sat down and thought for ten minutes or so.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, now that we know that it was

being considered since early October, why then did the President of Treasury

Board -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, that is what he just said!

MR. WINDSOR: That is what he just said. Why then, Mr.

Speaker, did the President of Treasury Board continue to negotiate with public

service unions with a spirit of, take these settlements rather than looking for

other benefits? And in many cases, Mr. Speaker, I am told by collective

bargaining groups, the President of Treasury Board asked these groups to take

these wage settlements instead of looking for other benefits and other items

that they might have had on the negotiating table, knowing all the time that

indeed he was not going to give any increase at all, that there was going to be

a wage freeze.

Why did the President of Treasury Board continue to do that

in order not to have layoffs in those bargaining units, so that now he has not

only layoffs - in fact, 3,000 layoffs - but he has a wage freeze as well?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The original

assumption that the hon. Member started off with, of course, is not correct. In

my answer I very clearly outlined the fact that it was very, very recently that

we considered that particular option. So I would like to say to the hon. Member

that that particular comment he started his question with either indicates that

he did not listen to the answer, or he did not understand the answer, or he

deliberately misinterpreted the answer.

As to some of his other comments, as well, Mr. Speaker, they

simply are not true. I operate on the principle that being open and forthright

and honest and telling the truth counts for something in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right!

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

more supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final

supplementary to the President of Treasury Board again. I assure him I did

understand his answer, and I understand his failure to fairly negotiate with the

unions. Would he tell us why he did not during the course of the year, knowing

the problems with which he was faced, negotiate in good faith with the unions

and look at other options, such as ways to avoid massive layoffs through

negotiated job sharing, reduced hours, leaves of absence, lower wage increases

and so on? Why was it that his Government was bent, Mr. Speaker, on massive

layoffs and the intended hardship on thousands of Newfoundlanders?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By the end of

September, I indicated, we knew we had a serious problem. At that point, we sat

down with the heads of all the public service unions, outlined our problems,

asked them to work with us in terms of providing us with alternatives,

alternatives to the process that was then in place, indicated that we would have

to take measures to try to curb a major deficit this year, that we were running

into major problems in the year ahead, outlined the full extent of these

problems and asked for some input as to what solutions they saw to the problem.

At that point in time, we informed them that we were looking at cutbacks in the

public service, and at that point in time we were looking for alternatives to

the cutbacks in the public service. That is exactly what I talked to the labour

union leaders about: alternatives to the cutbacks.

At that point in time, there were many things that could have

come forward from the unions. As a matter of fact, some of the things the hon.

Member mentions were actually mentioned to some of the leaders of the unions at

that time. At that time, most of them indicated a lack of co-operation; they

indicated they did not believe that we had a financial problem. Some of them

even went public and indicated, told members of their group that this was a game

the Government was playing, Government was playing a game, trying to interfere

with the collective bargaining process by going out and telling lies to them. We

do not really have a problem, is what they said. Well, Mr. Speaker, everybody

now knows that we were not playing games, that we were telling the truth, that

there was a massive financial problem in this Province caused by a number of

factors, including the mismanagement of the last 17 years.

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

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

Minister of Finance. Buried in the footnotes of the Minister's Budget is a $6

million reduction in funding for community development projects through the

Department of Social Services. My question to the Minister is why did the

Minister not include this $6 million cutback in his Budget Highlights, which, by

the way, included cutbacks as small as $100,000? Was he embarrassed? Was he

trying to hide the cuts from the public view? Or was he trying to mislead the

people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I understand the

Member's question correctly it is why was there a cutback in community

development funding this year? First of all, let me say to the hon. Member for

Port au Port that there were no cutbacks in community development funding this

year. Last year, in the Budget analysis, there was $25 million allocated for

community development projects. This year there was $25 million allocated. There

are $3.5 million going into Vocational Services, $4.3 million going into

employment enhancement programs. The only difference is during the year there

was approximately $3.5 million allocated for a special program, for brush

cutting, which is not in the Budget this year. The Budget remains the same for

1991 as it was last year

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I mean, is this document worth

anything or not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have not recognized the hon. the Member for Port au Port as

of this point in time. But the hon. Member may remain standing, I am about to

recognize him. The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, is this

document worth anything or not? It clearly says in the Department of employment

opportunities for everybody to see in the Province that there is a cutback of

some $5.89 million, and the Minister gets up and says there is no cutback.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary and I ask him to get

into the supplementary, please.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect to get a

straight answer but I would like to ask the Minister, what effect will the

cutback have on the number of people receiving social assistance? How many

people will be denied the chance to get off social assistance, which community

development is all about? And would the Minister confirm that $6 million will

mean somewhere close to 2000 people will not be able to get part-time jobs this

year?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell the hon.

Member, and all Members opposite, that the Community Development Program and the

direction we have for the future is greatly improved over what you people had in

the past. Let me also tell you very clearly that we are putting more money from

community development funding into retraining and education programs instead of

short-term - ten/ forty-two weeks. That is our intent for the future and the

direction of the community development programs. We are also working with the

private sector to get, instead of ten weeks with the private sector, twenty-six

weeks. Let me assure the hon. Member that there will be no less people on social

services working on community development programs in 1989-90-91 than there will

be 1991-92. There will be less people working on community projects, but more

people in training and education programs.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the only

training being done - it was done before, it has not been done as much, that

there have not been as many community development projects in this Province as

there were before -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. Members that there is supposed to be no

preamble on a supplementary, and if hon. Members keep insisting, I am going to

have to go to another Member. The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister believe that

there is adequate money in his Budget - which, by the way, has been cut more

than any Budget in Government - to meet the demands of social assistance

recipients that will inevitably occur because of the Budget and the effect the

Budget is going to have on the economy? Will his whole Department, I am speaking

about now, be able to handle the problems that this Budget has reeked on the

Newfoundland people?

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

MR. EFFORD: I do not know what Budget the hon. Member is

reading. Of all Ministers in Government, I have been congratulated as Minister

of Social Services for getting the most for any Department this year, much more

than we got last year in fact, some $15 million more than we got last year, Mr.

Speaker, including an increased fuel allowance, including extra money for single

parents, some $9900. The hon. Member must be reading a booklet I am not reading,

because I am very proud of what we were able to accomplish under the financial

problems this Province is experiencing.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Finance. In a press statement last Friday, the Minister of Education

indicated that Memorial University was going to get an increase of some $5.5

million for its operating Budget next year, 1991-92. The Budget actually told of

an increase of only $1 million. Who do we believe on this one, the Minister of

Finance or the Minister of Education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I said to

the press and to the public that Memorial University had requested a total of

$12 to $13 million before the salary freeze was announced, and we had decided

before the salary freeze was announced to grant a $5 million increase of that

$12 to $13 million requested. We understood, of course, that Memorial was also

considering fee increases, and they were also considering some cuts for this

year. Mr. Speaker, I do not have the final figures as to what the salary freeze

means for the University, but I have asked for them today. In fact, at this very

moment my officials are meeting with Memorial University to work out all the

details. We must consult. I am sure the hon. Member realizes that we must

consult with all the Boards of Governors and the Board of Regents, and my

officials are doing that, as they should. Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the

Minister of Finance. The Minister of Education said there was a $5.5 million

increase. The Budget shows, in fact, in Operations Grant, under Heading 3.2.01,

that there is actually less than $1 million. Could the Minister of Finance

explain where this $5.5 million comes from, when it is not shown in the

Budgetary estimates? Where is it?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we get the final

details worked out with the university, I will be prepared to table the actual

figures for the Member. The implications of the salary freeze, we are examining

today and I will table these for the hon. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This question is to

the Minister of Education since he is the only one who is going to respond. The

Minister has indicated that the total number of layoffs will not exceed the

number of positions eliminated as a result of declining enrollments in the

secondary school system, yet there is a number of professional positions

eliminated at board offices, some of which are teachers, the question then is:

how many actual educators in the secondary field of education are going to be

laid off, including those at board offices?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, how many?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget last week, the

Minister of Finance said it was estimated that in education a total of 350

persons would be laid off as a result of the Budget. 133 exactly in elementary

and secondary education; approximately 100 in the colleges; approximately 100 at

Memorial was our estimate; and the remainder in the Department of Education or

other positions in education, so a total of 133 persons in the

elementary-secondary system will be laid off.

Most of these, ninety odd per cent of these, are as a result

of declining enrollments. Mr. Speaker, I think the public of the Province

understand what is happening. Each year, Mr. Speaker, we lose about 3,000

students-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: - an estimated 3,000 students this year will

be lost, that means that about 122 positions would be lost as a result of

declining enrollments, Mr. Speaker, and we have lost 35,000 students. If the

hon. Members would listen, they might learn what is happening in the school

system.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) layoff.

DR. WARREN: I will answer that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

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

I would ask the hon. Minister please to draw his answer to a

conclusion. The hon. the Minister.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, since 1971, we

lost 35,000 students from the school system of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker,

to get to the question about what proportions-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: - to get to the specific question he raises

about the number of positions: approximately half, Mr. Speaker, approximately

half the 133 persons will come from school board offices and the other half of

course will be teachers from the classroom. This will soften the impact; the

Government made that decision, Mr. Speaker, to reduce school board offices-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that ridiculous (inaudible).

DR. WARREN: -to reduce school board offices to lessen the

impact on the classrooms of the Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

In the House yesterday, the Premier indicated that when the Government concluded

as to what it would do about the financial situation of the Province, it called

in the four major public sector unions. Can the Premier confirm that these

meetings took place on the 20th and 24th February, and if so, Mr. Speaker, can

the Premier tell us why, in good conscience, he would allow the President of

Treasury Board on March 1st, to sign a collective agreement with CUPE providing

for wage increases in all three years of that agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question, good question.

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can go to my diary and find out the

exact dates. My recollection is it was a Thursday and a Sunday- I know one was a

Sunday, but not exactly what date it was. No collective agreement was signed

after the Government made a decision as to what it would do. As a matter of

fact, my recollection, Mr. Speaker, is that the possibility of a wage scale

freeze was not considered except in the last moments, and when I say the last

moments, I am talking about the last two weeks or so. It might have been

seventeen days or fifteen days or nineteen days, the last approximately two

weeks or so was the first time the Government gave serious consideration to it

at all. I do not know when the decision-

AN HON. MEMBER: It was the Budget week; it was the Monday

(inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is what I would say, probably a week

or so before the Budget, about that, before the Budget was decided, so, Mr.

Speaker, that is how it came about.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. Members on both sides of the

House: for the smooth flow of Question Period there are a couple of points and

comments that ought to be made as a result of today's Question Period. I remind

hon. Members from both sides of the House that in asking questions and in giving

the answers that both must be brief. And I want to make sure that both sides of

the House are aware and they are following these two requirements.

Secondly, there is another point that ought to be raised and

brought to hon. Members' attention. Beauchesne, page 123, 420 - because whenever

this happens, we do get some noises from the House: "The Speaker has stated, 'Of

course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister; but it

cannot insist that that Minister rather than another should answer it.'"

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as required it gives me great

pleasure to table the annual report and financial statements of the Farm

Development Loan Board, 1989 and 1990.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by Standing and Special

Committees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I want also to bring to the attention of hon. Members that

when the Speaker is speaking, there ought to be silence. And I am not going to

try and get my voice over that of other Members. I just want to advise hon.

Members of that.

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, the hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Is Your Honour saying when Your Honour is

speaking there should not be any noise -

MR. SPEAKER: Precisely.

MR. SIMMS: - or when Your Honour is standing?

MR. SPEAKER: When Your Honour is speaking and standing

both. Because when I am speaking I could be standing and I could be speaking and

not standing.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just to ensure that we understand

it, surely Your Honour would concede that there is the possibility that Members

may not be able to hear Your Honour just from sitting and talking? That is quite

frequent, and often what happens is the Speaker should stand and draw Members'

attention to the fact that he is going -

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. Member, I am not going to debate

with the hon. Member, I am not permitted to. And I have simply stated what the

rules are.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is

a question on the order paper today from the hon. Member for Green Bay. He

wanted to know the number of respite workers laid off as a result of the recent

Budget, broken down on a regional basis. Let me inform the hon. Member that

there were twenty-seven respite workers laid off within the Department of Social

Services. That is the total number of respite workers working within the

Department. In other words, all respite workers from all regions of the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. EFFORD: Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, for the

information of the hon. Member, that there will be no services lost to the

people who need it. We will now purchase the services from a community base or

organizations within the Province. There will be absolutely no loss of service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

Petitions

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

West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible.)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. Member it does

not concern him who I am supporting.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know who is not supporting him, the

Mayor of Dunville.

MR. TOBIN: I can tell the hon. the Member for Carbonear,

Mr. Speaker, that I did not have to bankrupt a council to get elected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Member for

Carbonear is taking offence to what I said.

MR. SIMMS: He's got the touchies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should know better than that by now.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on

behalf of the parents of students attending Harfitt Primary School in the

District of Burin - Placentia West in the Town of Burin. Mr. Speaker, I did not

get to count them, but I understand there are approximately 1,000 signatures

objecting again. I have probably presented approximately 3,000 or 4,000 names on

the petitions I have presented this week from parents in my District objecting

to the harsh cutbacks, the incompetence of this Government, the cruelty, Mr.

Speaker, that they are inflicting upon the people of this Province and

particularly the people of rural Newfoundland.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that from time to time we have the

opportunity to meet with the Minister of Education - even though the people from

this particular school did not - and express their concerns, and he did listen

to us. We also recognized that the amount of money that was necessary in the

Budget was approximately a 12 per cent increase to maintain the status quo. Now

the Minister while he did give a small increase -

MR. BAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. President of Treasury Board on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: I wonder would he read the prayer of the

petition so we will know what we are talking about here. Read the prayer of the

petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The President of Treasury Board. I do not know if the Member

for Burin - Placentia West heard the point of order. The point of order was that

he read the prayer of the petition. In this respect, though there are no firm

rules laid down, it does help the Chair and help all hon. Members if the prayer

of the petition is read right from the beginning then it helps hon. Members to

know what the petition is all about.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Placentia should

be more concerned with looking after the hospital closure in his District than

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. Member for

Carbonear that the people for Burin - Placentia West sent me here to present

petitions and not to listen to him telling me to sit down. It's time for Your

Honour to deal with him.

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

I will ask hon. Members please to refrain from interrupting.

The hon. Member only has five minutes and I would ask the hon. Member to

proceed.

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

I can assure the hon. Members that I will not, Mr. Speaker,

be stifled by anyone opposite when it comes to representing my constituents when

presenting petitions, whether it be on educational cutbacks or whatever. I

challenge the Member for Placentia to present his petition on hospital closures

or the Member for Bell Island, Mr. Speaker, and others who have them. I will

represent my constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Member to please keep to the prayer of

the petition and not to introduce extraneous materials about other Members

presenting petitions. I would ask the hon. Member to please abide by the rules

of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we the undersigned

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. President of Treasury Board on a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentlemen is

not going to read the prayer of the petition. So under Standing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He never got a chance to read it.

MR. BAKER: Well he has had five minutes. Under Standing

Order 93 it says 'If required a petition may be sent to the table and read by

the Clerk.' Mr. Speaker, we would simply like to know what is in the prayer of

the petition that is all.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. It is very

clear what the President of Treasury Board is trying to do. They cannot take the

heat, I guess. The Member has a responsibility to present a petition. Nowhere in

the Standing Orders, nowhere in the rules does it say that the member must read

the prayer of the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give a false

impression here, I do not want to allow the Opposition House Leader to also give

a false impression. We have been very co-operative in terms of the form of

petitions and the intent of the petitions being carried out, whether it is in

proper form or not, we have allowed it to be presented because we are very

concerned that the intent of the people be made here in the House.

So, Mr. Speaker, we would still like to know what is in the

prayer of the petition, and I referred Your Honour to Standing Order 93.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I just want to remind hon. Members that our rules are

probably not as tight as they ought to be with petitions, but I read for hon.

Members our own Standing Order 92, which says: "Every member offering a petition

to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it

comes, the number of signatures attached to it, and the material allegations it

contains." Now one assumes that the material allegations must be the prayer. If

it is not, otherwise how do hon. Members know what the petition is?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Government

wants to prevent me from presenting a petition. I do not know why they are

trying to prevent me from presenting this petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I again ask hon. Members - I am not going to tolerate that

kind of debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The time for the petition is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: What an abuse! What an abuse!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a

petition. The prayer of the petition, if I may read it. It says: "We, the

undersigned, representing 315 children at the Harfitt Primary School in Salt

Pond, Burin, Newfoundland, Canada, support the PTA executive sub-committee for

no educational cutbacks. Already our children suffer enough through lack of some

vital necessities conducive to the quality of education. A further reduction in

the level of education will only serve to reduce our children's hope to become

strong and productive adults. We will back this statement with the words of our

Minister of Education, Dr. Warren: `Newfoundlanders and Labradorians development

depends on improving the quality of education, and our future economic success

depends more on improvement in education than on any other single factor.'"

That is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, every single letter I have here

contains that same prayer. And if it is Your Honour's wish, this afternoon I

will present them all individually and continue until they are finished. Your

Honour, I will not get them finished this evening, but I will be prepared to

continue tomorrow, if that is the wish of Your Honour and Members opposite.

Because I shall not, Mr. Speaker, be stifled from representing my constituents.

Neither the Premier, nor the President of Treasury Board, nor anyone else, Mr.

Speaker, will be successful in doing that.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, is serious. It is serious because

the people of the district have asked me to present it to the Legislature. They

have asked me, Mr. Speaker, in good faith to present this to the Legislature,

calling upon the Minister of Education to ensure that there is a future for

their children in the educational system in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is

where they are coming from, and this Government, Mr. Speaker, has not been doing

that. What have they been doing? They have been cutting the education budget in

this Province like we have never seen before. We know there will be layoffs, we

know there will be teachers unemployed, we know, Mr. Speaker, that there will be

more children in classrooms next year than there are this year, and the Minister

of Education gets up and he talks about 3,000 people less in the education

system in Newfoundland next year. Why? Because this Government, Mr. Speaker, is

driving their fathers and mothers to the mainland to look for work. That is why!

That is the reason why there are going to be 3,000 less. Because instead of the

Premier bringing home every mother's son, he is driving every mother's son and

every son's mother and father to the mainland.

AN HON. MEMBER: And daughters.

MR. TOBIN: And daughters.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Even the dogs are leaving.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bell Island

should be the last to speak in this House, after the gutting his constituents

got in the Budget. You should be ashamed of yourself. Hang your head in shame.

Hang your head in shame. Mr. Speaker, he lacks the courage -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. Members again for the maintenance of decorum in

the House, if they would please follow the rules. The Chair can only ask for the

co-operation. Certainly Members can insist on breaking them, but they do nothing

for the decorum of the House. And in a petition, again I say to hon. Members

that they are supposed to keep their remarks to the material allegations of the

petition. If hon. Members insist on breaking rules, I am afraid that we are

going to lower the decorum of the House considerably and nobody is going to be

able to achieve anything in this House.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I am sure the Member

for Mount Scio -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not want anyone to comment on the rulings, please. Would

the hon. Member proceed with his presentation?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would now

like to continue with the petition on behalf of my constituents, and I call upon

the Speaker to provide me with the protection of the Chair from Members

opposite, in terms of their trying to prevent me from presenting this petition.

The Minister of Education has reduced the status quo from

last year. There is nobody in this Province who believes there will be the same

type of educational system in this Province as there was this year, nobody, not

even the Minister of Education. As that petition says, the one of the 300 or 400

sheets I have that I will probably be presenting in due course, Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians development depends on improving the quality of education, and

the future economic success depends more on improving education than on any

other single factor in our Province. Why is this Government trying to prevent a

good education system for our children? Why have our children in Newfoundland

not received the same type of quality education that is being received in other

parts of the Country? We have good teachers. We have one of the best groups of

teachers of anywhere in the country, yet the Minister of Finance, the Premier,

and the Minister of Education are tying their hands and preventing them from

delivering the appropriate educational system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was

obvious the Minister of Education was not going to rise, because you were about

to recognize the Member for Bonavista South on another petition. Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, having said that, I want to rise and support my colleague in his

presentation of this petition on behalf of parents and concerned citizens

supporting students attending Harfitt Primary School, in Salt Pond. I want to

say, Mr. Speaker, from the outset, being a Member representing one of the

districts on the Burin Peninsula, that it has been many times during the past

number of months when I wondered what else this Government was going to try to

take away from the people of the Burin Peninsula. The last thing in the Budget

they took away was an RCMP office in Burin. They have taken away the

headquarters of Eastern Community College, they have closed down two cottage

hospitals, and they concurred with the closure of the Grand Bank fish plant.

There is not much more left, Mr. Speaker. Now, these parents and concerned

citizens who have asked the Member to present this petition here in this

Legislature, and particularly to bring it to the attention of the Minister of

Education, the Minister of Finance, and the Premier of the Province, they are

very, very concerned that this Government would cut back further on education.

And, of course, their worst fears have been realized. Because this Minister and

this Government have brought in a devastating Budget for education in this

Province, a Budget that is going to impact negatively upon the educational

opportunities for young residents of the Burin Peninsula, and, indeed, right

throughout this Province. We are going to see layoffs, as the Minister has

confirmed today, at the school board office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Did you say that is the right spot?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought you said it was the right spot.

Because I do not know if there is a right spot when you get a layoff slip. I

have not found one yet, where it is the right spot to get a layoff slip.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: That is no right spot to lay off anyone

either, because that is where a lot of the curriculum consultation and other

things go on between the program co-ordinators and the teachers in the schools.

There are going to be staff members laid off. In some regions of this Province,

Mr. Speaker, we are going to see two and three grades taught in one classroom as

a result of this Budget. And I think it is absolutely disgusting to see this

type of thing happening, especially from an administration that promised so much

more, and from an administration that has two former presidents of the

Newfoundland Teachers' Association sitting in their benches, one of them a

Minister of the Crown. Now before concluding I want to go on record as

supporting the prayer of this petition, to go on record as supporting those

thousand-plus people from the Burin Peninsula, supporters of those children

attending Harfitt Primary School, in Salt Pond, those 315 children who are there

hoping to receive a decent education. It is very incumbent upon this Government

to provide the financial resources so that the school board in question here can

provide that kind of education for them. So I want to go on record as supporting

my colleague in presenting the petition, I want to go on record as being

supportive of the people whose names are on the petition, and most importantly,

to support the 315 children, the future leaders of this Province who are

attending school in that area of our Province and who want a decent education so

that they will have a fighting chance to stay in this Province and not have to

go to the Mainland in droves, as we are see happening, caused by the policies

and the budgetary decisions of one Premier, Clyde Wells, and his administration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this was a tough Budget for this

Government. It was not an easy Budget to develop. And all departments shared

their pain in this, Mr. Speaker. But I am pleased to say, having said that, that

the education budget was increased. Despite the fact that we had a one year

freeze on salaries, we have more money in the Budget this year than we had last

year.

Most of the teachers who will be lost to the system, or

administrators, are the result of declining enrollments. We have, Mr. Speaker,

some good news as well. The pupil/teacher ratio in this Province has gone down

dramatically over the past few years. In 1980 the pupil/teacher ratio was 18.8

students to one teacher. In 1990 it was 15.3. And I am pleased to say, Mr.

Speaker, that that is among the lowest in this country, because we have a lot of

small schools. And we have in addition, as was pointed out last week, one of the

most qualified work forces in this country. So we are pleased that the

pupil/teacher ratio is now among the lowest in the country.

Mr. Speaker, there are no cuts in capital costs. There are no

cuts in capital funding for education, there are no cuts in transportation this

year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the transportation grants by $2.5

million to $3 million. And do you know what, Mr. Speaker? There will be no fees

charged for transportation in this Province as a result of this Budget. No fees!

Mr. Speaker, we have increased the funding for school

transportation so that we will not have to increase fees or add fees to school

boards. There will be no fees for rentals. Mr. Speaker, I met with the parents

on the Burin Peninsula and they said, Mr. Minister, we cannot add more fees.

Reconsider this idea of adding fees for textbook rentals. There are no fees for

textbook rentals in this Budget. There is no increase! Mr. Speaker, there is no

increase in the proportion of textbooks paid for by high school students. It

stands at 50 per cent of the cost.

So, Mr. Speaker, it was a tough Budget. But elementary and

secondary education in particular came off reasonably well in these rough times.

And let me tell you one other thing, Mr. Speaker. The school boards of the

Province know it, and I want to thank the school boards. I met with them on

Friday. I have talked with them in the last few days. They will do everything

possible to help us. Dr. Vokey and the trustees have said they will do

everything to help this Government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: - in these difficult times. Mr. Speaker, they

know it is difficult, but they are going to do everything possible so that the

education of children in the classroom will not be negatively impacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to present a petition on behalf of 400 residents of the Bonavista

Peninsula, residents of not only my District of Bonavista South, but the

adjoining District of Trinity North. The prayer of the petition is: "Petition to

the House of Assembly. To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in

Legislative Session convened (inaudible) petition of the undersigned residents

of Newfoundland and Labrador. That the residents of the Bonavista Peninsula

involved in residential woodcutting are opposed to the present policy of the

Department of Forestry with respect to the allocation of the areas granted for

residential cutting; that new areas should be allocated to service the needs of

the woodcutters involved; that present policy be changed so areas with mature

product can be harvested."

As I indicated, the petition is signed by 400 residents of

the two districts, primarily residents of Bonavista South, although there are

some signatures from Port Rexton and Catalina, which happen to be in Trinity

North. And the signatures extend right around the District of Bonavista South,

from Little Catalina, Elliston, Bonavista, down as far as Duntara and Keels. We

had a public meeting on this particular issue with the people concerned, and

there were two concerns with respect to this particular issue.

As anyone is aware in rural Newfoundland, I suppose, the

economy that keeps most families going is composed of three elements: the first

one being employment income; the second one being some form of Federal transfer,

be it CEIC money, unemployment insurance or some other form of Federal transfer;

and the third factor being domestic production. And, of course, in Bonavista

South the primary cash input is income from the inshore fishery, the primary

transfer being unemployment insurance benefits. But a significant number of

residents of Bonavista South, of course, burn wood for fuel to heat their homes

in the winter months, and a significant number of people have to have access to

the forest to harvest sawlogs so that they can construct their homes.

As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland has the

highest percentage home ownership in Canada, and this is one of the factors,

that people when they are not fishing and pursuing other employment, can go into

the woods, cut sawlogs and construct their own homes.

So these concerns are very, very critical to the residents of

Bonavista South and, I would say, to residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who

live in rural Newfoundland in general. We had a meeting, and these concerns were

expressed. And the concerns of the people at the meeting were that in the areas

that had been allocated this particular year, there was, in the areas that were

accessible, an insufficient quantity of sawlogs and firewood. And where there

was a sufficient quantity of sawlogs and firewoods in the area, those areas

within the area were inaccessible. So there was a dual problem there. Where the

wood was you could not get to, and where it was not you were allowed to cut, but

that was not much good.

This has been a process going on on the Bonavista Peninsula

for a great number of years. Originally, there were over fifty traditional

cutting areas around each community on the Peninsula, and in 1982 the Department

set up, in addition to the fifty traditional areas, thirty-three domestic

cutting blocks. Recently, the areas were surveyed to determine where the cutting

was taking place, and the results of the survey indicated that 90 per cent of

cutting was occurring in the fifty traditional areas and there was very little

in the thirty-three cutting blocks that had been assigned by the Department. As

a result of that activity and as a result of trying to balance the needs of

domestic cutters and commercial operators on the Peninsula, the domestic cutting

blocks in areas were refined this year, causing the problems which gave rise to

the petition and the public meeting.

Since that particular time I have corresponded with the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture and had meetings with him, and the matters

have been addressed in a large degree by the Minister. I thank him for his

co-operation in this particular matter, as do the residents of the Bonavista

Peninsula. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: I would just like to take a few minutes,

Mr. Speaker, to have a few words on the petition presented by the hon. Member.

From the outset I would like to say that I support the petition brought forward

by the residents of the Member's district. Having said that, I find, especially

in the last year or so, I have not seen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) first petition.

MR. WOODFORD: That is the first petition I have seen, I

think, presented by Members opposite. The Member says right at the end of the

petition that he is after consulting with the Minister and bringing the concerns

of his constituents to the Minister and had them rectified so to speak, it has

all been looked after, and then he brings the petition to the House of Assembly,

when there are so many other petitions opposite pertaining to health, education

and so on.

But to get back to what the hon. Member is saying with regard

to domestic cutting and so on, the Bonavista area of the Province, as well as

other areas in the Province I guess, will have to be addressed by the Minister

of Forestry and his staff when it comes to domestic cutting. Times are hard in

this Province, Mr. Speaker. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are reverting back

in droves to burning wood, because they have absolutely no choice, Mr. Speaker.

And it is very important for the concerns raised in this petition, and in other

districts in the Province, that the Minister and the officials in his Department

make areas available in each and every district for domestic cutting.

It has been done but now they have been encroached on by

other people, loggers and so on, with regards to strictly the domestic cutting

of firewood, forgetting the saw logs in this instance. But with the increase in

hydro rates, Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years alone, Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians have no choice but to go back to the so-called old woodstove.

And in order for that to happen and in order for them to have a supply and the

resource available for their use, especially in the rural areas of this

Province, we must have a good program in place, the Department of Forestry must

have an excellent program in place to accommodate those people.

Pertaining to the sawlog part of it, it used to be

traditional, pretty well everywhere in the Province, to be able to go get a

permit to cut, I think it was 10,000 feet to build a house for your own use.

That is what it was up until a couple of years ago. Then that was disallowed,

both by the Crown and by Kruger. I think you could get up to, I think, 10,000

feet, if I am not mistaken, a permit to cut that. That was very beneficial in

rural areas of the Province as well. The hon. Member mentioned that in his

petition. That was taken away and especially by the paper companies in the

Province as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that was wrong and it should not

have been let by. It is something that should be addressed.

So I support the prayer of the petition and I would make

reference to the Minister and his Department about other areas. He is aware, I

think the Member for Placentia brought it up last year in the Estimates, out

around his area of the Province, there was a problem as well. And I think that

this should be addressed by the Minister and his Department over the next short

while.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to stand for a moment to support the prayer of the

petition, Mr. Speaker, and to commend the Member who so ably presented the

petition. I want to also commend the Member for the role he played in helping to

resolve this situation. Last fall, early winter, Mr. Speaker, we announced -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: No, no, these are my notes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, last fall or early winter the

Department of Forestry and Agriculture announced our Forestry Management Plan

for the area in question. When the users, the domestic wood cutters, the

domestic sawmill cutters and even some commercial became aware of the plan they

expressed some concerns, Mr. Speaker. As the Member said they were concerns

with the officials of Forestry, Mr. Speaker. On the 21 of February I directed my

staff to organize a meeting for the purpose of hearing the concerns of the

people from the area. On February 27, at a subsequent meeting with five, I

think, people representing the loggers and the users in that area, we met, Mr.

Speaker, and there was no question that some of the concerns expressed by these

users, the domestic firewood cutters, the domestic sawmillers, were well-founded

and were legitimate. And I accepted that and my officials, Mr. Speaker, were

instructed to review our management plans and to accommodate and address the

concerns of the people in Bonavista, in the area that the hon. Member

represents.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the problems have been

solved to everyone's satisfaction. I want to hold that up, Mr. Speaker, as an

example of the kind of atmosphere of understanding and co-operation that I try

to promote with the industry and the Department. Mr. Speaker, I might point out

- I cannot say this with certainty - but I suspect the reason for the petition

was that the people in this area, people using the woods cutting firewood and

domestic sawlogs felt, based on the experience that they had in the past from

the previous Administration when the hon. Member for Grand Falls was Minister,

and the hon. Member for Kilbride was Minister, based on their experience of no

co-operation, Mr. Speaker, not being able to have their concerns addressed, felt

the only way to have their concerns addressed was to present a petition in the

House. They were pleasantly surprised and very appreciative, Mr. Speaker, of the

very fast and efficient way that the Government and myself as Minister addressed

their problems.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 7.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 7. The hon. the President of Treasury

Board to ask leave to present a Bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Restraint Of

Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province." (Bill No 16)

Motion, the hon. the President of Treasury Board to introduce

a bill, "An Act Respecting Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The

Province." (Bill No. 16)

On motion, Bill No. 16 read a first time, ordered read a

second time tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2. The Budget Debate. The hon. the

Member for Mount Pearl adjourned the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, my good friend for Placentia

reminds me of your comments earlier today that hon. gentlemen opposite had

trouble hearing me yesterday so I will have to start at the beginning and go

through all that again. I would hate for anybody to miss any of the comments I

made yesterday, by popular request.

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke yesterday I talked at some length -

but there is much more that can be said - on what I consider to be the main

thrust, the main difficulty with this Budget. One is trust in the Government,

confidence in their projections, confidence in their words as a result of their

failure to negotiate in good faith with the public service collective bargaining

unit, and their failure to deal in good faith in the matter of the Meech Lake

Accord, and other examples I gave yesterday. I think it is very clear that this

Government has lost the confidence of the people of this Province. All the

comments we are hearing from so many union leaders and representatives from

various organizations give us the same message, that there is no longer any

trust in this particular Administration. That is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker,

because that affects more, I think, than the political popularity of this

particular Government. That is not what we are talking about. What we are

talking about is the confidence of the people in the programs and policies of

this Government, and the mere confidence that they will indeed carry out the

things they say they are going to carry out. When that is lacking then there is

a serious, inherent, basic problem in society in this Province. It is

unfortunate, I believe, that we are very much coming to that.

The second major component, Mr. Speaker, are the massive

layoffs that this Government has introduced in this Budget. There is nothing as

important in my view in this Budget document as the layoffs that have been

announced, and the Government would try to make light of it. Do they not

recognize that it has serious implication on those people that are being

affected directly, those people that are being laid off and the families that

depend on their income for their livelihood? What I would suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, is that this Government is failing to recognize the economic impact

that all of this will have on the Province. I spoke at some length yesterday on

the perception that now exists in this Province and that has existed for a

number of months, as a result of statements made by Government and as a result

of the fact that many people knew that these types of actions were being

considered, particularly in the public service. There has been a shadow cast

over the public service now for many months, a shadow which has caused these

people to be very, very prudent in their expenditures, and why would they not

be, because there was a very real possibility that they were facing a layoff at

a time when unemployment is at 18.2 per cent, where the likelihood or the

expectation of finding alternative employment at the same level of compensation

within a short period of time is very dim.

So, Mr. Speaker, these people have been very conservative in

their spending over the past number of months, and so they should be, they are

very responsible. That has impacted extremely negatively on consumer confidence

in the Province and on the retail sales tax that has been gained as a result of

that. Not only individuals, Mr. Speaker, in the public service, but individuals

right across the Province have been faced with this doom and gloom syndrome that

this Government has been putting forward. That, coupled with the lack of

confidence in their ability to accurately predict their Budget as evidenced, and

as proven very clearly, in the performance of the last two budgets brought down

by this Government.

Those two factors together certainly have not given the

business and investment communities anything to feel secure about, anything to

cause them to move forward with any investments, and that has a two-fold impact.

First of all, you do not have the monetary impact of that amount of money being

invested and circulating in the Province. And secondly, of course, that there is

a large labour component involved in that. Job creation and component with any

investments of the magnitudes of which we are talking.

And when you add to that, Mr. Speaker, the impact of these

layoffs that we have seen announced by this Government, and I am not talking

about just 2,000 or 2,500 public servants. The Minister would argue it is 2,000,

I would argue that 500 vacant positions not filled are 500 jobs not available as

well. And that is 2,500 jobs by any man's language.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile looking through

some of the other items in the Budget and considering the other areas where it

would mean either layoffs or job opportunities that are lost. And these are

significant, Mr. Speaker. As you look through this document these are inherent

in pretty well every item that is here. And all we need to do is just use as a

guideline even the

summary of the expenditure details and of the revenue

measures, revenues eliminated and items frozen, programmes and areas excluded

from the freeze and these types of things. As we go through them we will see so

many areas where job opportunities have been lost or people have in fact been

laid off.

In the area of health care, Mr. Speaker - we have talked

about the public service and the impact that will have - we are seeing budgets

frozen in the area of dental services, hospital equipment funding and salaries

under MCP physician services. Those items in themselves may or may not result in

a minor number of layoffs, but nevertheless it is less funding

now therefore

circulating throughout the Province. When you freeze something, Mr. Speaker, a

freeze is a rollback by any other name. It is a cutback. The Government would

like to use the term 'freeze', they would like us to say, well, we have just

held the line for this year. But if the Government's own figure of 5.7 per cent

to 5.8 per cent inflation predicted for this year, a freeze means a 5.8 per cent

cutback in the value of the money that is available to be spent in this Province

and the economic impact of that, and what can be accomplished with that amount

of money.

In the area of social services, the Minister of Social

Services will tell us that there have been increases in funding available for

social service, and there are, too, small programmes that are included. But the

fact that the basic payments are frozen, Mr. Speaker. That represents a cutback

to the average person on social assistance and that is unfortunate. Because

these people are the people who are least able to bear increases in the cost of

living. And we see them every day, we must all see them. We are all seeing the

increase in the cost of living in this Province daily. In everything that we

purchase and everything that we see going on around us, there is an increase in

cost. And unfortunately I am not as optimistic as his Budget projection if that

is going to decrease very quickly, although all economists across Canada tell us

the economy is going to improve over the next three to four months, and

hopefully they are right.

Freezes in school tax equalization grants, freezes in per

pupil grants to school boards. Per pupil grants to school boards and the

equalization grant, that is the amount of funding available to school boards to

carry on their operations, fulfil their obligations to run the schools. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if those are frozen surely their costs are increasing as well. It would

certainly include such items as heating fuel. We know - we had a discussion

yesterday with the Minister of Energy on what is happening in the cost of energy

in this Province. And there is nothing there that would show any relief to

school boards. A major portion of their expense would be heating and electrical

costs, no doubt. Again, by freezing, Mr. Speaker, their grants at this year's

level, with prices increasing, that is in effect a cutback to all boards, a

major cutback to those boards.

And it is not too difficult to see, Mr. Speaker, if you cut

the boards' funding level by 5.8 per cent, which is what inflation is doing, you

cut by 5.8 per cent - unless we are going to turn down the heat enough to save

5.8 per cent - but we are not going to do any maintenance whatsoever in the

school buildings. Barring that, Mr. Speaker, and some of that is possible, a

great deal of it would not be, then it is inevitable that those cutbacks to

school boards will mean layoffs. And we have figures of a couple of hundred

people. The Minister of Education I am sure would like to argue with me. But I

have evidence given to me, and estimates given to me by others, that simply by

holding the line on the grants to school boards could mean a couple of hundred

people laid off throughout this Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: You're going to see it too, it has already

started, it's already started today.

DR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Those are numbers that are given. Well, the

hon. Minister may argue. I would say that I had those numbers given to me by

people who are knowledgeable in that area - far more knowledgeable than I - I

have no particular expertise.

DR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Beg pardon?

DR. WARREN: I talked to them on Friday about this.

MR. WINDSOR: You talked to them on Friday.

DR. WARREN: They are going to get increases in school tax

(Inaudible) school tax money themselves, it won't be that (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Equalization grants are frozen. They are

going to get increases from school taxes?

MS. VERGE: What the Liberals were going to abolish.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, the one that they were going to

abolish.

MR. HEARN: People are not going to pay their school taxes

because they were promising to abolish them - in the Budget even.

MR. WINDSOR: My friend from Ferryland makes a good point,

that many people are refusing to pay the school tax because the Premier

personally promised school taxes would be abolished.

MR. HEARN: It's in the Budget again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Would be abolished.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: There is another good point my friend from

Fogo makes. With all these people now unemployed there will be more exemptions

from school tax. People will not have to pay. So I am afraid the Minister of

Education is looking at this through his rose-coloured glasses again.

MR. HEARN: Heckyll and Jeckyll.

MR. WINDSOR: He is overly optimistic as to the impact

this will have on education, and I say to the Minister -

MR. HEARN: It is his fault, his fault.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: He has been a dismal failure.

MR. WINDSOR: What was that?

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Another intelligent comment from the

Minister of Finance I am sure, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: First one he made today.

MR. WINDSOR: No problem that I missed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: First comment for the day.

MR. HEARN: Did they consult the Member for (Inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: Allocation of student assistant units to

school boards. Now, would the Minister of Education tell me that? When he is

finished listening to the Minister of Finance's jokes, would the Minister of

Education tell me, if the elimination of student assistant units to school

boards - does that not mean layoffs?

AN HON. MEMBER: No elimination.

MR. WINDSOR: No elimination of student assistants.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. WINDSOR: Oh!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, would he permit a comment on

that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Allocation of student assistant units to

school boards have been frozen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, will he permit a comment? For

clarification?

MR. WINDSOR: Sure.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, there are some things that I

have been proud of since I became Minister, and one this year, Mr. Speaker, is

that we have maintained the student assistants numbers at last year's level. Mr.

Speaker, last year in the budget we had $2.5 million for student assistants. We

increased it to $3 million, and we granted increases. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are

providing this year precisely the same number of student assistants as last

year, despite what the hon. Member of St. Mary's - The Capes is trying to tell -

maybe he is not listening - I should wait until he is listening.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am listening for him.

DR. WARREN: You are listening for him? I will wait until

he is listening, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Carry on, I'm listening.

DR. WARREN: There is no decrease in the number of student

assistants assigned to school boards for 1991-1992, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, when you freeze the per

pupil grants to school boards, and note that-

AN HON. MEMBER: You changed it now.

MR. WINDSOR: I said the per pupil grant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Student assistant (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, I heard what the Minister said about

student assistants. I heard that quite clearly. But when you freeze the per

pupil grants to school boards - and recognizing that there are, I think, some

3,000 less students next year - the grants are allocated on a per pupil basis.

There is not a lump sum to the school board, it depends on the number of pupils.

I touched on it briefly yesterday.

So when a school has even 100 students less -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a lot. That is a lot.

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe not many. Maybe fifty in a particular

school. I am talking about one of the larger schools in the St. John's area,

with 800 or 900 students in it. They might well lose fifty students this year.

That has a serious negative impact on the grant that that school will receive

from Government. But the costs, Mr. Speaker, are not going down. In fact, most

of the costs are going up by 5.7 per cent or 5.8 per cent. So you have the

combination. You have less funding because the grant is based on a per pupil

allocation instead of a total block allocation, and you have the cost of

inflation. So that school could well be losing 10 per cent of their operating.

MR. WINSOR: The Terra Nova School Board is getting

$200,000 less in operating expenses.

MR. WINDSOR: Terra Nova School Board, my friend from Fogo

tells me, will receive $200,000 less this year. Would the Minister of Education

like to tell us now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: See, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education

does not like to hear the bad news. He does not like to hear it. Again, he is

looking through rose-coloured glasses. He does not like to admit the fact that

this Budget is going to have an extremely negative impact on education in this

Province: It is going to have an extremely negative impact on the number of

teachers employed; on the range of programmes that can be offered in some school

boards; the level of service that can be provided; and the level of education

that our young people will gain from school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: He can make light of it, Mr. Speaker, all he

chooses to. But he can not change the facts. A 10 per cent cutback in the amount

of funding to any school board will have a very negative impact and it will mean

layoffs. Not only teachers. The Budget makes it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that

because of declining enrolment, there will be less teachers. So we will be

eliminating positions there. But because of this cutback in funding to school

boards there will be layoffs there as well. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that

overall we are looking at 500 positions in the education system.

MR. HEARN: At least.

MR. WINDSOR: At least 500 positions in the education

system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Minister hear that?

MR. WINDSOR: Either teachers, or school board staff,

employees of the board, or what have you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred.

MR. WINDSOR: Five hundred positions. Plus Memorial

University. I am not talking about Memorial University. We will be coming to

that. Or community colleges. I am talking about in the primary, secondary and

elementary school system in our Province. Five hundred positions will be lost.

So we will add that to the positions lost in the public service.

MR. WARREN: Ask about the Janeway!

MR. WINDSOR: School construction grants, Mr. Speaker,

have been frozen. That is fine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: But I could make the point as well that by

freezing construction grants again there is an inflationary factor, so that is

slightly less money than last year, and there will be slightly less jobs created

in the construction sector as a result of that. We have frozen grants to the

Atlantic Provinces' Special Education Authority Grant and the Atlantic

Veterinary College.

Funding for the DEC's has been reduced, Mr. Speaker -

reduced, not just frozen. Maybe the Minister of Finance, since he has finally

opened his mouth today, would like to tell us what his view on the

denominational education system is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: No, I suspect he would not like to tell us.

Maybe he would not like to tell us.

DR. KITCHEN: I was for it.

MR. WINDSOR: You are for it? The Minister is totally in

favour of the denominational education system.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about you?

MR. WINDSOR: Do not worry. My position is well known to

the boards in my district, and that is all that matters.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister's position on denominational

education is like it is with everything else, he is for it and against it.

MR. HEARN: What about the Minister's? What about the

Minister's position?

MR. WINDSOR: For and against. He is like a ping-pong ball

over there. Operating grants to community colleges and institutes will be

reduced. Now, I do not know if we have a number on that. It is probably there in

the back. I could probably find it. Will that not mean layoffs, I ask the

Minister of Education? Can we have that kind of a reduction added to the

inflation factor without layoffs? Can that be accomplished with no -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No reduction, he says, and it is in the

book.

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not know what is in the

estimates.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: He does not know what is in the Budget,

boy!

MR. WINDSOR: I had better put on my glasses, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, and read it for him.

MR. WINDSOR: I will try to read it again. Page A2 under

Education. `Operating grants to community colleges and institutes will be

reduced.'

MR. MURPHY: Frozen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Reduced!

MR. RIDEOUT: I mean, is there any truth in the Budget?

MR. MURPHY: You are using the salary figures.

MR. MATTHEWS: No way! No way! It is $3 million less.

MR. RIDEOUT: This says grants.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will yield. I would like

to yield to the Minister of Finance. Would he please clarify this? It is his

Budget. Which one of them over there is lying to us?

MR. WARREN: One.

MR. WINDSOR: I cannot make it any clearer than that. One

of them, Mr. Speaker, has to be lying to us. Now the Budget says reduced.

MR. HEARN: They do not know the difference.

MR. WINDSOR: Is that accurate? I ask the Minister of

Finance, is that accurate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Finance says, reduced. I ask

the Minister of Education, will he now confirm reduced?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it reduced or (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: He has lost his tongue now.

MR. MATTHEWS: Operations: Last year seventy, this year

sixty-seven - three million bucks.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, that is on page A2. I refer now to page

177 of the Estimate document - Institutes and community colleges operations.

Grants and subsidies last year, $70,020,000. This year, $67,791,000. I am only

an engineer, Mr. Speaker, but my mathematical training tells me $67 million is

less than $70 million.

MR. MATTHEWS: If you are paying them the same salaries as

last year, why would the freeze decrease it by $3 million, boy! How stunned are

you at all?

MR. RIDEOUT: They are as stunned as they come over there.

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you going to layoff that many that you

are going to save $3 million? Is that what you are saying?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the Premier

make the Minister of Education Minister of Finance. If he can stretch $67

million into $70 million, we should make him the Minister of Finance and we will

not have a deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: What would you do with the Minister of Finance

then?

MR. MATTHEWS: What would you do with the Minister of

Finance? That is the question.

MR. WINDSOR: Overall on community colleges, when you take

in Federal revenues and all the rest of it on current account -

MR. HEARN: Bring in some loaves and fishes.

MR. WINDSOR: And there is a half million less for

furnishing and equipment, too.

MR. MATTHEWS: Did you hear the reason he was giving? The

wages are frozen.

MR. WINDSOR: The wages are frozen.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the reason for it being down.

(Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The wages are frozen. Mr. Speaker, I mean

how -

DR. WARREN: Did the hon. Member read what we increased

and put into the record (inaudible) increases in the education budget?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is your job, not his.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: You do not have too many to read. There are

not too many there to read.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of sitting

here listening to the Minister of Education read through his whole budget. It is

probably the first time he has read it, I do not know. Of course, there are some

items that are increased. I am talking about the decreases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister does not like to talk about the

decreases. You know, the Budget tries to hide those as much as possible.

MR. HEARN: What about the layoff slips?

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister, no doubt, when he gets up,

will talk about the increases that are in there. They are up front and centre

anyway. Everybody knows them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both the increases and decreases.

MR. WINDSOR: You are talking about increases and

decreases? Will the Minister tell me how community colleges will not lay off

people with $3 million less.

DR. WARREN: One hundred people in the community colleges.

MR. WINDSOR: One hundred people will be laid off.

DR. WARREN: If necessary.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, okay. there is a number. A few minutes

ago the Minister was trying to tell me there was no reduction. Now we are

talking about 100 people. Where have I gone?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) give the hon. Member the

exact figures.

MR. WINDSOR: I welcome the exact figure. There are 100

people.

Funding for institutional school services will be reduced.

Where are the Estimates gone there?

MR. HEARN: The School for the Deaf, a place he never

goes.

MR. WINDSOR: There is another set of Estimates here

somewhere. Funding for institutional school services, find that under Education.

How many layoffs will that mean? I ask the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, if he wants the breakdown of the

350 people, I will give them the 350 estimated layoffs in Education.

MR. WINDSOR: Okay.

DR. WARREN: We can be more precise in the elementary and

secondary systems. Because we have the 2 per cent and we know that we are laying

off mostly in the elementary and secondary systems persons as a result of

declining enrolments, 133. Approximately 100 in the colleges and institutes, and

we are meeting with them. We met with them on Friday, and we are meeting with

them this week to get the details. That is approximately 100. Approximately 100

at Memorial University.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh! 100?

DR. WARREN: Approximately 100 at Memorial University. I

have told the public this and I want to tell the hon. Member this. The rest will

come from the Department of Education and other Services, adding up to

approximately an estimated 350 people in the education sector, at all levels.

MR. RIDEOUT: Has Memorial University a declining

enrolment?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: No?

MR. WINDSOR: I say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that-

AN HON. MEMBER: You know, Mr. Speaker, I am not laying

off (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Member is on his feet. You cannot

(inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: I am not laying off, I am (inaudible).

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

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister we may be

looking at 100 layoffs at Memorial University, but that means, therefore, that

we are also looking at huge increases in tuition fees.

MR. HEARN: And cut programs.

MR. WINDSOR: There are only two alternatives. The amount

of funding lost will cost more than 100 jobs, Mr. Speaker, so, obviously

therefore, the University is being forced by this Budget to increase tuition

fees or cut back enrollment, I suppose. They may be able to cut some programs,

eliminate some programs at the University. That has been talked about. But there

is a fear there of losing accreditation in certain areas. I think the Minister

is aware of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not true.

MR. WINDSOR: That is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the day care centre. We

approved that.

MR. WINDSOR: I realize you approved that, but there are

other areas, apparently, where I am told they are in some danger of losing their

accreditation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I have a critic in Education who is only

just sitting back biding his time waiting for his chance. My colleague, no

doubt, will go into these sorts of things in much greater detail than I am

doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a little bit too complicated for

you.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, maybe the Minister will tell me about

the electrical subsidy to the denominational education centres at the

university. Is it not true that at least one of those has already indicated they

may well have to close down because of the loss of that electrical subsidy? I

have reason to believe that the President of that college said, we cannot remain

open if we lose that electrical subsidy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be the co-operative member I am, I will

tell you what happened. Last year, the Government decided to (inaudible).

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

If the hon. Minister wishes to speak and answer to the

questions from the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, then I have to have leave of

the House to permit the hon. Member to do that. With the hon. Minister just

speaking in the House as he is now it is not being recorded by Hansard, his mike

is not on. So we will wait until the hon. Member here has asked a number of

questions and if he wants to give leave to the hon. Minister to answer them,

then we can do that. I remind hon. Members that we are not in Committee of the

whole at this point in time. Thank you. The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right.

We were taking quite a bit of leave of Your Honour and acting as if we were in

Committee of the Whole and enjoying the exchange. The Minister was giving us

some information and, you know, we welcome accurate information; we were given

certain figures which we were led to believe were true and if the Minister

wishes to correct any false impressions we have, I would be happy to give him

that opportunity; I have no desire to be dealing with false information. So if

Your Honour would permit, I would yield to the Minister now for a minute and let

him answer the couple of questions I put to him.

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I abide by your

ruling. We were interacting quite freely, and I apologize to you, Sir, and to

the House for that.

On the subsidy, Mr. Speaker, in last year's Budget - I want

to clarify this because it is an important point for the denominational

colleges. We announced in last year's Budget that the subsidy, totalling about

$250,000 a year, would be terminated this year. Mr. Speaker, we did indicate

last year that this year would be the last year for the subsidy. We met with the

boards from the various institutions and we agreed, Mr. Speaker, to, instead of

terminating it in 1990-91, downsize it over a three year period so that the

colleges could find other revenues to supplement for the downsizing. So really

there was a change in the Government's position, Mr. Speaker, on the subsidy;

instead of terminating it this year, we decided to phase it out over a three

year period to give the colleges some extra time to find alternate revenues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that

information. And as you have said, we should be asking these questions in

supplementary supply. We will have an opportunity to go through it again, but I

do welcome the information.

The teaching positions eliminated by declining enrolment will

not be re-instated, Mr. Speaker. We already know that. But those positions are

going to be eliminated. It is unfortunate that those teaching units are not

available to improve and upgrade the ancillary services necessary in schools,

but there we are. Mr. Speaker, so much for education. See how many jobs are lost

there. The Minister says an estimated 350. I would say to him that boards will

lose others, as well. School boards, themselves, will lose positions because of

the lesser amount of funding that is available to them this year. So, I will

predict, Mr. Speaker, that there are at least 500 positions overall in the

education sector that will be lost this year.

Mr. Speaker, other services here and expenditures frozen:

Funding for the following organizations: the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore

Petroleum Board. There is a curious one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. WINDSOR: The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum

Board. Funding is being frozen for that board in the year in which the great

Hibernia development is beginning. It would certainly have seemed to me that the

Petroleum Board would need to be upgraded this year, that they would need

additional resources to protect our interests in the development of Hibernia.

And there have been some concerns expressed as to whether or not the Government

is adequately protecting provisions in the Atlantic Accord and in the Hibernia

Development Agreement dealing with local preference, job opportunities, ensuring

that 50 per cent, for example, of the engineering work is carried out in

Newfoundland, ensuring that Newfoundland companies are given every opportunity

to enter into joint ventures.

We have had some expressions of concern from the private

sector that perhaps that is not being properly controlled. I understand that the

oil companies, or the developer, has staff who are designated to look at all

contracts that are awarded to ensure that these provisions are required, but I

understand that it is a very junior position and that the person is probably not

in a position to adequately protect the Province's rights and interests in that

regard. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is indeed the Government's

responsibility to protect the Province's interest, it is the Government's

responsibility to ensure that every opportunity is given to Newfoundland

companies and Newfoundland individuals to take advantage of that great

development. After all, that was the reason we fought so hard and so long to get

a reasonable deal in the development of our offshore, and it is the reason for

which Governments are putting billions of dollars investment into that

development to help the companies move forward. And if we do not now gain the

employment opportunities and business opportunities and the industrial offsets

that were promised as a result of that, then we are, indeed, being sold short;

we are not gaining the full value, the full benefit of that resource

development.

Other organizations frozen, Mr. Speaker, are the Newfoundland

and Labrador Heritage Foundation and the Newfoundland and Labrador Science and

Technology Council. These are two organizations that are good organizations,

that create a certain amount of employment and freezing their budget certainly

would not allow them any growth and may well, in fact, cause a small measure of

cutback.

Labrador Legal Services, Regional Pastures, the Stocks

Savings Plan, the Venture Capital - there is one. At least it is still there.

The Stocks Savings Plan and Venture Capital Tax Credit Programs, those two

excellent programs that we introduced a number of years ago, at least they are

still there; they were not eliminated.

Police protection, Mr. Speaker. This is an interesting one.

We are told that there are forty positions being eliminated - forty positions -

twenty-five in the RCMP and fifteen in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. And

we now know that the constabulary apparently, over the weekend, made some

concessions. They agreed, rather than lose those fifteen positions, that they

would agree to do night shift with one man in a vehicle, or one man cruise on

the night shift at some risk themselves. In fact, there is an

article in today's

Telegram, which is here by me, Mr. Speaker, I just referred to, 'Police agree to

one-man patrols to avert fifteen Budgetary layoffs.' I know I am not suppose to

read the newspapers, Your Honour - Your Honour has been lenient with me. Mr.

Speaker, there must be some concern that police are now on one-man patrols.

There has been some debate on that for a number of years, in that it was assured

that there would be two-man patrols in the evenings for the police officers,

which makes a tremendous amount of sense, particularly in the evening time. You

can get away with a one-man patrol in the daytime but when you are patrolling

around at three or four o'clock in the morning it is very, very risky to be

travelling alone. The police have had to make major concessions, I would

suggest, at risk to themselves, in order to avoid those fifteen layoffs in the

constabulary. I am not sure if negotiations are being carried out with the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police in that regard as well, whether or not there may be some

concessions made there, in order to keep those positions. I suspect not, I

suspect you will not find it because they have national standards as to what

they do. I doubt very much that any kind of a concession in that regard could be

reached. But there are twenty-five RCMP jobs across this Province, fairly high

paying jobs for rural Newfoundland, which will have a negative impact on the

economy of those areas. Of course we know that the detachment in Burin is being

closed down altogether and being transferred to Marystown, but I am led to

believe that only one person is being transferred and the other three, four or

five are disappearing altogether.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Three.

MR. WINDSOR: Three are disappearing. We know not where.

So, it is a little bit of an exaggeration to say that the Burin detachment is

being transferred to Marystown. It would be more honest to say that the

detachment is being closed down but one additional position is being made

available to Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, in the transportation sector: the Bell Island

ferry service, and my friend no doubt is concerned about that, is being reduced

to one vessel for a six month period.

MR. WALSH: A bitter pill to swallow.

MR. WINDSOR: A bitter pill to swallow. I am sure my hon.

colleague for Mount Scio - Bell Island does not support that move. It is not

something he welcomes. I am sure also that he will confirm that is going to mean

some loss of employment on that run.

MR. WALSH: I said so publicly on Friday.

MR. WINDSOR: He said so publicly on Friday. I

congratulate him for standing up and having the courage of his convictions.

MR. WALSH: A possible loss of employment and a bitter

pill to swallow.

MR. WINDSOR: No doubt there is a loss of employment. You

do not shut down one ferry for six months without losing some employment for

that six month period.

MR. WALSH: I met with some concerned citizens on Friday

afternoon.

MR. WINDSOR: No doubt they are concerned, and so they

should be. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, ferry service to Little Bay Islands and Long

Islands will be combined for Spring and Fall periods. My friend for Green Bay is

not here and no doubt that is not going down very well in Green Bay. No doubt

there is a loss of jobs for that period of time as well. We are also told that

the Fogo ferry is not going to be built this year. Well, that does two things,

Mr. Speaker, that creates problems in Fogo Island, a transportation problem that

we know has been a problem for many, many, years. I was personally involved in

building the one ferry that we built for down there which did not work out as

well as we would have liked, a good ferry it just did not work out well for that

run. On top of that, we are losing the employment at Marystown Shipyard; we are

losing employment at Marystown Shipyard, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the

shipyard sorely needs, sorely needs that contract. They are down, I am told now,

to about 200 persons employed in that yard from a peak of about 500, the

Marystown Shipyard being the major employer on the Burin Peninsula, down now to

200 people. It must be a time of depression on the Burin Peninsula; it has to be

a time of depression on the Burin Peninsula, more people, at the time when we

need that expertise. Mr. Speaker, I was responsible for that shipyard for five

and a half years at least; five and a half years at least, and we put many

contracts, many Government contracts into that shipyard to build ferries for us

and other vessels, we put a lot of money into fishing vessels but mostly in

latter years in building ferries because we needed those ferries for the

Newfoundland service.

We probably could have purchased them, used vessels, more

cheaply elsewhere but we chose as a Government, to keep Marystown Shipyard

alive; to spend our money here in this Province, even though it costs us a bit

more - and that is local preference at its finest, Mr. Speaker. As a result

Marystown Shipyard has been kept alive for the last ten or twelve years at a

reasonable operating level. It had its ups and its down; private contracts have

been hard to get, the fishing industry has not been strong, even though we did

over the last couple of years built half a dozen, I think, fishing vessels down

there, if I am not mistaken.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is right and he gave away the

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, that happened just about the

time when some sort of an election took place, as I recall. It just happened to

get frozen- it just happened to get frozen right after the election. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we kept Marystown Shipyard alive not just as a make work program for

the Burin Peninsula but because there is a high level of expertise at Marystown

Shipyard. A high level of expertise that is going to be needed to develop the

offshore industry and here, in the year when it is just beginning, when so many

contracts are looming on the horizon for Marystown Shipyard, it is being allowed

to die, and I think that is going to go down in history as one of the biggest

crimes that this Government has committed, particularly to the people of the

Burin Peninsula. I think it is a crime, Mr. Speaker.

We made some difficult decisions over the years, it was not

always easy to find the money to keep that enterprise going on the Burin

Peninsula, but we did it and I think we did it for the right reasons, and it is

a sad day indeed for the Burin Peninsula that this is allowed to take place this

year. Mr. Speaker, there are many other areas that we can and we should talk

about, other areas where funding is being frozen, as in the Arts and Culture

Centres, Renewable Energy Development programs, Youth Advisory Council; funding

has been discontinued altogether for the Youth Advisory Council, it is a paltry

amount, I think $50,000 or $100,000, but it went a long way to allow the youth

of this Province to organize and to help themselves with various programs.

They are going to close the Grand Falls and Goose Bay

Consumer Affairs Offices. They are not big employers: I believe one officer in

each location, but where now, do consumers in those areas go when they feel that

they have not been well done by the private sector? These were our Ombudsmen,

Mr. Speaker, the Ombudsman for consumers; we know where the Ombudsman went last

year, he went the way of the Dodo Bird in last year's Budget. Now we are seeing

consumer advocates, consumer officers in two communities, a Labrador officer and

a Central Newfoundland officer being eliminated; only two jobs, Mr. Speaker,

perhaps with some secretarial help you might say three or four jobs, but

significant in the fact that we have lost that capability in those areas and

that consumers now do not have anybody at the local level to which to appeal.

Reducing hunter capability testing from five to three months

had some impact, I guess. Closing an animal health inspection unit in North

Sydney, I find that one curious. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture, why

are we closing the animal health inspection centre at North Sydney? Would the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture like to tell us that? I mean it is curious,

Mr. Speaker. I mean are we now giving up? Do we not know that we had the only

disease free hogs in Canada, I think, if not in the world or North America? And

now we are going to eliminate some of the protection.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will not say why. The Minister of

Social Services (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The Minister of Social Services looks after

that every year.

MR. WINDSOR: They were sadly threatened a couple of years

ago when, I am told, a pig escaped. There is an awful temptation to be unkind,

but I will resist. But I do have to wonder why we are eliminating that position

because it does provide some measure of protection. How effective that office in

North Sydney would be I am not entirely sure, but surely God we must have some

protection to see what standards of animals are being brought into this

Province. I mean we could be bringing in rabid animals or anything else. For the

price of one person who has been there many, many years one would have to wonder

why that sort of thing is being allowed to take place.

The swine breeding station on the west coast of the Province

is being closed. I am not sure how many jobs are there. Could the Minister of

Agriculture tell me that? How many jobs are being lost in the west coast swine

breeding station?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: How many? One or two jobs. And are those

being included in the 1,300 public service jobs that we talked about?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: They will be included in it. Nevertheless,

that was a service being provided to swine breeders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: So is the reduction in services, but there

is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, it will be a very negative thing for the west coast of

the Province. Maybe not a major number of jobs lost, but for swine breeders on

the West Coast of the Province that will have some negative impact.

We are reducing funding and merging the Junior Forest Warden

program and the Four H program. Good programs for young people in rural

Newfoundland that have worked well, and there may well be some merit in

combining the two programs, but not in reducing the funding - not in reducing

the small amount of funding that they had anyway. And we are merging the

Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador with the Advisory Board for the

Economic Recovery Commission. That is an interesting one. People are really

going to get excited about that in this Province. And then we are saying that we

are increasing funding for the activities of Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador.

The Minister of Development is not here today, but if he were

I would ask him how come twenty-two people in the Department of Development have

been given their layoff notices? Twenty-two people in the Department of

Development, Mr. Speaker, were yesterday given their layoff notices, some people

who have been there a long, long time. And the Budget also says, Mr. Speaker,

and this is interesting, 'increased funding for tourism related activities.' I

am told that a photographer who has been with this Government for twenty-five or

more years in the Tourism Division was given his layoff notice yesterday, yet

the Budget says there is increased funding for tourism related activities.

Indeed there is, Mr. Speaker, and I had a look at the Budget for the details.

Can anybody guess where the increased funding for tourism related activities is

contained in the Budget? Contained, Mr. Speaker, in tourism marketing and

promotion, purchased services, not items that are undertaken by Government staff

- contracts awarded. And, who, Mr. Speaker, has the tourism marketing contract,

I wonder? We wondered how we got it. We spoke about that at some length last

year. It could not be a company by the name of Appa? Mr. Speaker, a company by

the name of Appa has that contract and that is where all the increase is,

$500,000 extra in tourism marketing this year, yet there are twenty-two people

being laid off in the Department of Development. Now, Mr. Speaker, how can this

Government justify that? How can we justify at this time in our history, when we

need the expertise contained in the Department of Development more than any

other time, we are laying off twenty-two people and at the same time giving

another half a million dollars to our political friends in Appa?. Now, Mr.

Speaker, there is no justice in that nor is there any common sense contained in

that kind of a policy, none whatsoever. The Minister of Transportation shakes

his head. I do not know whether he has water in his ears or if he has a problem.

We will get to transportation very shortly. Increased funding under the Offshore

Development fund for Hibernia related projects: We have an increase there. It is

good, a Federal-Provincial agreement signed a number of years ago. Increased

funding for various other cost- shared agreements. Increased funding activities

for Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, $4 million more for Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Lay off twenty-two people in the Department of Development

and give Dr. House and his merry men another $4 million. Now, how do you justify

that? How do you justify laying off twenty-two people with all kinds of

experience and knowledge on how to help develop this Province, overworked as

they are over there? I do not think anybody can deny me that the people of the

Department of Development have a heavy work load, unless it has been all taken

out of their hands by Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. But, how do you

justify it, Mr. Speaker? I could see transferring staff to Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador. We have already done that. Most of the Department of

Development has already gone to Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a

clear move here by this Government, Mr. Speaker, to totally destroy the

Department of Development. As it is now the Chairman of Enterprise Newfoundland

and Labrador, or the Chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission, has more

power than the Minister of Development. The Chairman of the Economic Recovery

Commission now has the mandate to carry out many of the responsibilities of the

Minister of Development but he does not answer to the Minister of Development.

He answers directly to the Premier. Perhaps, that, Mr. Speaker, sheds some light

on it. It is the Premier alone who is directing the Economic Recovery

Commission, who is dictating the approach that will be taken and the direction

in which we will go in developing this Province. It is not the Minister of

Development nor the professional staff in the Department of Development. We are

eliminating twenty-two of them now, and it is not Cabinet as a whole, Mr.

Speaker. There is a certain amount of protection inherent in the Cabinet system,

and having the professional staff members with the resources available to them,

consultants available to them, and reporting through the Minister to Cabinet, to

Cabinet as a whole running the Province, but when you get a Premier running a

Province with an Economic Recovery Commission answerable to him directly,

bypassing the Minister of Development who should be and is under his Act

responsible for these things, then we are into a very, very strange situation

indeed, and a very dangerous situation, Mr. Speaker. You lose all of the

inherent safeguards built in to the Cabinet structure. They even went, I am

assuming -maybe I am being overly generous in assuming that this Government uses

the Cabinet policy system. Would anybody like to tell me, do we still have a

Resource Policy Committee and a Social Policy Committee? Do we still have one?

Nobody wants to answer. I suspect -

MS COWAN: Yes, we do.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, we do.

MS COWAN: Alive and well.

MR. WINDSOR: Alive and well. I hope so. I really hope so

because those committees worked well, and they had secretariats attached to them

so that there is -

AN HON. MEMBER: If the Ministers only had some say.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, if the Ministers have some say, which

they don't have.

Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet system has a number of safeguards

built into it, and for the right reasons. The Ministers officials make

recommendations to the Minister, the Minister considers those and debates them

with his officials and he prepares a Cabinet Paper, a submission to Cabinet for

the consideration of the whole Cabinet, the Government. But before it gets on

the Cabinet table it goes to the committee system. In the case of the Department

of Development, it would go to the Resource Policy Committee of Cabinet who have

further officials who look at it from a different perspective, who look at it

from an overall Government perspective and set priorities on it. And it would go

through the Resource Policy Committee, perhaps also to Treasury Board if there

are heavy financial implications in it. So, the Treasury Board Committee of

Cabinet and their secretariat and their officials, would look at it from a

financial point of view. And the Planning and Priorities Committee may be

involved if it is a major, major decision, a major new thrust for Government.

And the secretariat from the Planning and Priorities Committee would look at it

so that when it comes on the Cabinet table, Mr. Speaker, you have a

recommendation from Treasury Board. Well, first of all you have a recommendation

from the Minister, his Cabinet submission, his Cabinet Paper. That is a

recommendation for the Minister and his officials, and there is a recommendation

from Treasury Board and a recommendation from Resource Policy and a

recommendation from Planning and Priorities. So, it has been looked at from four

or five different points of view, perhaps with different objectives in mind. Not

unusual for the Minister of Forestry to sit on a Resource Policy Committee and

say, 'this is a good program and I really think we should do this. This is

something that we want to do.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Whatever program. If the Minister had been

listening he would know what I am talking about. I am talking in generalities.

It is not unusual for the Minister of Forestry or any other

Minister to put forward a submission or see a submission in a Resource Policy

Committee and support it from a resource point of view. But if that same

Minister is also a Member of Treasury Board, he may take a different point of

view as a Member of Treasury Board.

The President of Treasury Board confirms that, and I think he

is right. I have been in the position myself many times. I was in a position

once where I wrote myself a letter and said, 'thank you for your submission, but

I am sorry, we cannot approve it' when I was President of Treasury Board and

also Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is still talked about down there where my

staff at Treasury Board had drafted a negative response to my submission as

Minister of Municipal Affairs. For the purposes of keeping the record straight I

signed it and sent the letter to myself. I was not very happy with myself

either, but that is the way it happens, Mr. Speaker. And the point I am making

is there are safeguards built into every one of those procedures. That is not

just a bureaucratic nightmare, those are for good and valid reasons that that

committee system is in place and that all of those secretariats are given the

expertise to study the proposals from different points of view, and it all comes

together on the Cabinet table. It all comes together on the Cabinet table when

the Ministers of the Crown, fourteen of them or whatever it is, and the Premier

sit around the Cabinet table with the best advice from all of the different

points of view from each of the secretariats and various groups of officials.

Cabinet, as a whole, makes the decision. When we have an outside group who are

not part of Government per se, they are a Government agencies, such as the

Economic Recovery Commission who bypasses all the Government Committees and

Cabinet and goes directly to the Premier for direction. That, Mr. Speaker, is an

extremely dangerous situation. An extremely dangerous situation, particularly

when they are given the responsibility to give direction on such an important

aspect of Government, that being the development of the resources of the

Province. Mr. Speaker, let us have a look at the expenditures reduced. With

regard to Memorial University: funding for the Faculty of Medicine will be

reduced; the grant to the Faculty of Medicine is reduced, Mr. Speaker, that has

to mean some layoffs or a reduction in the program being offered or both; MCP

coverage of routine dental surgery in hospitals is eliminated, that will have an

impact on many people in this Province.

Routine dental surgery is fairly common, Mr. Speaker. I do

not know what the dollar impact of that is overall for Government but it will

have a negative impact on some people of this Province who are unfortunate

enough to require surgery in hosp