March 19,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 11

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

of Members I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today a delegation

from the town of Milltown, Head of Bay d'Espoir, accompanied by the Mayor Jerry

Kearley, Deputy Mayor Doug Sutton, and the Town Clerk - Manager, Ada Strickland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, I would like to welcome seven Grade X

students from Central High School in Mobile, accompanied by their teachers Mr.

Dinn and Mr. Leonard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, I would like to welcome in the

galleries the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Sealers Association in the

persons of the Chairman, Mr. Wayne Davis; and Captains Millard, Davis, Philpott,

and Young; Mr. Whitten, Mr. Puddester and Mr. Weir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to

this hon. House that the Province has successfully completed negotiations for a

public offering of debentures in the Canadian capital market.

The issue is for an amount of $150 million, bearing interest

at the rate of 10.5 per cent and priced at par. The debentures will be dated

April 15, 1991 and will mature after ten years on April 15, 2001. However, the

investor will have an option to exchange the 10.5 per cent debentures for an

equal principal amount of 10.95 per cent debentures maturing after thirty years

on April 15, 2021. This exchange option may be exercised during years 3 through

8, inclusive. Mr. Speaker, the proceeds of this issue, which completes the

borrowing program for the 1990-1991 fiscal year, will be used for general

Provincial purposes.

The issue is being managed by Scotia McLeod Inc., RBC

Dominion Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., Richardson Greenshields of

Canada Limited and Wood Gundy Inc.. I am also pleased to state, Mr. Speaker,

that the inclusion of the exchangeable option is an innovative feature, which

has reduced the cost of the issue to the Province by a minimum of 0.25 per cent

compared to traditional borrowing. The issue has been very well received by the

investment community, particularly insurance companies and other financial

institutions, and received broad distribution geographically in North America

and in Europe. This successful financing, coming just a week or so after the

provincial Budget, indicates the confidence these investors have in this

Government's ability to maintain the integrity of the Province's fiscal

position.

Mr. Speaker, we had no alternative but to bring in a severe

Budget. However, this Government believes that the balance we have taken between

tax increases, expenditure restraint, and borrowing will ensure that investors

will continue to be enthusiastic about buying our bonds whether it be in Canada

or other world capital markets.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should thank his

lucky stars that he is able to borrow anything in the money markets today, after

the financial performance of this Government and the projections that have come

forward for the next couple of years. I remind the Minister that this completes

last year's borrowing program which is a record for all borrowing ever

undertaken in this Province, $615 million which is about $120 million more than

the highest borrowing program we have ever had, and he is estimating the second

highest borrowing program this year at $574 million, so the Minister should not

be so proud when he stands on his feet to say that he has put forward this one.

Anybody can have confidence in a market, Mr. Speaker, if they pay enough. I

would like to know how much other provinces are paying for their borrowing,

certainly not 10.5 per cent.

DR. KITCHEN: They are paying more.

MR. WINDSOR: I can imagine they are. With a credit rating

better than ours they are paying more. Who does the Minister think he is

fooling? The Minister has destroyed the financial credibility of this Province

in one year, absolutely destroyed it, and we are very lucky to be able to borrow

at all. The question one should be asking, Mr. Speaker, is why is the Minister

borrowing all this money? If he had to borrow all this money why is he laying

off so many people around this Province? Why do we have thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians facing loss of their jobs over the next number

of months at the hands of this incompetent Government?

Oral Questions

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Health. One more draconian measure contained in the Budget Speech is

the conversion of the hospital at Placentia to a community health care centre.

Can the Minister of Health advise this House what health care services will be

provided in the facility when it is converted, in particular what the number of

acute care beds will be in the new facility, and will they be only short-term

beds?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the long-term plan for the

Placentia area is to have a multi-purpose community health care centre within

reasonable proximity to the senior citizens home which is there - we are even

considering attaching it to. Studies have indicated that by the year 2000 there

will be need in the Placentia area for another additional twelve to fourteen

chronic care beds. There are already seventy-five long-care beds right now.

While we are building that new community health care centre,

we are planning to make provision for ten acute care beds. It is the

Department's belief that we can get by with five or six. However, we are going

to go with ten. But we are designing them in such a way that in the event they

are not fully utilized, then we could transfer them over to chronic care. And,

really, during this short-term interruption we are still going to maintain the

community health care centre, which means that all primary care will be

available: diagnostic services will be there. x-rays will be there. So for the

average person on the street the difference will hardly be noticed. If you

happen to be an employee of course, this makes a difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying there will

no be disruption in the health care service, that there will be ten full-time

acute care beds not just short-term available, that this disruption will not

take place at all and that there will be no closedown of acute care? The 1986

bed study recommended a minimum of ten acute care beds as part of the new

hospital, and I understand his own consultants have recommended the same number.

How does this square with his plan for the new health care centre? Will these

beds be long-term acute care beds not chronic care, as the Minister is

emphasizing the words `chronic care'?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is not

listening. I told the hon. Member that it is the well-considered opinion of the

Department of Health that five or six acute care beds can handle the demand in

the Placentia area. However, when we designed the new health care centre we

planned to make provision for ten beds, knowing, believing, trusting that we do

not need these ten beds. We planned to design them in such a way that if we are

wrong, and there is the possibility we can be wrong, then we can let them go

ahead and have ten acute care beds; but if we are right, then they can easily be

transferred over to chronic care. And with the way our population is aging the

hon. Member will know we have to start making provisions, because chronic care

is where the problem is going to be.

What is happening right now is simply a minor interruption.

We are going to maintain a community health care centre in the old building

which is there, all the primary care services will be made available, and we can

certainly hope to meet the needs of the population. However, if we discover that

six beds are not adequate - we have told the board that we want no more than six

beds, but if we are proven wrong, then we will have to make some adjustments to

that demand.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the

Minister that it does not matter what the officials in his department think will

be suitable, the people who are here today, the many hundreds of people who

travelled hundreds of miles, apparently do not believe what the Minister is

suggesting is adequate. So will the Minister give the House a commitment that

before any final decision is made he will listen to the residents of Placentia,

to the Member for Placentia and make a decision which will not jeopardize the

health care of the residents of Placentia Bay and the Cape Shore areas?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat for the

hon. Member what I just said.

MR. SIMMS: Answer the question.

MR. DECKER: It is the opinion of the Department of Health

- now this is not a light opinion that you just pluck out of the air. When

officials in the department reach a conclusion, it is after studying the

occupancy. The occupancy rate for that particular institution has been 50 per

cent, Mr. Speaker. The beds are there but are not being used. When the

department comes to a conclusion it is not something you pick out of the air, it

is a well-calculated conclusion. If we are wrong, of course, we will make the

adjustments. We are a listening Government. We have proven that. We listen to

what people say. And if we are proven wrong, we certainly will make the

adjustments.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. Member that last year,

when they were up posturing over St. Lawrence and Grand Bank, they used the same

tactics they are using today. But St. Lawrence and Grand Bank have an improved

health care system, Mr. Speaker. We started in St. Lawrence and Grand Bank last

year what we are doing in Placentia this year, and try taking it out of Grand

Bank now, if you want to see a racket.

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

Capes, on a final supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again the

Minister is the one who is posturing about listening to his officials; there are

no officials -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: - in the Department of Health -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: - I ask the Minister how many of his officials

are living down in the bottom of Point Lance, who have to come a hundred and

some odd miles to hospital in the winter time, these are the people who are

concerned about health care. Will the Minister listen to the people who are

affected and make a decision based upon what they know is adequate for the area?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that I

take great pride in, it is the fact that this Government does listen to the

people. Mr. Speaker, I will have the hon. Member know that before this

demonstration took place, the Member for the district arranged a meeting with

myself and the Premier and members and people from the Placentia area and we are

meeting on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this matter, and if we are wrong,

we are big enough to own up to the wrong, but my feeling is, Mr. Speaker, that

the decision we have made is the right one, it is a good one and in the end, in

the end, the people of Placentia will thank us for what we are doing to improve

the health care system out there, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also

directed to the Minister of Health.

During the Budget Speech and since then, Mr. Speaker, both

the Minister and the Premier have said that the Bonne Bay Hospital will be

closing, the Burgeo Hospital will be closing, the Springdale Hospital - cutbacks

to the Port aux Basques Hospital and so on and both the Minister and the Premier

have made statements saying that the regionalizing and the rationalizing of the

health care sector would mean a better service for the patients in this

Province. Does the Minister stand by that statement today?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the hon.

Member. Burgeo is not closing; Bonne Bay is not closing; Springdale is not

closing; Mr. Speaker, Port Saunders is not closing. There is not a hospital in

Newfoundland and Labrador today which is closing; nothing is closing. When we

took over this Province, the health care system had been allowed to disintegrate

into a mess, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful.

MR. DECKER: Every single institution was going off in its

own direction; there was no grand design, there was no plan, Mr. Speaker, no

plan, they were going nowhere. We have started to restructure this health care

system. We have started to restructure because we want to save the health care

system in this Province; we want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that there is a

Medicare system here at the turn of the century so we started to restructure, we

are not closing any hospitals, we are changing the role so that they will

reflect reality. The problem we have in this Province, is a place for chronic

care, our older people and yet we have - The hon. Member asked me about St.

Anthony last week; forty-two beds which were not being used, underutilized, the

logical thing to do when you have beds which are underutilized is to find a use

for them and we are doing just that and the need, Mr. Speaker, is in chronic

care.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister make such

a statement and at the same time justify the cutting of approximately $3 million

from the Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook, layoffs of seventy-four

staff in Corner Brook, twenty-four staff in Burgeo, seven in Bonne Bay, another

thirty beds closed for a total of seventy-eight in Corner Brook, and still

believe that the people of this area can have a better service?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain to the

hon. Member again what is going on. When we took over this Province the health

care system was in a mess. We determined at once that we had to improve it. As a

matter of fact we recognized that in our policy manuals. I will not take the

time to read it, but you can see we talked about it, even in Opposition. We

started immediately to restructure the health care system in this Province. Now,

I believe the system is better than it was when we took it over. It is not

perfect by any stretch of the imagination but I can tell the hon. Member, and he

will be glad to hear this, that give us two or three years and we will have one

of the best health care systems ever in this Province. It will be streamlined,

it will be restructured, Mr. Speaker, and it will give every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian the satisfaction of knowing that wherever he lives he will have

access to a health care system which is second to none in this country. That

could not have happened with the previous administration.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister if he

is aware of an old medical school model, 'if in doubt admit', and if so would he

explain then why patients that are considered emergency cases and sent by the

doctors in Deer Lake to the hospital in Corner Brook for admission are now being

sent home because of lack of staff and no hospital beds, with a total of

seventy-eight closures?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in any given day in this

Province, in all the acute care hospitals, including Corner Brook, including the

Health Sciences, including St. Clare's, you will find there is somewhere around

280 to 350 people chronically ill who have been medically discharged. They have

been discharged. They are chronically ill. On any given day there are about 300

chronically ill medically discharged patients in our hospital system. This ties

up beds for the emergencies that my hon. friend is talking about, Mr. Speaker.

Now, we are restructuring the hospital system. We are using underutilized

hospitals, for example, Springdale, as the hon. Member for Green Bay knows, to

move some of the chronic care out of Grand Falls. We are using Bonne Bay to take

some of the chronically ill medically discharged people out of Corner Brook and

put them in Bonne Bay so that the next time somebody has an emergency in Deer

Lake there will be enough beds in Corner Brook to accommodate that emergency,

Mr. Speaker. The system must be restructured otherwise we will lose the system.

We have to adjust to the year 2000 when we are on our own, when there will be no

federal money, when we will have to pay the full shot ourselves.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Humber Valley on a final

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member just did not answer the question which I

asked. Would the Minister consider severe cases of kidney stones, a woman in her

late stages of pregnancy having to wait seven hours out in the corridor, people

with severe cases of depression, sent home in a car to Deer Lake after three or

four hours? Does he consider that an emergency, chronic or acute care, or

whatever, and could he now tell the House and the people of this Province when

he is going to stop play Russian roulette with all chambers loaded with the sick

and dying of this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I tell the hon. Member that

whenever there is a decision made to send a person home from hospital, or to

transfer a person from one hospital to another, or to admit a person to hospital

for surgery, whenever there is a decision made which is a medical decision, a

medical practitioner has to make that decision. No administrator kicks someone

out of hospital because there is no bed. Only when a doctor with all the

knowledge which he has built up through his training makes a decision is a

person send home or sent otherwise. What the hon. Member is talking about is

nonsense. He does not understand the full system. A person is transferred out,

or into a hospital, on the advice of a medical practitioner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

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

Social Services. The Minister has just laid off twenty-seven respite workers

across the Province. These are the workers who look after the handicapped and

the disabled in their homes. I just wanted to ask the Minister, what is the

annualized salary employment benefit cost for those twenty-seven respite workers

who were laid off by the Department of Social Services? In other words, what did

they cost the Government over the past year? What was their annualized salary

and benefit cost?

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

MR. EFFORD: Approximately $730,000, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the

Minister, how much money does he have in the 1991-1992 Budget to purchase

respite services from community organizations in the Province? I have not been

able to see it. How much is there?

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

MR. EFFORD: Approximately $730,000, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister,

can he guarantee that the people who are employed by the community organizations

have the same professional qualifications as the twenty-seven respite workers

that he has laid off? Will they be paid the same salaries? Will they have as

much experience? And will the continuity between the workers and the clients be

the same when they contract this service out? And can the Minister guarantee

that every rural community will have the resources available to be able to

replace those laid off respite workers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: My intent, Mr. Speaker, is to 'yes' to all,

but I guess I will have to give some detail to the hon. Member's question.

When we made the decision -

AN HON. MEMBER: That would be a change.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: When we made the decision, Mr. Speaker, to

lay off twenty-seven respite workers, we made it very conscientiously and after

taking into consideration the needs of the service out in the community. One of

the things that we determined - the amount of money that we paid in salaries to

the respite workers last year - we believe very strongly and we have proof that

we can give more service to more individuals. One of the things that we are

assured of is that we are not going to contract it out to all the agencies in

the Province, because in most areas and most regions in the Province there are

no services or private agencies to contract it out, so we can purchase it on an

individual basis.

Can we be assured that the contract or the job orientation

between the individual in the initial stages, and then as it goes on, will be

the same as it was in the past between the senior or between the young person

with the disability who has received the respite work? Yes, Mr. Speaker, we can.

We will ensure that all people who require the service within the Province will

receive the same service today as they did in the past, and hopefully, Mr.

Speaker, we can improve on it, because I do not believe in staying the same. If

you are going to give a service each day and each year, improve on the service

you give. Improve on the past. Because if you give the same service then you are

regressing and not progressing towards the future.

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

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

Minister of Health. The Minister, in his mad dash towards rationalization of

hospital services in the Province, announced as a result of the Budget that the

Baie Verte Peninsula health centre and the Springdale cottage hospital will both

close as acute care hospitals in June.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Grand Falls

hospital has already closed twenty-three beds and will close eighteen more

within the next few months for a total of forty-one bed closures, and in view of

the fact that the Western Memorial Hospital at Corner Brook will close thirty

beds, how does the Minister propose that the Western Memorial Hospital in Corner

Brook and the Central Newfoundland Hospital in Grand Falls accommodate the

twenty-five thousand people on the Baie Verte Peninsula and in Green Bay who

will not have acute care services as of June of this year? How is the Minister

going to do that, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. DECKER: It is simple, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member

had listened to my answer earlier he would have picked it up and he would not

have had to waste this good question.

In our restructuring we talked about changing the roles of

some institutions. The hon. Member will know that one of the things we did in

this Budget was announce a role change for Springdale. As a result of this role

change there will be some additional chronic care beds made available in the

Springdale area. The people who are going to move into these beds will be taken

from the thirty people who presently are occupying beds in Grand Falls, Mr.

Speaker. The number of chronicly ill people in Grand Falls at any given time is

between twenty-five and thirty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty?

MR. DECKER: Yes, at any time. They will be moved out of

Grand Falls, and that will be twenty-five or thirty beds freed up there. Plus

the fact that the whole exercise we are going through in Baie Verte, Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. Member knows, is to put in Baie Verte a Level 111 nursing

home whereby we can keep the strain off acute care centres. That is the whole

exercise we are going through. Mr. Speaker, this Province needs 2,800 acute care

beds. We have just over 3,000. We need 2,800 chronic care beds. We have 2,300.

To anyone who looks at the system it is obvious where the weakness is, and that

is what has been causing all the back-ups, that is what has been causing the

delays in hospitals. The previous administration was not dealing with it

rationally, they were just reacting to tear jerk reactions, Mr. Speaker. They

were not governing, they were not carrying this out in a reasonable, rational

manner, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Solve the problem with chronic care, and you

solve the problems in health care system.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can continue to go

off on his chronic care kick, and we know what the bed study of 1986 said and so

on. What I want to ask the Minister is this: How is the Minister going to

provide additional acute care services for the people of the Baie Verte

Peninsula and the people of Green Bay, in Corner Brook and Grand Falls when

acute care beds are being closed down in those institutions? How is he going to

do it, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SIMMS: Explain that.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the last Budget

there are about 350 acute care beds in this Province which will be closed. Now

that sounds like a pretty drastic figure when you talk about 350 beds - well, it

is actually 360. The total is 438, but seventy-something of them are being made

into chronic care.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) care beds?

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, you would not grant me the

time nor would I expect it, but if the hon. Member would like to sit down I can

explain to him what some of the beds were and where they are. For example, among

these 360 beds there are considerable number of pediatric beds for sick

children, and I say thanks be to goodness we do not need them any more. Because

of the public health care system we have put in place, children's diseases now

are insignificant compared to what they were back in the 1930s and 1940s, when a

lot of these institutions were built. Sick children today are (inaudible) and we

have the Janeway, so we do not need all the pediatric. They were underutilized.

In Stephenville there were pediatric beds underutilized, in Corner Brook there

were pediatric beds underutilized. If the hon. Member were to go right

throughout the system he would find that of the 360 beds, in excess of half of

them were underutilized.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how can the hon. Member suggest that we

continue to fund underutilized beds? I am beginning to understand, Mr. Speaker,

why the health care system was in such a mess when we took over.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister might begin to

understand this, and I want to ask the Minister this. In view of the fact that

the people on the Baie Verte Peninsula are three and a half hours away from

Corner Brook at the best of times, two and a half hours away from Grand Falls at

the best of times, isolated at the worst of times, is the Minister of Health and

this Government prepared today to take on their shoulders responsibility for the

first person who dies on the Baie Verte Peninsula because they cannot get access

to acute care facilities, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

I say to the hon. Members to my right that they have asked

the question and now it is only fair that they give the Minister an opportunity

to answer.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that pathetic

outburst, if we were to take the hon. Member's logic and push it to its ultimate

conclusion, then we would have to have a Health Sciences Centre within two

minutes of everybody in this Province, which is absolutely stupid. Number one,

the cost would prohibit it, but more importantly, there are not enough

specialists available to staff a Health Sciences Centre in Conche, in Wild Bite,

and in Seal Cove. We have to centralize the health care system. One reason is

because of cost, but more importantly, it is because of the availability of

specialists.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask a

question to the Minister of Justice, considering the debate that is about to

occur this afternoon, following the routine business of the day, dealing with

the Government's wage roll-back in this Province. The Minister might be aware

that on Friday past the Member for Humber East wrote to the Premier and asked

that that piece of legislation be referred to the Court of Appeal. I want to ask

the Minister now, would he not agree that the roll back of pay equity in

particular raises important constitutional concerns dealing with discrimination

under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and would he agree to refer the

legislation immediately to the Court of Appeal for a decision on its legality?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has asked two

questions. On the first one, as to my opinion as to whether or not there are any

grounds on which the Court of Appeal could rule that it was a constitutional

matter or in some way offended any principles in the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, I, of course, could not comment on that because it may well turn out

before the courts. However, on the face of it, as to whether or not I would

refer it, the answer is no, on the basis that it is a matter which is

essentially dealing with a labour question. As I see it, this House has

legislative authority to act as it deems appropriate. That matter at this point

in time is as yet up in the air and we do not know what will happen. I suspect

the House will in due course act to pass the Bill, but there is certainly

nothing on the face of it which would mirror the constitutional reference to the

Court of Appeal, and I see no reason to do so.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Whether the

House passes the Bill or not remains to be seen. At least we have that right

left to us, Mr. Speaker.

Can I ask the Minister this: If, in fact, the Premier

overrules the Minister, which would not be unusual, of course, but if he did and

does decide to refer the matter to the court for a legal

interpretation, and if

the court should rule against the Government and say that the legislation is, in

fact, violating the Charter of Rights, could the Minister at least give us the

commitment that if that scenario should develop the Government will not use the

notwithstanding clause in the constitution, which the Premier's views are very

well known on? Could he give us that commitment?

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

MR. DICKS: First of all, with respect to the Member's

prelude to his question obviously his experience with the Premier overruling a

Cabinet Minister is drawn from his own and not my own. But certainly I can give

no commitment on behalf of the Premier or this House, which is the appropriate

body and not Cabinet, to decide what this House will choose to do or not. If

this House should choose to use the notwithstanding clause, then that is up to

this House. But certainly it is not a matter on which I can give any assurance

to this House or to the public. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final supplementary

to the President of Treasury Board.

I say to the Minister of Justice, if I may just in passing,

if he is going to make that kind of comment about the Premier not overruling the

Cabinet, he is only fooling himself and nobody else in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: To the President of Treasury Board. Can I ask

the President of Treasury Board, considering the legislation that is about to be

debated and introduced in this House this afternoon, would the President of

Treasury Board consider - would he consider - declaring all collective

agreements in this Province which are in place or are supposed to be in place

after March 31 of this year null and void?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also

for the Minister of Justice, concerning pay equity in the public service. Where

the Government agreed in writing that it was discriminating against women back

in June of 1988, and since the President of Treasury Board said in the House on

Thursday that his information was that it was okay, that they could do that

despite the Charter of Rights, I wonder if the Minister of Justice could tell

the House whether or not, in fact, his Department officials had given an opinion

on that matter, as to whether or not the rollback of the sex discrimination

resolution would be contrary to the Charter of Rights.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge, the

Department has not as yet given any opinion on the legality of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

Section 45,

Paragraph 2, of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table a list of

temporary loans raised pursuant to

Section 44 and

Section 45 of the Act. These

temporary loans consist of the overdrafts that have occurred since March 9, 1990

right up until February 22, 1991, and the Treasury Bill Issues which have been

completed in the same period.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would also like to table

pursuant to

Section 51, Paragraph 3, of the Financial Administration Act, a list

of loan guarantees paid out by the Province since the opening of the last

Session of the House of Assembly. The four loan guarantees are: Eastern Ocean

Products Limited, the principal amount which was guaranteed $325,000, the

payment being $200,$826.42; Oceana Seafood Processors Limited in which we paid

out $1,827,630.56; Vokey's Shipyard Limited where we paid out $152,442.16; and

Torrent Fisheries Limited where we paid out $88,408.92.

Mr. Speaker, if Members have any questions, I will be glad to

answer these questions at some other time.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Reports by Standing and Special

Committees?

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS all residents of Labrador from Lodge Bay to Nain

depend solely on Marine Atlantic to transport all food and supplies to their

communities; and

WHEREAS coastal Labradorians presently pay the highest cost

of living in eastern Canada; and

WHEREAS 80 per cent of the people are on fixed incomes and

employment is seasonal; and

WHEREAS high operating costs prohibit the economic viability

of many fish plants;

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House condemn the Federal

Government for allowing Marine Atlantic to raise its freight rates to Labrador

by 60 per cent this year; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House demand an immediate

freezing of the rates until public hearings are held and a full review of the

issue is completed.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll vote for that one if you vote for

this one.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the Government to defer

the decisions announced in the Budget with respect to the hospitals at Bell

Island, Bonavista, Springdale, Baie Verte, Port aux Basques, Bonne Bay,

Brookfield, Old Perlican, Placentia, Burgeo, St. Lawrence and Come By Chance;

AND FURTHER that the Government will conduct an independent

review of all these decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Vote against that one tomorrow.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, on the order paper for Friday,

March 15 there appeared a question from the hon. Member for Grand Falls, who

asked me to table the cost of printing and distributing the annual report of the

Department of Finance of The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for

1989-1990, which we tabled on March 13.

I have since consulted with the officials in the Internal

Audit Division of the Department, and they tell me that the printing cost was

approximately $1,100, which was printed by the Printing and Micrographic

Services, Department of Works, Services and Transportation. In addition I asked

them to estimate the amount of time that was put in it, and if you wanted to

cost up the people's time, it would come to another $5,000. So the total is

$6,100, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before going on to the next item, on behalf

of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today two

former MHAs, Mr. John Nolan and Mr. William Patterson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I hope I have learned my lesson

which you taught on Thursday about presentation of petitions.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured today to present to

the House a petition signed by approximately 8,000 residents, all of whom are

from the electoral districts of Placentia and St. Mary's -The Capes, relative to

a subject that is very important to the people of: Branch, St. Bride's, Cuslet,

Angel's Cove, Patrick's Cove, Ship Cove, Point Lance, Fox Harbour, Ship Harbour,

Great and Little Barasway, Point Verde, Southeast Placentia, Placentia,

Jerseyside, Ferndale, Freshwater and Dunville. And I think they all got in

(Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

The prayer of the petition: "We, the concerned citizens who

are served by the Placentia Hospital, firmly denounce the decision by Government

to discontinue in-patient services at the Placentia Hospital. We are asking

Premier Wells and Government officials to please reconsider this decision

because of its negative impact on health care in our rural areas."

And I hope my colleagues and the Chair, Your Honour, will

bear with me while I refer to my copious notes. I did not want to be incorrect

on anything that I might present today.

Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to point out that the

initiators, the shakers and movers of this petition, are concerned citizens from

Branch, all along the Cape shore, through the Placentia inter-town area to Fox

Harbour and Ship Harbour, citizens who know no political boundaries in this

particular regard, just ordinary citizens and residents led by their respective

municipal authorities and various groups in the communities. Citizens who are

concerned about the health and well-being of their families, friends,

neighbours, and fellow residents.

They are citizens who know and recognize the need for fiscal

restraint - the recession and the poor economic times that we are faced with.

They are involved themselves. They have had to bite the bullet. They have had to

lay off people, curtail certain services, and they have had to restrain the

important essential services. But, Mr. Speaker, they have to draw the line and

not eliminate those services that would reflect on the adequacy of services with

regard to the protection of people, property and the environment.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that Your Honour and my colleagues in

this hon. House will bear with me while I give a brief overview of the history

of the justification for the prayer of this petition which strongly objects to

the total elimination of in-patient services at the Placentia Cottage Hospital.

I am a relative newcomer to the area concerned, just arriving in 1968, so I will

speak of that period, that which I know of with a great deal of certainty.

It was recognized in the late 'sixties and early 'seventies

that the Placentia Cottage Hospital was reaching the end of its efficiency and

direction in providing the needed health care in the area it served. The health

and hospital services were under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Department

of Health. The early 'seventies saw the purchase of land and the turning of sods

that would result in a new hospital. The need must have been there. Health

officials and successive Ministers of Health talked of the need for

communications and that the direction of health care had to change. Health

officials and successive Ministers of Health talked of the need of direction,

change in health services - because of improved transportation and

communications the direction of health care was taking.

In time, local residents, with the leadership of the

Placentia Lions Club and the Dunville Lions Club, and support of all other

community groups, saw this change of direction and the need for a nursing home.

Thus the Lions Manor Nursing Home was conceived and built in the mid-eighties.

Former Ministers of Health, Doctors Twomey and Collins, health officials both

locally and provincially, foresaw a need for a change in the direction, but also

clearly saw the need for the continuation of certain services at the cottage

hospital.

The Royal Commission on Health in 1984, the bed study in

1986, saw the downsizing of the thirty-two bed cottage hospital to an eighteen

bed hospital, providing short term acute, chronic and palliative care, that were

clearly justified and clearly identified as being needed in the area serviced by

the hospital. It was also seen that health care would be much better served if

the cottage hospital and the Lions Manor would come under one board, that

eventually the Lions Manor would be physically extended to include in-patient

services of fifteen chronic care and up to ten acute care beds, all experts

agreed this is what was needed. This was justified. There was a difference of

opinion locally, but this was the bottom line. It was also agreed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HOGAN: It was also agreed or at least understood that

the services of the cottage hospital would not be diminished until the new

services were available.

The health care plans for the area took a new direction under

a new Board April 1, 1989. They immediately started to formulate their new plans

based on maintaining existing services at the hospital and when times and

capital permitted they would move these services from the cottage hospital to a

new facility adjacent to or attached to the Lions Manor.

On July 27, 1989 the Board met with the Minister of Health,

his senior officials and I, they presented their ideas, their philosophy, and

generally outlined their direction. The upshot of it all, Mr. Speaker, was that

the new Government and the new Board were on the same track, except that the

Government was justifying only ten acute and fifteen chronic care beds and the

Board wanted more. The Board asked for and got a grant of $60,000 to study their

long-term needs in consultation with the Department. There were differences of

opinion and direction over the ensuing period, but Government's position did not

change. There was a need and a justification in the area for ten acute and

fifteen chronic care beds for in-patient services.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about proximity to regional

services, and the Placentia health care services covers an area along the rugged

coastline of the eastern shore of Placentia Bay from Branch in the southeast to

Ship Harbour in the northwest - the nearest point an hour and a half away -

three to four hours at the farthest in good times. And in bad weather forget it.

This area gave almost 800 admissions to the hospital in the

past year with a constant average of approximately 60 per cent occupancy. Today

twelve beds are filled of the eighteen.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the question has to be asked: Does

the in-patient service at the Placentia Cottage Hospital in Placentia justify

its existence? If we are to believe the experts for the past twenty years, the

answer is yes. If we are to believe two independent consultants, a royal

commission, a bed study and Government Health officials that the existing

services should include up to ten short-term acute care, and fifteen chronic

care beds as a minimum, then the answer is yes. If we are to believe

Government's plans to extend the Lions Manor to include the same within two to

three years from now, then the answer is yes. Does it make sense then to

eliminate these services or is it justified to say that up to March 31, 1991

these services are needed and will not be needed again until say April 1, 1993?

The logic escapes me, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to meetings later this week between the Board

and the Minister of Health and the Premier, and that the Health Board will

justify their needs, and with a very slight adjustment in budget direction

in-patient services at the cottage hospital in Placentia will be maintained.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: I stand in support of the petition presented

by my colleague the Member for Placentia. I presume in his presentation that he

is certainly supporting the petition. The petition, as he mentioned, is signed

by over 8,000 people, a catchment area of 8,000 to 10,000 or more covering the

two Districts of Placentia and St. Mary's - The Capes. We might add that besides

just the Cape shore area there are times when people from the Colinet area also

have availed of the services in Placentia.

I note the Premier has returned and I say to him, you missed

a good show on the outside. A lot of people were looking for you. I presume you

will be available to talk to them later. I know your Ministers will pass along

their concerns to you so that you will be able to deal with the concerns of the

people from the Placentia area.

The Minister, in his answers to a number of my questions kept

talking about the advice of his officials. I pointed out to him that few, if

any, of his officials are living in parts of the district in the wintertime when

they have to get somebody belonging to them to hospital at short notice, but he

kept saying, `they tell me five or six beds will be enough.'

There is a statement here which says this analysis, an

analysis of needs for Placentia Hospital, indicates the need for a maximum of

ten acute care beds and fifteen long-term care beds. This is the maximum

allowable that we will agree with as part of your planning process. The number

of acute care beds is also in line with community bed services within the

Province, and the timing for any actual construction is unknown at this time. We

would have to again review this number prior to any commitment to proceed with

actual construction. In the meantime, however, the Department of Health is

supportive of your plan to proceed with the functional program to develop ten

acute care beds and fifteen long-term care beds, and I say ten acute beds and

fifteen long-term care beds. Signed by his Deputy Minister.

I presume this has given the local committee, the Placentia

and area Health Care Complex Committee, the right to go ahead and plan for the

new structure. If there is going to be a structure in the Placentia area which

will serve the needs of the people in the area, then why disrupt it? as the

Member who presented the petition asked. The people on the petition are asking

that the present level of health care services be provided. It might be

extremely difficult for people who live within minutes of a hospital, especially

if we are living here in St. John's where you have all the services available

within walking distance, to think of people who live over 120 miles from the

nearest hospital in the middle of winter, over roads that drift in, where you

have to get snowplows to go ahead of you when you have someone sick and you are

trying to get them to hospital. On many occasions people have had to go to the

hospital in Placentia to be treated and stabilized in order to get them to the

Health Sciences to save their lives. We are talking about life and death issues

here in relation to this petition, Mr. Speaker, and that is why, today, we have

the demonstration we saw outside, a well-planned, orderly demonstration.

Why did people leave work today to come all the way in here?

Why did people keep their kids out of school so that they could come in here?

Because they are concerned for themselves and their families. They are not

asking for anything new or anything special, all they are asking is that you

maintain the level of health care services which we have. We do not have a

tremendous amount, but we are asking you to maintain the present level of

service.

Now the way the Minister and the Government handled this has

been done extremely poorly. We understand it was done even without consultation

with the Member for the area, that he did not know you were ripping the hospital

out from under him. And if that is the case, it is terrible. So maybe now you

will listen to him. After his presentation today and after the demonstration, I

say to the Minister of Health and to the Premier, hopefully now the concerns of

these people have impressed upon you the needs for the Placentia area. Because

we guarantee you, Mr. Premier and the Minister of Health, that if you play

around with the health and safety of the people in the Placentia and St. Mary's

Bay areas, they will be back here again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the

Member for Placentia for bringing the petition to this House today and I want to

assure him and the people from the area that Government will take the petition

and that we will go through and listen to every thing which the people are

saying to us. The hon. Member knows, of course, that there is a meeting set up

for Thursday.

I also want to tell the people of the Placentia area that

Government is in the midst of restructuring the total health care system for the

Province. We have not zeroed out any particular place, we are restructuring the

whole system. We are looking at the whole picture, and there are several reasons

why we are doing that.

One reason is that the established program financing, the

money which the Federal Government gives us to carry on our health care system,

is gradually disappearing. By the year 2004, the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador will have to pay for all our health care system ourselves. That is one

of the reasons we are doing it. So we have to streamline it. The other reason we

are streamlining is the fact that specialists are so hard to recruit that we

have to put them in regional centres; we cannot have specialists go all over the

Province. But I suppose one of the main reasons we have to speed up this

restructuring, Mr. Speaker, is because of the fact that we are in the middle of

a recession. If there had not been a recession, we would have done what we are

doing but we would have done it over a five or six year period. Because of the

recession, we speeded up what we are doing. What we are trying to do is make

available to all our people within a reasonable distance of where they live,

within an hour of where they live, community health care centres, level one: The

person with diabetes has a place where he or she can go to be treated and

stabilized, sent home or sent to a specialist; the person with chest pains to be

stabilized and if it is a false alarm sent back home, or if it is an emergency,

after the person is stabilized taken to a regional centre. Placentia happens to

be one of the areas of the Province, with Bonne Bay, with Springdale, with Baie

Verte, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition's District, where we want to

maintain second to none top-rate primary care services, laboratory services,

X-ray services. Doctors will be on hand, Mr. Speaker, full scale to deliver

primary care. We want that to be made available to all our people within a very

short distance of where they live, but we also want to guarantee our people that

within a few hours of where they live there is also secondary level care, where

they can have their gallbladder surgery, where they can have - someone talked

about kidney stones. We want to have within a reasonable distance of where they

live the secondary level, and that is why we want to make sure that every region

of the Province do this. And if we do not streamline primary care, we will not

be able to afford secondary care.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in that restructuring we want to have

available somewhere in this Province a tertiary level Health Science Centre

which can, when this Province starts doing heart transplants, make them

available, which can do cardiac surgery. But if we do not streamline our primary

care, if we do not streamline our secondary care, we will not be able to afford

even one tertiary care centre in this Province.

So to the people of Placentia I say that Placentia is just a

part of the overall plan. Because we do have a plan for the health care system

in this Province, and we know that we must put in place a plan that we as a

Province can afford. We are going to lose all federal funding; we will be on our

own by the year 2004.

Mr. Speaker, having said all that, the Premier and I and the

Member for the District are meeting with the hospital board from Placentia and

if we find that we made a mistake, we are the most open, listening Government we

have had in eighteen years in this Province, and we will make changes. We are

not too big to admit when we make a mistake, and that is true for anyone in this

Province. But I do not believe we did make any mistakes. I believe we are on the

right track, and I believe this will mean the ultimate, this will be the

salvation of medicare in this Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a

petition on behalf of 442 students of Brother Rice High School. The prayer of

the petition is, `We, the undersigned, wish to make you aware that because of

the teachers' protests (work to rule) due to the unfair cuts in the education

budget, we are going to lose all extra-curricular activities. This includes all

after school music programs, all sports and athletic programs, and severely

jeopardizes our graduation. We think this Budget is unfair to both the teachers

and the students, and many will suffer because of such action taken by the

Government. We ask you to reconsider (inaudible) as representing the future of

the Province. Yours sincerely, concerned student body, Brother Rice High

School.'

Mr. Speaker, these students are like many Newfoundlanders

and, indeed, the people who are outside the House and in the House today from

the Placentia area, who are very concerned as to what this Government is doing

with the future of this Province. The Members of the group from Placentia will

understand that all speakers cannot rise on a petition, but that does not mean

they are not supported. Because what is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that every

group of Newfoundlanders is affected by the cutbacks in this Budget, whether it

be students, teachers, public service workers, people involved in the extension

service, rural Newfoundlanders who depend on Government services, rural

Newfoundlanders who need to have the encouragement and the support of Government

to develop their future, in particular the future of the education system. In

this case, in this petition, Mr. Speaker, they are all very concerned that this

Government is placing the bottom line of the Budget ahead of the future of this

Province and ahead of the needs of people.

Mr. Speaker, these children, not all of them are voters, but

I am assured some of them are. Many of these high school students are voters and

they have a great deal of concern and are to be encouraged for taking the time

and the effort to try and influence the political process by having a petition

presented to this House. Mr. Speaker, they want reconsideration of the Budget

measures, particularly as they affect education, and this is an indirect effect

on education because of the actions Government has taken with respect to

negotiations with the teachers.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see students hurt by losing

extra-curricular activities: after school music programs, sports and athletic

programs. This is a great shock and a very grave backward step. I see the

Minister of Education over there writing some notes. I am sure he will stand in

a moment and say that this is not the Government doing this, it is the NTA, the

teachers themselves. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that the teachers are doing it, but

they are doing it because they have had the gun put to their heads by this

Government and by the Minister of Finance, and by the Premier with the support

of the Minister of Education, in acting, which they will do very shortly, to

limit wage increases in the public service, to roll back wages they have already

agreed upon. This is a direct consequence, Mr. Speaker, of that, and these

petitioners want the Government to change their mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Education was rising, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I did not see the Minister of Education

rising. If hon. Members want to revert back to the Petition.

o o o

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

DR. WARREN: Just a word, Mr. Speaker. It is premature to

comment on anything that teachers might do as a result of discussions and

negotiations now ongoing. I would encourage the hon. Member to direct his

comments to the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. Of course, we know teachers

will do everything possible to help students during these difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, it was a severe, tough Budget, as we have said.

But we have done a great deal in this Government to soften the impact on

classrooms, and we know that teachers will do their share to make sure that

students receive the kind of education they deserve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I stand in

support of the petition presented by the Member for St. John's East. I think the

Minister has missed the point entirely. The Minister says: it is not what they

might do, the question is why are they doing what they are doing?

The Minister knows full well that when he says that they did

a lot to soften the impact in the Budget on education that it is a fabrication.

That the fact is they scuttled the education system in the Budget as they have

been scuttling the education system these last couple of years. In relation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Go and ask the people in the field of

education, ask the people in the Department of Education, ask the parents, ask

the students, ask the teachers. The problem is, this Government only listens to

itself, and I am talking about the Government, I am not even including the

backbenchers here, because you do not even listen to them, you do not even

consult them when you make decisions about their districts. You scuttled the

Member for Placentia, and now Thursday you are going to try to placate him by

coming across at your meeting. But unfortunately you are not placating all the

parents out there who are concerned about the future of their children when you

went out and scuttled the education system.

Fewer dollars in the education system for the plant, the

school boards have to maintain the facilities. That also affects the teacher

aids that are provided to the teachers to try to help them in their new

programme. Workshops were cut off because substitute teachers were cut back,

teachers can no longer obtain in-service in the new fields that are introduced.

You have the teachers themselves almost a year waiting to hear about their

contract, a tremendous amount of uncertainty. The gains that they have received

over the last few years, the gap that has been closed between us and the other

provinces, is all widening again, Mr. Speaker.

No wonder the teachers are concerned. They are not taking

action simply because they themselves are concerned about the dollars they are

going to get, or because of the pension benefits. They are concerned about the

future of the children. And their request to the Minister, and hence the

petition, is that he also be concerned about the education of the children in

the Province. Because actions speak a lot louder than words, Mr. Speaker, and

all we have heard coming from this Government are a lot of empty promises. But

one of these days they are going to have to start acting or they will find out

that it will not be long before they will be back over here.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands to

introduce a Bill, "An Act To Repeal The Unimproved Lands (Redistribution) Act,"

carried. (Bill No. 20)

On motion, Bill No. 20 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. BAKER: Motion 15, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 15.

MR. BAKER: Order 15, sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry.

Motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Act Respecting

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

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of

things that in introducing this bill I feel I should do. First of all I would

like to summarize the events leading up to the introduction of this Bill, which

is "An Act Respecting Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The

Province."

Shortly after our last budget, Mr. Speaker, we received some

preliminary indications that our revenues from the Federal Government would be

somewhat reduced. As the months wore on and into the summer, it became more and

more obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the extent of the reduction in our revenues was

becoming serious. By the end of September, by the end of the summer and early

fall, it had become obvious to us that for the current fiscal year, the year we

are now in and which will soon be ending, we would suffer a combination of

reduction in revenues and increased expenditures, which would force us to have

at least a $120 million deficit in this current year. At that point in time, Mr.

Speaker, we not only looked at the current year, we announced some measures to

try to ensure that our deficit did not go beyond that $120 million amount.

But at the same time we were looking ahead to next year, and

it became obvious to us that if we were to continue the same way in 1991-92,

with the same services, with simple increases due to inflation, that we would

have a horrendous problem in the year 1991-92. The problem seemed to us to be in

the vicinity of $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious situation, preparing for

a Budget without allowances for new programs, to continue on the way we were

going with inflationary increases, with commitments that we had already made, we

were facing in the vicinity of a $200 million deficit.

It was also obvious to us at the time, Mr. Speaker, that the

problem was not easily solved, that our options were limited. We knew that our

taxation options were limited, obviously. But we also knew that the financial

health of the Province was at stake. That we could not play fast and loose with

the financial health of the Province because we realized that that $200 million

problem, if we did not handle it properly, would in fact become a $600 million

problem or a $400 million problem or a $500 million problem. It is certainly far

more than the $200 million we were then facing. So the financial health of the

Province put constraints on us. In other words, we simply could not go out and

borrow the $200 million. We could not plan on doing that.

So, Mr. Speaker, what does a responsible Government do at

that point in time? For the first time in our history we are faced with the

prospect of having a limitation on what we can borrow - for the first time in

our history a real limitation. In the past Governments have allowed the credit

rating to drop. When they ran into trouble in 1985, there was some trouble,

there was a downturn, the credit rating dropped. It is easy - let the credit

rating drop. We no longer had that luxury. We could not take the chance that our

credit rating would drop one more notch. There is one rating agency that still

gives us an A minus rating. The other rating agencies were in the B category.

And if our rating were to drop one more notch, and we would have a B rating,

things would get extremely difficult. As the Minister of Finance has explained

the financial markets are such that many investors get involved with only A

level bonds - many of the larger investors - so that much less of the market

would be available to us and what was available to us we would have to pay a lot

more for.

So it is kind of like being on the edge of a precipice and

not being able to take another step -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: That is exactly what it is comparable to. So

we could not take the chance. We had real limits for the first time in our

history imposed on us.

So, Mr. Speaker, what does a responsible Government do?

Obviously it could not take the solution put forward by my good friend for St.

John's East. It could not take that route. His simple answer is to go out and

borrow $200 million - to him it is simple. We could not take that route. A

responsible Government examines all of the options, consults with the people. So

we immediately went to the people of the Province, we explained the problem. We

explained the background of the problem.

We went to the administrators of the various parts of the

public service, and we said to them, we need some information. Assume you have a

frozen budget next year; now tell us what the effect would be. As a responsible

Government we had to do that because the Premier sitting in the Premier's

office, as President of Treasury Board, as Ministers in this Government, we do

not know all the intricate detail of what happens in the system. Did not the

managers in the system know that? We had to go to them and get their advice.

That is the way we did it. Assume you have a frozen budget, what will be the

effect? We had to give adequate time for the information to get back to us, at

the same time recognizing that there is more to the public service than the

management level. We also informed the union leadership of the problem we were

facing and the fact that we had to come up with $200 million. That we were

asking in the systems, tell us what the effect will be of a frozen budget? All

of this was outlined to the representatives of the workers that are unionized. A

responsible Government would do that, a responsible Government would lay things

out exactly as it understands them. So, Mr. Speaker, that was in October.

Through November and December the analyses were being done in various parts of

the system and information had started to come back from the managers in the

system. Information was coming back to us from Government Departments, nursing

homes, hospitals, and the community colleges. During January, and we had to give

them that much time, as a matter of fact initially we told them we had to know

by early December but knowing some of them would take much more time than that,

by January we had a great deal of the information back and at that point in time

we started our analyses. The process of the examining of the information we had

back was quite painful and quite time consuming. We in essence took the whole of

Government and went through it item by item. We took reports from the

institutions and went through them item by item, and we started to make

decisions based on that information. One thing became obvious, very obvious,

that the objectives of a frozen budget could not be maintained. We could not

inflict a frozen budget on all parts of our public service. The budget for

hospitals could not be frozen. The budget for primary secondary and elementary

schools could not be frozen. The budget for social services could not be frozen.

We could not inflict a frozen budget so we made tentative decisions based on the

limits to which we felt we could go. Mr. Speaker, we talked to the financial

people, and at that point in time made a conscious decision that we could

probably borrow somewhere between $50 and $55 million, in that range. Nobody

would tell us, you know: what your limits are. We felt that was the limit beyond

which we did not want to go, it was taking too great a chance on the financial

health of the Province, so we made a decision we would borrow on current account

that amount of money. We also tentatively decided some tax measures, but, Mr.

Speaker, in spite of all this we were falling far short of what we had to do, in

spite of the borrowing, in spite of the tax increases, we fell far short of what

we needed. So, Mr. Speaker, at that point in time we were running into Federal

Budget time and so on and we had many discussions about the plight that we were

in; the Federal Budget itself added about fifteen million to our problem and

that did not help; the Federal Budget also indicated to us that for some years

down the road transfer payments would be frozen. They kept the same constraints

on that they had put on a couple years before, so the Federal Budget was not

good news for us but it did not affect overwhelmingly our decision for this year

- maybe to the tune of about $15 million - so we knew that we had to take other

measures, had to; at that point in time, we considered the measures outlined in

Bill 16 and they were mentioned for the first time.

As opposed to these measures that I am going to get to in a

few moments, was the spectre of laying off another couple of thousand people,

and we felt that the system would demand that we not layoff another 2,000

people, that the services we are providing would have to be drastically

affected. Anyway, at that point in time we called in the heads of four of the

largest unions in the public service and indicated to them what choices we had

facing us. We felt that at that point in time in all conscience we had to, and

not just leave it to a Budget day, but also to give them some time to think

about the measures that Government was considering instituting, and the choices

that we as Government had, and we made it quite clear at that point in time that

we were not looking for compliance, we were not looking for support, we were not

looking for their okay, we just wanted to make sure that if there was any other

method that we had overlooked, that that possibility could be conveyed to us, so

we did that and that first meeting with the four major unions was held on

February 20. Then there was a request from the unions for a joint meeting - the

first meeting was an individual meeting - there was a request for a joint

meeting to clarify the choices we had facing us so that meeting was held on

Sunday, 24th February.

Mr. Speaker, difficult choices, difficult choices, and we

have made it clear from day one that we would make these choices. Difficult

choices that had to be made, that we would make the choices, but we were very,

very concerned, very concerned that we have all of the input possible before we

made that decision. And do not forget, Mr. Speaker, at that point in time, we

were running out of time, we were running out of time, the decisions had to be

made for this Budget, for this coming fiscal year.

It was not simply a matter of postponing it, putting it off,

hoping over the next six months it will disappear. Or it was not simply a matter

of perhaps taking a more cautious approach and saying well, we will study it for

another six months because, Mr. Speaker, these problems do not disappear, do not

disappear and we did not have the time to study it any longer. All of the

avenues were opened for input to Government, all of the avenues. We went to the

people, to the managers and workers in our system, informed them of our problem,

opened up avenues for input, asked for input, and then, at a certain point in

time, made our decisions based on that input.

Mr. Speaker, we have been open, honest, straightforward,

every step of the way. We were facing a horrendous problem that had to be dealt

with for the sake of the people of the Province. Now I can understand when we go

to managers they have to provide us with the input and the analysis. I can also

understand that when you go to labour unions they do not have to, because their

interests are different. And we did get some feedback and some response from a

couple of unions, but by and large we got none. I think part of the problem was

that some of them did not believe we had a problem. They were not willing to

accept the fact that here we were baring our financial souls to them. I really

believe that they did not take us seriously at that point in time. The attitude

seemed to be with some of the unions that we were just toying with them, playing

games. I suppose they have a history to go back to, and perhaps they had every

reason to believe we were playing games with them. To try to interfere with the

collective bargaining process or something like that.

We were playing no games, as everybody now knows. So by and

large the response we got indicated a lack of belief that what they were hearing

was actually true. That perhaps, as the Opposition seems to suggest, if we just

do nothing it will go away. Maybe that is the attitude they had. But certainly

by and large there was very little response. I was disappointed in that. Because

I know there were large segments of the public service in this Province that

wished they had input. There are groups of workers who would have loved to have

had some input into what happens in their nursing home or their hospital or

their community college. Absolutely certain. And some of them wrote individual,

private letters to me about it. It is unfortunate that the input was not

provided in that direction.

Perhaps another answer might be that because unions are sort

of focused on an antagonistic approach to management and to government some of

them had the attitude that, well, a problem that the Province has is not our

problem. The problem that the Province has, the government has, that government,

that nebulous government out there somewhere, the problem that government has is

not really our problem. That somehow government is detached, that somehow

government does things, and somehow money magically appears and government then

throws around millions of dollars here and tens of millions there, and that

somehow they are detached from that, they have no responsibility there.

Well, that is not the way things are. As a Government, and as

a Legislature, we are under severe constraints. We can only spend what we take,

and we take money from the people. And we are taking money from all of the

people in the Province. And we have a responsibility to see that that money then

is spent wisely and the people have a responsibility and duty to ensure that we

spend that money wisely. And then, on their behalf, on the behalf of the people,

we go and borrow money. If we need to spend more we go off and borrow it! And

the idea has been - and this is common in governments - that you go off and

borrow this money. You never pay it back, though. Go off and borrow it. A couple

of hundred million here, $300 million or $400 million there, you borrow it but

never pay it back. All you do is pay the interest.

To continue that approach forever is unconscionable. Somebody

at some point in time has to pay. Meanwhile, we have to pay the interest on all

this money. Hundreds of millions of dollars every year in interest, we pay. The

end had to come to that approach. And this year we are borrowing. We plan to

borrow a lot of money because we cannot afford to pay back what governments

fifteen years ago or ten years ago borrowed. We cannot afford to pay that back,

so we go and borrow more money to replace it. And we have to borrow money for

our capital programmes. We have to borrow money, but we have to borrow it in

such a way that, first of all, it does not bankrupt the Province five years down

the road, and secondly, we have to borrow it in such a way that we still have

access to the money markets. And all this is being done by the people. The

people want services and we have to pay for them. And we have to pay for them

either through borrowing or through money from the people. We do not have any

money ourselves. Government has no money.

So out of all this the fact arose that we had to take

measures which some people consider to be drastic, and as a result we have Bill

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

Province." Bill 16 essentially does two things. First of all it says, from the

period April 1 1991 to March 31 1992 the wage scales in existence are frozen.

The wage scales in existence on March 31 1991 are frozen for a year. Then it

gives some choices, because there are many different situations here. First of

all there are unions who have signed contracts. For these unions it gives them a

choice at that point. At the end of the freeze period they can choose to jump

immediately to the end of their three year contract, the last year in their

three year contract, and simply remove the middle year. That is one option. That

maintains a three year period but it simply removes in most cases - not in all

cases - the middle year of that three year contract.

Or the other choice is - the restraint year will be

legislated - they can simply take the two years of their contract that are left

and stick them on the end. In other words, everything that was supposed to

happen happens, but at one year later than the agreed date. So that choice is in

the legislation. And there is an adequate time period for notice to be given,

and if notice is not given, the assumption is that the first option is the one

that is operative.

Then there are unions which are in the process of

negotiating. The unions which are in the process of negotiating and that we do

not have contracts with at this point in time will simply have to accept that

restraint period - they will have to accept the 0 from April 1 1991 to March 31

1992. And hopefully we continue to negotiate on that basis.

Then there are the unions whose contracts run out part-way

through the restraint period. I guess they then have the option, immediately the

restraint period is over, to start negotiating again, or the second option would

be to extend whatever they were due during the restraint period one year, and in

effect extend their contract by one year. So the two choices are provided them

as well.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) or six months, or whatever it

is.

MR. BAKER: Yes.

So they have that choice. Now that is the first thing we did,

institute a wage freeze for one year.

The second thing we did had to do with the pay equity

agreement. The pay equity agreement that was arrived at - and it concerns the

hospital sector and Newfoundland Hydro, not the rest of the public service - had

a clause in there providing retroactivity back to April 1 1988. Then within that

pay equity agreement there was the concept that the agreement would be phased in

over a number of years but that the time period would start April 1 1988, and

that all monies owing, once the numbers had been arrived at, would be paid at

the point of which the numbers were agreed to.

So there was a retroactive bill building up here, and in our

estimation was in the vicinity of $24 million. We also had the same choice there

as we had with the wage freeze. Twenty-four million dollars would have meant

another 900 laid off in the hospital sector - 900 jobs. So we had a choice to

make, and we chose to remove the retroactivity from the pay equity agreement.

Essentially what that does is it erases an obligation we had there of

approximately $24 million. Now there has been an awful lot said about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not enough.

MR. BAKER: Well, in the hon. Member's opinion not enough,

but it is also the hon. Member's opinion we should go out and borrow the $200

million and bankrupt the Province immediately and pass it over to a commission

again. So I take what the hon. Member has to say with a grain of salt.

AN HON. MEMBER: As well you might, too.

PREMIER WELLS: Several grains of salt.

MR. BAKER: Several grains of salt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: It is unfortunate that in any workplace there

is discrimination based on gender. And Government has committed to pay equity in

the public service. Not just the health care sector, not just Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, but also the general service of this Province. To bring in pay

equity in all segments of the public service of the Province. And I will repeat,

not just in the hospital sector, not just with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

in the whole public service.

As soon as the work is completed in terms of numbers, and I

am told that is very, very close now with the first segment, the hospital

segment and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as soon as the numbers are

available, pay equity will be immediately implemented, starting at that point in

time - immediately.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much (inaudible)?

MR. BAKER: I believe we have estimated - although the

problem is in giving numbers, we do not know if the number we have in the Budget

is exact. We have estimated $3.5 million for the first year. But we have not

seen the total figures yet.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: If the Opposition House Leader wants to go

back and look at the pay equity agreement he will see that to start it in 1988,

1 per cent a year - that is 1988 1 per cent; 1989 another per cent; 1990 another

per cent; and this year four, and that compounded and paid back to April 1 1988

would amount to around $24 million. So we have -

MR. SIMMS: Four years, and that is hospital and the

Hydro.

MR. BAKER: Hospital and Hydro, yes.

MR. SIMMS: So this year you are saying you have $3.5

million in there for everyone.

MR. BAKER: No, $3.5 million for the ones whom we feel are

ready to be - the numbers are available, they should be available soon, which is

the hospital and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That is all I am talking about

now. What I am also saying is this, that as soon as the numbers are available

for the rest of the public service, then we will implement the pay equity. It is

as simple as that. It will take a while to do it. I do not expect it will take

as long as the first run-through did; the first run-through has taken three

years. And it would have to be done on a different basis so that hopefully we

can get it done within a year or a year and a half.

However, for that segment of the public service, which is

perhaps the largest segment it applies to, I am hopeful the figures will be

ready soon and that we can implement the first year of the pay equity. So what

we have done is we have made a decision and the choice was very clear to us: pay

the $24 million retroactively or lay off another 900 people. And that is the way

we look at it, 900 to 1,000 people would take up the $24 million. And the choice

- it is that kind of a choice. Both are hard choices, obviously. And as

Government we had to make a choice and we have made the choice.

So the bill then does the two things. It freezes wages for a

year and it eliminates the retroactivity in the pay equity agreement. And the

unions have a choice of how, if they have already signed a contract, the wage

freeze applies - they have two choices. Everybody else is not affected in terms

of negotiating, except that there has to be a one year freeze period and that is

that. So essentially that is the piece of legislation.

As a

summary I would like to reiterate again that Government

has limited options, much more limited this year than ever before. We have gone

through a process that we believe - we know - was open, honest, straightforward,

with full knowledge to the public of the Province, the workers, the public

service of the Province, management and workers, at the point in time that we

had that knowledge or very shortly thereafter. We were very open.

We were criticized by being so open, as a matter of fact.

Since October, the biggest criticism we had was, well, why don't you do

something? Why are you putting people on edge? And our response always was, we

recognize that because of this tremendous problem people are going to feel

uncomfortable, and people are going to be on edge. But, again, we made a

decision to be open about it, and as soon as we found out about it, everybody

else knew about it. We decided to be open about it and we do not regret that

decision for one minute. We had to go to the people in the system to find out

the effects on the system of frozen budgets. We had to! It would be totally

irresponsible of us not to do that. Yet, the biggest criticism from the

Opposition was, well, why are you putting people on edge? Why didn't you do it

instead of talking about it?

We had a lot of other comments, questions generally that are

asked. So often I get the thing, well, why didn't you consult with the unions?

As I have outlined here today, the level of consultation could not have been

higher. The only way we could have done more is if we had gotten a Thompson

submachine gun, the only way. We have consulted; we have provided the

opportunity for input, and we did it through the recognized officers of the

labour unions. So there was consultation, as much as we can do, we cannot force

consultation. We have had it said to us: Why didn't you put it off for six

months and have it studied? Well, that is fairly sensible, no doubt about it,

and the longer you study something, perhaps the better the solutions will be, no

doubt about that. But we have to have a Budget for this year and we cannot put

it off.

Related to that is: Why don't you just put it off for some

time? Why are you trying to solve all your problems in one year? How many times

have I heard that? 'Why are you trying to solve all your problems in one year?'

You cannot go and solve all your problems in one year, it is too hard.' Anybody

who has looked at our Budget realizes we have not solved all our problems in one

year. We are still borrowing $53 million or $54 million on current account; we

are still pushing the limits; we are still borrowing over $500 million on the

market this year. We did not try to solve that problem in one year, we did what

had to be done in one year to maintain the financial health of the Province. It

is as simple as that. We did what had to be done, and we cannot take chances on

the financial health of this Province simply to make some political choices. We

just cannot do it. We are not going to do it.

Some people say: Well, you are spending money on roads. Why

don't you take some of the roads money and use in current account? I know that

financing is perhaps a little bit complicated, and I can understand people

saying that, but we have to go and borrow that roads money anyway. That is not

money that we have. There is no money sitting there with a label on it saying

'roads money' and now we have a choice of where to use it. We have to go and

borrow that anyway. So you cannot borrow money to do away with borrowing

somewhere else. It is as simple as that. That is money we have to go and borrow

anyway.

Another one, another question I get asked: Don't do any cuts

or any changes in health care and education. Why don't you just cut Government?'

What people have to realize is that that is Government; that is government

expenditure. People are government expenditure. Most of our controllable

expenditure is people doing something for the people of the Province; that is

most of our controllable expenditure. And when you say: Why don't you cut

Government? - my response is that is what we are trying to do. But do not

forget, and we have never forgotten, that by cutting Government you are cutting

a service that you are giving people, and we are rapidly approaching the point

in time, as the Minister of Health explained a little earlier, where if the

transfers that come to this Province are gradually going to disappear, some of

them, over the next thirteen years, we are going to come to the point where we

have to totally finance these services to people. What a problem that is going

to be, because we are so dependent on Federal money coming into this Province,

we are so dependent on Federal transfers. Over 45 per cent of every dollar that

we spend here is either through equalization payments or established program

financing; money that is transferred down here. If you are sitting in a rich

province and you get a small amount, 10 per cent of your Budget is transfers,

and the Federal Government decides to fiddle around with that then that only

affects 10 per cent of your Budget, but here we are close to - half our Budget

is Federal transfers - money coming from Ottawa - if you are in that situation,

and they start fiddling around with it, it has a tremendous effect, a drastic

effect, and that is precisely what happened.

So, Mr. Speaker, we regret having to be in the position to

present this Bill to the Legislature, we regret very much having to be in the

position, but in the position we are, we wish we were not there; we wish a few

years ago there was no capping of transfer payments, we wish we were not in a

recession and we had money. We wish we had the $180 million that, but for the

cap on the programs we would have had this year; we wish we had that much, we

wish a lot of things and a lot of the reaction which we are going to get from

this Budget is going to be a lot of wish. We wish we had the money to put a

hospital in every community in the Province, we wish. We wish we had the money

to pave every road and to provide water and sewer systems for every community,

we wish. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot operate on the wish, we have to operate on

the reality, and the reality is, that

whereas we wish we were not in the

position to have to present this legislation to the House, we are, the reality

is, we are in that position and that is the origin of this piece of legislation.

I know that this will engender some debate in the days ahead

and look forward to hearing opinions from Members Opposite and also from some

Members on this side of the House. I wish that these opinions were going to be

based on reality. I wish that the debate is a sensible debate and takes into

account the choices this Government had facing it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

listened intently to the introduction of this legislation given by the President

of Treasury Board and I must say after listening to him that I thought we were

in the wrong debate, I thought he had called the wrong order. He talked about

their budgetary problems, he repeated the line that the Minister of Finance has

given time and time again and the Premier has given time and time again; he

traced all the background and all the reasoning for their problems and for their

difficulties, comments that are much more appropriate for the Budget debate.

I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the President of

Treasury Board would have addressed, more in-depth, a couple of the very serious

problems associated with this legislation, this is not the Budget debate. I was

tempted- or I am tempted I guess - to make the observation that he threw out

comments made by Opposition, the Opposition says do nothing, it will go away, it

is the same old myth, it is the same old propaganda that you will hear the

Government use from time to time, in trying to defend what cannot be defended.

He spent a good deal of his first thirty minutes or so, in addition to talking

about budgetary matters, talking about the unions, and he philosophized as if he

knew everything there was to know about union philosophy and the reasons that

unions do this and the reasons that unions do that and he literally blamed the

unions to a certain extent by saying they did not co-operate and they did not

give him much in the way of suggestions.

He talked about the position they found themselves in, as if

to say there are no alternatives. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will get to that in the

course of my remarks and show just what a weak argument that really is, but it

is the argument that every Minister over there and every Member in the backbench

over there have been using for the last week and a half in trying to defend the

Budget. Unfortunately the press have not, I do not think, asked the questions.

Perhaps, we have not asked the questions up until now -we have only had five or

six days in the Legislature. But there are a lot of questions that will be asked

and I will pose some of them today as I get through my remarks.

But the first half an hour or so was spent giving comment or

opinion that more appropriately would be placed in a Budget debate, not on this

piece of legislation. And he spent ten minutes or fifteen minutes or so then and

mentioned the bill, and quickly and briefly ran through what is in the bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, he did not mention once what this legislation does. He never

once mentioned what is involved in what the Government is presenting here today

before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through its Legislature. He never

addressed once what this bill is all about.

Now, Mr. Speaker, people of Newfoundland and Labrador should

be aware that what we are debating here today on second reading, the principle

of this bill, The Public Sector Restraint Bill, we will call it, or they will

call it. We will not call it that - Bill No. 16. What we are debating in reality

is a bill which dishonours the basic premise of collective bargaining. That is

what we have here in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, a bill which

dishonours the basic premise of collective bargaining. And that premise is that

employers and employees will live by the agreements they negotiate. That is the

basic premise, Mr. Speaker, of collective bargaining. That is what this bill is

all about. And the Minister did not once mention it. Did not touch upon it at

all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have to be aware of is this: in

collective bargaining trust is extremely important, in fact, it is especially

important in the public sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not very important to the Minister

of Finance.

MR. SIMMS: Especially important in the public sector

during negotiations - trust. Because in the public sector Government, as the

employer, is in an extremely powerful position, because the Government through

its majority in the House of Assembly can pass laws at any time to change

virtually anything that it has agreed upon in a collective agreement. Private

sector employers have no similar power. That is the big difference.

So, Mr. Speaker, public sector negotiation and bargaining is

based solely on trust. The trust, Mr. Speaker, that Government will not use the

Legislature to break negotiated agreements. The trust, Mr. Speaker, that if

circumstances change, as they have here they say, which make it difficult or

make it impossible for the Government to live with what has been negotiated or

to live up to the terms of a collective agreement, that Government will do what

any other employer might do, Mr. Speaker, and that is renegotiate with its

employees. Now, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation here, Bill 16 violates

that trust. And for that, Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I think, the bill in

principle is a bad, bad bill. It is a terrible piece of legislation. And, Mr.

Speaker, more than that this is an evil piece of legislation, and it is evil

because the bill itself attacks the very principle of free collective

bargaining. That is what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, it attacks the very

principle of free collective bargaining. It is also evil, Mr. Speaker, because

the Legislature is now being forced, the Legislature is being used to violate

those collective agreements, and, Mr. Speaker, the Government is forcing the

Legislature to use powers that no Legislature should ever be asked to use in a

free and democratic society - should never be asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I listened quietly to the

Minister when he was speaking and I would appreciate a similar courtesy. If they

cannot stand it perhaps they could leave. Members opposite no doubt throughout

this debate, and I predict the debate will last for a considerable period of

time, unless, of course, the Government which holds the worlds record, I guess,

for closure in Provincial Legislatures decides to invoke closure on it. But I

predict throughout this debate Members opposite will frequently try to -

although the President of Treasury Board did not and I was a bit surprised at

that - they will try to use the argument that the Legislature itself, the House

of Assembly itself, is all powerful, that Government was elected to govern and

it can do whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to do it during the term of

its mandate. The President of Treasury Board has used that argument before as a

matter of fact in this House, but I say, Mr. Speaker, that that argument and the

President of Treasury Board when he uses that argument, is wrong. That argument

is wrong, Mr. Speaker, because as we all know in the system under which we

operate, the British Parliamentary system, this Legislature functions in a

democratic society. That is the difference, not under a dictatorship but in a

democratic society. The Legislature may have great powers, without any question,

Mr. Speaker, but in a democratic society the people elect and trust their

Members, their Government, to use that legislative authority with a great deal

of restraint, I would submit, and to use only those powers that are absolutely

necessary in a democratic society. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, this

bill basically violates the basic public trust that is fundamental to the

functioning of a free and democratic Government. I really and truly believe that

in my heart and my soul, having read this piece of legislation. Members also, in

this debate, Members opposite in particular, will probably use the comparison,

or try to compare what this Government is doing to the actions of the previous

Government and what it did when it implemented a two year wage freeze back in

1984, as the Member for Bonavista South, I noted, tried to do on CBCs TV Friday

night panel. They will try to make that tie somehow with what occurred in

1983-84, and the two year wage freeze, but reasonable people will realize there

is absolutely no comparison with that argument. There is absolutely no

comparison at all, and I will tell you why. The Legislature of the day, back in

1984, was not asked to pass a law. No existing collective agreements were

broken, no benefits in existing collective agreements were taken away, no

benefits in existing collective agreements were rolled back. Government at that

time told the unions it would not be able to negotiate wage increases in new

collective agreements which would come into effect -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: If the hon. Minister would be polite enough to

let me continue with my train of thought perhaps he will understand what it is I

am trying to say? It is not only me, but I think everybody else in the Province,

particularly anybody involved in collective bargaining will tell you the same

thing, the comparison cannot be made, Mr. Speaker. It just cannot be made. Now,

you can try to make the argument that there is a comparison but there is

absolutely no comparison. We did not break collective agreements. We did not

take away items that were negotiated in a collective agreement. We sat down with

the unions and we told them there were no wage increases for two years at the

end of a collective agreement, when their collective agreement expired, Mr.

Speaker. That was a tough decision, by the way, I say to hon. Members, but it

was within the rules of collective bargaining. What we are seeing here today is

a breach of the rules of collective bargaining, and most importantly, a breach

of trust.

Mr. Speaker, we made a tough decision back in those days,

yes. And we lived with the consequences and the members of the unions lived with

the consequences. But, Mr. Speaker, we also lived by the principle that

respected the sanctity of collective agreements. And that is the difference

between what we are seeing here today by this Government and what happened back

in 1984. So don't get up on your high horses over there in the debate and start

to try to make a tie to what happened in 1984, because it will not wash.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen examples of this Premier and this

Government reneging on signatures, signed agreements and signed documents, and

not only with labour unions. We all know the most notable reneging on a

signature. We all know the most notable example. So, Mr. Speaker, what we have

today with the introduction of this legislation is a Government which is

prepared to throw away and to cast aside the basic principles of fair play and

trust, the principles they themselves frequently brag about, fair play and

trust.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be given the courtesy of

making my remarks - I do not believe anyone here interrupted the President of

Treasury Board when he was speaking, but there are number over there who are

acting like fools, and maybe they could leave the Chamber. (Inaudible) simple.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Opposition House Leader is quite correct when he says the

President of Treasury Board had total silence when he spoke on this matter. I

ask all hon. Members to afford the same courtesy to the hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to continue with my train of thought -

AN HON. MEMBER: I cannot hear you.

MR. SIMMS: It is hard to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just asked for silence. I asked hon. Members to afford the

opportunity for the hon. Opposition House Leader to make his presentation

without being interrupted.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the simple

thing for Members to do if they cannot take it is to go outside somewhere. That

is the simple thing to do, and that is all I ask.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what I was saying is that what we have

today is a Government which is obviously prepared to cast aside and throw away

the basic principles of fair play and trust that we often find in collective

bargaining, and a Government that is prepared to use its legislative power to

remove things from legitimately and legally negotiated collective agreements.

That is what we see.

Mr. Speaker, I predict that this decision by Government, by

the way, will dramatically alter the approach taken to collective bargaining in

the future. This in an extremely dangerous precedent for a number of reasons,

but what you are basically doing is telling unions or, for that matter, any

outside group or individual who might reach some kind of an agreement with the

Government, that if you continue to seek improvements through negotiations, or

if you get improvements in your collective agreement through arbitration or some

other form of adjudication, then this Government is prepared to simply bring in

a public restraint bill that will change those agreements. That is the danger.

That is the dangerous precedent that is being set here today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is frightening and it is also, in our view,

wrong. That approach is absolutely wrong. This Bill removes equity, and it

removes fairness and balance, which this Government prides itself on, from the

bargaining process. Under threat of this kind of legislation and with this

precedent, how is it possible for two sides to go to the bargaining table as

equals? How is that possible at all, when one side has now given itself absolute

power and absolute authority over the other side? It cannot be done, Mr.

Speaker. That is the answer to the question. The two sides cannot go to the

table as equals.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say, above and beyond all that in

terms of a few introductory remarks, the greatest casualty in all this is trust

- trust in Government. When is a deal a deal? When can we take Government at its

word? When is their word their word? How can they be believed at the bargaining

table? How can they be trusted? Regrettably, again, Mr. Speaker, I have to say

it is not only a reflection on the Government, it is, in fact, a reflection on

the Legislature itself, the House of Assembly. And, Mr. Speaker, when people

lose faith in their elected representatives and in their Legislature, it is

pretty easy then for them to lose faith, I think, in the very basis of

democratic Government.

Mr. Speaker, if the Government clearly is prepared to

overturn any collective agreement that it has reached, made in good faith, then

I think the people of this Province had better take a second look at what is

occurring. Because they are prepared to do it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you will see, I think, throughout the course of

debate the Government using the terms `wage restraint', `wage freeze'. `Deferred

wages' I think was the Minister of Finance's term in his Budget Speech. But

these are deceptive terms, Mr. Speaker. Because what we have here in this

legislation is a wage rollback. And there is a big difference between `wage

freeze', `wage restraint', and `wage rollback'. That is pretty serious stuff,

and that is what you have in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a feeling out there, and the

President of Treasury Board tried to allude to it, about the unions, and somehow

the unions did not believe them when they were saying things were tough. I do

not know what incentive the unions would have had, as a matter of fact, to

believe the Government at the time, because every time somebody made some

comment publicly, the Opposition or some union group made some comment publicly,

the answer always was, no, there are no cuts. There is no freeze. It is only

been looked at. The Opposition is fearmongering. I mean, that was the cry of the

day from the Government. So what incentive did the unions have to believe the

Government? Perhaps the President of Treasury Board can tell us that when he

closes the debate sometime in the future.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think Government, no matter how hard it

tries, is going to have a very, very difficult time convincing us that they did

not negotiate and indeed sign some collective agreements knowing (

a) that they

faced a severe financial problem - they knew that - and secondly, I would submit

that they knew darn well one of their major options was a wage freeze. Well, I

say, no matter how hard they try to convince us, I do not think anybody will

ever believe that. I do not think anybody will ever believe it, Mr. Speaker.

They had to know that was one of their major options. They had to know it. You

would have to be stunned. Of course, I could not go so far as to suggest they

are not stunned. That is possible. But they certainly should have known. And

that is where all the accusations of deception and dishonesty are coming from,

and why they are coming. And if there is an element of truth to it, then it is

absolutely unforgivable.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board says he asked

the unions for their suggestions, he called them in last Fall. But he said in

this House in answer to a question from me last week, `but they were

unco-operative.' Essentially that is what he said, they were unco-operative.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am told that all he did at those meetings last Fall - six or

seven months ago he had meetings with some of the unions, various unions, and in

a very casual setting he said, well, brothers and sisters, we are in a difficult

bind. We are facing a $200 million deficit next year. It does not look good, I

will tell you. It looks like we might have a major problem. And by the way, if

you have any suggestions to make as to how we might be helped out of this

dilemma, we would appreciate it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the scenario that

transpired which I hear described.

In the meantime, they called their Government managers over

to the President of Treasury Board's office and he laid the law down to every

one of them. He sat them around the table and said, here is what is going to

happen. Tell us what the fallout will be. So he gave more stern direction to

their own Government managers and departmental managers, but to the unions: it

looks like we are going to have a big problem, brothers and sisters. If you have

any ideas for helping us, we would appreciate it. Now what kind of a way is

that? What kind of approach is that? What kind of an incentive is that for the

unions to respond? Why did you not sit down with them and thoroughly discuss the

problem? By the way, what initiative did the Government take? What suggestions

did it make to the unions? It was not just the unions giving you suggestions.

What did you suggest to the unions? Did you have discussions about it? Then we

hear that prior to the Budget, in fact, at least one union I have heard of did

put forth an idea. I do not have all the facts of it, but my understanding of it

is something along the lines of taking a two week -

MR. BAKER: I suggested that.

MR. SIMMS: You did? Well, why did you not do it? The

President of Treasury Board says he suggested that. Well, why the hell did he

not do it?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say?

MR. SIMMS: You heard me.

AN HON. MEMBER: He never said what the Member for

Carbonear said.

MR. SIMMS: Why did he not do it? He says now he put forth

that suggestion. Why did he not have discussions with the unions? A two-week

leave of absence for every public servant, unpaid, in an effort to save jobs, to

save the services, and to save money for the Government would have given

Government - I do not know what the figure is, but with a two-week average

salary of $20,000 or $25,000, a month's pay is $2000, two weeks pay is $1000.

How many public servants are there, teachers, nurses and everybody, 40,000 or

so? That is $40 million. It seems to me like a reasonable suggestion. The

President of Treasury Board is now taking the credit for making that suggestion,

and I suppose he will get up here and say they turned it down. Well, the

question then is why did you not do it?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) be honest.

MR. SIMMS: You be honest. Why did you not do it?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) suggestion.

MR. SIMMS: So you are blaming it on the unions. Oh, I

see.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps the Minister of Development would be

better served if he sat back and took notes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS:

I see. So you decided to toss out the idea, it was not worthy

of consideration. It is better to fire the 3,000 public servants, it is better

to impose a wage rollback.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why they did not do it.

The reason they did not do it, Mr. Speaker, is because their objectives were

already set in their mind, and it was set in their mind months ago. I will give

an explanation of why I think that, by the way, as I go on. There is reason for

people to suspect that, many reasons, but that is the problem. Their objective

was set clearly in their mind to take on the public service: fire the public

servants, let us proceed to be popular politically, we can get away with that.

The public will support us. That is the reason they weren't more diligent, I

suppose, in terms of trying to discuss in a serious way with the unions, options

that they might be able to develop.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the Bill itself briefly

as the President of Treasury Board did. He outlined some of the aspects of the

Bill. Of course, he did not dwell on the negative aspects too much, and did not

elaborate to a great extent. He did not talk about all the other serious things

that are in here, or he did not elaborate on them, let's put it that way. This

Bill, as he knows, precludes arbitration and adjudication awards,

section 2(a).

I will read it. It precludes arbitration and adjudication awards.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and you talk about deception. When the

Minister of Finance read his Budget here in this House two Thursdays ago, or

whatever it was now, he talked about deferring wages. That was bad enough

because it is a wage rollback, but he never mentioned that also to be affected

by this rollback are monetary benefits. It was not even mentioned by the

Minister of Finance. And now we see when the legislation was tabled last

Thursday that all the monetary benefits for this fiscal year that have been

negotiated are also being rolled back and eliminated. That is true, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Environment does not even know. He says it is not true. Perhaps

the President of Treasury Board can explain it to him. It is true. Read the

Bill. And you sit around the Cabinet Table, make no wonder we are in the trouble

we are in.

Mr. Speaker, here is another point -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It is not his fault that he cannot read, I

agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I cannot read. Okay.

Well, I will let the President of Treasury Board respond to

it. If he can tell me that it does not include all the monetary benefits then I

would be happy to hear it, and I think the unions would be happy to hear it

today because that is what it says in the legislation under

section 2(b). So

does it include monetary benefits or does it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pay scales and other monetary benefits.

MR. SIMMS: I mean, is the legislation accurate or isn't

it accurate?

AN HON. MEMBER: And other monetary benefits it says.

MR. SIMMS: Now I know it does not include the increments

because I have asked. I asked the staff of Treasury Board. I did not ask the

President, I asked his staff. But I do know that it includes mileage that public

servants are paid to carry out their public service duties for the Government,

it includes mileage. I do know that it includes meals, I do know that. I do know

that it includes clothing benefits -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not other monetary benefits is

it?

MR. SIMMS: - that some public servants have built into

their collective agreement. I also know, Mr. Speaker, that it includes the

entire Labrador benefits report, which was negotiated or put in place after, I

think, about a two year study, independently. It involved independent people,

the Labrador benefits program. Now the Minister of Environment knew about that,

I guess, did he?

AN HON. MEMBER: He shrugs his shoulders.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, here is another thing the

legislation does, it allows the Cabinet - the Cabinet now mind you - it allows

the Cabinet to determine that an adjudication or an arbitration award

compensates for the restraint period and to be able to roll that back. Now that

is legislation on the books forever and a day. The Cabinet has the power to roll

it back. Now that is pretty dangerous stuff, I think. And

section 2(

a) does

precisely that.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, of course,

eliminates for all intents and purposes pay equity. Now I listened to the

President of Treasury Board trying to explain and rationalize why they took the

position they took, and I tried to listen to him explain the cost and he said

they have $3.5 million in their Budget this year for pay equity, which would be

for the health care sector and hydro employees, the ones for which the April

1st, 1988 starting date applied to, hospital workers and hydro employees; they

have $3.5 million in this year's Budget, they expect it will be done this year,

any week now, so $3.5 million this year, 1991- 1992, yet the cost, he said we

estimate the cost to implement pay equity, effective April 1st, 1988, would have

been $24 million.

Now, I mean, I am not a mathematician, not an economist, no,

but I do not think the President of Treasury Board is, either, is he?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That is for sure.

MR. SIMMS: You are a mathematician. Oh, I thought you

were a biologist or something, that was your claim to fame - but one thing you

are not, I can tell you, is a fair, collective bargainer, I can tell you that,

Mr. Speaker. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, so he says it would have cost $24 million for

1988-1989-1990-1991, four years, $24 million, that is $6 million a year. But

this year, they have $3.5 million in their Budget to implement pay equity for

the same employees, so, is he saying that the normal amount would be $3.5

million a year, but because of the accumulated amount it shot up to $24 million?

Well, I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board when he clues the

debate, closes the debate, to please give us a written presentation that

explains that; would he please give us a written detailed, fact full explanation

of that.

But nevertheless, it is really only a moot point, I mean

nevertheless, 24 million, 18 million whatever; the fact of the