May 27,

1991 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 57

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I

accept, and announce the acceptance of the resignation of the Hon. the Minister

of Social Services. I assure the House that this acceptance does not, in any

way, indicate acceptance of the fabrications and innuendoes generated in

relation to the matter of allegations concerning the release of questions in a

public service competition.

John Efford has served the people of this Province in an

exemplary manner. As the Minister of Social Services, he has shown compassion

for, and understanding of, the concerns of the people served by the Department.

However, as he has acknowledged, as Minister, he failed to exercise appropriate

judgement in addressing the allegations of improper conduct by officials in his

Department when he became aware of them. Had he taken a different course of

action, this whole situation would probably have been avoided.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, only, I am accepting his

resignation and acceding to his request for a judicial inquiry into the

allegations which resulted in an investigation by the Public Service Commission.

I am also releasing a copy of the Commission's Report.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I want to thank the Premier's office for sending

me a copy of the statement a few minutes before it was delivered here in the

House. I want, secondly, to, say to the Premier that, as Leader of the official

Opposition, I take no personal pride in the fact that the Premier, as Leader of

the Government, has had to make this decision today. I think the Premier has

made the right decision and I compliment him for making it. The fact of the

matter is, Mr. Speaker, that it was a member of the general public of this

Province who made certain allegations about the behaviour of the former Minister

of Social Services. It was not the Opposition, it was not the Member for St.

John's East, the beginnings of this whole business came from a member of the

general public. Obviously, as a responsible Opposition we, from time to time,

took up the matter in the House of Assembly and asked that an enquiry be carried

out. It is unfortunate that this is the result of it, but I am not surprised. I

have to say to the House, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised. For some reason or

other, there continues to be always certain allegations surrounding the former

Minister of Social Services, and I am not surprised that at some point,

something like this would happen. I am pleased, as well, Mr. Speaker, that the

Premier is proposing there be a judicial enquiry. While I have not had the

opportunity to go through Mr. Pike's report in any detail, only in a very, very,

cursory manner, it does seem to me that there ought to be a further inquiry; the

actions, for example, of Mr. Beaton Tulk, the Assistant Deputy Minister in that

department, the actions of the Executive Assistant to the Minister, these are

actions that ought to be looked at by some independent, outside, judicial

inquiry and I compliment the Premier for agreeing to set that up.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I say once again, this is not

any day for shouting, but I think the Premier has made the right decision.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: I want to ask whether there is leave of the

House for me to respond to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I inform Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, that this week is

National Access Awareness Week. This week provides an opportunity for us all to

look back on our achievements, but also to look ahead to see what remains to be

done, ensuring that people with disabilities enjoy a quality of life equal to

those of persons who are not disabled.

As Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I have a dual

persons who are disabled, and is also responsible for planning development in

implementation of employment programmes in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major problems facing people with

disabilities is, educating people without disabilities. There needs to be an

increased awareness of the contributions of people with disabilities. When we

think of a person with a disability, we usually think of a person with a

physical disability and problems they have related to mobility; however,

disabilities may be present in other forms.

People with vision impairments are forced to read fine print

in books or documents. People who are hard of hearing encounter difficulties

attempting to understand announcement in public places. These are but two

examples that point to the need to be aware of the needs of these people. In the

with mobility disabilities.

In the area of employment, I am very aware of the needs of

persons with disabilities, and their search for meaningful and rewarding work. I

note with pleasure, the efforts made by the Bay St. George Community Employment

Corporation. It has assisted adults, with a developmental disability, in finding

jobs. It has become a model from which organizations across the country and

around the world are learning. It recently won the Atlantic Canada Innovator of

the Year Award in the Community Service Category. It is through projects such as

this one, that we can see tangible results for our efforts. We must strive to

The theme for this year's National Access Awareness Week, is:

"Access is a Right." People with disabilities have the right to equal

opportunities in all aspects of everyday living. As Minister and as an

individual, I am committed to doing all I can in helping people with

disabilities take their rightful place in society.

Mr. Speaker, we should keep this theme uppermost in our minds

not only during this week but at all times because every week should be access

awareness week. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not have a copy

of the Minister's statement, I just got it now this second.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It was sent over?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: To our offices? - our critic is not here, so

unfortunately he did not get it. In any event it is not really necessary to

condemn the Minister for that. But let me just say, Mr. Speaker, as one

individual who just enjoyed probably an eye-opening luncheon along with my

colleagues on that side of the House, three or four from that side and three or

four form this side, I believe, were down and had lunch with members of the

disabled community during this first ever, I think they call it legislative

luncheon, or something along those lines. It is the third year, I think, for the

National Access Awareness Week activity, but the first year only where they

invited members of the House of Assembly to come along and sit down with members

of the disabled community. I had occasion to sit with three members of the deaf

community, two blind individuals, and one young man who suffered from cerebral

palsy. Aside from the interpreter that the three deaf people had at the table, I

guess I was the only individual who did not have at least any evident

disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the conversation around the

table for that hour and a half was most enlightening, most enjoyable. I know

that there are an awful lot of people who do not have any disabilities who shy

away from people who have disabilities. One message that I got from the luncheon

that I attended was that people should not shy away from people with

disabilities, but it is a natural thing, I suppose, for people to do.

The other thing I learned is that the Department of Social

Services had received a request from the deaf community for some funding to

provide some kind of a group home atmosphere or accommodation for deaf people

from out around outside of St. John's in the rural parts of Newfoundland to

bring them in here, and the Department has not been able to find the funding for

that, but that was one issue that was brought to my attention. Another issue

that was brought to my attention was from the blind people who wondered if under

the Provincial Legislation Labour Code - and the Minister who just made the

statement might be able to respond - there was a clause in the legislation that

said disabled people could be hired below minimum wage because they were

disabled. That used to be in the Provincial Labour Code. I do not know if it is

still there or not, they do not know and they asked me if I knew or if I would

find out. So I will flick it out to the Minister now and perhaps she can tell

me. She knows what I am talking about, I presume. So those were the blind

people. And the young fellow with cerebral palsy, twenty-three years of age, is

going through a programme now where within a year he will be able to move into

the community on his own. That is the intent of the programme that he is going

through.

So it was truly an enlightening luncheon and I know the

Members who were there from the other side of the House as well as my colleagues

on this side also found it very enlightening. It is unfortunate that it has not

happened before. It is the first time they had it and I argued strenuously with

the organizer afterwards that they should do it more frequently. Because there

are two things we can do as Members of the House: we can educate ourselves and

thereby our constituents when the opportunity arises and as an Opposition of

course we can continue to put pressure on the Government as best we can in the

House of Assembly forum to help them and support them in their causes.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the Minister

of National Access Awareness Week is one that we support, and we too trust that

people will keep uppermost in their minds the disabled community. Not only today

or this week, but all times during the year.

Oral Questions

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. Several times

lately we have heard the Minister of Health speak about the shortage of doctors

in the Province, especially outside the Avalon area, yet the Medicare cap is a

major disincentive for individual doctors, and the profession generally, to

support new recruitments. I ask the Minister if it is not a fact that the cap on

the Medicare budget means the same number of dollars must be spread over

whatever number of doctors practice in this Province? For example, if one new

doctor comes to the Province, say this week, then that doctor's income will in

effect be deducted from the income of all other fee for service doctors in this

Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister has

confirmed that let me ask him if the policy is deliberately intended to

discourage new doctors from practicing in the Province? Is not the Minister

basically telling them to stay away and go somewhere else to practice? Is not

the message they will hear from their professional colleagues in this Province,

who will be forced to pay the cost of new doctors to set up practice here, going

to be the same as the Minister is saying to them?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Let me say to the Minister then, last year the

number of doctors who submitted claims to MCP rose from 878 to 955, an increase

of 8.8 per cent. That increase occurred gradually over the year and the cost was

only partially reflected in last year's Medicare budget. This year the same

Medicare dollars must be spread over a larger number of doctors. Why is the

Minister now forcing all doctors to pay for those who were recruited by the

Province last year, and is he putting pressure on the medical profession to

reduce the number of doctors in the Province, and does he want 8 or 10 per cent

of them to leave? What is it?

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

MR. DECKER: To the first part of the question, Mr.

Speaker, I say I thank the hon. Member for stating the obvious, and to the

second part of the question the answer is still, no.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some questions as well for the Minister of Health, and

they relate also to doctors and doctor's services in this Province, realizing, I

suppose, that the core of our health care system are our doctors, and should we

lose our doctors and specialists then obviously it is very difficult for all the

other persons in the health care system to function properly.

Last week the Minister said he had not heard of any doctors

who had left the Province because of health care cutbacks, but on CBC radio on

Friday afternoon I heard, myself, two doctors, two specialists, who said they

were leaving this Province because of the health care cutbacks, and for no other

reason. Mr. Speaker, that is proof that some have already left because of the

health care cutbacks, but what is even more bothersome is the fact of how many

doctors might leave this Province. Could the Minister please tell us if he has

been briefed on the number of doctors who have made requests, or enquiries, to

the Medical Association, or to the Medical Board for certificates of standing?

Has he been briefed and will he inform this House on how many doctors, both

specialists and general practitioners have asked for the required information to

enable them to leave this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I stand by my statement, which I

made a week and a half ago. If something has happened over the weekend, I am not

aware of it. As to the number of people who apply for information, that is an

ongoing thing which has been going on for the last dozen years or so, where

people make enquiries. Some of them follow through, some of them do not. So,

there is really no change.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, again it is very difficult to get

any straight answers from the Minister. Even though his answers are a lot

briefer today, they are still not necessarily any more accurate.

There are at least three doctors in this Province who have

announced, since Friday, that they are leaving the Province because of the

health care cutbacks. What we hear from the Medical Association is that they are

swamped - those are their words - with requests. Could the Minister please tell

us if hospital administrators, who are very alarmed over the number of

specialists who are leaving this Province, if they have been directed by the

Minister, or by his officials, that no new specialists are to be hired by

hospitals, until such time as a specialist actually leaves, that they cannot

replace a specialist unless one actually leaves, or cannot hire a new one?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if we have a specialist who is

doing a particular job, there is no point in hiring superfluous specialists. If

a job is filled, it would be pointless to replace him while he is still there?

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, just on that point, what we are

saying - you did not understand my question - is that, if a hospital chooses to

hire a specialist for any given area, that that specialist cannot be hired

unless there is a vacancy. Is that the direction that this Department and this

Minister has given to the hospital administrators?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we are not filling any positions

which are not vacant.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: As the Leader of the Opposition says, the

Minister is skating. He certainly is skating very close to the truth.

The point is, that we asked the Minister last week about

recruitment of specialists in this Province. The Minister went through a great

song and dance, Mr. Speaker, about the problems with Immigration Canada in

getting specialists into this Province. Now, is the Minister saying, today, that

there is in effect a freeze on the hiring of additional specialists for this

Province? Is that the truth?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, last week we were talking about

psychiatrists. We are still trying to recruit some psychiatrists.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I will ask one more supplementary

to the Minister, to see if he will confirm this, if he will not confirm what is

really happening in the hospitals. Maybe he does not know. The reality is, will

he confirm that the main difficulty he is having in keeping specialists in this

Province, are the health care cutbacks, the number of bed closures, the capping

of their salaries, the lack of adequate lab and X ray services, and, I guess,

other services that are required in and around the hospitals. Are those the

reasons that he cannot keep his specialists and cannot hire new ones, because of

the health care cutbacks?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it will soon be time for the

hon. member to get his head out of the sand. If he had read the Globe and Mail

last week he would have seen where Ontario doctors are complaining because of

the system in Ontario. If he were to get his head out of the sand he would see

where the Quebec doctors have had it with the medical system and they have

threatened to throw it in. If he were to get his head out of the sand he would

see that in British Columbia people are actually suing the health care system.

The fact of the matter is, the hon. Member's colleagues in

Ottawa are trying their best to destroy the health care system that we have in

this nation. The provinces - British Columbia, Newfoundland, and all the rest -

are trying to cope with this position which has been foisted on us by the

friends, cousins, colleagues, of the hon. Member in Ottawa. There is where the

real problem lies, and that is where we all have a problem in this nation.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions

too for the Minister of Health. Methinks that with the NMA convention coming up

on Thursday that the Minister has been warned that his coyness and cockiness in

his answers of last week have gotten him into all kinds of trouble. So this week

he has been warned and asked to keep his answers fairly straightforward.

I want to ask the Minister if he could confirm for the House

that for the past twenty to thirty years the demand for doctors' services - in

other words the utilization rate, he would know all of these stats no doubt -

the utilization rate has increased by about 4 per cent a year, and the

experience over that long a period - twenty to thirty years - is probably a

reliable indicator that the utilization this year should increase at about 4 per

cent. Would he agree with that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to Your Honour's

attention that the hon. Opposition House Leader is attributing motives to me

which I do not share. I do not believe he has any justification in doing that.

The utilization rate has been about 3.8 per cent. And to

anticipate his next question, Government has already dealt with that and we are

increasing the Medicare budget to deal with the normal utilization. This

particular year, for some strange reason, utilization has gone up on a couple of

billing dates to 8 per cent or 10 percent. Both the Newfoundland Medical

Association and the Department of Health are trying to ascertain why the

utilization rate has gone up. But the normal utilization rate, 3.8 per cent to 4

per cent, we have addressed that issue as the Newfoundland Medical Association

knows. Maybe next week or the week after they might get around to telling the

hon. Member. They usually wait a while before they let him have that kind of

information.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously aware, that is

why we are asking the questions. But we are surprised that the Minister did not

announce it in the House of Assembly, where it should be announced, where the

people of the Province should know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, you never announced it! Now I want to

ask the Minister then if he will confirm what he just said then. Is he saying

that the Minister has reviewed the policy, and now has decided to at least

compensate or provide compensation for up to that 4 per cent increase in

utilization to show that the Government is not prejudiced against the doctors

and has, in fact, now provided - is he saying he has provided the cap plus up to

4 per cent for doctors? Is that what he just said?

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

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, when this questioning

started off, he was going to castigate Government for not funding increased

utilization. I would suggest, now, Mr. Speaker, he is going to castigate

Government because we did increase utilization. The hon. member cannot have it

both ways, he has to make up his mind.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that normal increase

in utilization is about 3.8 per cent to 4 per cent. Had we not made the

adjustments for that, it would have been the same as if we had said to the

teachers, your enrollment is increasing, but we are going to freeze your

salaries, so you are going to reduce your salaries. We recognized that, Mr.

Speaker, and made adjustments for it. It is going to cost us a couple of million

dollars to do it, but it was fair and it had to be done. I am quite pleased that

this Government, in our tradition these two-and-a-half years, of listening and

trying to correct unfairness, corrected the matter, Mr. Speaker, and it has been

fixed.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder, can the Minister tell us now, when

he made the decision to do exactly what he just described to the House?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, whether it was yesterday or the

day before or last week, these things are difficult, but, it has been made in

the last week or ten days.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister if he has

looked at another problem that exists.

The adjustment that is made to Medicare claims each billing

period, is applied as a percentage reduction across the border to all doctors, I

believe that is correct.

Now, across the board percentage adjustments might be

acceptable among groups where the salary scale differentials are fairly narrow

but, as he knows, that is not the case with doctors; some make $60,000, some

make up to $600,000, I guess, although, I think there are very few in the high

category, and the ones at the lower end are probably younger doctors just

starting out, usually with horrendous debts from medical school and starting up

practice.

Has the Minister considered some form of proration, for

example, a graduated adjustment scale related to income levels? Has he done

that, and, if not, would he consider it? And, would that not introduce a greater

element of fairness and balance?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when the decision was made by

Government to cap the Medicare budget, we had talks back and forth with the

Newfoundland Medical Association. It was brought to our attention then, that

maybe an across-the-board pro-rated cap, that I already dealt with, would not be

appropriate, because there are doctors who make in excess of half a million

dollars and others who make around $50,000.

The instructions I gave to the Newfoundland Medical

Association were, `As long as it does not interfere with the cap, if you have a

better way whereby we can deal with this problem, we will be wide-open to it and

will listen; we cannot play around with the cap, but we are not concerned, if

there is a better way to do it.' I understand, the Newfoundland Medical

Association are having ongoing meetings with the department and with Medicare,

and we are trying to find a better way. Ontario has such a system in place, so

has New Brunswick, and I am certain we can work it out, Mr. Speaker.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Is it the Minister's intention, Mr. Speaker,

to announce his decision on this pro-rated issue prior to the NMA convention, or

is he going to wait until Saturday, when he is guest speaker at the convention?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have not really given it any

thought. Unlike the previous administration, we do not go around trying to make

political points with the people's money. I have not given it a thought, Mr.

Speaker, but it might be worth considering.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had some questions for the Minister of Environment and

Lands but, in his absence, I will put the questions to the Premier.

MR. WARREN: The Premier is not listening.

MR. SIMMS: The Premier is not listening.

MR. WARREN: Listen to the question, Mr. Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: I said, it was intended for the Minister of

Environment and Lands, but he is not here, so in his absence, I will have to put

the question to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier would be aware it has been reported

in the last few days, that expanding the hydro-generation facility at Holyrood

would increase by over 48,000 tons, or 81 per cent, the sulphur dioxide

emissions from that facility into the atmosphere. Now, I ask the Premier, as

leader of the Government, can he confirm whether or not that is so? Secondly,

can the Premier tell the House whether or not the Government have determined

that no further environmental study is necessary before any planned expansion of

the facility at Holyrood?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am unable to confirm the precise

numbers, it may or may not be correct. The one thing that is certain is that

there would be pollution out of it. It would be designed and built in such a way

as to ensure that the pollution would be minimized, the minimum absolutely

necessary, in order to generate the electricity through that means. I have no

doubt, whatsoever, that some environmental assessment may be necessary for any

further activity of this kind. That is my automatic assumption. I have not gone

into the detail of it, but I will undertake to find out and let the member know.

Perhaps the Minister of Mines and Energy might be able to answer that particular

question. I do not know the detail, that is why we have other Ministers.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of why there are

Ministers. My supplementary was intended to go to the Minister of Mines and

Energy, actually.

The Minister knows that sulphur dioxide emissions is one of

the principal causes of acid rain. Now, I want to ask the Minister, as the

Minister responsible for Newfoundland Hydro, has Newfoundland Hydro told the

Minister of Environment that it will keep the sulphur dioxide emissions from the

proposed expanded plant at Holyrood to 25,000 tons? Has the Minister of

Environment been informed how Hydro proposes to do that? And is this Minister,

the Minister responsible for Hydro, satisfied that Newfoundland Hydro does, in

fact, have the capability of keeping the emissions below 25,000 tons?

MR. SIMMS: Good question.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, again, I am not familiar with

the details. I just saw what was in the paper over the weekend. I am aware that

the Minister of Environment has accepted the Environmental Preview Report and is

not requiring any further environmental assessment if a decision is made to put

unit number four at Holyrood. At this point, Hydro has not made a decision on

unit number four, but it has now cleared the environmental process. If a

decision is made to do this unit, then, clearly, Hydro would be doing everything

in its power to minimize all types of emissions from that facility.

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

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

Minister will undertake to answer the question. I believe that is what he

indicated. Let me ask the Minister this, Mr. Speaker, Is the Minister

responsible for Hydro aware of any agreement between the Province and the

Federal Government which would limit the total amount of sulphur dioxide

emissions for the whole Province to a maximum of 45,000 tons annually? And, if

that is the case, with this proposed expansion of the Hydro generating station

at Holyrood that would, according to the information available to the public at

the moment, generate an additional 48,000 tons of emissions, how can that be

allowed to happen and still live within the confines of the federal-provincial

agreement on sulphur dioxide emissions into the atmosphere?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, again, I am not aware of any

such federal-provincial agreement. I will try to find out if there is such a

thing in place. All of us are concerned, these days, about emissions into the

atmosphere and we want to minimize it. I am not aware of any such

federal-provincial agreement. I will have to check into that.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister, as the

Minister responsible for Hydro, Would it not it be reasonable for this House and

the people of this Province to expect that Minister to know what the maximum

sulphur dioxide pollutants allowed into the air space around us are, and what

contribution Hydro is making or proposes to make to those maximums if they

should go ahead with an expanded facility at Holyrood?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, in this Government, we want to

minimize such pollution, that is one of the reasons that we are emphasizing

hydro power wherever we can, and one of the reasons we would like to have access

to the hydro power from Labrador. That way, we could shut down Holyrood and have

it only for temporary back-up, and I want to see that happen. I hope we can get

an acceptable agreement. We may never get an acceptable agreement, and if that

is the case, we will have to have Holyrood for further expansion in the future;

but, from my perspective, I want to keep it down to the absolute minimum, zero,

if possible.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the

Minister responsible for Mines and Energy. Over the past two years, mine

closures in this Province have set new records. When the Hope Brook Gold Mine

closes, there will not be a single operating mine on the Island portion of the

Province. The Hope Brook Mine has announced an indefinite closure to take care

of some environmental problems. Is this the only reason for the mine shutting

down operations for an indefinite period?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge,

that is the reason for the close down. We all know that Hope Brook has had some

- well, it has been running in the red in its operation in the first couple of

years, and that is not unusual. They made a reference to financial viability in

the release they put out on Friday. But they had to close down at that time,

that was a decision of their board, made on Thursday night after getting a

report from Federal Environment on Thursday that if they released effluent into

the environment they would be in contravention of regulations, and Environment

Canada would have had no choice but to charge them.

So, this company acted very responsibly. Rather than breaking

the law, they suspended operations, and are hoping that in the next few months -

'up to,' the release said, up to five or six months - the environmental problem

will be solved. And certainly, at that time, I would hope that, financially, it

will be seen to be able to proceed, as well.

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

MR. A. SNOW: As the Minister suggested, Mr. Speaker, we

have all been aware this mine has been operating at a loss. But has the Minister

been assured that the mine will re-open? Will it re-open after this

environmental problem is solved?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been assured

that it will be re-opened. As the release stated, there will be a financial

review done in the next few months, as well, before possible re-opening, after

up to about five or six months, depending on what happens to the environmental

problem they are now facing.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree in the

forecast in the budget documents that the higher production of iron ore and gold

would contribute to an overall increase of 5 per cent in the total value of the

mineral production of this Province in 1991? We will not have a gold mine, iron

ore production will be down at least around 1 million tons. Where will he get

this anticipated 5 per cent growth?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, with the gold mine closed down

and with a reduction of 1 million tons, approximately, in iron ore, it is

unlikely that there will be that 5 per cent increase in overall production

value. I cannot see how it is possible.

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

for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary, again,

to the Minister of Mines: Will the Minister pressure his colleague, the Minister

of Finance, to stop discriminating against mining companies, and exempt them

from the infamous payroll tax, as he has done all other resource industries?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question, originally for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but

probably the Premier might like to answer it.

The Premier is no doubt aware that a contract to supply the

Province's Arts and Culture Centres with the Outer Programme Covers for

performances was recently awarded to a party with very close Liberal

connections, the same company that in fact had a $2.3 million contract awarded

to it last year from the Tourism industry. Could the Premier explain why there

were no tenders called before APPA Communications was given this $25,000

contract, $25,000 in public money to produce this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that it

existed or that the situation exists, or any of the representations made by the

hon. Member. I have no idea whether it is accurate or inaccurate, if we are

having covers, or if we are not, but if it is significant I will undertake to

find out and advise the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a principal of APPA, Mr. Gary Anstey was quoted

in the Sunday Express, I think it was a week or two ago, saying that he felt it

only proper that his company be given this contract because his company was the

one who came up with the idea to produce these covers in the first place. Does

the Premier agree that this is the main reason why Mr. Anstey's company might

have received the contract, because it was his idea? Has this Government now

completely abandoned the public tendering system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can neither agree nor

disagree because I do not know whether it exists or that the covers were being

made, or any such thing. What I have undertaken to do is determine what the

situation is and advise the House, and I reaffirm that I will do that.

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

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

The Premier might check the news report while he is checking

it, Mr. Speaker, in which Mr. Anstey suggested that he was going to take a 30

per cent commission off this contract. One of the officials in the Department of

Municipal Affairs, I believe it was, Mr. Speaker, said that maybe in a couple of

years or so, when we have the bugs ironed out, certainly we may go looking for a

three or four year public tender. Would the Premier, when he is checking this

out, confirm to that official that the Public Tendering Act is in effect right

now, and that it will not be two or three years before the bugs have been worked

out that he will call public tenders for work for the Arts and Culture Centres?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I reaffirm that I will check

the full matter and advise the House as to what the situation is with respect to

it, but I will not undertake, with the hon. Member or anybody else in the House,

what I will say to any individual until I find out what the circumstances are,

and what it is appropriate to say.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Would the Premier give an indication to

this House on how long he will take to check it out and when he might report

back to the House on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As long as is necessary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I have a few questions for the Minister of

Finance, Mr. Speaker. The Minister's Budget Estimates were based on some very

favourable economic indicators that were available at the time, which predicted

that Newfoundland would lead the nation in the rate of growth in gross domestic

product that would stimulate employment growth and in fact keep annual

unemployment at 18 per cent, or lower. I ask the Minister now, in view of the

recent statements from Statistics Canada showing that employment is down about

5000 people from last year, and the unemployment rate is in fact up four

percentage points to 22.2 per cent, or higher, is that not a poor start to his

Budget, and will the Minister now confirm that indeed his estimates were overly

optimistic, and the Budget deficit will be worse than even he had predicted?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you, very much.

In response to the question, we are carefully watching the

situation and I might point out that the Conference Board of Canada quite

recently indicated that Newfoundland would be leading Canada in its growth in

GDP this year, so while we are concerned with the unemployment statistics, at

the same time there are other favourable indicators. Our own information as to

our projections for the revenue and expenditures this year: we do not have any

appropriate feedback for this current year because the April figures are just

now in, but we will shortly be in a position to comment on the extent to which

our Budget predictions are on track, but we cannot do so at the present time.

There is nothing ontoward happening at the moment.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada also said

that the fall in employment and rapid rise in unemployment was due primarily to

restraint measures introduced by the Minister in his Budget. Will the Minister

now confirm that he in fact grossly underestimated the impact, as we told him at

Budget time, that he had really not made allowances for the very negative impact

that some 3000 public service layoffs would have on the economy as a whole, and

that is a major factor in increasing the deficit this year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we made up our figures we factored in the layoffs, and I

might add that the Member's statement is not the layoffs that we predicted. We

indicated that there would be 2000 layoffs and 500 jobs that were presently

vacant, and not filled, and not the 3000 he keeps quoting.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I think we will find that

before the end of the year there will be far more than 3000 laid off in the

public service. The Minister's Budget is a very tight document and there is very

little, if any, margin for error in the predictions he made. No doubt the

Minister has been monitoring. He tells me he will soon have the first quarter

figures, but he must be monitoring on a weekly and a monthly basis. He must have

some idea now as to whether or not the deficit will be increased above or below

the level he predicted. Will he tell us where he expects to be at this point in

time?

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the first

question that the Member asked, there is only one month really gone, one month

and almost another, the April figures are now being analyzed so after the first

month we should have some indication as to how our revenues are coming. The

initial indication before the proper analysis is that the retail sales tax seems

to be on track, but we will have an appropriate answer very soon now.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to the next item of business I would like,

on behalf of hon. Members, welcome to the public galleries today the Mayor of

the Town of Millertown, His Worship, Mayor Richard Fitzpatrick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's East

asked the Minister of Health to lay on the Table of the House the following

information: A breakdown, by institution, of the number of beds per institution;

or fifty-five additional hospital beds announced in 1990-1991 Budget Speech; and

a list of institutions identified, in answer to the above question; and the

number of beds to be lost in these institutions, as a result, of the 1990-1991

budget numbers. I have that information ready to table, Mr. Speaker.

Mathematically we opened fifty-five and we closed fifty-nine,

but I would caution members not to fall into the trap of believing that we

closed the same beds. For example, we opened intensive care beds, but we did not

close the same intensive care beds. So, it is more than a mathematical

procedure, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder if Your Honour could revert back to

Notices of Motion. He ran over them fairly quickly, and we had notice of a

private member's motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there agreement of the House to revert to

Notices of Motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to present

the following resolution:

Whereas the commercial salmon fishery is of utmost importance

to Labrador fishermen;

Be It Resolved that this House support the rearranging of

boundaries for the commercial salmon fishery in Labrador.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, on April 16, the Opposition

House Leader asked me to table an itemized list of the cost of meals, meetings,

and functions held in the executive dining room in the West Block since May 6,

1989, paid for by the Executive Council or any other Department.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the detail, which I will not go into, has

taken them, apparently, some considerable time, to ferret out all the variable

little bills. I will just summarize, that the total amount for that period, from

May 6, 1989 until March 31, 1991, just under two years, was a total of

$24,131.62. For the similar period, from May, 1987 until March, 1989, it was

$39,000. For the whole period, Mr. Speaker, the total expenditures in

Confederation Building, for the period from May 5, 1989 to March 31, 1991, was

$55,130.00. For a similar period, ending on March 31, 1989, it was nearly twice

that amount, $103,000.

So, as you see, Mr. Speaker, we have lived up to our

undertaking to be frugal and spend wisely.

Orders of the Day

AN HON. MEMBER: Order 27.

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

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: The Government House Leader is not here, and I

do not know if there has been a miscommunication or not, and maybe even the

Minister of Finance can tell us.

I understood, we were proceeding, first of all, with Bill 24,

Order 20, the Co-ops Act, which, I think, was adjourned the last day. Are we

going to finish that off, Order 20, Bill 24? That was adjourned the last day,

and I think we were going to finish that and then go to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, really? For any particular reason or -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is not what he told the House on Friday.

MR. SPEAKER: So, Order 27.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend

The Law Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers". (Bill No. 25).

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the third of

the pension reform bills that we have introduced into the House. The first one

we introduced had to do with the Public Service Pension plan. We introduced the

Uniform Services Pension plan changes and now we are introducing changes with

respect to the pension plan for teachers. And I might say in a few short words

in introducing this Bill that we have been concerned with three things and these

three things underlie the three pension bills that we have introduced.

We have been concerned with the unfunded liability of the

teachers' pension plan and this is the main reason we are bringing in these

reforms, these changes. We are also concerned to try to bring the teachers'

pension plan in line with the Federal reforms that they are making with respect

to income tax credits and other matters. And thirdly we are trying to bring our

pension plans in line with the pension consensus that has been arrived at by

people who are involved with pensions across Canada, the national pension

consensus.

In particular I would like to call attention to hon. Members

with several of the changes that are set forth in this Bill just so that people

can follow what we are discussing. The first thing I would like to call your

attention to - it is not a major point - but it is

Section 2 (d).

Section 2 (

d) of the Bill suggests that the: "'Minister' means the Minister of Finance." Up

until this Bill the teachers' pensions came under the Department of Education,

the Minister of Education. And it is now being transferred to the Department of

Finance so that it can be administered along with the other pension plans and

hopefully all of them can be administered perhaps more efficiently, maybe?

Although I do not wish to convey the fact that the teachers pension plan was not

well administered.

In fact I want to pay some tribute to the people who have

administered the pension plan. Ted Jones and all these people over the years,

have done a tremendous job. They are now working with the Department of Finance.

I might add though that they are still over in the other building because

despite all the layoffs there does not seem to be any space in this building and

I am finding that very strange. Even though we have laid off 8 per cent of the

public service yet there is no room in this building to bring over two or three

people from Education. So it is very interesting. Anyway, we will have to get

some space somewhere. I do not know, maybe we will have to reduce the number of

Members in the House of Assembly, particularly on the Opposition side.

The next

section I wish to call attention to is

Section 22

(1).

Section 22 (1), what it does in effect, it reads: "A pension awarded to a

teacher is the product of 2 per cent of the average annual salary of the teacher

for the highest of 5 years" and so on "multiplied by the number of years of

pensionable service...." Before, the effective service accrual rate was 2.22 per

cent, and now we are reducing that to 2 per cent. That is in conformity with the

Federal Government's rules about pensions. And the service accrual rate will be

effective January 1 1991. Because that is when this new Bill, if it is passed by

the House, will come into affect, January 1 past.

And I might add that this new Bill is an agreement between

the Government and the teachers. So if we make any adjustments here we are going

to have to discuss them with the Teachers Association. However, I might say that

for teachers who have already been accumulating pension, that for the years up

to January 1, 1991 it will be at the old rate of 2.22 per cent. But from then on

in it will accumulate at 2 per cent.

Section 46 is worth looking at as well, I call your attention

Section 46 of the Act, which deals with the purchase of teacher training

years. Now what we have agreed to do here is to allow that to continue up until

December 31 1991. But anyone who wants to get those four years of teacher

training had better go

after it before December 31, 1991, because after that they

will not be counted as pensionable service. This is a major change in the

Teacher's Pension Plan, and it will go a long way towards funding that plan, we

think.

Now, another

section which you may be interested in looking

at, is

Section 11 which deals with substitute teachers. Basically, all we are

saying here, although it is not set forth in the act, as such, is, where a

teacher was formerly covered by the pension plan established under The

Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, the Minister shall accept the

transfer of funds from that pension plan, and establish the amount of related

prescribed. There are another couple of subsections dealing with substitute

teaching.

What we are really saying here, is that substitute teaching

time may be purchased at the full actuarial cost. That is our intent here, so

that, people, who are substitute teachers, right now are on the Government Money

Purchase Pension Plan and they pay in 5 per cent, and the Government pays in 5

per cent, what will happen is, if such a person becomes a fully-fledged teacher,

no longer a substitute, gets a permanent job teaching, and transfers to the

Teacher Pension Plan, then we will figure out what that amount of money that

that person has in the plan, or the Government has in the plan, how many years

that will buy in the other plan, and then the years will be transferred. So that

person may pick up whatever the amount accumulated in the Money Purchase Pension

Plan will buy, in the fixed plan. So, that is another alteration.

Now then,

Section 47 is an extremely interesting one. What we

are establishing here is an ancillary pension plan. In fact, it is called the

Teacher's Ancillary Pension Plan. Some people would like to call it the TAPP. A

separate Teacher's Ancillary Pension Plan has been established, which must

finance both the thirty and out retirement option, and any indexing programme

that may be developed. Because it is the thought that the teachers and the

Government may want to develop an indexing plan, and that this will be set up

parallel to the normal plan. These benefits will not be guaranteed by the

Province, though, and if the money runs out, then the money runs out. That is

what it amounts to. It will be discontinued should funds be insufficient to meet

the cost. But we will be establishing a Teacher's Ancillary Pension Plan. That

is a good thing because it means we will be addressing the whole question of

indexing, which is one of our major thrusts now. Once these pension plans get

accepted by the House, or should they become accepted by the House, what we

intend to do, then, is to work at the MHAs pension plan and to work at the whole

question of indexing.

The third thing we have in mind to do - at least, I have in

mind to do - is to have people look at the various little anomalies that are

creeping into these four or five pension plans that we have, because there are

certain things that may have to be addressed over time. What we are doing here

now, is basically addressing the unfunded liability, and trying to bring the

plans in tune with the national pension conform consensus and with the Federal

Government's moves on pension. But there are still a number of points that have

to be looked at, this is not a total pension reform package. It is a major

development, but it is not complete.

Section 6 is worth looking at. I call your attention to

Section 6 of the new act, because it prescribes the contribution rate. The

contribution rate - on page 8 of this thing - shall be 6 per cent of salary. At

the moment it is 5 per cent and 4 per cent, 5 per cent for most teachers, and

some teachers have opted for the old 4 per cent single female person benefit. We

are doing away with that now so everybody pays the same 6 per cent. We have

increased the amount of money that is to be deducted from the cheque to 6 per

cent, also, the Government's contribution will be increased to 6 per cent. That

will mean that the current service cost will not be exceeded. We will not build

up further liability with respect to teachers' pensions. The unfunded liability

will remain as it is and when Government gets sufficient funds we will be

putting money into the fund to compensate for past unfunded liability, but the 6

per cent is sufficient so that the teachers' pension plan will not be any worse

off. In other words, every year, it will cover the current service cost. That is

our actuarial figure here; but, in addition to that, under the ancillary pension

plan, Government and teachers will each pay 1 per cent, as contained in

Section

47. I refer you back to

Section 47 - I mentioned it earlier: Effective January

1, both Government and teachers will pay 1 per cent into that ancillary plan,

and then, in September, 1992, it will be increased to 2 per cent by each, so

that 4 per cent of salaries, 2 per cent by the Government and 2 per cent by

teachers, will go into this ancillary plan to come to grips with the question of

indexing.

AN HEN. MEMBER: Indexing of (inaudible) and everything?

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, the whole thing, because there are a

number of special benefits in the teachers' plan which will come out of that,

thirty and out, and indexing, right.

Now, other amendments in the Public Service Pension Plan, the

vesting period will be reduced from ten to five years, so that brings it into

conformity with the other pension plans; survivor benefits will be increased

from 55 per cent to 60 per cent for new survivors, and the same provision for

division of pensions upon marriage breakdown, and remodifying the rules for the

purchase of prior services.

I do not think, Mr. Speaker, I need to go into any more

detail because, undoubtedly, in Committee there will be various questions asked,

and perhaps other Members would like to make some points.

Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few

comments on the bill without going into a lot of detail because, obviously, what

the Minister has outlined now are amendments to the legislation and to the law

that have been agreed to by the Newfoundland Teachers' Association and, in fact,

I understand they signed their agreement, on Friday past, did they not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Another announcement?

MR. SIMMS: Today, I announced the increase for the

doctors, Mr. Speaker, up to 4 per cent, and now, I am announcing that the NTA

signed an agreement, on Friday, with the Government. In any event, they have

signed the agreement. All of the items outlined by the Minister, he tells us at

the outset, have been agreed to by the NTA and by the teachers. No teacher, that

I know of, or NTA executive representative had contacted the Opposition office

to raise any concerns, so there is not much, I guess, we can argue with. Why

would we argue if they do not have a big problem with it? I should not say they

do not have a big problem with it, because I suspect they do, but they have

agreed, nevertheless. Because of the responsible attitude, I suppose, of

teachers in the Province, they have agreed to proceed along these lines. I

presume the clause is still in there that says, any changes to this legislation

has to be done with the agreement of the NTA, which used to be there in the

past. Is that there now? The Minister recalls what I am talking about, I guess?

There used to always be a clause there.

DR. KITCHEN: It is in the collective agreement.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, it is in the agreement, not in the law? It

is still in the agreement is it?

DR. KITCHEN: It is not in the Pension Act, it is in the

collective agreement.

MR. SIMMS: Still in the agreement, was it? Okay.

Some of the more mundane points that he raised, I guess, like

the transfer of the responsibility for administering the pension plan now, to

the Department of Finance from the Department of Education, I do not imagine

there will be any riots in the streets over that.

MR. WINDSOR: It is long overdue.

MR. SIMMS: It is probably a good idea. As my colleague,

the former Minister of Finance says, it is probably long overdue. It is

retroactive legislation, of course. We cannot let the bill slip by without

making note that it is legislation that is retroactive five months back to

January 1st, 1991, this, from a Government who, when they were a party in

Opposition, were violently opposed to retroactive legislation of one form or

another, as I recollect. But I suppose they have since seen the light and

realized that, from time to time, these things have to happen.

I just want to make a brief comment, that I know, for a fact,

that teachers are not happy with a lot of the changes contained therein. I know

the teachers are not happy, and they certainly were not happy with their

negotiations and the way their negotiations were handled. The negotiations for

their agreement was handled by the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of

Education and the Minister of Finance, all of whom had their noses stuck into

the business of negotiating a collective agreement, no doubt. They all had their

ten cents worth or their two cents worth, or whatever. And I think it is fair to

say, and an appropriate opportunity to say, that the teachers in the Province

were not at all pleased with the process and the way it went, and they were not

happy with the Government and the way it dealt with negotiations. But, at the

moment, that is history, and I am sure that many of them will remember. The old

saying that teachers will remember - I remember seeing badges saying that in

front of us when we were the Government back in 1985. Teachers used to wear the

badges, `We will remember', and I have a feeling that they will be wearing those

same badges, no doubt, in 1993 or whenever the next election is, 1994, 1992 or

whenever it might be.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1995.

MR. SIMMS: No, I do not think it will go to 1995, that

would be stretching it. Joey tried that, I believe, but I do not think you can

get away with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1994.

MR. SIMMS: 1994, yes.

So, no doubt they will be wearing badges saying, `We will

remember'. What they will be saying, of course, is that they remember the way

this Government treated teachers during the last set of negotiations, and in

remembering, they will, no doubt, place their ballot for some candidate other

than a Liberal candidate. I have no doubt there will be a considerable number of

teachers doing that the next time around because of what this Government has

done, and the way it handled their negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Table - I know the Minister

went through a number of the changes to the various clauses that are substantive

changes, I guess. We would be interested in having a look at something like

that. I know, he read through a bunch of changes and referred to various

clauses, and so on. What I would have liked to have, and I have asked the Table

to try to provide if they can get it from the pensions people, is the one or two

pages or whatever is required to show us the substantive changes to the various

clauses like the ones he outlined in his speech. The problem was we could not

hear what he was saying very well. Nobody else could, but I could, because I

have one of these little aids, and that helps a bit. I know we can read Hansard

tomorrow, but I am not sure the Minister covered everything. We are not

interested in changing the `a's to `the' or the dots and the crosses of `t's

that the Premier used to always be interested in when he was in Opposition. We

are not looking for that kind of stuff, but if there is a change to Clause 47 -

and there are several - compared to the last piece of legislation, the old

existing bill, it would be helpful to us in comparing, when we get to the

Committee stage, if we wish to get into more detail in the Committee stage. So,

hopefully, the Clerks at the Table will be able to obtain such a list. I think

they understand what I am asking for, hopefully. If not, maybe the Minister of

Finance could help the Clerks or tell his officials to co-operate with the

Clerks. I am sure he will. Then, when we get to Committee stage, no doubt, if

there are any more detailed questions, we will ask at that stage, I guess. I do

not know if my colleague, the former Minister of Finance, the Member for Mount

Pearl, might want to have a few words to say, as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl, I think it was, who stood in his place first, on behalf of hon.

Members, I welcome to the Speaker's Gallery, the Ambassador of the Netherlands,

His Excellency Jan F. E. Breman, the Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few

minutes. I understand, the Member for Mount Pearl also intends to have a few

words to say about this particular bill. I had not intended to until the speech

given by the Opposition House Leader, the very provocative statements that he

made, no doubt, reminded me of a few points that I thought should be made.

Mr. Speaker, I am just joking when I say that. In actual

fact, I really wanted to get up and take five or ten minutes, because I am very

proud and very pleased with what has happened here.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, I guess, at the very

first meetings that I had with the NTA executive, one of the problems that we

discussed was their pension plan and providing a secure pension plan for the

future. We spent some time discussing it and, at that point in time, they

indicated to me that they thought there had to be some changes, and I indicated

to them that there had to be some changes. It has been two years since then.

Now, the changes are going to be made.

The NTA is very pleased with this new pension Act. They are

very pleased with the changes that are now taking place in their pension plan

because, for the first time, they can be assured that they will have a funded

plan that will last and provide a proper pension for years to come. I wish the

Opposition House Leader could have been at - maybe I should have invited him -

the signing, when we signed the collective agreement on Friday, to hear the

President of the NTA indicate that it was quite an accomplishment, that at this

round of collective bargaining, we have accomplished a lot. And

whereas

teachers, like everybody else, do not like having to experience one year of a

freeze, that aside, the President of the NTA made the point that this is a

superb collective agreement, an excellent collective agreement; and perhaps the

best part of it happens to be what is being done with the teachers' pension

plan.

Teachers are pleased that they now have a pension plan that

is fully funded. They are pleased that co-operatively, we have been able to

reach some kind of agreement on this. And, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that

many people told me when we started this process, we would never negotiate with

the teachers, any changes to the teachers' pension plan, we would never

accomplish that during collective bargaining, that it was an impossible task.

Well, it was possible because people on both sides, the NTA and Government,

recognized it was something that must be done. And we were successful, granted

over a long period of time, in negotiating these particular changes. It was a

negotiating feat that I was told by many people who have been in this business

for a long time, politicians, and so on, could not be done. Well, it was done,

and now we have a teachers' pension plan that we can all be proud of.

So, I just wanted to point that out. Because it is not true

that the teachers are dissatisfied with this pension plan, not true at all. They

are very, very pleased with the pension plan. They are agreeing to pay more

money into their pension plan.

MR. SIMMS: Which they (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: And Government are paying more money into the

pension fund.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. SIMMS: They did, for `thirty and out', 1 per cent.

MR. BAKER: No. I say to the Opposition House Leader, the

stance before was that they would pay the 1 per cent a year for two years,

providing the `thirty and out' was added, which would cost the 2 per cent. The

previous Government did not have the guts to tackle the problem, that was what

happened. We have done it, we have accomplished it. It is one of our tremendous

accomplishments. The previous government thought that they could not negotiate a

new pension plan with teachers. They were convinced, they were told by their

bureaucrats, you could not negotiate a new pension plan with teachers. Well, it

has been done. I know that we have gone though some hard times, I know that we

have had to bring in a one year freeze and all that kind of thing, but all that

aside, this has perhaps been the most successful round of collective bargaining

ever carried out by Government. The teachers are pleased with the pension plan.

They are happy about the fact that both Government and teachers are contributing

more to ensure that the plan is a solid plan, will become 20 per cent funded in

a few years, and the level of funding will increase beyond that and that their

plan is secure.

As well, we have, as part of the collective agreement,

indicated that we will now sit down and try to come up with an indexing scheme,

so that ultimately teachers can have an indexed pension plan within the limit of

Government's ability to pay for it, which is the only way that it can be done.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the Bill and teachers

are very pleased with the Bill, and I guess there is not much more needs to be

said about it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to briefly

address this Bill. I rise to give credit where credit is due, and not quite to

give as much to the President of Treasury Board as he would like to take for

himself. First of all, let me simply address the fact that the previous

administration did indeed tackle this problem, and I take exception to the

Minister's statement that we did not. In fact, it was the Minister's colleague,

the Minister of Labour, who was president of the Teachers Association at the

time, president of the NTA, who I and my colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes,

who was Minister of Education at the time, met in the new collective bargaining

boardroom. I think it was the first major Ministerial meeting held in that

boardroom after that wing was redecorated, in fact. It was the first time, at

least, that I sat in that room. First time certainly that we met the NTA there.

That was about three if not four years ago I would think now

that we first met with them, and we for the first time broke the news to them as

to the present state of the teachers' pension plan. I think it was quite clear

to us as a government, and we made it quite clear to the NTA at the time, that

we had serious problems that had to be addressed. Nobody was being well served.

We broke the very significant ground I think of getting over the concept that a

pension plan is something that government gives. A pension plan is something

that one contributes on an equal basis to and that any problems that were

created there or that are involved with the pension plan had to be dealt with

cooperatively as well.

We made it very clear to them at that time in fact that the

unfunded liability, which was as a result of government using that money or not

even not assessing enough or not having negotiated something, would be absorbed

by government, that we accept that responsibility, and I think we could do no

less. And so we made that commitment to them which was a major first step. We

also made it very clear that this could not be allowed to continue, that

government could not accept on behalf of the taxpayers of this Province the

continuing growth in unfunded liability. We were prepared to meet our

obligations but that we expected teachers to meet their share of obligation as

well and that serious negotiations would have to take place.

I congratulate the Government on the resolution thus far. I

think there are some major steps here. The teachers' pension plan was probably

the most generous pension plan anywhere in Canada. I have no doubt they are all

happy with that - no doubt they all deserve that. I would say that no doubt

because the pension plan was so generous that government was able over the years

to negotiate lower salary increases. Here is a point that I would make here.

Even in the agreement that was negotiated certain salary increases were included

in that. As this memo from the NTA that I have here points out: those increases

were there but the scales will have to be changed because of the wage freeze

that has now been instituted.

So the only problem I have here, and I suspect the reason

these negotiations were as protracted as they were, was first of all because of

the extreme difficulties and the very important points and the very important

principles that are being changed by this new pension legislation but also

because the rules of the game changed as well. As we all know, and we have all

tried to separate negotiation of pension benefits from salary increases, but

unfortunately it inherently involves the two.

So I think there was some misleading of the teachers here in

negotiating these changes in good faith and then finding out well into the

process - not completed, but well into the process - that indeed a wage freeze

was going to be instituted by this Government which really changed the rules of

the game. So I think they are to be congratulated for in spite of that. Because

many of us thought at the time that these negotiations would indeed be very

seriously impeded as a result of the wage freeze. I think it is certainly to the

credit of the teachers and primarily to the executive of the NTA and Mr. Coombs

their president to come forward with what I believe is a very honourable and

reasonable solution from their point of view. They had made major concessions

here. Government is not making concessions. Government is of course negotiating

a decrease in pension benefits and making the cost of pensions higher for the

employees.

I am not criticizing Government. I am not criticizing

Government for that, that needed to be done and it was not easy to do. The major

concessions have come from the teachers themselves. That breach of faith as it

relates to salary negotiations could have impeded if not made impossible this

set of negotiations. But I do not disagree with the items that are there. I

agree that pensions should be under the Minister of Finance, now there is some

uniformity here and some continuity. It was always very difficult to try to

negotiate with public service unions and then find the Department of Education

primarily responsible, although there was always cooperation and consultation

with the pension division. But most unusual for the Department of Education to

be negotiating pension benefits with the NTA.

Other aspects of it I do not think we can deal with in the

Committee stage. But let me simply say that we are pleased indeed to see that

there has been some meeting of minds with the teachers, that we have been able

to get these concessions and that the teachers' pension now will be in good

shape in future. I do know, however, that Government is indeed paying more, now

8 per cent, or at the end of this term, 8 per cent Government is paying. Is that

not 2 per cent higher than for other pension plans? So I mean I think we must

have some concern that teachers have a better pension plan because Government is

paying more for this pension plan and that in future negotiations - I realize

you can only do so much at a time - but at some stage in time either we have to

contribute an equitable amount to other public servants or have the teachers

bear a larger share as well of what they are paying. I think there is an

inequity still here of 2 per cent. They will have a better pension benefit

because Government is paying 2 per cent more. And I think that needs to be

addressed in future.

But as far as this goes, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the

Government. I particularly congratulate the NTA.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister speaks now he closes

debate.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no further remarks

except to move second reading.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law

Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers," read a second time, ordered referred to

a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 25).

MR. BAKER: Order 20, is it, you are ready for?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

remember the Minister introducing this Bill several days ago, and I am not sure

if I adjourned the debate or was about to speak. So maybe someone at the Table

might check to see what -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did not speak? Okay, I did not speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you have an hour now.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will certainly not need an hour. But,

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House as an Opposition Member, we are always

expected to be critical and I suppose that is a part of our job. But I would

like to commend the Government when they do something that I think is reasonable

and correct and in this case the Minister is making a reasonable move in this

matter.

As far as I understand it the Co-ops and the Credit Unions

are very supportive of what the Minister would like to do in this Act and I

congratulate him for a change, for listening to the advice of the staff and the

people who are involved in the co-op and credit union movements throughout the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think the credit union people have been

looking for this type of an amendment for quite some time and I think it will be

very beneficial for the credit union movement and for Newfoundland, because it

will allow the credit union movement to be able to finance some of the business

opportunities that might be around in this Province and I am sure that this will

be beneficial to Newfoundland. I have always been a strong supporter.

When I was Minister of Rural Agriculture and Northern

Development, Co-ops and Credit Unions did come under my Department and I was

very supportive of both groups because what they are doing is keeping more money

in this Province and recirculating it; rather than use just the banks, if you

use the credit union, up until this, the Board of Directors were from

Newfoundland, they were not from Montreal or Toronto or somewhere else, so

whatever the Board of Directors input was, it was a Newfoundland input and Mr.

Speaker, whatever profits were made, if any, were shared amongst Newfoundlanders

again, all the members of the credit unions, so I thought this was a very good

system and I was always very supportive of it, and rather than go on and say

that 100 times, I just want to say that I commend the Minister for listening to

the advice of the credit unions on this matter and for listening to the advice

of his staff in introducing this Bill and I certainly will be supporting it when

it comes for vote.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear

the support from the other side of the House, because we look forward very much

to working with credit unions and to build up the whole question of the whole

credit union movement. It is coming along reasonably well, but at the moment

only about 7 per cent of Newfoundlanders are in credit unions compared to over

twice that many in the population as a whole and in the province of Quebec, the

vast majority of people are in Caisse Populaire credit unions, and we too would

like to see a similar move in this Province, so with no more talk, Mr. Speaker,

I move second reading.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Co-Operative

Societies Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 24)

MR. BAKER: Order No. 4. Concurrence Motion on the

Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My remarks will be brief during this particular portion of

the Concurrence debate and I would like to begin by thanking my committee

members, in particular, the vice-chairman of the Committee, the Member for

Humber Valley, as well, the Member for Pleasantville, Fortune - Hermitage, Green

Bay, La Poile and Menihek.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the various committees which

were reviewed in this particular process by the Resource Estimates Committee,

were Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Mines and Energy as well as the

Department of Development and Tourism.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the Ministers in

particular, for their bringing forth as quickly as possible, all information in

terms of questions that were being asked, and some Ministers who actually came

back for second and third visits with their officials to deal with their

estimates.

The Estimates Committees went very well; there were a number

committee meetings held in this Chamber and also, I must say

that we were very pleased to have had the opportunity to utilize the Colonial

Building for further discussions as well.

I note that my colleague for Humber Valley is not with us

today, but I want to again thank him for his co-operation and also his guidance,

having been a Member of this Legislature for a long time, he certainly offered

us -

AN HON. MEMBER: Whom are you talking about?

MR. WALSH: The Member for Humber Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I thought you were talking about me.

MR. WALSH: Sorry no. - who offered guidance from his

experience and I must say he did an admirable job in keeping us on track and

allowing us to deal with the Departments; so, Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I want

to say that the Estimates went well, they were dealt with in a very fine and

orderly manner, and that all participants, both the Members of this Legislature,

the Ministers and their staff, and in particular I want to take the opportunity

as Chairman to thank the staff of the House of Assembly, who also were diligent

in their dealings with and their assistance in dealing with the Estimates on

behalf of the Resource Estimates Committee. With that, Mr. Speaker, I submit

that as a conclusion to the remarks, not my remarks, but to the Estimates

Committee on behalf of the Resource Committee.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words to say

in the Concurrence debate of this Committee's report. I want to also indicate of

course, that my friend, the Member for Kilbride also wants to have a few words

to say in this particular debate, because we have issues that we want to raise

in front of the Members opposite, the Government, in the hopes that we might get

them to open their eyes; open their eyes, clean out their ears and listen to

what the people are saying; that is the main reason why, to answer the Member

for Carbonear's question, that is the main reason why we want to have a few

words to say.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Carbonear asks the question,

why, and we could respond in a sarcastic way, but it is not our style to do

that. We could say, that we want to ask questions on behalf of those thousands

of people out there who are suffering as a result of the policies of this

Government, similar to the concerns expressed to the Member for Carbonear and

his Premier just a few nights ago at a Liberal Party function in Carbonear, when

I gather from the press 100 or so demonstrators let the Member for Carbonear and

the Premier know what some of their concerns were, and we could do the same and

I could refer to that over and over again, but I do not want to do that, so I

hope the Member for Carbonear will not bait me into it by reminding me what

happened in Carbonear last Friday night. I am trying to stay away from that tack

and try to ask some clear, specific questions.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What happened? I never heard about that.

MR. SIMMS: You did not hear what happened?

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I have not.

MR. SIMMS: Oh well, I might have to elaborate.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not elaborate. The

Member for Kilbride is a very, very busy Member and obviously did not hear the

news reports over the weekend, but I think everybody in the Province, people in

the gallery, people all over Newfoundland and Labrador, and I would not be

surprised all across Canada, I dare say might have made that Newsworld national

news clip at 7:30, channel 15, which it comes on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh the Minister of Education would not be

aware of what I am talking about, because I do not think he is listening, which

is not new of course, it is not new at all.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I have been baited and I have been

taunted by Members opposite, at a time when I am trying to make some serious

points, and in view of the fact that Forestry and Agriculture is one of the

Departments we are debating here, in this Concurrence Report, along with the

other resource Departments, Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Mines and

Energy, Development, that is it, four Departments.

Those are four fairly large Departments as we all know and

very important to the future of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; it is

very important to the future of its people and, the difficulty is that we do not

seem to be making much progress in any of those areas.

Now, in Development I suppose, one could argue that we are

making some ongoing progress at least from the tourism aspect of that

department. I think it is fair to say that the Minister of Development and

Tourism is - Is it called Development and Tourism now or just Development?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Just Development. The Minister of Development,

I think, is making some laudable moves to try to keep tourism in the forefront

as he should. It is probably the one resource area that we can look forward to,

and having his assistant, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, chair this

committee was probably a great asset to him. He was able to promote tourism.

So the Minister of Development is probably doing an admirable

job in the tourism sector. I cannot say the same in terms of development for

this Province. This Government has now been in place, they are in their third

year of their five year mandate, and many Governments, in fact, go to the polls

after three years. Lots of Governments did. David Peterson in Ontario was the

most recent one that I recollect.

So here they are into their third year and I am afraid there

is not much we have to show for it, Mr. Speaker, in terms of development, not a

lot that we have to show for it. The Economic Recovery Commission has been under

a cloud right from day one. It has not been able to prove itself to the people,

and here they are in their third year of operation, several millions of dollars

spent to employ half a dozen, or whatever it is, five or six commissioners at

very significant wage levels. So they have created some jobs there, but that is

about the only place that most people can think of. A lot of the other things

that the Economic Recovery Commission has done or is doing were the same kinds

of things that the Department of Development always did. And the Minister of

Development, had he had under his control the operations of the Economic

Recovery Commission, which he should, then you would not need the Economic

Recovery Commission. The Department of Development and the Minister of

Development perhaps could do just as good a job, perhaps even better.

So from the Department of Development and Tourism perspective

I cannot say there is a big amount to brag about or to talk about in terms of

progress. It makes some, but nothing that one should show or a department should

show after three years of a new Government supposedly coming in in 1989 with all

kinds of enthusiasm, raring to go, great new ideas, fantastic promises. Lord

knows they made promises to the people of the Province. So that is development.

From the perspective of the Department of Mines and Energy, I

mean the real positive story is the Tory initiative, the Hibernia project which

would not have gotten under way, I guess, if it had not been for efforts of

previous administrations, not just the last one, but it goes right back, perhaps

right back to Mr. Smallwood's day, some credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and he was at the signing. I would not go

so far as to say Hibernia was a Liberal initiative, the Member for Stephenville

will be stretching it a little bit there. I think it is fair to say that Mr.

Peckford was probably the one who should receive the most significant

acknowledgement for the Hibernia development. Nevertheless, it is a significant

development and Members opposite, when they were in Opposition, used to accuse

us, when we were the Government, of trying to portray Hibernia as the be all and

end all, which we never did, but that is what they used to accuse us of.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No we did not. We did promote it positively,

and that is what this Province needs, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is what

this Province needs in this day and age. One of the major responsibilities of

any Government is to instill confidence and pride in its people, but we are not

seeing much of that. That is what we tried to do with Hibernia and any other

development; we tried to instill some confidence and pride in the people of the

Province and we do not see that these days. Doldrums, that is all we hear about

these days and see.

So, the Minister of Mines and Energy I do not think has a lot

to be happy about. Hibernia - yes, very positive; not the be all and end all, no

question about that. It is a significant development. God help us if we did not

have it today in this Province. We would really be in trouble. But certainly

from the mines sector of his department there is not an awful lot to be happy

about as we heard the Member for Menihek mention today in question period. With

the close down of the Hope Brook Mine last week, I believe he said there is no

mining activity on the Island taking place today, I believe that is what the

Member for Menihek said. Now you have to sit back, put that into perspective and

think about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No production he meant, yes. But that means

something. Something is wrong, something is happening, whatever it is. So there

is Development and Tourism, not a lot to brag about; Mines and Energy, the Tory

initiative, Hibernia, that is about the only positive thing this Government can

talk about and brag about; then we move into the fishery.

Well, I mean, what can one say about the fishery? You can

blame it on the Federal Government, which this Government always does, and this

Minister. And I have often asked myself: I hear the Minister of Fisheries, the

Member for Twillingate, castigate the Federal Government and the Federal

Fisheries' people so frequently, I often wonder to myself: why do we need a

Provincial Department of Fisheries? What does the Provincial Department of

Fisheries do? What is it responsible for? And it is a good question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Makes good Opposition Leaders.

MR. SIMMS: Makes good Opposition Leaders, that is

correct. But you have to really - people out there in the Province have said to

me time and time again, they hear Walter Carter on talking about attacking

Valcourt. Bernard Valcourt, his old friend. Attacking the Federal Fisheries'

people for this or not doing that. And they say to me: Simms, what do they need

a Provincial Minister and Department for? I say: that is a good question, very

good question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it was. But not really. Because the

previous administration's Department of Fisheries and its Minister, now the

Leader of the Opposition, took a lot of initiatives at the Provincial level with

funding for job creation programmes and projects to help fishermen who in this

Province today are suffering. They have one awful job trying to get ten weeks

work. Through no fault of their own. They live in rural parts of Newfoundland

where there is no micro-chip plant, there are no other job opportunities, only

fish. And if there are no fish, who is supposed to look after them?

Well, I will tell you who is supposed to look after them, it

is the Provincial Government, that is who is supposed to look after them. When

we were the administration under the Minister of Fisheries then, now the Leader

of the Opposition, he used to come to Cabinet week in and week out with all

kinds of suggestions to help these fishermen who are suffering from lack of

income with some kind of substantial job opportunity, whatever it might have

been. It might have been short term but they had to be helped. But this

administration sit on their hands, attack the Federal Government, and the people

out there are asking the question: why do you need a Provincial Minister of

Fisheries, what does he do? Now that is from the fishery's perspective.

I just want to touch briefly on the Forestry area. Forestry

and Agriculture. Because my friend, the Member for Windsor - Buchans, the

Minister of Forestry, would be disappointed if I did not make some comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I always compliment the Minister when he does

something. I have not been complimenting him that much lately, I will not say

why. No, I always compliment the Minister. Now the Minister does not always

compliment me though, I must say. He likes to attack me for some reason. I think

he forgets that I am not the Forestry critic any more and I have not been for a

couple of years now, we have a new Forestry critic. But every time he gets up to

make a statement or answer a question he always flicks over at the Member for

Grand Falls, I do not know why.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He has this fixation. Yes, he is only in

office two years and he got rid of the budworm, he says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: And the hemlock looper. Anyway, I would like

to ask the Minister a serious question. I may raise it depending on his answer

today, if he gets a chance to speak in this debate - I may raise it again the

next day or two in Question Period - but I do want to flick it out, for the

benefit of Members opposite. Not so much for the Minister of Forestry's benefit,

because he is quite familiar with it, and I am familiar with it, and the Member

for Exploits is familiar with it, members on this side are familiar with it, but

there are an awful lot of Members over there who are not.

And it deals with the operations at the Wooddale Tree

Nursery, the Provincial tree nursery, operated by the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture, the largest tree nursery operation that the Province has and the

Provincial Government operates. I want to talk about the employment out in that

facility. Now as the Minister would know, and members opposite might know, from

time to time over the last ten years, I guess it is now, since that facility was

put in place, built, constructed, expanded and enlarged upon, it has provided

job opportunities for up to 250 people at one time or another. Somewhere in that

area, 225 or whatever it is. Anyway, certainly up to a couple of hundred jobs

have been provided.

And it was always looked upon - people used to always say:

what are we going to do about a secondary industry in this region, the Grand

Falls - Windsor region? All we have is the mill. There were some concerns, as

there should be in any one-industry town, about what might happen if anything

ever occurred with respect to the mill operations. The government, and

governments of the day, did a good job in putting industries out there, related

to government operations. I guess, the employment, for example at the Central

Newfoundland Hospital, this day, would be greater than the employment at the

mill, in terms of hospital services at the regional health care center there.

You have the vocational school, and now the community college, actually, and

there are other government services out there. Most government departments have

some presence in the area of Grand Falls - Windsor.

So, that aspect was covered, but a secondary industry was

always asked for by people. Little did people realize, there was always one

sitting there under the noses of people, and that was the Wooddale Tree Nursery.

It employed people, albeit seasonally, but there is nothing wrong with seasonal

work. That is what this government has to get through its head, there is nothing

degrading about seasonal work. In certain places, in Newfoundland and Labrador,

people do not have any choice but seasonal work. In all the remote communities

in this Province, you could not expect them to have full-time, twelve-month

jobs. It just is not possible. So, there is nothing wrong with being a seasonal

worker, and the 250 or 200 or so at the Wooddale Nursery were seasonal workers,

because that is the nature of the operation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what has happened, though, is that over the

last few years the numbers of people employed at the nursery have declined

considerably, to where, today, there were recently 117 or 119 employees called

back. I just forget exactly the number, 117 or 119 the Minister told me there

one day last week. There were 117 or 119 called back, and that is everybody who

is employed at the nursery, as I understand it. So that is considerabe

downsizing from 225 or 250.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was it 250?

MR. SIMMS: Back in the mid-1980s, I think, or sometime

like that, back when I was minister, probably. So, I will say that now, in case

you say it. But I did create some jobs, I remind the Minister. He is going to

get up now and accuse me of hiring people from Grand Falls District, from my

constituency, and employing them. I remind him, he better look at the list,

because a fair number of them were from his district of Windsor - Buchans, and a

fair number were from Exploits and so on. So, it was not quite the way that

members opposite used to paint it when they were in Opposition. Nevertheless,

the point is, there were 225 or 250 people working, whether they are Tories or

Liberals or NDP. Who cares! They were working, and that is the important point.

So, I say to the Minister, there are a lot of concerns now

that the numbers have dwindled down to 117. But, more than that, the bigger

problem now is, of those 117 or 119, whatever it is, a week or ten days ago the

Minister is quoted as saying, - note I said, he is quoted as saying: There is a

very good likelihood - and that is the perception, there is a likelihood - that

at least fifty of those 117 or 119 people might not get any more than four weeks

work. I think those were the numbers attributed to the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only attributed (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, well I am being very careful. He was

quoted as saying it, and certainly the impression is out there. He would know

that I had a call from the union, because I told him privately. I did not raise

it in the Legislature, and I do not intend to until I give the Minister an

adequate amount of time to respond to their concerns. They called me, and that

is what they read into the news story. If it was incorrect, then it was

unnecessary anxiety caused to those workers, is what I am saying to the

Minister. If it is the press's fault, then sobeit. But, if the Minister is going

to provide those 117 or 119 workers, whatever it is, with ten weeks work, then,

please, if he has not done so, tell them, tell them quickly, tell them soon, to

relieve their anxieties, because he can imagine, as I can, if you are a worker

at that operation and you were expecting you were going to get at least enough

work that you could qualify for your insurance, which is what the insurance

programme is for, there is nothing degrading about it, that is what it is there

for - and now, all of a sudden, they hear a new story which gives perception

that, `Maybe I am only going to get four weeks work. Where am I going to get

work for the next six or seven weeks that I need?' then you can imagine the

anxiety. So, I am hopeful, since the issue has been raised by the workers with

the Minister - he met with them, I believe, a week ago Friday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: A sleaze bag? He called you a sleaze bag.

MR. SIMMS: I understand his staff are aggressively trying

to find a way to make more productive use of the bare root stock, and

everything, at the nursery. I know all of that is happening and, as I said, I

have not raised it in the House because I know the Minister has been working on

it. Now, I also understood that he was supposed to respond to them by Friday

past. I do not know if he knows that or if that is the way he understood it, but

I am told that is what they were expecting. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I think they were expecting to hear. Maybe

they have. Maybe the Minister has already talked to them, but if he has not, I

plead with him, I urge him and I beg him to please let the workers know whether

it is negative or positive. If he cannot do anything, well, then sobeit, but let

us put the cards on the table and let them know so they can do whatever it is

they have to do. If it is positive, then take away all that anxiety that is out

there and is unnecessary if, in fact, the Minister has a positive word. And, Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister comes into this House tomorrow with a Ministerial

Statement to negate the media reports in Central Newfoundland of a week or ten

days ago or, at least, to explain how the misunderstanding developed and, at the

same time, says in his Ministerial Statement, `We are going to do something

positive and I have been able to find a way to keep, if not 117, a vast majority

of them,' then, I will be the first one in response to his Ministerial

Statement. I throw this out to him now, because he always like these kinds of

suggestions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, but I am sure I can get approval from our

official critic and from the Leader of the Party to respond to such an

announcement, since it would affect my constituency. We always do that.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is a matter of course.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it is a matter of course. So if the

Minister were to stand in this House tomorrow with a Ministerial Statement

saying, `I have resolved this problem,' I will stand in this House on my two

feet, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, and heap loads and loads of praise upon the

Minister of Forestry, I assure him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I do not know. I will even talk

privately to Scott Chafe from VOCM and ask him to turn the mike on so that we

can get a voicer of me praising the Minister of Forestry if he does this

positive thing for the Woodale Tree Nursery workers tomorrow or the next day,

whenever he is going to do it if he does it. I will talk to Scott, and I bet you

he is very co-operative, the media people are very co-operative usually. I would

not be surprised if he might use the clip of me praising the Minister of

Forestry. So I ask the Minister of Forestry to keep that in mind.

MR. RIDEOUT: They will play it on CKCM.

MR. SIMMS: They will play it on CKCM day in and day out,

probably for the next decade, who knows?

MR. RIDEOUT: You might be careful though, he might use it

as a paid add the next time.

MR. SIMMS: He might even use it as a paid add in the next

election, yes. But if he does that, I have one on him, to come back with, as he

knows. I wonder should I tell that story. What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, come on, I should tell it. It is cute. No,

I had better not, it is a sin.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't leave us in suspense.

MR. SIMMS: No, I cannot, I will have to tell you

privately. The Minister might be embarrassed by it, but he should not be; it was

meant in jest, anyway, it was a joke.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, not to get sidetracked again, I only

intended to speak for a few minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: My colleague, the Member for Kilbride has a

few words to say related to - should I tell him so he can prepare himself?

MR. R. AYLWARD: No.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, I will not even say what it is. But,

that is my brief contribution, as humble as it may have been, in this debate, in

concurring with the motion that the Resource Estimates Committee be approved.

Now, I should say in conclusion, though, it is with a great deal of reluctance

that we - I am not even sure if we will support it. We will not support it, will

we?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: We will not be voting for this motion, anyway,

we will be voting against it, because the Budget, itself, we totally oppose. It

is nothing personal against the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, as

Chairman. I understand, he probably did a half decent job - probably. I remember

there was the odd time when he tried to make a couple of little sneaky changes,

and we caught him. Now, he may not have been part of all of that, but there was

some collaboration over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: The House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, the Government House Leader, the

President of Treasury Board, was trying to worm his way through some sneaky

changes until we caught him and he had to back off. I do not know if he was part

of that, but if he was, he should apologize and admit that he is embarrassed by

that whole scene.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be supporting the motion to concur

in this debate, and my friend for Kilbride and any other member who wishes to

speak on this particular resolution can do so.

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

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

I have a few brief words. I was fortunate enough to be able

to attend part of one of the meetings of the Resource Committee, although I am

not a Member of that Committee. The meeting happened to be the one in which the

Minister Forestry and Agriculture was defending his Budget Estimates for this

year. I was pleased to be able to attend, because I guess the Minister knows,

and most others know, that I have a very large interest in the agricultural

industry in this Province, and I wanted to see what the Minister was doing to

improve it.

Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the

Minister that he certainly is doing his best, he is trying extremely hard to get

information from the farmers of this Province. I noticed at several meetings I

attended, and several others I have had reports on, that the Minister is working

diligently on the agricultural side of his portfolio. I believe I heard him say

at one dinner I attended that he spends probably 70 or 80 per cent of his time

on the agricultural side rather than the forestry side. There is probably a good

reason for that, Mr. Speaker, because the agricultural industry has been

neglected for so long in this Province that it needs that little bit of extra

attention now. The forest industry has been pretty well looked after over the

years because of its size more than for any other reason. They have had a long

history of federal/provincial agreements, even moreso than the agricultural

industry, so that is probably the reason why.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about the Committees,

generally, that I would like to get a ruling on, or have someone interpret for

me, because both the Chairman of our Committee, the Member for Lewisporte, and

the Chairman of the Resource Committee, interpreted a rule in the Standing

Orders to suggest that any other member of the House who happened to be at a

Committee meeting, has the right to speak only if the rest of the Committee will

allow him to speak. I read the rule and I think the

interpretation is probably

wrong, because I understood that every member of this House of Assembly always

has the right to speak at all Committee meetings. I do not understand what that

rules means. I know, when I was chairing these Committees, it was definitely the

understanding that any member who attended any of the Committee meetings had the

right to speak if they wanted, and people were recognized in order, the same as

they are in this House of Assembly. One person could not monopolize the whole

function. What I see about the

interpretation is, whoever happened to be on that

Committee, whichever majority was represented on that Committee, if they did not

like the member of the House who happened to show up, they could technically not

allow that member to ask questions on the Estimates of any of the departments. I

think that should be looked into and interpreted differently, or certainly, made

clear to this House of Assembly, by either the Government House Leader or - not

necessarily the Chair. The Chair will make a ruling, when requested, on a point

of order, no doubt. But I think that is very important. I understood, and always

have worked under the assumption, that any member of this House of Assembly has

the right to sit in on, or to speak and ask questions at any of the

parliamentary committee meetings, the exception being that that person cannot

vote on any of the motions or amendments or any of the votes taken in the

Committee. So a person could be there to speak, but not necessarily - well,

definitely, they could not speak because of the way the Committees are lined up.

But, Mr. Speaker, before next year comes around, probably we will have a

clarification on that.

Now, I did attend the Resource Policy Committee hearing on

Forestry and Agriculture and at that time, I questioned the Minister on the

appropriateness of the amount of money that he had in his Budget for the Land

Consolidation Programme. Anyone interested in Agriculture in this Province will

be aware of the need for agriculture.

We can produce food on 2 per cent of our land, I believe the

Department of Agriculture figure is 2 per cent of the whole land mass of

Newfoundland and Labrador - and, if you include Labrador, it is 1 per cent - but

we will say 2 per cent, anyway, on which we can actually produce food, so

obviously, if we are going to have a resource in the future, we must protect

this agricultural land.

Now, some of that agricultural land which has already been

developed, happens to fall in the general St. John's area, and there are extreme

pressures on that land to ease up on the restrictions that are placed on it by

the Agricultural Development Regulations, I believe they are called, but the

Agricultural Zone, as it is commonly referred to in this area. There are many

pressures on that land now.

A developer looking to develop a portion of the land, knows

that nice green fields are the easiest areas, usually, to develop, and those are

the first areas that most people go after. But, Mr. Speaker, because only 2 per

cent of our land can grow food - and on the other 98 per cent, we can do

anything else we wish, we can build houses, we can have industrial areas, we can

have commercial areas, we can put roads on it, we can do many things on that 98

per cent - but I think the 2 per cent we have should be protected. Therefore, I

ask the Minister, why has he continued, since he became Minister, to reduce the

amount of money in his Budget for the Land Consolidation Programme? Because, Mr.

Speaker, if there is one programme that Agriculture introduced over the last

seven or eight years that has been a major benefit to the Agricultural industry,

particularly in this area - and it has also been a benefit to the people who own

land and do not wish to farm it - that major benefit was the Land Consolidation

Programme.

It was a fairly good programme, where you could buy land at

reasonable prices for agriculture - the Government could, not anyone else. And

Government gave the land owner, at the time, an option, that if the Agricultural

Zone were lifted within the next fifteen years, that, that person or his estate

would get back the land and they could capitalize on any improvement in the

value of the land, which is fairly reasonable.

I find it very reasonable, because most of the land, in the

first place, was given out for farming, so there was no change in zoning. People

often get upset when their land is zoned differently from what they have been

used to, and that causes some concern, but most of this land that is zoned

Agricultural, if it was developed, has been developed for agriculture, so the

zoning had not changed when, in 1972 I believe, agricultural protection was

brought in. Mr. Speaker, I expressed my concern to the Minister, that the Land

Consolidation Program, in itself, helped to get some - I think already they have

bought back some 800 acres of land in the general St. John's Metro area, land

that is now in use.

Some of the land had been just lying idle before the Land

Consolidation Programme came in; the people who owned it, either did not want to

farm or had retired from farming, and they did not want to sell their land to

private individuals because they figured if the land freeze were ever removed,

they would lose out on a lot of money, and rightfully so, they would. So, they

were just sitting on the land. Mr. Speaker, the Land Consolidation Programme

started to get this land back in production, something that we needed. It

increased the agricultural output in this general area, and it was such a

successful programme, that the next Federal-Provincial agreement that was signed

- with every Federal-Provincial agreement, when I was in there, we would try to

get some kind of a consolidation programme or a land banking programme. The

Federal Government would always say: No, we do not want anything to do with land

banking. Mr. Speaker, our local, Provincial programme was such a success that

the last agricultural agreement that was signed, the Federal Government agreed

to do some land banking in the rest of the Province, or land consolidation. What

happens when the government gets the land back, for prices somewhere between

3,000 and $6,000 a acre, is, they will re-lease that land. They do not sell it,

they re-lease it, to people who will use it for agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, a land base is the most important thing that

agriculture needs in this Province, and a developed land base is even more

important. That is why the land around the St. John's area, which has been

developed, is very important to the agricultural industry.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not give any satisfactory

answers. He gave some short-term answers, that the Province is in trouble

financially, and we have to cut back in all areas. That can be understandable, I

guess, but the problem with that is, when you cut back on a programme like the

Land Consolidation Programme - and it should be capital funding, it is only a

one-shot deal, it is not current account funding - what happens is that the land

is not being put into production. So you lose jobs, and you lose in the long

run. So, I would like the Minister to re-consider that Land Consolidation

Programme for next year, so that he can improve the funding for it and get on

with the job of getting the developed agricultural land, that we have, in

production.

Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct pleasure, yesterday, of being

a judge on a speak off of the Avalon East 4-H Club members. Mr. Speaker, they

had representatives there from many areas around the Avalon Peninsula. The

Chairman of the Avalon East 4-H Movement, I guess you could call it, gave his

President's address, or his opening speech, to the parents and members and

guests who were at this meeting. Mr. Speaker, he lambasted this Government. He

was completely upset with what this Government has done to the 4-H Movement in

this Province.

Anyone who looked at the Budget would see that last year

there were some cutbacks, and this year it was almost completely annihilated.

All the support staff are gone from the 4-H Movement. There are no more support

staff. The 4-H Movement, which used to be in Youth Services, Culture, Recreation

and Youth, has been transferred to the Department of Forestry and Agriculture,

which is a good move, if they had any money to go with them. But, Mr. Speaker,

the 4-H Movement was completely gutted, and the Junior Forest Warden Programme

was not touched. The 4-H people find that offensive, actually.

I was not expecting to hear such a talk from the President of

the Avalon East 4-H Movement. I have known the person for quite some time, and I

would not have expected him to attack the Government. But, Mr. Speaker, he was

so upset with what has happened to the 4-H Programme in this Province, and he is

so committed to the 4-H Programme in this Province, that he could not hold back

any longer. It is another frustration, something like the Allied Health Workers

who were in our galleries last week, when their frustrations boiled over and

they interrupted the proceedings of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of that 4-H Movement, suggested to

all the members, parents and friends, to write the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture and ask him if he will take another look at what has happened with

the 4-H Programme in this Province. It is a very good programme, it is a

community based programme, and it is a programme that produces future leaders.

If you could see the eleven, fourteen and sixteen year-old people who made

speeches at that meeting yesterday, Mr. Speaker - I wish I had had the

opportunity, when I was fourteen or fifteen, to have the training in public

speaking that those young people have and presented yesterday. Mr. Speaker,

probably I could do a half decent job here now, but I never did have that

opportunity and this program provides it for many young people around this

Province. It also provides an opportunity for our young Newfoundlanders to be

affiliated with a national group and to attend national meetings.

One other thing that the Chairman said, Mr. Speaker, and the

Minister of Forestry might want to listen to this, he said that they have a

summer camp and have had it for some time. I forget what the name of it is, Camp

Nipper, that is it, Camp Nipper was the summer camp for the Four-H movement. Two

years ago the department was going to improve Camp Nipper. So last year they

went in and destroyed it; they tore it to pieces. They took the middle out of it

and left it. Hopefully, the plan was that this year they would continue and have

it fixed up again. But, Mr. Speaker, Camp Nipper now has been destroyed by a

program from this Government, a program that they did not follow up on, Mr.

Speaker, and this year's summer camp for the Four-H's at Camp Nipper is now in

jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the Minister, if he gets a

chance to speak in this debate, if he could address that problem in particular

of the Four-H Members, and hopefully he will have a meeting with some of the

people on the Provincial Four-H Council so that he can get a better insight on

what is happening in this Province with the Four-H movement, and hopefully he

will be able to improve the situation for the Four-H's, and in particular try to

get Camp Nipper ready so that the Four-H's can have their summer camp this July

I think it is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the House concur on the question?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While we are on the

motion here to concur in the estimates for the Department of Fisheries, and yes,

certainly the Department of Mines and Energy and the Department of Environment

and Lands for certain - Environment and Lands is not under this?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: It is moved to social? How come Environment

and Lands is moved to social?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank God the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island is not in charge of those matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said at this time.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well that is like a remark I read in the

paper on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, about a certain individual who said I can

tell you that I had no involvement in this one. So the Member is not in charge

of those things yet, so he says. I th