December

6, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 70

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Before we call the routine proceedings for today, I would

like to welcome to the gallery on behalf of all members, fifty students from

E.J. Pratt Central High School, Brownsdale, in the district of Trinity - Bay de

Verde, along with their instructors, Jessie Bown and Richard Knapman and bus

driver, Maxwell Squires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on

Violence Against Women, and the sixth anniversary of the murder of fourteen

women at Montreal's cole Polytechnique engineering school. This date is a stark

reminder of the many women who are beaten, sexually assaulted, or who live with

the threat of violence every day of their lives.

In commemoration of the women who lost their lives in the

Montreal Massacre and those who are victims of violence in our own Province, the

Women's Policy Office has placed a display in the main lobby of both the East

and West Blocks of Confederation Building which I invite you to visit today.

As we remember these fourteen women, let us also remember the

many other women who are victims of violence every day of the year. Each and

every one of us has an important role to play in eliminating violence in our

society.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A year ago, when the minister responsible for the Status of

Women spoke in this House to observe the National Day of Remembrance and Action

on Violence Against Women, she talked about the provincial strategy that had

been developed, an impressive document. A year later, nothing has been done to

implement that document, no co-ordinator has been put in place. The document has

simply been gathering dust. I say to the minister, it is high time that that

strategy be implemented. Shelters for battered women and children in this

Province are underfunded. Counselling services, especially outside St. John's,

are inadequate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What, no leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave is granted to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have a couple of

other points to make.

The justice system is not doing enough to protect women who

are in danger or to deal with violent crimes after they occur. We have serious

unmet needs which are dealt with in the strategy, the unimplemented strategy.

Mr. Speaker, on this Day of Remembrance and Action, we have to make a new

resolve to find new ways to prevent violence and to deal with offenders as well

as to provide appropriate supports for the victims of violence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the member for St. John's East

have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in recognizing today as a National Day

of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in commemoration of what has

come to be known as the Montreal massacre at the cole Polytechnique. It's

important to make the statement of remembrance as is made by the minister; but I

would also like to recognize that here in this Province, the engineering

undergraduate students are planning to have a memorial sculpture placed at the

Engineering Building in this Province, and I think that is worthy of recognition

in this House. I would also remind the government that in addition to its being

a National Day of Remembrance, it is a National Day of Action on Violence

Against Women and further policy initiatives ought to be made, as the Leader of

the Opposition has pointed out.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions about yesterday's financial statement, first

for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

I say to the minister that the numbers he itemized in his

statement yesterday don't add up to $60 million. For a start, the projected $4.7

million savings from the layoffs of public servants have to be reduced by the

severance pay that will be required; $11 million is unspecified and unexplained,

there is no figure for the inevitable drop in provincial revenues, sales tax,

income tax and the like because of the cuts and the depressing effect of the

last month of negative speculation. I ask the minister: What is the government

going to do if the measures announced yesterday do not offset in full the $60

million shortfall? Will the government borrow?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, government's intention is to

balance the Budget. We monitor our revenues on a monthly basis; our own source

revenues we receive periodic information from the Federal Government as to the

likelihood that there will be either increases or declines in Federal Government

revenue and we will adjust our expenditures in accordance with our revenues. We

do not intend to borrow. I can also inform the hon. member that right now the

process is under way to achieve savings for next year and we will be dealing

with that over the next number of months as well. We should have some

significance for our bottom-line this year, too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Education and Training.

One of the worst examples of the crisis management displayed by this government

and reflected in yesterday's statement is the $9.3 million in cuts to education

institutions, to schools boards, colleges, and Memorial University. The minister

knows full well that education institutions make plans from one summer to the

next for academic years beginning in September and ending in the late Spring.

When the minister sat at the Cabinet table last summer and made a decision to

spend $27 million that was not provided for in the March Budget, including

spending $7.2 million on water bombers, why didn't he notify school boards,

colleges, and Memorial University that they were going to be expected to operate

for this fiscal year on less money than the minister and his officials had

previously told them they would have to operate on this year. Why did the

minister wait until just before Christmas to impose these rash cuts on education

institutions leaving them only three months to effect the savings?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I was not able to predict the

cuts in the federal transfers any more than anyone else in Cabinet, therefore,

we dealt with the issue when we became aware of it, which was in the Fall, and

all departments are taking their share of the pain.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Education: Where did you think the $7.2

million for the water bombers would come from?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, had a Special Warrant which was

tabled in this House when we bought the water bombers, and it was made public.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Education: where did he think the money

for the Special Warrant was going to come from?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is sort of surprising that a

former Cabinet minister would not know where special warrant money comes from. I

don't know if she is just trying to ask a rhetorical question or what. She

should have knowledge of special warrants. She served in Cabinet for years under

the Peckford Administration when they issued special warrants for Sprung for $25

million without coming to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of

Education and Training. Did the minister know last summer when he as a Cabinet

minister made the decision to spend $7.2 million on water bombers that wasn't

provided for in the Budget that that would have to be made up from school

boards, colleges and Memorial University?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't make any apologies for

the government's decision to buy these water bombers. Anyone who lives in this

Province and knows the value of the forest industry knows that we can't run

risks with the forests of this Province. I would have thought that the hon.

member who represents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I would have thought that the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition who represents Corner Brook, which is practically totally

dependent on the forest industry in this Province, knows that we cannot have the

forests of this Province at risk. I can tell the hon. member that our budgetary

position would be a lot worse if ever we put our forests at risk and end up with

destroying the industry which contributes so much to the wealth of this

Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that if

water bombers were needed in the summer the minister and his colleagues knew

that in March when they prepared the Budget for the year.

I have questions for the Minister of Natural Resources, the

minister responsible for water bombers, who is also responsible for Hydro. I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: Won't the raid by the government on Hydro, a

grab of $22.9 million in this Budget year of dividends, combined with the annual

loan guarantee fee of approximately $10 million that was imposed a few years

back, and the elimination of the annual PDD subsidy of $30 million, totalling

$63 million in additional load on Hydro, necessitate increased borrowing by

Hydro? Isn't the government essentially eating into Hydro's equity and requiring

increased borrowing by Hydro, and won't that higher Hydro debt load lead to

increased debt servicing costs which will be passed on through the PUB and Light

and Power to electricity rate payers in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro, like government, has

taken actions in the last year to cut its costs. Hydro, in the last year, has

laid off forty-eight people. They have reduced their costs substantially. There

were a number of other factors that came into play, so that when I wrote a

letter to Hydro recently, after we found that we had this financial problem, and

said: Can you take a look at your financial situation and see whether or not

there is any way you can help us a little bit more with our financial problem?

They came back to me and said: Yes, we have a little higher net income this

year, 1995, than we had expected, as a result of the actions that we have taken.

We are going to have about $3 million more in net income, and when the

calculations were completed they said: We can give you $2.9 million more in

dividends this year that will not have any negative effect on the debt equity

ratio.

As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago when the debate

was going on in this House of Assembly the debt equity ratio of Hydro was eighty

three to seventeen. Well, today the debt equity ratio of Hydro is eighty-one to

nineteen. It has improved; it has not deteriorated. It has not deteriorated at

all. The $2.9 million is coming out of increased profits of the corporation, and

it is not going to touch the rate payer at all.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the

minister confirm that the Opposition was right; we should not sell such a

profitable corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, the

minister announced in his crisis management statement yesterday a loss of 470

jobs in the public service. He also identified some $11 million of further cuts

which have not been specified. We have no idea where those cuts will be, other

than they will be somewhere across the departments.

Would the minister like to tell us: How many jobs will be

lost there? Surely the minister is not going to find $11 million in additional

cuts to programs or expenditures of any sort without causing jobs to be lost.

Would the minister like to tell us how many additional jobs, in addition to the

470, will be included in that $11 million? And does he honestly think that he is

going to find that?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: There were several questions, Mr. Speaker.

There are no job losses in the $11 million. Yes, we will find

it. The majority of the money consists in items such as travel, computer

purchases, and many things that go into running the departments, and where the

departments first look to achieve efficiencies, they have done so. We expect

them to achieve those savings, and I have every confidence they will, with no

job losses.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That remains to be seen. We will be delighted to see that. We

will wait for the jury to come in. We don't accept that. Neither do we accept,

as the Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago, that the minister is going to

get his $4.7 million from the jobs that he has cut as a result of yesterday's

statement, with such severance pay and other benefits that will come out of

that. The President of Memorial University once again has defied government and

said: We don't think we can come up with your $3.4 million.

Does the minister think, in view of these three aspects of

his statement yesterday, that he can realistically come up with $60 million?

Would he also tell us: Has there been any more impulse buying that we don't know

about, any more water bomber contracts, and any more Special Warrants that he is

going to pull out of his hat between now and the end of this fiscal year?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think we've bought any water bombers. We may sell

several, in fact, should we find a willing buyer.

On the comments that the hon. member made, we made clear in

the statement that the $4.7 million did not include any severance payments. As

we mentioned in a lengthy discussion yesterday, those figures have not been

finalized. We expect the departments will be able to absorb in large part, in

addition to what we've required them to do, the majority of severance payments.

There may be some minor adjustments, but I have every confidence that we will

meet our budgetary target of balancing the Budget and we will find at least the

$60 million to do so.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister must have some

estimate made now of what impact this statement will have. When government

spends $60 million less than it had projected there has to be an impact on the

economy and on government's revenues. Has the minister done any assessment of

what negative impact that will have on government's bearings? I know it was

touched on a moment ago.

Also, can the minister tell us - we have been about six weeks

since the minister first identified - we brought it to the attention of the

House, said there was a $50 million problem, and a week or so later the minister

confirmed indeed there was a $60 million problem. That was about six weeks ago.

Has there been a revised figure from Ottawa on the transfer problem since that

period of time?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not received any

different scenarios from Ottawa as to where they expect equalization payments to

tend over the next several months.

The hon. member raised another question earlier; I think it

related to the impact on the economy. We already have some studies from our

economics department here in government that indicate there will be a gross

provincial decline next year. Our analysis internally is that there will be some

impact on the provincial economy, but it will be relatively minimal and it will

not be substantial enough to affect our revenues. We don't anticipate that there

be any substantial budgetary decline as a result of that. We are more concerned

about our general picture vis--vis the Federal Government and the general

decline in Provincial Government revenues because of slow-down in the economy,

and we are monitoring that carefully.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, if the minister doesn't think

there will be an impact on the economy, he should ask the people who have been

laid off, and he should ask the retail trade sector which has already felt the

impact of the minister's negative statements.

The minister announced $4.7 million in cuts in public service

salaries yesterday. He said that will reflect itself as $18 million in next

year's Budget. Can the minister tell us, how much does he expect to gain next

year from the $30 million in other cuts in the educational system, health care

sector, social services, police services and so forth? Thirty million dollars

there reflects itself in how much money next year? In other words, how much of

next year's $200 million problem, that he keeps talking about, has he already

identified in these budget cuts?

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

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

impossible to say at this point because Cabinet has not taken the decisions. If

those cuts were to carry forward into next year, all of them, obviously they

would have some savings, particularly as we diminish grants to other

institutions and entities. I was able to quantify in terms of the annualized

savings on the salaries. I presume that Cabinet will examine very closely, all

monies we pay out including grants, institutions and others. I am not at liberty

to say, nor do I have any indication or have decisions been made as to whether

or not those will be increased, maintained or further decreased. We will know

that when the Budget is presented before the beginning of the next fiscal year.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the

minister doesn't have a better feel for the impact that these cuts will have on

next year's Budget. Will he tell us, if he does know, that there will be a

problem next year? Will he immediately embark on a thorough examination of every

program in government, every department of government, every agency of

government to properly identify those programs that can be more efficient, can

be reduced or eliminated in favour perhaps of more appropriate programs in

today's world? Will he now get on with proper budgeting so that we are not faced

with this crisis management again next year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is exactly what I said the government is in the process

of doing right now. We have already asked departments to identify and present to

us, and we have those in hand since November 30, the measures that they are

proposing to achieve a balanced budget next year. Those are being weighed and

the decisions will eventually be made leading to a budget in the early Spring or

late winter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training.

In yesterday's budget, the University operating grant - we

will see the operating grant reduced by $3.4 million by the end of this fiscal

year. The President of the University has said publicly there is no way that he

can achieve this $3.4 million savings. He says he probably can come up with

approximately $2 million but he doesn't know where he is going to find the other

$1.4 million or $1.5 million. He has indicated that he would like approval or

permission from the minister to finish this year up with a deficit position -

operating deficit. Has the minister given consideration to that request from the

President of the University, or has the minister indeed identified enough waste

and extravagance at the University that he feels comfortable that they can

achieve the $3.4 million in savings this year?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can't comment on the

statements that the hon. member is putting in the mouth of Dr. May. I didn't

hear them myself and I can't deny them or affirm them. I can only say, though,

that I have every confidence in the Board of Regents and Dr. May of the

University that they will do their utmost to find that $3.4 million to make a

contribution to the fiscal problem that we are having. I can say that, as usual,

if Dr. May and the University representatives want to meet with myself, they

will find my door is always open, as it has been ever since I have been minister

and will continue to be for as long as I am minister.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can't thank the minister for the answer because he didn't

give one. He didn't give one, I say to him. The minister should be more

forthcoming, because I am sure, before he permitted the Minister of Finance to

impose this hardship upon the University, he must have felt some comfort within

himself that at least the University could accommodate those savings without

inflicting undue hardship or impacting on programs over there.

Yesterday, it was announced that school board operating

grants would be reduced by $3.9 million. Let me ask the minister: As a result of

that reduction, will there now be insufficient teaching supplies and aids in the

schools of this Province or will students have to go to school in unsanitary

conditions because of the actions of yesterday's statement?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that the school

boards are able to cope with that amount of money; otherwise we would never ask

them. I would tell the hon. member that I suppose the school board in this

Province which one would normally think would not be able to cope with that

problem would be the one in my own riding, the Strait of Belle Isle Integrated

School Board. At their last meeting, the business manager, Percy Manuel, relayed

the news to the board members that the board is fortunate to have a $300,000

surplus in this year's operating budget.

You see, Mr. Speaker, since we rid this Province from that

curse called the school tax, which the hon. members over there supported for

years -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - school boards have been receiving more

money than they have ever received before, and in many cases they have been able

to deal with some problems that they had; they are much more capable of dealing

with it.

In the old school tax days we had half-a-dozen boards which

had a good school tax base, who had lots of money, but boards like the Strait of

Belle Isle, or boards out in rural areas of the Province with no tax base, were

operating in debt year after year after year. We fixed that, and boards now have

a reasonable income. Therefore, when we are struck with a fiscal problem, as we

are today, we ask the Department of Education, the Department of Health, we ask

everybody, to help us deal with this problem. We are quite fortunate that school

boards, I believe, the most of them - there might be one or two exceptions, and

we will deal with them, but the most of them - will be able to come up with this

money. I don't think there will be any unnecessary hardship because of that.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I seem to have a little

trouble following the Minister of Education. I, for one, thought the Budget that

was brought in last year, and the expenditures and the revenues, were accurate.

I am in a minority in the Province, but when the minister brought in a balanced

Budget, I was one who believed it. So is the Minister of Education telling me

now that for most of the school boards in this Province, you gave them too large

of an operating grant? Is that what the minister is tell us, that they didn't

need the grants from government to be as large as you gave them and now,

consequently, there are surpluses in school boards around this Province that you

can now take back, that won't impact upon the operations of the schools in this

Province for the rest of this fiscal year? Is this what the minister is telling

us?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am

telling him.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we will leave the answer to

interpretation, but

surely, clearly, that is what the minister indicated, that once they got rid of

this great curse of the school tax, now we have school boards with surpluses.

Can you imagine the chairpersons of the school boards, and superintendents out

and about this Province who will be calling the minister up today and tomorrow,

saying: Mr. Minister, here is our million dollar surplus; we don't need this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Our schools are so well supplied, you

can have it back. Can you imagine?

Let me ask the minister this: Yesterday, it was announced as

well that the provincial colleges will have their grants reduced by $2 million.

Can the minister inform the House of Assembly where this $2 million savings will

come from in our college system? Has he identified the savings, and can he tell

us where exactly the colleges will be able to provide those savings to

government?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the community colleges - we have

five of them - their budget is $54 million. That is the portion they receive

from the Province. In addition to that, they receive about $6 million in

tuition. Twenty-two per cent of the college budget is in administration. If I

were a president of a college and were asked by the government to give up 3 per

cent, I would certainly look at my administration if 22 per cent of my budget

was spent in administration.

The way we operate, the boards run those colleges. They will

know where to look, but my guess is, they being the intelligent people that they

are, they will look to the 22 per cent administration that we are spending on

the colleges.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Social Services.

Yesterday, in the statement of the Minister of Finance, he

stated that $3.1 million in savings through reduced program spending in

community development and other areas would be coming from the Department of

Social Services. While I am concerned about the community development cuts, the

other areas worry me. I would like to ask the minister: How many people in this

Province now are on the caseloads with your department? How many caseloads are

with your department? How many individuals in the Province depend upon those

caseloads?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a little over 35,000 on the caseload, and if you

double that you will get over 70,000 individuals.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In other areas that the Minister of Finance stated, I would

like to ask the minister: Does she foresee any cuts to these 70,000 people who

depend on social services in the Province now directly?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to say that there will not be any cuts in

the basic allowance to these individuals.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, out of those 70,000 people I am

sure there are many involved in programs, and some concerns we have about those

programs we have brought to this House, the Vera Perlin Society and others. I

ask the minister, in community development which is delivered in a lot of cases

by volunteer groups in the Province, I would like to ask the minister how many

dollars does she see being cut from those programs which are being offered in

this Province now, such as the Vera Perlin and many other agencies here? How

much is going to be cut from community development programs?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a number of voluntary agencies out there whom we

supply a certain amount of funding to, and to date there have been no cuts to

any of these organizations, direct cuts to them. The amount of money we provided

for them in our grants will be continued for the rest of this year.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I have a question for the Minister of

Health.

In yesterday's Ministerial Statement the Minister of Finance

stated that savings of approximately $2.5 million can be made to year end in

three areas, institutional health boards, the Faculty of Medicine, and spending

at MCP, without disrupting the provision of essential services to all residents

of our Province. Now, will the minister tell this House the breakdown of the

$2.5 million required from each of the three areas referred to in the

Ministerial Statement?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: In terms of the $2.5 million we have

asked $250,000 of the Faculty of Medicine and we have no difficulty in seeing

them achieve that. In addition to that the MCP component of the Budget on the

administrative side is able to fine $500,000 to contribute to the budgetary

situation. In fact I think they reduced by eleven positions over there. I think

there were six actual layoffs as a result of that, the other positions having

been vacant at the point at which they took the action. Another $1.8 million is

being spread across the institutional sector. If you take the $600 million we

spend a year in institutions, that is acute and long-term care, you will find

that works out to about one third of one per cent of their budget, and I am

happy to inform the House and the government members, as well as the hon. member

from the Opposition, that I have had discussion this morning with the Executive

Director of the NHA and the President of that organization, and they have

expressed through me to government, their appreciation for the sensitivity with

which we are looking at health care in the Province and the extent to which we

are going as a government to ensure that we can maintain quality health care and

allow them to get the job done within available resources at the appropriate

level.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Ferryland on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indicates he has identified $500,000 in

administrative surplus there at MCP. Would he confirm now, in light of future

Budget cutbacks, that his department is now looking at de-insuring certain

medical services thus resulting in people having to pay for certain services

that are now covered by MCP?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we went through the

exercise of a $60 million fiscal problem and we did not de-insure one service as

a result of having to achieve these savings. If the hon. member is asking me

whether or not he wants me to speculate on what might happen in next year's

budgetary process I would simply say to him that would be inappropriate for me

to do and I do not intend to engage in that exercise, but we have not de-insured

any services as a result of this. If he has any suggestions as to what or might

not be appropriately de-insured, if indeed there is anything, then I would be

happy, of course, to hear his suggestions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said it would be very

inappropriate to plan ahead. That is what the minister said, it would be very

inappropriate to plan. Well, that is why we are in such a mess today I say to

the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say it would be very appropriate to plan

ahead and in light of the current salary cap and with the government out

proclaiming every day there are going to be further Budget cuts, I ask the

minister, would he now confirm his department is looking at changing the method

for paying doctors in the Province?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member yesterday was disillusioned because he

thought we were diluting some infection cleaning materials at hospitals, and I

think he is confused between being disillusioned and being diluted. I think as a

result of his disillusion, I think, he has become in fact, diluted and there is

a lot less value in him today as a result of his going through that process.

In terms of whether or not we are looking at alternate

methods of paying doctors, yes, we are looking at alternate ways of doing all

types of business in the Province, but I have to tell the hon. member that if he

is waiting for me tomorrow to announce that we are going to alter the method by

which we are paying doctors - because there are only two methods - fee for

service or salary, then he need not wait with anticipated or bated breath. There

is nothing at the moment that we are discussing specifically in that regard with

the NLMA but, I would be happy to have discussions with them if they think that

that's a part of their contribution to the deficit of tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to table a

report for public tender act exceptions for the month of October 1995.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the

annual report of the Fisheries Loan Board for 1994-1995. This is the last annual

report of the Fisheries Loan Board since April 1, 1995. The Fisheries Loan Board

and the Farm Development Loan Board were combined with Enterprise Newfoundland

and Labrador as a subsidiary corporation of ENL, the Fisheries and the Farm

Development Loan Board incorporated. Thank you.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on

behalf of residents of Labrador City and Wabush. The prayer of the petition I

will enter into the record:

whereas because of budgetary restraint new school

busing proposals are unrealistic and dangerous, and

whereas extreme climatic

conditions and local conditions force students to use school buses, therefore

your petitioners humbly pray that the government allocate necessary funding to

permit the continuing operation of a safe and reliable school busing program in

Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, the fifty-two people, residents of Labrador City

and Wabush, who signed this petition are concerned about the safety of their

children going to school. They recognize that this government, in establishing

the program for the new busing effective next April, is not going to be safe

enough for their children, in their minds. I thoroughly agree with them. What it

means is that they are suggesting the government is saying that they are going

to have to use a triple busing system in Western Labrador which will mean that

the buses will operate, make three runs carrying students to school.

What that means in effect is that the kids will be standing

at the bus stop in April when it is pitch dark at 7:15 a.m. and probably 30

degrees below zero. It is pitch dark then. The Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board thinks it is funny, he laughs at it; a former president of NTA, the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, he chuckles and laughs at it, he

makes jokes about the safety of the children in Western Labrador. I want him to

know that the parents in Labrador, they don't think this is funny. They think it

is very serious. They think that the safety of their children is very important.

It is important to them and this government should recognize it.

When I presented a petition a couple of days ago the Minister

of Education and Training referred to it as nonsense. He said it was

foolishness. The people in Western Labrador don't think the safety of their

children is foolishness or nonsense. They think it is important. They recognize

that because they live there. The parameters that this minister set out, the

guidelines that he gave his people to put into effect to save the $300,000, have

to be different in Labrador than the Island portion of the Province. Because the

climate is extremely different.

That is all they are asking. They are asking that the

government recognize the fact that the climate is different in Labrador than it

is here on the Island portion of the Province. That is the reality. The federal

government recognizes it. Anybody with any sense would recognize that the

climate is different, and thus the government should take into consideration

when it is saying that it is going to change the busing system that they would

include in their ideas -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much private conversation going on to my left

and the Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member for Menihek. I ask hon.

members, if they find it necessary to carry on conversation, that they do so in

a way which does not interrupt the proceedings in the House, or if that's

impossible, then they do it elsewhere.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

The record will show, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate your

attempting to get the crowd on your left, the government, to pay attention to

what is being said here in the House, to allow me to be able to explain to them

the plight of the children in Western Labrador because of the effects, the

negative impacts that the proposed bus changes are going to have on the school

busing program in Western Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the lunch busing will be

eliminated completely - among the schools in Western Labrador, there is only one

school out of five that has a cafeteria, so we are going to have to spend money

to equip one of the rooms in the schools, I would assume, to allow students to

eat their lunch in a certain area. Now, that is a capital expenditure that will

be necessary, the minister hasn't considered that, and I don't know how he is

going to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we go into Orders of the

Day, members of the House are probably aware that yesterday, the father of the

Member for Humber Valley died, I gather quite suddenly, quite unexpectedly, and

of course, the loss is all the more grievous because the hon. gentleman's

mother, I believe, died last May, if memory serves me well. The hon. gentleman

obviously is not with us; his father's funeral, I am told, is on Friday morning

at ten o'clock at St. Peter's and Paul's Church in Harbour Main. I wonder if

members would agree to ask Your Honour to request the Clerk to send an

appropriate letter to - and I am sure I speak for all members of the House, you

know, our sympathy in respect of the late Mr. Woodford.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would like to be associated with the comments of the

Government House Leader and indeed would like Your Honour to pass on the

appropriate message of sympathy. The Member for Humber Valley is well respected

by all of us, and to say he has had a difficult year, I guess, is an

understatement. We certainly concur with the Government House Leader's

sentiments and his desire for Your Honour to pass on the appropriate message.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I learned yesterday of the hon.

Member for Humber Valley's father's death and would want to be associated with

the remarks and with the request for Your Honour to send the condolences of the

House.

Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is Private Member's Day of course, and it is the turn of

the Opposition to select the motion. There are two on the Order Paper standing

in the names of Opposition members, but my understanding is they wish to debate

Motion No. 5 in the name of my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 5, the hon. the Member for Burin

- Placentia West.

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

I stand today, obviously, to introduce this - I have given

notice of this resolution before, Mr. Speaker. For the record, let me read it

again:

WHEREAS the Federal Government has introduced a new

Employment Insurance Plan replacing the existing Unemployment Program; and

WHEREAS this new plan will negatively affect many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House condemn the action

of the Federal Government for implementing this attack on Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who represent ridings in rural

Newfoundland, in particular, those of us who, I say to the Member for Eagle

River, represent ridings in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, those of us who

care about our constituents who represent these ridings, realize that this

attack that the Federal Government has imposed upon the people of this Province

is not acceptable, and the more you delve into it, the more you are briefed and

the more you find out what's happening, Mr. Speaker, it raises all the more

concerns. For example, it is only now that I realize that people who are in

training, people who are in private schools or community colleges who are in

training through the UI program, that will be cut off effective the first of

September?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. The fee pay will end. They won't be

able to continue with fee pay under the current system.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the first of September.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) are not that accurate.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What isn't accurate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, yes, it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Sellars, the regional director general

confirmed that this morning. Put it on the record, `Glenn' - he said it is not

accurate.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River will

have the opportunity to speak in this debate, I'm sure, and say whether he loves

what the Federal Government did for his constituents, or whether he disagrees

with what the Federal Government did. Maybe he shares the Premier's view that

this is a marvellous program where people in this Province are going to be cut

off UI, where people will not qualify, where people in this Province will not be

able to continue the UI program that seasonally employed or unemployed workers

had.

That will be no more. The programs as we knew them - the

employment program that we knew, will be no more, I say to members opposite.

Anybody who has constituents in rural Newfoundland, in particular, as well as in

urban Newfoundland - but I speak as rural Newfoundland, because I represent a

rural district that depends heavily on the fishery.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, the fish plant in Marystown operated

last year for over forty weeks, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. There is a fishery. There are trawlers fishing on the Grand

Banks, the Burin Peninsula people doing what they've always done and always did

well. We are fishing, Mr. Speaker, out to sea, not next to the land.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the member would

say that. He didn't say why he would say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am concerned about your health.

MR. TOBIN: Why are you concerned with my health?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, if

something happens to my blood pressure that he is concerned about, and I become

a burden on health care, I will not be sharing the same institution with him,

obviously.

This is serious, I say to members opposite. What do you say

to the people in my district who - the fish plant is closing down.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that may be the case. I would say

to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, they will decide that.

They have had the opportunity in the past and they will have it again. If the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation or the Member for Eagle River

figures that they can do better in Burin - Placentia West, let them put the name

on the ballot paper the next time and we will see who will come out on top.

The fact of the matter is that people in my district and

other parts of Newfoundland will be drastically affected by these changes.

People who get laid off - this year the Fortune fish plant is opening, the

Harbour Breton fish plant is opening, so these people will have work. But the

people of Burin, Marystown and Grand Bank district who worked in the Marystown

plant will not have work next year. What happens the year after when they have

to draw their unemployment? They are going to lose even more. There will be a

further claw-back of 1 per cent because they are what I would term `repeat

offenders'.

Mr. Axworthy mightn't use the word, but that is what it is,

an offender. That is what is appears to be. If you are going to be punished for

something, if you repeat, you must be a repeat offender.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I don't know what Earle McCurdy said or what

he didn't say, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that this is very serious.

What happens to the construction worker in this Province who gets his ten weeks'

work, or twelve weeks' work, or whatever the case may be? What happens to him,

Mr. Speaker? I asked the Minister of Employment and Labour, the other day - for

some reason, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has been muzzled.

He is not allowed to answer questions for his department and the Minister of

Education answers his questions. I asked the Minister of Education, what happens

to someone involved in the construction industry who works ten weeks for sixty

hours a week and gets 600 hours, which is far beyond the 420 that is needed?

When can he qualify for UI and what will be the effect? The Minister of

Education didn't know, Mr. Speaker. Well, I know what is going to happen - that

ten weeks will be spread over fourteen weeks and instead of the worker having

this $600 a week or whatever it is, he will be back to about $350 a week, what

his unemployment insurance will be based on. Is that what the Premier of this

Province thinks is marvellous? Is that what is marvellous about this program?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well that is what the Premier said. Is that

what the Premier of this Province likes so well about this project? What happens

to the people who are working with the school boards? I just learned yesterday

that the secretarial staff, for example, the secretaries in the school board

offices and down to the cleaning people have been laid off for Christmas now for

two weeks. When school closes down for Christmas they get their lay-off notice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is the ones they use to clean up

the schools.

MR. TOBIN: That is right but they won't qualify, Mr.

Speaker, for UI under the present system. So they are expected to go home now

for two or three weeks with nothing. Now, what happens this summer when

everybody gets laid off? Everybody in the school system this summer will be laid

off with the exception of the teachers and they will apply for their UI and they

will get it. They will apply for their UI and they will receive it. But what

happens the year after and the year after that when they are laid off? They will

be penalized by this program. Every year their unemployment will be reduced.

Now, when someone works for the school board, as a secretary,

for example, in a school, she gets laid off in June and she goes back again in

September, she is going to qualify for UI. She shouldn't be expected to have to

go to B.C., Alberta or Ontario to look for work for those two months but what is

going to happen the following year? She is going to be reduced because she is a

repeat offender, the next year after that and the year after that until she

comes back to 45 per cent. That is what is going to happen. Is that marvellous?

Is that the marvellous part of the program that the Premier likes? Is that the

part that is marvellous? That is the question I have to answer.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He wants them to go to Europe Christmas

shopping. That is where he is now, he and Eleanor.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague, the

Member for Grand Bank, the people who are on unemployment insurance cannot

afford to go to England to do their Christmas shopping.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is where Clyde and Eleanor are

gone.

MR. TOBIN: I know, but that is what I am saying that

these people can't afford it, they don't have the luxury. The Premier is not

looking for his UI, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They went to Brussels, last year,

Christmas shopping.

MS VERGE: They're back to Brussels this year.

MR. TOBIN: Brussels again this year.

One of these days, Mr. Speaker, someone is going to wake up.

One of these days someone is going to wake up in this Province because if you

want to, the decision is up to every man and woman in this Legislature as to

whether or not to support this. This afternoon they will have an opportunity to

tell us whether or not they support it. This afternoon they will have that

opportunity but I don't know what you are going to do with the people of this

Province who find themselves in that situation.

The Federal Government have decided to get involved in what

they now call the Employment Insurance Program. What that means is that people

in this Province will have to work longer in order to qualify for UI benefits,

and will receive UI benefits for a shorter period of time, and they will receive

less benefits. Not only will they work longer; they will receive less benefits,

and they will receive it for a shorter period of time. Is that what the Premier

thinks is marvellous? Is that the marvellous program that the Premier keeps

referring to? Is that the marvellous program that his caucus and Cabinet are

probably going to support this afternoon? I would like to know that.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. TOBIN: What the Premier sees as marvellous about this

program.

MR. EFFORD: He never said it (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: He did say it was marvellous, and the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation knows he said it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Are you saying the Premier didn't say it, I

ask the minister?

MR. EFFORD: He didn't say it.

MR. TOBIN: He didn't?

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. TOBIN: What did he say, then?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the CBC report -

MR. EFFORD: Sure, you wouldn't know (inaudible) listened

to him.

MR. TOBIN: No, I want you to tell me. I will tell the

minister this: I know when there is snow on the road, and when there is ice on

the road, and when there is not. I know that much, that you don't seem to know.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the CBC program the other morning,

and they interviewed Frank McKenna, Premier McKenna of New Brunswick, before he

went into the meeting, and he was all upset. He said: I am here to represent my

people, because of the effect that this is going to have on the Province of New

Brunswick.

They said, when they came out, the Premier of New Brunswick

was somewhat relieved but not totally satisfied, but they said the Premier of

Newfoundland was so pleased with the program that he even referred to it as

being a marvellous beginning. That was said on the CBC Radio news, the national

news.

MS VERGE: His own voice.

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MS VERGE: And then he went to Copenhagen.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Copenhagen - marvellous over there.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what about the young workers who

are entering the work force for the first time ever? What about the young

workers who are working in this Province, who are going to university, or

whatever the case may be, and can now work enough to qualify for UI? What is

going to happen to those who are applying for EI for the first time? How long

are they going to have to work? How many weeks or hours are they going to have

to work, before they qualify? Most of them will never be eligible for benefits

while they are attending a post-secondary institution - never, under this new

system. Is that what the Premier thinks is marvellous? Is that the marvellous

part of this program? These are the questions that we want answered.

What is going to happen to substitute teachers in this

Province? Will they ever be eligible? Will they ever work long enough to be

eligible for UI? No one here - the Minister of Education has not explained the

program as it refers to the fishermen of this Province. The Minister of

Education did not explain that the other day when questions were asked of him as

to what is involved.

Mr. Speaker, the other question that we have is: What portion

of this training allowance is going to be coming to the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador? I see the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is back.

Probably he might want to take some notes. Hopefully, he will speak to it.

I noticed yesterday that the federal Minister of Finance, Mr.

Martin, was in Quebec, and he announced in Quebec at the University of Montreal,

when speaking to the students, what portion of the training program is going to

Quebec out of that $800 million. Now, if he could announce it in Quebec why

could someone not tell us what is happening? They have not said it. Does this

minister know how much we are getting? What about this Ontario Liberal MP,

Carolyn Parrish?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: How much time do I have?

MR. SPEAKER: Fifteen minutes.

MR. TOBIN: I will clue it up this evening, but I am sure

no member on either side of this Legislature agrees with the statement by that

Liberal MP.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. TOBIN: The Government House Leader said, yes.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to know that I

was quite prepared to give the hon. gentleman leave. Let the record show that.

It is not my duty today to get up and defend anything the

federal government is doing. They are quite capable of defending, or not

defending, their own actions, therefore this government does not take any

responsibility for defending their actions, but neither are we prepared to adopt

this knee-jerk reaction that Opposition members always adopt. Whenever this

government, the provincial government, whenever we make some change or some

reform, immediately the Opposition has this typical knee-jerk reaction and

starts condemning it. They condemn everything that comes from this side of the

House and they are pulling the same stunts with anything that comes from the

federal government, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, simply because the federal

government is a Liberal administration and members opposite feel it is their

duty, no matter what the federal government comes up with, that they have to

condemn it without really understanding what it is they are condemning.

Mr. Speaker, it was not like that a few months ago or a few

years ago when the Tories were in power. No matter what the Tories in Ottawa did

it was suppose to be wonderful, but we are not like that. We are not defending,

nor are we approving, what is going on. Before we take our position we want to

fully analyze and know what it is that the federal government is doing. I can

tell you that the preliminary examination we have done would indicate that there

are indeed some areas of this legislation that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

and the Atlantic Province, and the Prairie Provinces, and Northern Ontario and

Northern Quebec, will indeed have some trouble with. There is no doubt about

that, but before we have this knee-jerk reaction we want to evaluate the program

to see exactly what we are saying.

It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the day this

administration and this government might have to take some very strong reaction,

but we are not going to go off half-cocked, we are not going to go on with this

foolishness, so therefore I am going to help the House so that we can have a

more rational, reasonable discussion of this private member's motion, and I am

going to assist the House by suggesting an amendment. I am going to suggest a

friendly amendment because I do not want to stifle debate.

I think the issue is one that indeed deserves discussion and

before I get into my speech I am going to suggest that we amend the motion by

replacing the word `will' in the second recital with the word `may', Mr.

Speaker. Furthermore I am going to replace, suggest as an amendment, that we

replace all the words after `Therefore

be it Resolved,' with the following: that

this House expresses concern with these potential consequences and request the

realities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The motion is seconded, Mr. Speaker, by the Member for St.

John's South.

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

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the amendment is in

order. I think it certainly clearly indicates - it clearly is a demonstration

that - when you remove after the first resolve - the "be it resolved" is what my

motion is. The whereases are not pertinent at all; it is the resolve that is

important. After the "be it resolved" they have totally eliminated every word

after this, which clearly changes the intent and the spirit of the resolution.

This resolution here is what takes men and women to stand up

to Ottawa. The amendment was a cowardly amendment brought in by a cowardly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: A cowardly amendment brought in by a cowardly

administration, Mr. Speaker, so they can go soft on their buddies in Ottawa. The

fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order, now,

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I've made my point of order, Mr. Speaker. This

amendment clearly changes the spirit of this resolution. It is brought in by a

cowardly administration, it is a cowardly amendment, and it is only cowardice

that would bring it in.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear from the Government House Leader and then the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would

refer Your Honour to paragraph 567 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne, words

that are very familiar I suspect to all: "The object of an amendment may be

either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to

present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original

question." There is a citation then to Sir Erskine May. I submit that this

amendment is in order and that Your Honour, in my submission, should rule it in

order and allow the debate to proceed on that basis.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader

quotes that particular

section -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having difficulty hearing the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There is another

section which I can't refer

you to -

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

I'm having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for St. John's

East and I'm interested in what the man has to say.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the point of

order. The amendment changes a very significant word in the second

whereas. The

whereas is a statement of fact. The new plan "will negatively affect many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians."

Anybody who has even read any of the press releases or seen

any of the statements knows that that is factual statement, that is truth. The

minister may not have studied it, and spent six weeks studying it, but there is

no question that that statement of fact is in fact true. What the minister is

doing by changing it to "may" is saying that it may affect people, when

everybody knows in fact that it does, and it will affect negatively, many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

By changing that one word the minister's amendment negatives

the whole proposition. The whole proposition then is based on a totally

different proposition, a negative of the proposition that is there. The

section

that the Government House Leader quoted, I don't disagree with that section; but

there is another

section which I can't put my hands on right away, but I'm sure

Your Honour, with the assistance of the Table, can find the

section that says

that where an amendment negatives the proposition, that that is not an

acceptable amendment on a resolution of this nature.

I see the Member for Ferryland ready to jump up. Perhaps he

has found that particular

section of the rules of procedure. If I do find it in

the meantime I will let the clerks know which

section it is. There is another

part of the Beauchesne's which refers to that particular proposition,

that if the amendment negatives the proposition that is there that it will not

be acceptable as an amendment. Everybody who knows anything about the new plan

that the federal government has brought in knows that the second

WHEREAS is a

statement of absolute fact, no question about it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even though the

WHEREAS we don't consider to be appropriate

to the resolution at all,

BE IT RESOLVED is what the resolution is about, the

number of

WHEREAS, I indicate, is irrelevant. But it does say, at 568 in

Beauchesne , that, "Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question

or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House,

the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with

itself."

I advocate that `condemn the actions of' is not consistent

with expressing concern. It is completely opposite to what we are advocating

here. Condemning an action and expressing concern is against the intent of the

resolution as worded here, and it should be ruled out of order on that basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take a recess to consider the submissions.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has considered the amendment being proposed by the

hon. Minister of Education and Training, and did some research on it. I refer

hon. members to Beauchesne 567, "The object of an amendment may be

either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to

present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original

question."

I would like to refer to 568, which the hon. Member for

Ferryland brought up. In that particular

section of Beauchesne they are

talking about making sure that one part of the amendment is consistent with the

other, and by replacing the word `will' by `may' makes it consistent with the

rest of the resolution, so I declare that the amendment is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Of course it is in order, Mr. Speaker. I

would not have put it forward if it was not in order. Now we have a motion that

we can talk about.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance program in this

country was first put in place as an insurance program, job insurance. In the

same manner as one would insure a house or a car or a boat, or anything else,

this was put forward as a job insurance. It was meant for - if people were to

lose their jobs, while they were waiting to get another job they would have some

money to help them through, and that was the original intent of the unemployment

insurance program. Nobody can argue with that. It was a good program, and that

is what it was meant to do; however, over the years Canadians from Newfoundland

right across to British Columbia, in northern parts of Quebec, northern parts of

Ontario, Canadians have used this program as an income supplementation. The

program was not designed to be an income supplementation however, it did evolve

into that.

Since the program was not designed as an income

supplementation program, there were a lot of potentials in the original program

for abuse. There are many examples, Mr. Speaker, where people become -there are

disincentives to work. People who were earning a big wage, a big income, were

laid off with a big stamp, could collect high unemployment insurance and if a

low-paying job came along, there was no incentive to take it and I am not

blaming people, why should they? Why should you quit drawing a big unemployment

insurance in order to go on a lower-paying job? There was clearly a disincentive

to education. If a person is on unemployment insurance, there is no incentive to

go to university, no incentive to go to college. Now the hon. members will know

that there were exceptions where people were allowed to, in special cases, draw

unemployment insurance, so the program which was originally meant to be an

insurance program, became an income supplementation program for many Canadians.

What Mr. Axworthy has done, Mr. Speaker, he has reformed the

Unemployment Insurance Program and he has, by the name itself, made it an

Employment Insurance and he has practically taken it back to its original intent

which was to be an insurance program. Now, Mr. Speaker, what can be drastic for

the provinces that have become dependent on unemployment insurance, is the

income supplementation part. There is no doubt that Canadians have used this

program as an income supplementation, and it is not readily apparent whether or

not the reforms that Mr. Axworthy is putting forward will meet the income

supplementation that the old unemployment insurance had become. That is the

problem we have with it.

Mr. Axworthy has said time and time again, that the way to

deal with income supplementation is to make available to every Canadian a job,

and he claims to have built into this program, work incentives. He is going to

take money from the Unemployment Insurance Program and reinvest into a job - he

is going to try to create jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Yes. Now if that works, I know the desire of

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian to have a job. There is not a

Newfoundlander and Labradorian today, alive, anywhere in this world who would

rather work than receive handouts. That's the reality, Mr. Speaker, so if step

two works and the jobs are provided, then we (inaudible) but before we are

prepared to lend our full support to this program, we have to analyze it to make

sure that step two works. Now the program goes on to say that there can be

bilateral agreements worked out between the Province and the federal government.

These are the things we have to deal with.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair before we start

condemning the federal government or anybody else, I believe before we start

condemning or anything else, that we have to know what it is we are condemning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could I have leave?

No leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened here is nothing short of

incredible and there is no question, any sound, sober analysis of the changes to

the unemployment insurance system to what is now called the employment insurance

system will have long lasting negative effects on this Province. What this

government has just done, through its Minister of Education who is chairman of

social policy, has watered down a private members' resolution to the point where

it does not even reflect what the intention of the private members' resolution

was in the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to anybody who is listening, that the

changes in the unemployment insurance system have come as a result of a right

wing agenda that has gripped this country. The concentration of wealth in this

country over the past ten to fifteen years is coming to a smaller group of

people then ever before. There is no question that in the last decade the

country that we live in has created more wealth then the decade before but it is

not getting into the hands of Canadians. We seen in the last five years record

profits in the Canadian banking industry. The Royal Bank today for example,

indicating $1.2 billion worth of profit. On whose back, Mr. Speaker? In one

single fiscal year. Contrary, Mr. Speaker, to the general perception, the

federal government are not changing the unemployment insurance system or making

cuts to the UI because we have to take bad medicine now to save the country from

going into financial disaster. That is a complete myth.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the UI or employment system is run in a

separate account from contributions made by employees, workers of this country,

and employers of this country. It is operating right now, this fiscal year, in a

surplus of $5 billion. To say that we are making cuts and that we are

rearranging the system to further enhance what the minister said, opportunities

for Canadians that will provide them with a better position to look for work,

that will encourage people to take work that is already there is a complete myth

and a falsity perpetrated on the people of this country, in particular, the

people of this Province. It is impossible, Mr. Speaker, to take $2 billion out

of any program on the one hand and stand up on a soap box on the other hand and

say that we have made it better for the average Canadian. It does not work that

way. There are no expenditures, Mr. Speaker, I submit, of taxpayer dollars

either in administration of the fund or in payments to benefits. No one should

feel compelled to go along with these changes, especially members elected to

this House representing districts in Newfoundland and Labrador that rely so much

on unemployment insurance. Let me say unequivocally, that Newfoundlanders today

will trade UI cheques for pay cheques any day of the week.

The Atlantic Chamber of Commerce said yesterday that a study

was done in Newfoundland and Labrador where there are over 7,000 jobs in this

Province last year that people did not take. I ask the Atlantic Chamber of

Commerce, where were those 7,000 jobs that they talked about? If they did in

fact say that, which they did, if they said it - what did they say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I live in a district where the

unemployment rate is running at about 50 per cent. There are hundreds of people

from my district who come to see me on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. People

who have beat the pavement from one end of this Province to the other, from one

end of the country to the other in many ways but in this Province specifically

and those jobs were not there then, I can tell you. It is a falsity and a

perpetration upon the people of this Province that should not go unheeded and

should not go unchallenged by the government through the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations and by the Premier.

To me, Mr. Speaker, employment insurance - as the system is

now called - should give the people the means and the opportunity to find

meaningful employment. That is what employment insurance should be about. It

should be to create permanent jobs to ensure income security from pay cheques,

Mr. Speaker, and not from UI cheques or employment insurance cheques but these

reforms do not do that. The notion of employment insurance, I submit to this

House, must mean - the changes that we have seen do not but the notion of

employment insurance, if the political will was there from the federal

government, it should have meant and must mean that shifting some UI benefits

from income support to job training and retraining. Mr. Speaker, we have lots of

experience in this Province, particularly with the TAGS program of retraining

for jobs but it is not enough society and a people who have been disadvantaged

or have been dislocated because of industrial shutdowns such as the fishery, or

large industrial shutdowns in construction, the employment insurance strategy

must also include - I submit to the Minister of Education and Training as

chairman of social policy, and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations,

that an effective, real insurance employment program must include a strategy to

create jobs, encourage private sector investment, and most importantly, must

build a strong, self-sustaining economy in areas of high unemployment like

Atlantic Canada.

This program does not do that. If our income security is

going to come from pay cheques, from real, long-lasting jobs instead of UI

cheques, then I would support it. But this program does not include a job

creation strategy. It is vacant of a national policy which opens up our

resource-based economy to other markets of far afield. It is not an impossible

task to achieve a truly effective employment insurance strategy that sees

long-lasting benefits, that creates private sector initiative, that encourages

private sector involvement, that all leads to one thing: That the greatest

income security system that we could have in this country is not unemployment

insurance, is not employment insurance, it is not social assistance, it is a

job.

That is the greatest social safety net that we could be

creating, a job. That people can go out and earn a living, support a family,

support themselves, be productive, feel productive, and have some dignity in the

workplace. But this government federally is not doing it. I will say, by the

amendment suggested by the Minister of Education and Training and chairman of

social policy, it is obvious to me that this government is aiding and abetting

the federal government in doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: What we need, Mr. Speaker, in this

Province, and what we have always needed in this Province, is a set of national

policies that open our resources to development, to secondary manufacturing and

to national and world markets. That hasn't always happened in the past, and

there are too many examples that I won't get into now, but we know that hasn't

happened in the past. Our history, particularly the last fifty years under

Confederation, has been directed, and national policy has been directed on

exploitation of our resources rather than on development that would have created

long-lasting, long-term jobs, where unemployment insurance and social assistance

would not have become the norm but would have been the rare exceptions.

That has not happened, because the political will in this

country, especially from the federal government, has never been to open up

markets, has never been to develop secondary processing, has never been to

develop the raw materials and raw resources of this Province for the good of

this Province. It has been to develop the resources for the good of Central

Canada and not for the good of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this

Province.

That is why I cannot support this employment insurance

program. The federal government had the opportunity and it still does, because

this piece of legislation has not passed before the house of parliament. It

still has the opportunity - and we must, each and every one of us here today, as

members of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly - must push for

effective job creation, private sector involvement, in an employment insurance

scheme which focuses not on paying out money, which focuses on creating jobs. So

that the rule and the norm in this Province will be development and jobs, and

not hand-outs from the federal government. There is nobody in this Province in

my mind who would want to take employment insurance or any other form of

hand-out if a job existed. But they do not, and we must come to understand that

reality and to attack the root of the problem. That is what we must be at.

If Prime Minister Chrtien and his government want to change

and put in place a set of national policies, programs which encourage secondary

processing in agri-foods, secondary processing in the mining industry, secondary

processing in the fishing industry because there is still a fishing industry

here and a lucrative one, that encourages this Province, that promotes

development, that takes products and services that we can sell to the world and

Canada, then I would support them, but the political will does not exist, and

has never existed, no matter what government has been in power, from Trudeau, to

Mulroney, to Chretien, and their predecessors. It has not existed and the

question must be, why?

We have a small population. You can take the population of

this Province, drop it in Etobicoke in metropolitan Toronto and we would not

even be noticed, but we are rich in the abundance of resources and we still are.

There are still, many, many opportunities before us, the developments in the

mining industry, the developments that lay ahead of us in aquaculture, in

underutilized species in the fishing industry, there are many, but what we have

to focus in on right now is pushing the federal government to develop policies

that are development friendly for this Province as opposed to being exploitative

to this Province and the people herein. That is what we must get at.

Previous provincial governments have tried and failed, but we

cannot afford to fail anymore. We should not be concerned anymore about so much

negative developments because our history shows they come from time to time. We

must be concerned about the ten jobs we can create today, like opening up export

markets for turnips and vegetables, so that people are not dependent upon UI or

employment insurance cheques, that they are dependent upon real long-term jobs

that will be here each and every year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the program itself. There is a

perception, and it was a premeditated strategy, a perception out there right now

amongst people - it is in my district and one that I will correct next week when

I hold a public meeting in my district on this issue, that all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians have to do now is get 420 hours, ten weeks, forty-two hours a

week and you will be able to draw for forty-five weeks. That is what people

believe. They do. Do not tell me they do not believe it because they do, and it

was a premeditated smoke and mirror strategy by the federal Minister of Human

Resources.

The reality is that the amount of time from fifty to

forty-five weeks was reduced, and to get your qualifying period you must get it

within that forty-five week period. How long will you be able to draw for?

Thirty-two weeks, and less in many cases. The norm will be that people will have

to get sixteen to eighteen weeks work in this Province. Outside of Kenmount Road

it will be sixteen to eighteen weeks, and in the St. John's metropolitan area it

will be twenty to twenty-two weeks, and they will only be able to draw

employment insurance benefits for a limited amount of time, not to exceed

forty-five weeks.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done, or what the federal

government is attempting to do, is take a group of people that they have brought

along on a system, that they introduced to a system, that they brought up step

by step to a system, and are taking literally probably 70,000 to 80,000, or more

Newfoundlanders, and dropping them off the face of a cliff. That is what we are

doing. It is unacceptable to sit here as a member of this House of Assembly and

to take for granted, and to believe, what the federal Human Resource Minister

has said. He is a silver-tongued devil I submit to this House who speaks from

both sides of his mouth.

To create the perception that there is such a crunch on the

federal deficit that we have to move in this direction, and we have to move

there ever so quickly to save the country from financial ruin is a complete myth

because that is simply not true. The federal minister should also take

responsibility for creating a perception in other parts of the nation, outside

of Atlantic Canada in particular, on the lips of people who live in Ontario, in

Western Canada, and BC, who believe that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian

here is making $50,000 to $60,000 a year in the fishing and then sitting back on

their backsides collecting $10,000 a year in UI benefits. That is simply not

true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is simply not true, to see articles

coming out of the Globe and Mail , and central Canadian papers, and made

by federal Liberal backbenchers who represent central Canada, these statements.

Where did it come from? It came from the federal Minister of Human Resources. It

came from back room caucus meetings with Atlantic caucus members, with Ontario

caucus in particular, saying one thing to the Atlantic caucus of the federal

Liberal backbenchers, and saying a completely different thing to members of the

central Canadian caucus in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I will clue up by saying, because I have other

colleagues who want to continue, that we must stand shoulder to shoulder, I say

to the Member for Windsor - Buchans, on this issue, and throw partisan politics

out the window and lobby not for the status quo, because I do not support the

status quo either - I do not support disincentives to work - but lobby for

national policies emanating from the federal government that support a program

and support an economy whereby our resource based economy is promoted, it is

developed, in the interest of Newfoundlanders with the one view, and one view

only, to create a job, to create many jobs, long lasting, long term, so that we

can even be better contributors to the Canadian economy than we are presently.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me start off by first of all

congratulating the Member for Burin - Placentia West on bringing forward this

resolution to focus attention on what will probably be one of the greatest

issues to be debated in this Legislature this year.

Let me also congratulate the Member for Kilbride in focusing

in on what he believes has to be done to create jobs in this Province, and I

think that was the tenor of his speech, as opposed to totally condemning

something.

Let me congratulate the Minister of Health and the minister

in charge of social policy.

Mr. Speaker, there are, I suppose, some good things -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West,

I sat quietly in my seat and listened to him on a very, very important issue. If

the issue was not important I probably would have been saying something to him,

but I regard the issue as being very, very important, and I would ask him to do

the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there are some good things in this

legislation, I guess. I will have to say, `I guess'. I understand there is some

$300 million in a transitional jobs fund. I understand there are going to be

some wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment assistance to help

find jobs, and so on, but after all of that, after reading just part of this

thing so far - I have to say I have only gotten part of the ways through it - I

find myself, as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and as a rural Newfoundlander

representing a rural district, with a knot in my gut. I cannot say any more than

that about it.

It reflects the attitude, I believe, of central Canada, a

central Canadian attitude that there are jobs that nobody want to fill in this

Province, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are lazy and an indolent bunch

of people. It points out, for example, that this new program will provide an

alternative for people to work. It points out the kind of nonsense, the kind of

foolishness, the kind of prejudice that you see in the Globe and Mail ,

that you see in The Evening Telegram . It feeds upon that kind of thing.

It feeds upon Peter O'Brien's 32,000 jobs in Atlantic Canada, the 7,000 that he

factored out that were there in Newfoundland. Now what a lot of baloney. There

is another word for him; I won't use it in the Legislature. Where are the - I

say to Peter O'Brien and I know the man personally - but I say to him today,

find me the 7,000 jobs in Newfoundland and then find me the 7,000

Newfoundlanders who won't occupy them. I will tell him, he will have a job

finding both.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, I will find him 20,000 tomorrow who will

go after not only 7,000 jobs but I say to the Member for Kilbride, for 1,000

jobs, they will line up for them, they will stand in snow and so on. So that's

the kind of attitude that you find there and I say there are abusers. I say to

the federal government, I listen to people all the time talking about UI

abusers, TAGS abusers. I also hear about corporate abusers and I say to the

federal government, the central government in Canada whether it is Liberal or

Tory, that if that's there, those kind of abusers, let them find the abusers but

don't tar every bloody person in Atlantic Canada as being lazy; don't call my

ancestors lazy, don't put in place legislation that says I have to put

legislation in place to have to force you back to work, that's nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I started to read this stuff and I saw a couple

of things wrong with it, but today we had a briefing I say to the Opposition,

from HRD people. Now there was an eye-opener. I saw members in our caucus today

with their faces dropped when they heard some of the things that were said. For

example, the amount of benefits. The duration period, yes, you have to work 420

hours in a 52-week period to qualify for unemployment insurance, but I think it

was the Member for Lewisporte who put it - and I have the figures here- quite

clearly to the HRD people. He asked the question: Is this word `consecutive'

built into the number of weeks that you have to work?.. and he put the question

to him. Here is one of the questions he asked: If a person works 300 hours in

ten weeks, at $10.00 an hour, and then he is unemployed - listen to this -

unemployed for the next ten weeks, and then he worked 120 hours to make up his

420, in the next four weeks at $10.00 an hour, what would his benefits be?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not very much.

MR. TULK: Well, that's what it will be. He would have 120

hours, multiply it by $10.00 divide it by fourteen weeks, that's for this year,

then multiply that by 55 per cent and if he is one of those flagrant abusers,

that's going to be multiplied by fifty. He would end up with $47.14 a week;

$47.14 that's how he will end up. Let's not quibble over one percentage point.

The principle is there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: He gave another example -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to hear the presentation being made by

the hon. Member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: I would imagine the Chair does, he put it

together.

If the same person worked 350 hours in ten weeks at $10.00 an

hour, and was unemployed for the next twelve weeks, and then he worked 70 hours

in the next two weeks, because it doesn't matter about the number of hours you

work in a week, at $10.00 an hour, what would his benefits be? Well, without

getting into it, it would be $27.50 a week. Now, let's look at this one, let's

look at the real Newfoundland situation where a lot of our people work for $6.00

an hour and less; indeed a lot of our people work for less.

If a person works 400 hours in ten weeks, a 40-hour week at

$6.00 an hour, and then was unemployed for the next thirteen weeks -

AN HON. MEMBER: Next (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Next thirteen, and then worked 40 hours in the

next week at $6.00 an hour, what would his benefits be then? Nine dollars and

forty-one cents a week. That's assuming that he is getting 55 per cent. That's

what he is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You are saying: Can I accept that? Can I accept

the fact that somebody, who through no fault of his own, gets his unemployment

reduced from 55 per cent to 50 per cent and indeed if you look at the number of

weeks that they have to work, that they get, receives even less than that. No, I

can't.

When I look, as a Newfoundlander, and I see that that is

coming from a central bureaucracy and a central government that has destroyed

the greatest food basket in the world, and has taken advantage of us every way,

left, right and centre, can I then accept it? The answer is no. I say to you:

Look, we got into a briefing at 12:00 a.m., we finished at 1:45 p.m., and I

think we were on page 2 of the presentation. As a consequence we asked the hon.

gentleman to come back. What I heard in that briefing will have colossal and

catastrophic consequences for this Province. It is unreal. Seasonal workers,

which most of rural Newfoundland, through no fault of their own, is made up, are

being crucified by this thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get into the training at all?

MR. TULK: Not yet. When you realize that we could have

people working in the lumber woods, of which my father was a lumberjack, that

would make a fair income, would then be interrupted by weather, and then may go

back for a week, and might very well end up being eligible for social assistance

because of the low rate of unemployment that they would get, then I find that a

complete and utter insult.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, I say to this House, that as the

Member for Fogo, as a member of this Legislature, I cannot and I will not

support such measures. I say it is not Liberal, it is Tory. It is not PC. It is

not Progressive Conservative. It doesn't follow that philosophy. It follows a

Tory philosophy that many of us thought we had seen the last of in this

Province. I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West then, I say this to him

sincerely, that I find myself in a terrible position. Every bone and every

emotion in my body today says that I should stand up here and condemn this

resolution, condemn those measures.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't believe you (inaudible).

MR. TULK: I can't help what you believe. But I have to

say also, I've been part of a party, part of an organization, for some, I don't

know, twenty to twenty-five years. I understand, I've been told, that there are

still some possibilities for negotiations there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I've been told - you will have to take me at my

word - that there have been some possibilities for negotiations for a special

case for Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the excuse, is it?

MR. TULK: No, it is not an excuse. I say to you that it

is not an excuse. I understand too that we are also going to see some further

negotiations on how this is going to affect fishermen. I want to know what those

are.

MR. TOBIN: I will tell you what it is going to be.

MR. TULK: Maybe. Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of

Education and Training has done for me, to be quite frank with you, is give me a

chance to keep that door open.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. TULK: Yes, he has given me a chance, Mr. Speaker, to

keep that door open. On that basis, let me say to the Member for Burin -

Placentia West -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: The Member for Grand Bank -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - if he were being honest would know why those

petitions are not in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TULK: But he is over there doing the same thing as he

did when he was on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - this side of the House, playing politics!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: The same thing as he did when he was over here!

The Minister of Education and Training -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The member's time is not up, but before I recognize him again

I will call for silence in the House from both sides.

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

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me say in all fairness to the

Member for Fogo, and I don't want to take up his time, that he knows full well

that what the Minister of Education and Training did today

was deliberately distorted the resolution and in so doing,

deceived the members of the House. Now we know he deceived them because the

Member for Fogo believes it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Chair has

already ruled on the amendment.

MR. TOBIN: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you

rule on the point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Chair has

already ruled on the amendment and has ruled it in order.

The Chair now recognizes the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: Let me raise a further point of order, Mr.

Speaker, and let me tell -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a point of

order.

MR. TULK: Let me tell the Member for Burin Placentia West

that if he can this evening, point out to me, prove to me, that the Minister of

Education deliberately misled this House or misled this House then, Mr. Speaker,

I say to him that I will condemn the Minister of Education with him. If he can't

do it then he should take his seat and take me at my word as I take him at his.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I said, and I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the member speaking to the point of order?

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Fogo, and I repeat it

- what I said is that the minister deliberately distorted the resolution. And,

in deliberately distorting the resolution, he deceived the members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is calling into question the ruling of the

Chair. The Chair has already ruled that the amendment is in order.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was certainly

not calling into question your ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I just want to clarify this and I will give

you leave to clue up by the way. I understand that you didn't rule on it, Mr.

Speaker, when you asked me was I speaking to the point of order. That is why I

said the minister deliberately distorted and deceived the House, not because - I

frankly didn't hear that you had made your ruling, if I had I would not have

been up, Mr. Speaker, certainly not to call into question your ruling; it is to

call into question the deliberate distortion that -

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. As the Chair has

already stated, the Chair earlier this afternoon ruled that the amendment put

forth by the Minister of Education and Training is in order.

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just give the Member for

Burin - Placentia West one assurance, let me just give him one assurance in this

House: if after further briefings, which we have planned for next week,

(inaudible) the negotiations that I am told are going to take place, I want to

assure him now that I will stand in this Legislature and, like him, condemn the

Federal Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on the resolution put forth today actually

condemning the Federal Government and,unlike the Member for Fogo, I will state

that I have read every scrap of the program, every backgrounder, every bit of

literature that is available on it and I accept (inaudible). I read every scrap

of literature on the program and there are some points, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to bring to the attention of this House that are going to have a

detrimental effect on Newfoundland and Labrador as we know it today.

I will use some examples, Mr. Speaker. Let's use an example

of a substitute teacher who teaches two days every week for the entire year but

cannot qualify for employment insurance under this program. That was confirmed

by the regional director general and his staff in response to my question

yesterday. I will use the example of a teacher who teaches two days every week,

40 per cent of a teaching week can only obtain ten hours a day for the roughly

forty weeks that school is open in the run of a year. Teachers are exempt.

Teachers cannot qualify for unemployment or employment insurance if they don't

teach almost 50 per cent of the time. That is a fact based on the hours.

A nurse who teaches or a nurse who practices every single

day, every single week and is in for every single week, cannot qualify for

employment insurance under this program. Every single day eight times fifty-two,

416 falls short of the 420 that is needed to meet the minimum requirement

provisions under these new regulations. Right now, under fifteen hours a week,

no, but based on wage, yes they can. Based on their wage they can - if their

wage is sufficient, or the hours, if the fifteen hours or their wage. Now, in

the category they can hit it under the wage provisions in numerous instances.

They can reach it under the salary income. But right now, yes, there is a

fifteen hours per week, or a total income of, what, $163? If you meet one of

these requirements, if you have fifteen hours and your income is below it, you

qualify. If you have $163 and your hours are less you also qualify under the

current system.

Now, I will use some examples. You look at in a year, out of

a teaching year, 190 days, three statutory holidays, that is 187. You remove

workshops and exams, and when substitutes are not normally called, a substitute

teacher will have to teach eighty-four days in a year to qualify under this

provision. How many substitute teachers do you know in this Province today who

don't get eighty-four days teaching? There are many. They will not qualify under

this provision.

Also, under this provision now, and this has very serious

repercussions, I say to the Minister of Education and Training, effective under

this program now there will be no more fee payer under this program. It will end

for next year. Anybody who is in the middle of a program now, entering the

second of a three-year program, who has been approved for fee payer, will now

have their benefits under fee payer terminated and there will be no more fee

payer aid, period, in this Province or in Canada. That is a fact, that is

confirmed by the office of the director-general for this Province under HRD, and

that is factual. I say to the members of the House, that is factual.

Where are they going to get the money to continue? Right now

in this program - and I say to the Minister of Education and Training, he is

very much aware of this. Over the past three years the colleges here - Cabot

College and the regional colleges in this Province - have been supported to a

great extent by federal funding that (inaudible) up chunks of programs, and they

are being charged a proportionate cost of running those facilities from a light

bulb to a supervisor to a maintenance floor person to a night watchman. They

have been supported on a pro rata basis of the cost for delivering the number of

seats in proportion to the number of seats that are available in those colleges.

What is going to happen now - we are starting to see it, we

are starting to see a pull back now. I read in the paper, or I heard on the

news, about a consolidation of colleges. Private colleges are going to shrink,

they are going to be pulled out of rural Newfoundland, and they are going to be

centralized colleges where we are going to have to send our kids all over the

Province to get an education, and the dollars are not going to be in the system

to do it.

What is going to happen is we are going to have the largest

net out-migration of people we have ever seen in the history of this Province.

In this year alone, in the first six months of this year, we have a net

out-migration of 3,824 people - up to June of this year. And we have had a

tremendous and accelerated pace since then. Last year we had a net out-migration

of 7,000 people. Back in the 1980s when the Premier compares it, we had a net

out-migration, but we had tremendous numbers of people coming back to our

Province, and people were leaving. Now, we are having a tremendous number of

people going out of our Province on one-way tickets - one-way tickets, I say to

this House.

There is going to be a lack of training to pick up the slack.

There are two avenues under this proposal that we can look at. Number one, there

is an $800 million fund, it is called employment benefits, that identify five

areas in which we are going to subsidize this economy. I say to the members and

people, the chairman of the Social Policy Committee, the Minister of Education

and Training, and the Premier and the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, I say - they could not confirm, members of this government could not

confirm how much of that $800 million fund is coming to this Province, when two

days ago, Paul Martin, the federal Minister of Finance, told students in

Montreal that Quebec is going to get $300 million out of that $800 million fund.

Paul Martin stated that two days ago. People in this House here, on the

government side, cannot tell us what we are getting.

I will tell you what we are getting. Well, I will tell you

what we are getting. We are getting $85 million coming to this Province,

confirmed by people in HRD, and government here doesn't even know, over three

years, $85 million of that $800 million fund.

I asked a further question that they couldn't answer because

they don't know themselves. The transition jobs fund of $300 million should go

to the areas of the country that have the highest unemployment rate, those that

need the biggest influx of dollars to be able to train people and to be able to

stimulate and get this economy moving. What are we going to get when the

minister from Nova Scotia who heads up ACOA - a lot of this funding is going to

be funnelled into ACOA. The ministers in New Brunswick are controlling Atlantic

Canada purse strings. We are going to be robbed blind here in this Province, and

we are going to have funds siphoned out of the Newfoundland economy for a giant

urbanization of Newfoundland and a giant centralization of Canada. That's what

is happening here in this Province. There is going to be a shortfall in the

hundreds of millions. There is a $135 million shortfall now in the programs, and

that is confirmed by HRD. We are going to have a very serious problem in this

Province.

The Member for Fogo talked about benefits. I will give you an

example - duration of benefits. How long are you going to get benefits if you

get twelve weeks? Well, if you went out - it is all in hours now; weeks mean

nothing, only for conversion purposes - if you work 420 hours, whether that is

over six weeks or ten weeks, or twelve or fourteen, effective January 1, 1996,

that is going to be averaged over fourteen weeks, your last fourteen weeks, and

in 1997 it will be sixteen weeks in areas of high unemployment. It is going to

increase to twenty in St. John's and other areas that are in the 10-12 per cent

range of unemployment. If you are over the 12 per cent range in a country it is

going to be up to sixteen, and it is going to increase in other areas to

sixteen, eighteen and twenty. That is what is going to happen. What does that

mean to the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian, the construction worker who

gets his twelve weeks work and then goes home? Here is what happens there. When

it kicks in, fully, in the City of St. John's, a construction worker, for

example, if he worked twelve weeks, after the phase-in, after another three

years, up to twenty weeks - they will divide that income over twelve weeks -

let's say they made $500 a week, $6,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am getting to it. I am getting to

duration.

What they are going to do, first of all, that $6,000 they

made in twelve weeks will be divided by twenty weeks - that is only $300 a week

- they will draw 55 per cent of that $300, which is $165 in year one. Year two

they will draw 54 per cent of it, then 53 per cent, 52 percent, 51 percent, and

down to 50 percent after five years.

Now, duration of benefits, the duration category works

exactly the same as it does now except they convert; every thirty-five hours

goes into one week. And if the member wants to know how that works, for every

two weeks you work now you get one week of benefits, which is based on

thirty-five hours, on what you work -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You asked, and I am going to tell you now.

If you work twelve weeks, you get six - technically - weeks

for your employment aspect, and you get normally two weeks for every per cent

you are above the 4 per cent unemployment in your region, and if you are above

seventeen that is to a maximum of thirteen times two, which is twenty-six, plus

if you work twelve you get six; that is thirty-two. That would be the maximum.

Under this program now it is the same method of calculating

except they have capped it now. There is a difference now. You could draw fifty

weeks under the current program, and you are capped at forty-five. You can work

as long - you can never get beyond that amount now, and that is the difference

in the old and new program. That is going to hurt the person who may be in a job

for eight or nine years continuously, might get displaced from a job, might be

out of a job for a year before he gets back in the work force again. That is

going to hit the long-term people who have had a long-term commitment to this

work force and never have drawn UI in their lives. That's where that is going to

hurt in the program.

Now, this program is going to have a significant effect - it

came up about fishers in this Province, how they are going to be calculated and

I have passed my view, it is not yet established but I advocate, when that comes

down in the next little while, fishers in this Province are going to be

calculated based on the gross value of their income over a specified period of

time, because you can't calculate it on weeks in a fishery. Normally, in a

26-week period, you are eligible to be in the fishery, they may not calculate it

over twenty-six initially, but they will have to take a gross value of your

income and they will have to calculate it on that basis and that's very similar

to what Cashin reported in the task force back in the fall of 1993 I believe it

was released, in the fall of '93, December. That's very similar to that proposal

when this government came up with its master plan of an Income Supplementation

Program that they wanted to give the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated a few basic areas of problems

in this program -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not speaking to that, you are

speaking to (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am speaking for the condemnation of the

federal government for what they have done in this. Let me be unequivocal in

what I am telling the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health on a point

of order.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not speaking

to the amendment. He is speaking to the original motion. I would remind the hon.

member that the motion that's on the floor now is the amendment, not the

original motion to condemn, so I would like the hon. member to keep his remarks

to the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, to that

point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite aware - no, it is not a point of order at all, in

fact I acknowledge there is not a point of order, if the Chair will agree with

me?

MR. SPEAKER: It is the ruling of the Chair that there is

no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am glad the Chair, in his wisdom, agrees

with me on this matter and not with the Minister of Education and Training.

I am quite aware of this amendment. I am quite aware the

minister put in an amendment that tried to soften the blow to his federal pals,

but I am going to condemn the federal government in what I am going to say. I

don't care what the Minister of Education and Training tries to say in his

amendment, I say to him. He is trying to buy some time. He doesn't want to hear

any facts on this issue and it is going to have, I say, a devastating impact on

people in this Province, and if we just monitor - and I would be interested to

know what the Minister of Education and Training has to say, he spoke once

already so maybe he will write me a letter to that effect - on the effect it is

going to have on the education and training in maintaining the ability for

people in this Province to be able to obtain an education at a fair value. It is

going to be devastating. HRD cannot tell us where that void is going to be

filled in picking up that training component and that, to me, seriously impacts

on the future of our children in this Province.

I have a grave concern, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for

kids in this Province to be able to continue to get an education under this

program. We know with 20 per cent unemployment in this Province, how can you

possibly be able to continue to provide the funds to obtain an education? We are

finding it more and more difficult to access the system. There is a limit in

what we can use. There is a shifting in philosophy from the federal government

and some of the things they have done in this program I have to agree with

certain things, I will say that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just about one minute?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen, you don't want to be informed

anyway (inaudible).

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say to the Member for

Ferryland that he was making a lot of good, sound, sold, excellent points and I

would have been more than happy to give him leave however, being only one member

of the House, obviously, as we have seen on the other side from time to time,

when the hon. Member for Grand Bank gives leave to an hon. member on this side,

we hear his colleagues say no, no, no so these things happen I say to the hon.

member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Now, just a few words because I think most of

what needs to be said has been said and I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: I think the Member for Kilbride probably was

more spot on than anybody. The Member for Fogo showed tremendous emotion and

tremendous realism to what the bill contains now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, if members are going to have a

debate I will sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister has requested that he be allowed to speak

in silence.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the Chair for its protection.

Let me say that all the issues have basically been discussed.

I want to say to hon. members that this bill, not a small bill, was in first

reading December 1, 1995 and here is a copy of the bill. There are all kinds of

documents extracted from that document. The problem this government faces right

now is a real one, one of evaluating the programs that have been put forward by

Mr. Axworthy and his people, and negotiating our position to take advantage of

those funds to the best of our ability and to ensure that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians get their fair share.

Now, the Member for Kilbride was the one who said that this

bill is not passed. He is exactly right. As any bill in this hon. House the bill

is not passed because it has to go through the stages. You heard the Premier the

other day saying, we will have a look at the bill and if it needs to be amended,

and this government sees that it needs to be amended, we would ask that in the

committee stage it be addressed. I agree with the member, this is too much, too

fast. I think we all realize and we all understand that the system needed to be

looked at. There is no question about that. It got itself into a mode over the

years, as my colleague the Minister of Education and Training already said, it

got itself into a scenario where it became a way of life, a social supplement

that it was never intended to be, but certainly not at the fault of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are fortunate, I say, Mr. Speaker,

fortunate to find seasonal work up to twelve, thirteen, or fourteen weeks. The

impact this particular bill will have on these seasonal workers will be nothing

short of devastating.

We can let our emotions carry us away here. We have seen

emotions in the past, moves that the federal government made, in all kinds of

situations, from the horrendous things they said about the groundfish, how much

was out there and how much we could take, and we found out the hard way how

wrong the federal government was. There have been issues over the years, as the

Member for Kilbride said, that were dealt with by all political parties and

stripes in Ottawa, that turned out to be devastating for this Province.

I remind the hon. member that when he was taking about

secondary processing he is dead-on. The sad scenario is that when the tariffs

were finally coming out and we could sell a finished secondary process in the

fishing industry, it was 1994, where we could actually take a store ready

product and put it in the showcase in the United States of America without a

tariff on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The biggest challenge we have today is

not only the secondary processing but to make sure that it gets into (inaudible)

through Loblaws and (inaudible) because they are boycotting Newfoundland

products.

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member that eight years ago

I watched products called elite - now the Member for Grand Bank will remember

this, and certainly the Member for Burin - Placentia West, when Premier Peckford

really pushed and shoved for FPI to become involved in secondary processing, but

the difficulty at that time was he was dealing with a tariff product, a highly

tariff product, and no matter how hard he worked he could not seem to get Burin

up to its potential. We all knew, because they were putting out elite products.

It was interesting I say to the member, and the Member for Grand Bank knows, to

watch people on the Burin Peninsula in the secondary processing area with

flounder fillets being wrapped by cheeses, hot butters and spinach and all these

kinds of things. As a matter of fact, they secured a contract with Air France

for their Concords which is supposed to be the best meal in the air and FPI

secured that. That particular product was put together by secondary processing

in Burin. It was a credit to them but at that time, I say to the member, we

could not get to our potential. I watched packages come off the line pre-priced

and he mentioned Loblaws, pre-priced for Loblaws, done at Burin secondary

processing on the Burin Peninsula. So we did have an opportunity, the marketing

was something else and so forth and so on but I say to the member, now when we

got a free entry with a finished product into the USA and the tariffs are gone,

we don't have the product. So I just say that to the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, but I say to the member it is something

else. He is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Oh yes. Oh I agree, all kinds of others but

then again the free trade and so forth and so on and the member is totally

correct when he says that this Province down here in that kind of a situation,

in manufacturing and/or in secondary processing, that line, they always wanted

to take our ten pound block because they knew there was 1,000 jobs on the other

end. They always wanted to do that and they always told us but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now the member knows and I know because he

and I both worked with FPI. I used to go to Danver's and Boston twice a year I

say to the member, on Occupational Health and Safety,